Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd go a little further and say that tech has exacerbated the failings of the USA.
Not all tech. There are specific actors and business models.
Unfortunately the tech with the most power.
Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse
181–190 of 215 posts
Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Isn't this how the system is designed to work? And if that's not desired, why not change the system instead? "The SCOTUS gets to make the rules" only works about half of the time, and it seems mostly like a matter of dumb luck as for when it does and doesn't. Yes, this is how the system is designed to work. It's a bad system, but the system cannot be fundamentally changed in an environment much short of political u…
> Yes, this is how the system is designed to work. It's a bad system, but the system cannot be fundamentally changed in an environment much short of political unanimity. The biggest changes to the system only came after a civil war. > No system is perfect. The founding fathers did as good a job as they could at the time, but no system can work well without fundamental rethinking forever. Why not rethink it, then? I u…
I basically agree with everything dragonwriter said, but I'd like to add.
> How are you going to keep your country together with the way things are currently going?
I can't dismiss the possibility that this may come to another civil war, but it would be catastrophic. It's not just that war is bad. The world's largest superpower and nuclear power going to war with itself will end poorly for the entire world. If a civil war between somewhat equal forces breaks out, the sides will not restrain themselves. It's imperative that another civil war is prevented if at all possible.
Luckily, I don't think it's inevitable. As divided as we are, all sides still see themselves first and foremost as Americans. Even those who fly Confederate flags virtue signal all the time about how proud they are to be American. This is not Scotland or Catalonia, where there's a distinct national identity. Even those whose identities are wrapped up in the states in which they live still consider themselves foremost American.
And that's why, even though some may call to secede from Republican states, I don't think it will go anywhere. We have family and friends in those states. We don't want to abandon them to state governments that will treat them as inferior citizens based on race, sex, etc. It would be like Germany volunteering to be split into east and west following WWII.
Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What am I missing, here? Genuinely curious. Population distribution. There are 50 states in the US. Each state gets 2 senators. States with low populations (think, Wyoming) tend to lean republican while the few states with high populations tend to lean democrat. The end result is these rural states end up with a disproportionate level of voting power in the senate where the fillibuster exists. Were the US populatio…
> There are 50 states in the US. Each state gets 2 senators. States with low populations (think, Wyoming) tend to lean republican while the few states with high populations tend to lean democrat. The end result is these rural states end up with a disproportionate level of voting power in the senate where the fillibuster exists. > Were the US population evenly distributed then this wouldn't be as much as a problem. Is…
> No, that's not the case. I'd dare say >50% of the population wants to cut Wyoming down to 0.2 senators. But how do they accomplish that? The only viable route is a constitutional amendment. For that to pass, you need 2/3s of the senate to agree AND you need 3/4s of the states to ratify.
By saying "oh, well the majority can just insist on the change" ignores the fact that the current system gives the minority power to say no.
The only hard work the majority could actually do is move from these high population states into low population states to re-balance the voting power.
The US is not a democracy. 50% of the population wanting something means nothing. And without an actual civil war and new constitution, that won't change.
Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let’s take this from the top: 1. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America per the United States Constitution. 2. The 14th Amendment is part of the United States Constitution including the “privileges or immunities” clause. 3. Privileges or immunities is constrained by judicial jurisprudence post-Slaughter House which basically interprets it to mean that the States will not inf…
That's all correct. There's no precedent for the court using using the "privileges or immunities" clause as a rationale for jurisdiction, and Roe was decided on the due process clause. The privileges or immunities clause is indeed poorly written, and subject to lots of debate. I should have quoted at least up to the due process clause, but omitted it for space. However, I still think there's a strong case that the du…
> Gun to my head, if I were forced to argue solely on privileges or immunities, I would attempt to argue that the wording was changed from or to and as a result of Corfield v. Coryell because Congress did not wish for it to be so limited, and given the context within which the 14th amendment was passed, the purpose was to bring the states within the power of the court with regards to individual liberty.
The States are within the power of the Court per the laws of the United States. The Courts just don’t have the power to make those laws; that’s what Congress is for.[1]
The context of the 14th amendment was that post-emancipation there were millions of freedmen who under the laws of the United States up until that point were of questionable legal status regarding citizenship and rights under the Constitution or the State they resided in. The 14th amendment was intended to try and settle that without leaving it to the Courts. I mean, you can read up on the history of the Jim Crow era to see how well that went specifically, but arguably even that could have been far worse without the 14th Amendment serving as something of a bulwark for freedmen.
So are you arguing that you can find the equivalent of Roe v Wade in the privileges or immunities clause?
EDIT:[1] After posting I decided to dig this out, but I think a lot of people who quote the wonders of the mysteries of the 14th amendment’s due process and privilege or immunities clause forget this part, but there is a Section 5 and it reads as follows:
“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
This is not a delegation of power to the Courts. To the extent the Courts have additional power under the 14th, it is because Congress has additional powers to make new laws beyond the scope of Article I. When Congress’s power to pass laws is expanded, the Executive has the ability to enforce those laws and the Courts to adjudicate and pass judgement under those expanded laws. Congress is the supreme federal branch, and the powers of the Executive and Judiciary are downstream from there.
Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's all correct. There's no precedent for the court using using the "privileges or immunities" clause as a rationale for jurisdiction, and Roe was decided on the due process clause. The privileges or immunities clause is indeed poorly written, and subject to lots of debate. I should have quoted at least up to the due process clause, but omitted it for space. However, I still think there's a strong case that the du…
> Gun to my head, if I were forced to argue solely on privileges or immunities, I would attempt to argue that the wording was changed from or to and as a result of Corfield v. Coryell because Congress did not wish for it to be so limited, and given the context within which the 14th amendment was passed, the purpose was to bring the states within the power of the court with regards to individual liberty. The States ar…
> The States are within the power of the Court per the laws of the United States. The Courts just don’t have the power to make those laws; that’s what Congress is for.
Right, correct. However, I think where we disagree is the assumption that the Court can only perform judicial review on state laws when they violated explicitly enumerated rights in the constitution or US federal law. That's not true, the Court can enforce the due process clause even when there's no explicit federal law or enumerated right.
If this were not the case, Loving v. Virginia could not have been decided. The court ruled that the state law had violated both the equal protection and the due process clauses. Congress hadn't passed a law mandating that states allow interracial marriage, and it wasn't explicitly enumerated in the constitution.
The court ruled that
1. Marriage is a fundamental constitutional right 2. States depriving people of that right was unconstitutional
There's nothing stopping the court from using those exact same clauses to rule
1. Abortion prior to viability is a fundamental constitutional right 2. States depriving people of that right was unconstitutional
Of course, you could go all Andrew Jackson on it and say that the court has overstepped its bounds (though I'd disagree), but the court ultimately won. Given how vague a lot of the language we're talking about here is, history has shown repeatedly the court can essentially interpret it as strictly or as loosely as they want, as long as they can convince the rest of the country to go along with it.
> So are you arguing that you can find the equivalent of Roe v Wade in the privileges or immunities clause?
Like I said, I don't think I should look to the privileges or immunities clause first, but I could definitely envision a much broader interpretation of what "privileges or immunities" are to cover any fundamental human right.
> “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Because this doesn't say "exclusive power", it the court has leeway to interpret itself into a role here. It may have been intended to be an exclusive power, but the court is very big on plain language.
Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are 50 states in the US. Each state gets 2 senators. States with low populations (think, Wyoming) tend to lean republican while the few states with high populations tend to lean democrat. The end result is these rural states end up with a disproportionate level of voting power in the senate where the fillibuster exists. > Were the US population evenly distributed then this wouldn't be as much as a problem. Is…
> No, that's not the case. I'd dare say >50% of the population wants to cut Wyoming down to 0.2 senators. But how do they accomplish that? The only viable route is a constitutional amendment. For that to pass, you need 2/3s of the senate to agree AND you need 3/4s of the states to ratify. By saying "oh, well the majority can just insist on the change" ignores the fact that the current system gives the minority power…
> The US is not a democracy.
It's a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.
Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
The goalposts will move. These two were the test cases, to find out how much appetite there was for prosecuting a mother for losing her pregnancy, using two less sympathetic defendants. States like Indiana will continue to follow that line of reasoning as far as they can. The people who have worked for decades to overturn Roe believe in their hearts that abortion is murder. They aren’t going to be okay with “murder”…
Slippery slope argument aside, do you in your heart think that throwing a live baby in the trash to suffocate should be legal (assuming the facts are correct)?
No
Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Gun to my head, if I were forced to argue solely on privileges or immunities, I would attempt to argue that the wording was changed from or to and as a result of Corfield v. Coryell because Congress did not wish for it to be so limited, and given the context within which the 14th amendment was passed, the purpose was to bring the states within the power of the court with regards to individual liberty. The States ar…
> The States are within the power of the Court per the laws of the United States. The Courts just don’t have the power to make those laws; that’s what Congress is for. Right, correct. However, I think where we disagree is the assumption that the Court can only perform judicial review on state laws when they violated explicitly enumerated rights in the constitution or US federal law. That's not true, the Court can enf…
> However, I think where we disagree is the assumption that the Court can only perform judicial review on state laws when they violated explicitly enumerated rights in the constitution or US federal law.
Actually no. I think there are unenumerated rights: marriage, procreation, inheritance, paternal and maternal rights, and countless others.
Abortion is not one of them unless you are also arguing against the paternal interest of the Father and the life interest of fetus (mind I’m not going to say that begins at birth, I actually don’t have a strong position on that specific question at this time). That’s what makes it no longer simply a matter of privacy, or bodily autonomy or whatever substantive due process claim you could make; another human being is implicated.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pass any legislation at all legalizing abortion to a point, but we have to make a political determination where that point is, and that will vary State to State, and it has to be legislation, not the Courts. That said I’ll give you this, if the courts want to step in at some point and protect the right to abortion in the cases of ectopic pregnancies, I’m all for it. I just hope they never have to.
Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse
#189> A sudden gap in location data could itself be used as evidence in court. Google should drop visits to particularly personal locations, but they should also just ignore everything except the 10-15 places you visit the most. I have to believe they care much more about the fact that I go to the same Trader Joe's every week than that I went to a plumbing supply warehouse one time last year. This would provide a good sc…
How would you implement this in a way that doesn't require google to retain your full location history?
Store a hash of the location and a counter. On the xth visit save the location info unhashed?
Decrement the counter once a month then delete the saved info and switch back to a hash if the counter drops below x
Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse
#190Plenty of uproar after Roe v Wade overturning, even here in the EU but.. The real shame is leaving lawmaking to the courts due to political opportunism. I am fully in favor of legalized abortion, but why was it never codified in law? Not a priority according to democratic politicians. Not a priority. So, you reap what you sow if you ask me. I learned that many countries, including my own, made, and make that mistake…
> I am fully in favor of legalized abortion, but why was it never codified in law? The US constitution made leeway for rights to be unenumerated, or not explicitly spelled out (9th amendment [1]) Up until this current supreme court, a right has never been removed. That was not standard jurisprudence. Now, however, we have radicals on the court who take the view that "if it's not in the text, it isn't protected" compl…
> Up until this current supreme court, a right has never been removed.
Dred Scott v. Sandford removed citizenship.[1]