Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Pealzy t1_iupfdbx wrote

I am curious as to what the actual language in there looks like and why it took until now to change it

37

Quincyperson t1_iupgz4l wrote

Article 1: Jesus Article 2: Roll Tide Article 3: Probably something racist Article 4: Jesus and Roll Tide

51

bhoe32 t1_iupk45p wrote

I only recognize article two.

16

MNWNM t1_iuyyvqf wrote

So how about that Tennessee game?

2

bhoe32 t1_iuyz3vk wrote

Man alabama played so bad I switched games and the refs on that game threw a flag on alabama.

2

dravik t1_iupjjfr wrote

Every time this had been proposed previously there were extra changes that they tried to sneak through beyond just removing the racist verbage. Things like making it much easier to raise taxes or significant policy changes.

If they kept it to just removing racist leisure it would have passed decades ago.

Edit: From the article: "However, it does not make the policy changes that some reformers have sought"

So maybe this is a clean proposal for once. I'd be surprised if it is since this had normally been an excuse to paint opposition to tax increases and other policies as "racist"

24

KGlaub1128 t1_iupns7l wrote

Opposition to tax increases IS racist tho.

Increasing taxes disproportionately helps those at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder. People who are disproportionately black and brown.

−24

dravik t1_iuppiqt wrote

Seriously, this BS again? You can call anything racist with this logic. Every policy will disproportionately affect some minority group in some way.

Previous attempts to remove racist language from the Alabama Constitution have actually been Trojan horses for handouts to teachers unions, abortion policy, and tax changes.

Each one of those is their own policy discussion with advantages, disadvantages, and trade offs. Including any of them in something sold as "removing racist language" is blatant dishonesty. You want to make those changes? Put them before the voters as what they really are and have the discussion about the policy. Trying to sneak your preferred policy, that you know you isn't supported by the voting public, undermines the democratic system of government.

10

KGlaub1128 t1_iups5vm wrote

>Trying to sneak your preferred policy, that you know you isn't supported by the voting public, undermines the democratic system of government.

The Republicans literally just used SCOTUS to undermine democracy and the will of the public this year. Like 2/3 of Americans support abortion rights and oppose overturning Roe...so you pretending like Democrats putting changes in the constitution up for a public vote is "undermining Democracy" is real fucking rich!

1

dravik t1_iupthfl wrote

You're conflating federal and state levels of government.

Additionally, at the federal level, SCOTUS is supposed to be anti-majoritarian. Laws have to both 1) get enough support to be passed and 2) be constitutional. One of the primary roles of the SCOTUS is to check popular legislative and executive actions.

Even further, abortion never gained enough support to get any federal legislation passed, so it didn't even meet that hurdle. Even Ginsburg admitted that Roe's legal foundation was poorly reasoned. If it was actually as popular as you claim then it would have been easy to pass the legislation. But you 2/3s support is common of disinformation. 2/3s support abortion in some way, but it is normally presented as 2/3s support abortion in all instances. The reality is that most states will implement abortion restrictions in line with what the population actually supports: limits starting around 15-20 weeks. Which is pretty close to what most of Europe has had for decades.

2

fuzzylm308 t1_iuq3tuj wrote

> Even Ginsburg admitted that Roe's legal foundation was poorly reasoned.

I don't believe this is true.

I have only ever seen evidence that RBG thought the Roe was procedurally shaky and open to attack. I cannot find anywhere that Ginsburg disagreed with the logic behind Roe, just that she felt it was politically problematic. It doesn't seem that she disagreed that Right to Privacy encapsulates abortion rights, just that basing abortion rights on Gender Equality rather than Right to Privacy would have been stronger footing.

She wrote in her dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart that "legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature."

As this article from June explains,

> On the right, Ginsburg has served an entirely different purpose: as a supposed vindicator of what the Supreme Court just did. Plenty have pointed to Ginsburg’s past criticisms of Roe to suggest that even she might have agreed with the present-day Supreme Court that the case was wrongly decided in the first place...

> There’s no question Ginsburg disagreed with how Roe was decided. But it’s hardly that simple.

> Indeed Ginsburg’s criticisms of Roe generally had to do with pragmatic and political concerns, rather than saying it was outright wrong. And far from wanting to leave this decision to the states, as Friday’s decision does, she repeatedly sided with the idea that abortion was a constitutional right. She had preferred that right to be phased in more gradually and that it rely more on a different part of the Constitution — the right to equal protection rather than the right to privacy, the basis of Roe.

In a speech at the NYU School of Law in 1993, Ginsburg said, "The Roe decision might have been less of a storm center had it both homed in more precisely on the women's equality dimension of the issue..."

She also points out how Roe's singularity provided a pariah for anti-choice activists to rally against: "Around that extraordinary decision, a well-organized and vocal right-to-life movement rallied and succeeded, for a considerable time, in turning the legislative tide in the opposite direction." She repeated this sentiment two decades later in a 2013 speech at the University of Chicago Law School: "That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly."

Anyways, if RBG did say somewhere that she thought Roe was poorly reasoned, I'm all ears. But I have never stumbled upon that. This is what I have come across.

3

KGlaub1128 t1_iupuafu wrote

And RBG is a piece of shit too, so Idgaf what she said. Also, no it's not misinformation. Polling has REPEATEDLY SHOWN 2/3 support for abortion rights and support for maintaininh Roe v Wade.

−7

KGlaub1128 t1_iuprfs8 wrote

>You can call anything racist with this logic.

Yeah. Because most things ARE racist...our nation is built on a foundation of systemic racism.

Oh no, not funding for teachers, abortion policy and tax changes! How horrible that must be! 😂🤣. God conservatives are such fucking clowns.

−7

dravik t1_iups8my wrote

In a democracy you have to build political support for your policies to get it passed. Regardless of the specific policies, trying to dishonestly end run the democratic process by lying to the electorate is antithetical to our system of government.

−1

KGlaub1128 t1_iupszsa wrote

You're a conservative, my guy....your party is still claiming Trump won the 2020 election....you don't get to complain about anyone else "lying to the electorate" or being dishonest. Especially on such flimsy grounds as "they proposed something for me to vote on and I didn't educate myself on what I was voting on....you're just a fuckin moron then...that's not on the politicians.

−3

dravik t1_iupu3db wrote

The Alabama voters did educate themselves on the proposed changes, and they felt their opinion on actual policies was more important than symbolic changes to wording that had no legal impact.

I'm not sure why you think a federal election controversy is relevant to a single state's policy discussion. Do you understand the federalist organization of our country?

3

pilgrim216 t1_iuwm60y wrote

Just because something systemically holds down an entire race of people doesn't make it racist. /s (This is a joke but also what a lot of people honestly believe it seems)

​

Also I want someone that knows more about CRT than myself to speak on this subject because it seems relevant.

1

moon_then_mars t1_iuqbyti wrote

Assuming entire races of people cant compete with other races without handouts is what’s racist.

Once affirmative action goes away things will shift back to being based in merit, not on the color of someones skin.

−11

Hopeful-Sir-2018 t1_iurm6x2 wrote

There are a lot of weird laws just sitting and we don't do much about them because they don't really matter.

Like the famous "you can't buy a duck on Sunday" or some weird shit.

2