If you read up on the history of the Civil Rights movement, you can find instances where they made strategic decisions, like making sure a fairly unimpeachable character like Rosa Parks was the face of the bus battles. There was another viable plaintiff with a similar case but she happened to be a pregnant teenager and the leaders feared that if she was the public face of the argument, people would be turned off based on the values of the time.
The tranny movement though? They don’t care how many people a tranny killed, raped, whatever, they got u fam. Misgendering Audrey Hale or not letting this psycho get “affirming” non-essential care for one of his other mental illnesses (i.e. a self-destructive one rather than the outwardly destructive one that led him to kill) is worse than the underlying crime, y’all!!!
Regarding your first paragraph, something like that happened with "Roe" in the Roe vs. Wade case. After the ruling was made, she publicly came out (Roe was a pseudonym), admitted she openly lied, and regretted her role in the whole shitshow - but most people have no idea about that.
There was another viable plaintiff with a similar case but she happened to be a pregnant teenager and the leaders feared that if she was the public face of the argument, people would be turned off based on the values of the time.
There was another man who was violently thrown off the bus because he got into an argument. He was an actual blue-collar worker at a factory who had got off a long shift, sat down in the back of the bus, but was then told to move so that a white passenger didn't have to stand. He didn't want to, and instead of asking around, the driver got pissed off at him and argued. After bickering, he got beaten, tossed off the bus, and made to walk home. I don't remember if he got arrested.
Rosa Parks wasn't just an unimpeachable character. She was a hard-core political activist who'd been working within the Civil Rights movement for years, and was instructed to cause this case so it could be used.
The Left has always tried to manufacture cases to go to court, sometimes to varying levels of success. As u/ArtemisFoul points out "Roe" was this in Roe v. Wade, but she was actually a much worse choice, but she wasn't a political actor. Sometimes political actors can get their case thrown out because the judges see that shit coming and don't want to make their careers turn on an activist case. The "Gay Wedding Cake" case was also done by a political activist with the sole intent of demanding that the cake-shop owner manufacture a cake for their gay wedding. Griswold v. Connecticut was created by a married couple who had sex, used contraception, then called the police on themselves to alert the state of the use of contraception. Infamously, Plessy v. Ferguson was created by Homer Plessy who was 1/8th white and went from a "1/8th rule" state to a "one drop rule" state without ever moving from one train car to another. Considering his case created Jim Crow, it's about as hard of a back-fire as judicial activism can be.
Of course, that's not all cases. The "Miranda" case was actually genuine.
Of course, that's not all cases. The "Miranda" case was actually genuine.
Gideon v Wainwright, which got defendants the unqualified right to an attorney in criminal cases, is another example. Gideon was just literally some guy falsely accused of a crime who figured out how to appeal from his jail cell.
I kinda love that one. It's got a real homely feel to it. Very much feels like a "good old boy" who went to jail, and doesn't know why.
To be honest, the law and judicial procedure should be simple enough that no one needs an attorney. However, that bridge was burned, sunk, then hit by a meteor, so you really do need an attorney provided to you if you go to court.
Just because it happened in my backyard so I know some of the fine details, Brown vs. Board of Ed was shopped around and they chose Kansas because we always had a strange relationship with segregation (the Klan held power just long enough post-WW1 to pass it, and just enough to make it difficult to get rid of). As such, the schools were segregated in Topeka, but we had actually achieved "Separate but Equal". Both high schools in the town were maintained to a similar degree, both had similar quality teachers, both were serviced by busses, etc. And the people suing didnt even think they were badly served, they just wanted somewhere closer so their daughter didnt have to walk across a train line to get to school.
It was the Civil Rights activist who decided it could be used as a case to overturn Plessy, and they were right.
I'm not surprised. Segregation, in and of itself, does not prevent any society from being successful, which is why many groups intentionally self-isolate. The culture that enforces the segregation informs how it will be conducted. An egalitarian culture will simply recognize that it has to make 2 of everything (women's bathrooms are not inherently inferior to men's). Meanwhile, a supremacist culture will actively weaponize the segregation for it's own advantage, normally by cutting costs from the "lesser" declared people.
This has all been great conversation, and imo there’s nothing wrong with being strategic - I think it’s clear that part of why Mississippi passed its abortion restriction was so it would be challenged, work up to a now-friendly SCOTUS, and get Roe v. Wade nuked once and for all in addition to merely having that one individual state law upheld. Interested parties will figure out how to “game” any system to the extent it can be gamed. Even the very act of refusing to hold hearings on Merrick Garland was gaming the system a bit — fully within the rules but no one REALLY believes McConnell merely thought a lame duck president can’t nominate a justice, he just gamed the system. And good for him, if the other side can’t stop you, keep push until they can.
Oh yeah, I agree. Strategic is absolutely better than just winging it and giving in to every impulse (like you said with the Trans movement today). In fact, a little more strategic thought would probably do people good for fixing some of the situations we are in.
I was just giving another example to back up the other ones listed.
I don't like gaming the system from a judicial scope standpoint. If the issue is not actually an issue, and has to be constructed by activists, then this is just an elaborate way of turning the judiciary into a legislature. TBH, I'm not even sure about the judiciary having the ability to overturn law in general.
If you read up on the history of the Civil Rights movement, you can find instances where they made strategic decisions, like making sure a fairly unimpeachable character like Rosa Parks was the face of the bus battles. There was another viable plaintiff with a similar case but she happened to be a pregnant teenager and the leaders feared that if she was the public face of the argument, people would be turned off based on the values of the time.
The tranny movement though? They don’t care how many people a tranny killed, raped, whatever, they got u fam. Misgendering Audrey Hale or not letting this psycho get “affirming” non-essential care for one of his other mental illnesses (i.e. a self-destructive one rather than the outwardly destructive one that led him to kill) is worse than the underlying crime, y’all!!!
Regarding your first paragraph, something like that happened with "Roe" in the Roe vs. Wade case. After the ruling was made, she publicly came out (Roe was a pseudonym), admitted she openly lied, and regretted her role in the whole shitshow - but most people have no idea about that.
There was another man who was violently thrown off the bus because he got into an argument. He was an actual blue-collar worker at a factory who had got off a long shift, sat down in the back of the bus, but was then told to move so that a white passenger didn't have to stand. He didn't want to, and instead of asking around, the driver got pissed off at him and argued. After bickering, he got beaten, tossed off the bus, and made to walk home. I don't remember if he got arrested.
Rosa Parks wasn't just an unimpeachable character. She was a hard-core political activist who'd been working within the Civil Rights movement for years, and was instructed to cause this case so it could be used.
The Left has always tried to manufacture cases to go to court, sometimes to varying levels of success. As u/ArtemisFoul points out "Roe" was this in Roe v. Wade, but she was actually a much worse choice, but she wasn't a political actor. Sometimes political actors can get their case thrown out because the judges see that shit coming and don't want to make their careers turn on an activist case. The "Gay Wedding Cake" case was also done by a political activist with the sole intent of demanding that the cake-shop owner manufacture a cake for their gay wedding. Griswold v. Connecticut was created by a married couple who had sex, used contraception, then called the police on themselves to alert the state of the use of contraception. Infamously, Plessy v. Ferguson was created by Homer Plessy who was 1/8th white and went from a "1/8th rule" state to a "one drop rule" state without ever moving from one train car to another. Considering his case created Jim Crow, it's about as hard of a back-fire as judicial activism can be.
Of course, that's not all cases. The "Miranda" case was actually genuine.
Gideon v Wainwright, which got defendants the unqualified right to an attorney in criminal cases, is another example. Gideon was just literally some guy falsely accused of a crime who figured out how to appeal from his jail cell.
Ah yes, I forgot about that one.
I kinda love that one. It's got a real homely feel to it. Very much feels like a "good old boy" who went to jail, and doesn't know why.
To be honest, the law and judicial procedure should be simple enough that no one needs an attorney. However, that bridge was burned, sunk, then hit by a meteor, so you really do need an attorney provided to you if you go to court.
Just because it happened in my backyard so I know some of the fine details, Brown vs. Board of Ed was shopped around and they chose Kansas because we always had a strange relationship with segregation (the Klan held power just long enough post-WW1 to pass it, and just enough to make it difficult to get rid of). As such, the schools were segregated in Topeka, but we had actually achieved "Separate but Equal". Both high schools in the town were maintained to a similar degree, both had similar quality teachers, both were serviced by busses, etc. And the people suing didnt even think they were badly served, they just wanted somewhere closer so their daughter didnt have to walk across a train line to get to school.
It was the Civil Rights activist who decided it could be used as a case to overturn Plessy, and they were right.
I'm not surprised. Segregation, in and of itself, does not prevent any society from being successful, which is why many groups intentionally self-isolate. The culture that enforces the segregation informs how it will be conducted. An egalitarian culture will simply recognize that it has to make 2 of everything (women's bathrooms are not inherently inferior to men's). Meanwhile, a supremacist culture will actively weaponize the segregation for it's own advantage, normally by cutting costs from the "lesser" declared people.
This has all been great conversation, and imo there’s nothing wrong with being strategic - I think it’s clear that part of why Mississippi passed its abortion restriction was so it would be challenged, work up to a now-friendly SCOTUS, and get Roe v. Wade nuked once and for all in addition to merely having that one individual state law upheld. Interested parties will figure out how to “game” any system to the extent it can be gamed. Even the very act of refusing to hold hearings on Merrick Garland was gaming the system a bit — fully within the rules but no one REALLY believes McConnell merely thought a lame duck president can’t nominate a justice, he just gamed the system. And good for him, if the other side can’t stop you, keep push until they can.
Oh yeah, I agree. Strategic is absolutely better than just winging it and giving in to every impulse (like you said with the Trans movement today). In fact, a little more strategic thought would probably do people good for fixing some of the situations we are in.
I was just giving another example to back up the other ones listed.
I don't like gaming the system from a judicial scope standpoint. If the issue is not actually an issue, and has to be constructed by activists, then this is just an elaborate way of turning the judiciary into a legislature. TBH, I'm not even sure about the judiciary having the ability to overturn law in general.