The article has a fantastic line about how Johnson's views are so out of step, even the majority of the conservative justices on the supreme court don't champion them. He agrees with Thomas, and Thomas is exceptionally unique in just how insanely conservative he is.
As a fun bonus, the article also has quotes of him praising Trump, if you ever wanted to see the moral bankruptcy of evangelicals laid completely bare to see.
So restrain Mike Johnson?
In a modest way though.
deleted by creator
Kinky! I like it. Is there a leather daddy in the house?
On January 6, 2021, Johnson voted to object the election results, later saying he was doing his “duty to uphold the Constitution.”
For Johnson, the vote to keep Trump in office reflected a striking evolution from his past critique of Trump in 2015, whom, as first reported by the New York Times, he openly labeled as “dangerous,” lacking “character,” and devoid of a “moral center.” It was the apex of the transactional relationship between the religious right and former TV star.
During a church service in 2022, reflecting on the conclusion of Roe v. Wade, Johnson remarked that much of the credit belonged to Trump.
“There is a lot of credit to go around, but you have to acknowledge, Donald Trump for all of his, peccadillos, okay? Bless him,” Johnson said. “He was true to his word.”
I do not like these types of people.
"Peccadillos" like violating the Ten Commandments?
I guess they're just the Ten Suggestions to Mike.
Thomas & Johnson aren't Conservatives. They are #christofascists. Full stop.
Christofascists are conservatives. Don't let conservatives off the hook.
Conservatives did this. They are continuing to do this. They will never stop doing this unless they are physically stopped.
His opinion of what is evil that is. Like universal healthcare and family leave. Evil stuff.
…if you ever wanted to see the moral bankruptcy of evangelicals laid completely bare to see.
The scariest part to me is that the moral bankruptcy you describe makes it easy to imagine one of them convincing themselves that God wants them to off Biden and Harris to give us President Johnson. Not that they could succeed, but I can't help but wonder if someone might try.
deleted by creator
This is the best summary I could come up with:
From endorsing hard labor prison sentences for abortion providers to supporting the criminalization of gay sex, his staunchly conservative rhetoric is rooted in an era of “biblical morality,” that he says was washed away with the counterculture in the 1960s.
“Speaker Johnson embraces a view that is not only outside of the mainstream but is so radical in terms of his endorsement of the Thomas position, that even the extremely conservative Supreme Court majority isn’t willing to go there,” said Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and a CNN legal analyst.
Johnson’s rhetoric has tapped into a “persecution complex” for evangelicals as American culture leans increasingly left on social issues, said Ryan Burge, a political scientist at Eastern Illinois University and a Baptist pastor.
Homosexuality was a frequent topic for Johnson, which he has called “inherently unnatural” and a “dangerous lifestyle.” In addition to suggesting he hopes the Supreme Court will reverse its decision allowing same-sex marriage, he also wrote in support of Texas’ anti-sodomy laws, which said gay men caught having sex could be fined.
On numerous occasions, Johnson also voiced approval for a Louisiana state trigger law – passed in 2006 – which banned abortion without exceptions for rape and incest the day Roe v. Wade was overturned.
Following Trump’s 2020 reelection defeat, Johnson played a pivotal role in efforts to overturn the election – urging his colleagues to sign onto the Texas Attorney General’s longshot lawsuit aiming to throw out the results in key swing states.
The original article contains 1,835 words, the summary contains 235 words. Saved 87%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
“Settled law” is the political version of “I regret my crimes”. The right say it all they need so they can get back to proving they don’t believe it
For those that don’t follow or read about these things:
Settled law, like Roe? Let’s see what some of these justices said about Roe during their confirmation hearings, in order (notice the differences in each new justice confirmation)
Gorsuck Gorsuch:
Gorsuch said that the Roe decision was “precedent,” but declined to call it “super precedent,” a loosely defined term indicating a deeply rooted, repeatedly upheld precedent. He also declined to give his opinion on whether he thought the court’s ruling was correct.
Gorsuch: Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.
(he did say a good judge, after all)
Grassley: What about Griswold, which was decided a few years before Roe, the case where the Court found constitutional right to privacy? Can you tell me your views on Griswold?
Gorsuch: Senator, it is a precedent that is now 50 years old. Griswold involved the right of married couples to use contraceptive devices in the privacy of their own home. And it is 50 years old. The reliance interests are obvious. It has been repeatedly reaffirmed. All very important factors again in analyzing precedent.
Kavanaugh:
During questioning, Kavanaugh avoided answering whether Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, or how he might rule in a future case challenging that court ruling. Instead, Kavanaugh repeatedly said that Roe v. Wade was “settled as precedent.”
Kavanaugh: Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. And as you well recall, senator, I know when that case came up, the Supreme Court did not just reaffirm it in passing. The court specifically went through all the factors of stare decisis in considering whether to overrule it, and the joint opinion of Justice Kennedy, Justice O’Connor and Justice Souter, at great length went through those factors. That was the question presented in the case.
ACB:
Barrett said that if a question about overturning Roe or Casey or any other case comes before her, “I will follow the law of stare decisis, applying it as the court is articulating it, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts in law, just all the standard factors. And I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I’ll follow the law.”
Under questioning from Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Barrett said she did not consider Roe v. Wade to be a “super precedent,” at least not according to her definition of it as “cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling.”
“And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category,” Barrett said. “And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled, but descriptively, it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling.”
So naturally, it was untouched right?
The court voted 5-4, largely along party lines, to overturn Roe and 6-3, in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which involved Mississippi's ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
It’s almost like they’re all fucking liars who only act in bad faith
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
