231–240 of 358 posts
What if this is a Russian leak? Hear me out before you shred... A big part of Russia's game has been to try to divide the US politically. Well, this is probably the single biggest hand grenade they could have thrown into the middle of our society. And it's at a time when they'd really love to distract us from what they're doing in Ukraine. So they have motive. It fits their MO. Do they have the means to breach the Su…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It takes some mental gymnastics to say that elective abortions to 24 weeks is a “human right” that’s so important it must be read into the Constitution—implying that countries like France, Denmark, Germany, Italy, and Spain are violating human rights by limiting abortions to the first trimester. But to go further and say the Supreme Court “has lost all credibility” by returning US law to the international norm—where…
> It takes some mental gymnastics to say that elective abortions to 24 weeks is a “human right” No one ever said that... and apparently you've entirely missed the ProChoice argument. Does a government have the right to prevent you from having an appendectomy? Where does the government end and you begin? ProChoice is about limiting absolute government authority, like, over your cells and junk. btw the rights in questi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>the US will lose a basic right that practically all the rest of western world guarantees its citizens? This isn't true. The US is somewhat of an outlier in how liberal the abortion laws are here. What's likely is that, should SCOTUS not bow to the inevitable mob that will come after this leak, blue states keep their liberal abortion laws and red states don't. Most of the country will probably have abortion laws that…
Please reread both my comment and your comment. Do you not see how misleading your reply is? You completely left out a portion of my original quote so you could argue against a straw man. I didn't say "the US will lose a basic right...". I said "millions of people in the US will lose a basic right...". No one thinks this will result in a federal abortion ban, but over a dozen states will immediately ban abortion upon…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
To borrow an observation from Matt Stoller[0], SCOTUS is only powerful because congress refuses to legislate. [0] https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/150627311232057754...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. Do you not understand how Federalism works? Voters in some states prefer more restrictive abortion laws. I'm still not following your argument. Is it that, according to you, "millions of people who want abortions" will not be able to get them because some states that are full of people (also millions, ostensibly) who want more restrictive abortion laws are now able to enact them? Because if that's your argument…
The whole point of Federalism is not for the states to decide whatever they want. That would leave little purpose for the existence of the Federal government. The Federal government abdicating the protection of certain rights means states will infringe on those rights. I can be upset that my fellow citizens will lose those rights even if I live in state that will continue to protect my rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Supreme Court was never intended to find human rights. They interpret federal law, including the Constitution. International norms are entirely irrelevant. Women should be able to control their own bodies, so let's change state laws to make that clear in a way that doesn't depend on judicial interpretation. This shouldn't even be a federal issue to begin with.
Roe v. Wade was an interpretation of the Constitution. You might not think it's the correct interpretation, but the decision itself is, in fact, an interpretation of the Constitution rather than a piece of legislation grounded only in itself. Alito's opinion deciding that there isn't a right, or distinguishing one case from another, is as much a way of "legislating" as Roe was. And frankly, due to the high likelihood…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like "impartial AI judge" is at least the top 3 most common sci-fi topics. I've yet to see a work that puts such a concept in a good light. Even if humans are prone to corruption, the theoretical point of a judicial system is to deal with the edge cases that are never clear cut.
The irony of this line of argument is that an “impartial AI judge” never would have created Roe in the first place. A computer wouldn’t conjure up a right to abortion that’s not expressly listed in the constitution from a right to privacy that’s also not expressly listed in the constitution but is instead conjured up from the “penumbras” of listed rights. Only a human would do such a thing.
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It should be left to the states Ah, yes. The same “states’ rights” used to subjugate black people with chattel slavery should now be repurposed to subjugate women by robbing them of bodily autonomy. Your 15 weeks bit is actually where I expected this to go. Robert’s, who I genuinely believe is aware of and concerned with the perceived legitimacy of the Court, I expected him to broker a compromise that looked like t…
> Your 15 weeks bit It's not mine, it's what the law under review says. > I expected him to broker a compromise that looked like that. Upholding the law under review would "look like that" no matter what. 15 weeks is what the law already says. The Court wouldn't have to rule that every state law has to use the 15 weeks deadline; indeed, I don't think it should. It would just have to rule that the 15 weeks deadline is…
The opinion goes beyond just saying “this one law is fine”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Beyond that, it's probably also that McConnell used the excuse of the upcoming election to delay that nomination, but not when RBG died. Which, while perhaps unethical to someone on the other side of the political debate, doesn't contravene any rules as far as I'm aware. Same here, so I think the leak is fine.
> but not when RBG died. RBG could have retired earlier when democrats had majority but probably for some selfish reason she did not do that.
His did.