In the most recent ruling, RBG joined two dissenting opinions on a proposed drug to be used for executions (basically, they did not like ruling on a specific drug instead of addressing the constitutionality of the death penalty as such) in which their dissent obviously did not matter for shit because 4 vs 5.
The last case where RBG wrote her own dissenting opinion was about access to contraceptives without copay and such, ostensibly due to freedom of religion and complicity of employers in any provided healthcare, where again her dissent was irrelevant because 4 vs 5 2 vs 7. lol 🤦
It is quite hilarious though this whole idea: how in the USA your health insurance is linked to the employer ("No other country in the world bases its healthcare insurance system on whether and where someone is employed" ref) and somehow that makes them complicit even if they do not get to decide what healthcare you get.
So really, by that logic, if your employer pays you wages and then you go and spend that money in a way they also do not get to decide, would that not make them complicit in how you spent that money? What's next, employers need rights to screen all your online purchases so they do not become complicit in depraved shit like this?
So in conclusion, death to America, the imperial system of measurement is an exemplar of toxic masculinity, rockets are phallic objects, and patriarchy bad, QED my arguments are as good as the supreme court.
As twitter OP noted: "Correction* it wasn’t her last ruling I read the date wrong "
Then via supremecourt.gov, and this summary table...
In the most recent ruling, RBG joined two dissenting opinions on a proposed drug to be used for executions (basically, they did not like ruling on a specific drug instead of addressing the constitutionality of the death penalty as such) in which their dissent obviously did not matter for shit because 4 vs 5.
The last case where RBG wrote her own dissenting opinion was about access to contraceptives without copay and such, ostensibly due to freedom of religion and complicity of employers in any provided healthcare, where again her dissent was irrelevant because
4 vs 52 vs 7. lol 🤦It is quite hilarious though this whole idea: how in the USA your health insurance is linked to the employer ("No other country in the world bases its healthcare insurance system on whether and where someone is employed" ref) and somehow that makes them complicit even if they do not get to decide what healthcare you get.
So really, by that logic, if your employer pays you wages and then you go and spend that money in a way they also do not get to decide, would that not make them complicit in how you spent that money? What's next, employers need rights to screen all your online purchases so they do not become complicit in depraved shit like this?
To think that all these things could have been avoided.
So in conclusion, death to America, the imperial system of measurement is an exemplar of toxic masculinity, rockets are phallic objects, and patriarchy bad, QED my arguments are as good as the supreme court.