mastodon - Link to source

I have to say, I've had MANY replies today that so understate things.

"It seems they're trying to..."

"It looks like they're ..."

"Soon there will be no..."

PEOPLE. #Project2025 was shown to us. It's their written blueprint. Nothing here was unsaid.

This is not ambiguous in the least. It's their goal to destroy democracy, our govt, and replace with a Christo-Fascist oligarchy.

THEY TOLD US.

#project2025
in reply to Phoenix

mastodon - Link to source

Paul Chambers🚧

This is one of those, "Tell me you've not read the Project 2025 document in question without telling me you've not read the document in question (or any SCOTUS ruling in the past 8 years)" expert replies. @GottaLaff

If you think the court will save us, SCOTUS already told us just enought before the far right got all the power recently what is coming, and it aligns with Project 2025:

supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pd…
DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION Page 32"

"Nor does the right to obtain an abortion have a sound basis in precedent. Casey relied on cases involving the right to marry a person of a different race, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); the right to marry while in prison, Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78 (1987); the right to obtain contraceptives, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965), Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972), Carey v. Population
Services Int’l, 431 U. S. 678 (1977); the right to reside with relatives, Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494 (1977); the right to make decisions about the education of one’s children, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925), Meyer
v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923); the right not to be sterilized without consent, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535 (1942); and the right in certain circumstances not to undergo involuntary surgery, forced
Opinion of the Court administration of drugs, or other substantially similar procedures, Winston v. Lee, 470 U. S. 753 (1985), Washington
v. Harper, 494 U. S. 210 (1990), Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165 (1952).

"Nor does the right to obtain an abortion have a sound basis in precedent. Casey relied on cases involving the right to marry a person of a different race, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); the right to marry while in prison, Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78 (1987); the right to obtain contraceptives, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965), Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972), Carey v. Population Services Int’l, 431 U. S. 678 (1977); the right to reside with relatives, Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494 (1977); the right to make decisions about the education of one’s children, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923); the right not to be sterilized without consent, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535 (1942); and the right in certain circumstances not to undergo involuntary surgery, forced Opinion of the Court administration of drugs, or other substantially similar procedures, Winston v. Lee, 470 U. S. 753 (1985), Washington v. Harper, 494 U. S. 210 (1990), Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165 (1952).
@Laffy
in reply to Paul Chambers🚧

mastodon - Link to source

Violet Madder

They're rewriting the laws, and the laws they can't rewrite they will merrily just ignore. People may like to assume there is some kind of system or checks and balances in place to prevent a total shitstorm.

There never was.

The only thing that can truly stop them, is if everyone gets fed the fuck up and stops tolerating or complying with it.

⇧