https://nitter.net/JohnCornyn/status/1540689961040482306?t=yingT6moVCbl3BsGgkMiKQ&s=19
That's not what he's saying. I hate the guy and I hope he suffers a serious injury involving a lawnmower, but he's arguing that Roe was an evil decision a la Plessy, and that this new one (ugh I really don't want to find out what it's called tbh, though I'm sure I'll have to) is the good one a la Brown.
That's a not-unreasonable charitable interpretation of his tweet, though if that's what he meant, he could have said it a lot more clearly, even in 280 characters. But given that he didn't, and that he was specifically responding to the first Black president, it seems to me like that interpretation only provides plausible deniability, at most.
Yeah this sadly. "It's settled law, it's precedent!!" frankly IS a shitty argument. But 1, we have arguments that Aren't Shitty, and 2, we're so fucking past arguing about it now so it doesn't matter either way.
Fuck the precedent law, Napoleon should have won against Britain.
Segregation has always been one of their long term goals. Pushing abortion was a strategic move to get religious right wing people to vote and participate in elections. Once the right siezed power electorally they could undo everything decent in society, including re-establishing segregation and probably, eventually, slavery.
I swear if I live long enough, I will do everything I can to show them such terror that they forget General Sherman
Not at all, you see this time we're going to do segregation kindly (unless you're too ungrateful or uppity in which case you get what you deserve)
The more conspiracy-minded part of me wonders with all that's going on if RvW reversal and craziness is/was part of a ploy to safely increase DEFCON and move around assets to get more involved with the fronts out East without drawing any attention. Then I remember we're run by absolute potatoes who are barely conscious to self.
The ruling class doesn't even have to plan such things. The system allows them to take advantage of inevitable horrors in whatever way suits them, including as something that takes attention away from other shit they're doing.
Plessy v. Ferguson upheld segregation under the flimsy "separate but equal" excuse, while Brown v. Board of Education obviously struck a serious blow to segregation. Why would he want to revisit the first one?
I would have to guess that he doesn't even want the illusion of giving "separate but equal". no scraps. only thing that makes sense in my head
