151–160 of 217 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, the bounty hunter law is reprehensible, but not as much as the motivation behind it. Those with that motivation can be treated as a single group. And to be frank, I don't care if they're unhappy to be lumped together. Lie with dogs and all that.
Should every movement be painted with the same brush as the worst people in the movement?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, it isn't. If you believe the world of today isn't materially different from the 70s, I don't know that we're going to agree on much. On social issues, you could be arrested for being gay. You could legally be denied housing loans based on your race. It was considered impossible to rape your spouse. I could continue this paragraph, but the point is we're fundamentally different with our understanding of humanity…
>On social issues, you could be arrested for being gay. You could legally be denied housing loans based on your race. It was considered impossible to rape your spouse. I could continue this paragraph Yet all of those were given protection based on Constitutional arguments, right? With no change needed to specifically add a new tiny rule to the Constitution for each single change in societal beliefs, right? >If you be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The interstate commerce clause was hollowed out and left undefended Your citation to Wickard v. Fillburn for support of this is...bizarre. That case took what some view as an unreasonably expansive view of the federal power under the ICC, but that does the opposite of supporting the contention that it was “hollowed out” in a way that expands state power into the reserved federal space.
Take the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." It explicitly says Congress however it is currently interpreted that it applies to all governmental organizations. Federal, state and local. It has previously been argued that the same limitation on interstate law existed at th…
No, it isn't.
States are limited by the 14th Amendment. Now, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to apply a whole lot of substantive rights against the states, including rights exactly identical to those protected against federal interference by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd (but only, to date, but one Circuit Court), 4th, 5th, most of the 6th (except for the jury locality requirement), and 8th (but maybe not the excessive bail requirement) amendments.
> It has previously been argued that the same limitation on interstate law existed at the state level, as the authority of a state could not exceed that of the congress when it came to national matters.
The interstate commerce clause argument against the state isn't that states can't do what Congress can't: that states can regulate purely intrastate Commerce is not subject to serious dispute.
The argument is that the interstate commerce clause itself prohibits many state regulations of interstate commerce, and further empowers Congress to further narrow the permissible space of state regulations of interstate commerce.
> For the NRLC, which wrote the model legislation, limiting communication is a key part of the strategy to aggressively enforce laws restricting abortion. “The whole criminal enterprise needs to be dealt with to effectively prevent criminal activity,” Jim Bopp, the group’s general counsel, wrote in a July 4 memo, comparing the group’s efforts to fighting organized crime. This basically tells you everything you need t…
I remember when folks were telling us we were being hysterical because of our concern a right-leaning SC would overturn Roe. Of course that is exactly what happened. Are these same people now telling us not to worry, they won't imprison women for getting abortions?
It's also very much the "surely the face-eating leopards party won't let leopards eat my face!" mindset.
I've heard anecdotal reports from some people who have more conservative family members than I that some of them are actually starting to realize that there won't be the "reasonable exceptions" they were just assuming would exist, and getting genuinely worried.
[0]: https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progre...
> For the NRLC, which wrote the model legislation, limiting communication is a key part of the strategy to aggressively enforce laws restricting abortion. “The whole criminal enterprise needs to be dealt with to effectively prevent criminal activity,” Jim Bopp, the group’s general counsel, wrote in a July 4 memo, comparing the group’s efforts to fighting organized crime. This basically tells you everything you need t…
>The reversal or Roe was not about "kicking it back to the states", it was the first step in trying to make abortion access illegal nationwide. Yes, and it makes me angry that so many commenters on this and other forums said, "Well, they have a point. It should be left to the states." As if women whose lives are at risk can wait for their judicial philosophy to cleanly play out; as if the raped 10 year old being forc…
The phrase is often used as if it's meant to suggest that they're fighting off federal government overreach. In fact, it's used exactly to allow them to have overreach over you, at the level that they can make it happen. When they get the opportunity to control it at the federal level, it will stop being "left to the states".
It's very much about denying individual liberties, using Orwellian language making it seem otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is my fault for not knowing a definition of a word.
So you're fine with the media trying to exploit common misconceptions to mislead their readers? Maybe they could get you to believe something false if you have the common misconception regarding the meanings of "infer" and "imply". Or how about "flaunt" versus "flout" - getting readers to believe falsehoods with clever use of those words it totally fair game, I guess?
I even went back to this popular kids’ video to confirm if I was misremembering, but I could not find anywhere “official” that refers to bills as passed laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The reversal or Roe was not about "kicking it back to the states", it was the first step in trying to make abortion access illegal nationwide. Yes, and it makes me angry that so many commenters on this and other forums said, "Well, they have a point. It should be left to the states." As if women whose lives are at risk can wait for their judicial philosophy to cleanly play out; as if the raped 10 year old being forc…
> 10 year old being forced to travel out of state People in the US are able to freely travel between states, this isn't the case elsewhere in the world. Some things are crimes in some jurisdictions and not others, this is normal. If you think it's inadequate, pass an amendment to the constitution, that's what the amendment process if for. If you think the process to too burdensome, encourage your state to secede.
One really simple example of what the SCOTUS could do is they could rule that an unborn child - from the time of conception - is covered by the rights laid out in the 14th amendment.
Takes all choice back away from the state once more.
> For the NRLC, which wrote the model legislation, limiting communication is a key part of the strategy to aggressively enforce laws restricting abortion. “The whole criminal enterprise needs to be dealt with to effectively prevent criminal activity,” Jim Bopp, the group’s general counsel, wrote in a July 4 memo, comparing the group’s efforts to fighting organized crime. This basically tells you everything you need t…
This is a distraction. There have always been antiabortion crazies lurking in the woodwork. The state just chose to pull the trigger on this particular shitshow at this particular moment because it suits their agenda. Don't get me wrong. There is definitely an abortion rights disaster in progress. It's just that this disaster was manufactured only to distract from a larger, more powerful, disaster. Have you noticed h…
Voting itself is a sham. I'm provided with the choice of a baboon and chimp for a leader, alternately I can stand for elections for a troop of monkeys, what can I say?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe a conservative would say those ends don't justify the constitutional defying means that we used to achieve them. I mean, they wouldn't say that because it sounds crazy, but if you piece together what they say about the constitution, that's the message that comes through to me.
> believe a conservative would say those ends don't justify the constitutional defying means that we used to achieve them One can say many things. At the end of the day, the track record stands for itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The reversal or Roe was not about "kicking it back to the states", it was the first step in trying to make abortion access illegal nationwide. Was this motive ever hidden? Abortion should be illegal. I hope each state passes laws criminalizing it. That has always been the goal. The ‘judicial philosophy’ crap emerged due TO roe V. wade. The decision made a mockery of the constitution. The millions upon millions of p…
Genuinely asking, have you considered that banning abortion doesn’t save babies who have already died or are dying in the womb? And doesn’t save situations where there are no babies involved at all, and there are chronically ill people who are being denied medication because the medication can cause abortions?
If one ‘bans’ murder, the legislatures and courts will need to grapple with killing in self-defense, pulling the plug on a brain-dead vegetable, administering drugs in some cases that have a high risk of death, assisting in a suicide, accidentally causing a death vs intentionally, etc.
This isn’t new.
Each state crafts it’s own laws to address these things, each prosecutor uses his discretion in applying them, each jury or grand jury weighs in, each judge crafts a sentence taking these things into consideration, etc.
In short your edge cases are nothing new… every law is over and under inclusive. The judicial system as a whole has been dealing with these issues for centuries.