|
It's not a white wing militia megathread but it'll do. 
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:48 |
|
|
The Supreme Court just put a hold on the court decision in Virginia forcing the state to allow transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice. Breyer voted with the conservatives, but he said he did it "as a courtesy" since the court is in recess and blocking the order would preserve the status quo until they get back to discuss the case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:The Supreme Court just put a hold on the court decision in Virginia forcing the state to allow transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:I am not very good at the SCOTUS metagame. Is this a good strat, or has Breyer broken rank in a big way here? I've seen cases get put on hold over the summer before and the hold lifted/denied cert after conference. I'll take Breyer at his word and not worry about it unless they actually decide to hear the case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:I am not very good at the SCOTUS metagame. Is this a good strat, or has Breyer broken rank in a big way here? It's no big deal, although the conspiracy minded will find plenty to read in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Good thing I'm not a conspiracy nut, then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
From a lower court ruling but not sure where else to post this: https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/judge-throws-out-satanic-temples-lawsuit-against-insane-abortion-restrictions The Satanic Temple brings a suit against Missouri saying the 72-hour waiting period on abortion violates our religious beliefs. The judge then dismisses the case after a year of court process because she is no longer pregnant, so she has no standing. Is this as utterly absurd as it sounds on its face (and the legal scholar at the end of the article also asserts)? Good article from the quoted scholar: https://verdict.justia.com/2016/08/04/satanic-temple-jehovahs-witnesses-common-champions-government-inculcation-belief Chin Strap fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Chin Strap posted:From a lower court ruling but not sure where else to post this: https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/judge-throws-out-satanic-temples-lawsuit-against-insane-abortion-restrictions it's retarded and the fact that it's retarded can be seen by simply realizing that roe v wade took years and years, and she actually gave birth before even the district level case got decided
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:it's retarded and the fact that it's retarded can be seen by simply realizing that roe v wade took years and years, and she actually gave birth before even the district level case got decided I like the argument in the second article that this isn't even about being pregnant or abortion, it is a RFRA case plain and simple. The pregnancy only ever mattered as it was what led to the forced violation of sincerely held religious beliefs in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Chin Strap posted:From a lower court ruling but not sure where else to post this: https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/judge-throws-out-satanic-temples-lawsuit-against-insane-abortion-restrictions
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
twodot posted:The standing issue is dumb, since it implies the only way to overturn a 72 hour waiting period is to hold an entire trial in 72 hours, but the notion that when life begins is a theological question is also dumb. You aren't allowed to kill two year olds, so we all agree there's some point when life begins. That isn't the question at hand. The question at hand is the 72 hour waiting period and literature reading requirement violated sincerely held religious beliefs looking through the lens of Hobby Lobby.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Booting it on standing should get overturned on precedent from roe v wadequote:But when, as here, pregnancy is a significant fact in the litigation, the normal 266-day human gestation period is so short that the pregnancy will come to term before the usual appellate process is complete. If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied. Our law should not be that rigid. Pregnancy often comes more than once to the same woman, and in the general population, if man is to survive, it will always be with us. Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness. It truly could be "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911). See Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 816 (1969); Carroll v. Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 178 -179 (1968); United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632 -633 (1953).
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Booting it on standing should get overturned on precedent from roe v wade Man that seems like basic jurisprudence being slacked on then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Or a conservative judge appointed by W is trying to get out of having to decide it
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Chin Strap posted:That isn't the question at hand. The question at hand is the 72 hour waiting period and literature reading requirement violated sincerely held religious beliefs looking through the lens of Hobby Lobby. "There is no persuasive secular justification for the state’s declaration of when life begins; that has been and always will be a theological tenet. Akin to the question of what happens after death." The state's got to be able declare life begins at some point, the fact that the author currently disagrees with the state when that is doesn't make it a theological tenet. edit: I also think the argument that something violates your religious beliefs gets a little bit weird if you're also arguing the thing in question isn't even a religious belief, but I don't need to go that far to say this author said a dumb thing. twodot fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
twodot posted:The standing issue is dumb, since it implies the only way to overturn a 72 hour waiting period is to hold an entire trial in 72 hours, but the notion that when life begins is a theological question is also dumb. You aren't allowed to kill two year olds, so we all agree there's some point when life begins. twodot posted:The state's got to be able declare life begins at some point, the fact that the author currently disagrees with the state when that is doesn't make it a theological tenet. This is pretty much complete nonsense? When life begins is a theological question that's completely irrelevant to the law. The relevant legal interest (although I use relevant here loosely, as in relevant to your comments rather than the actual case) isn't when "life" begins it's under what circumstances the legal right to life exists, which is a different question entirely. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
twodot posted:I mean from your article: quote:The Missouri Tenets and Missouri Lectionary are irrelevant to adherents to the Satanic Tenets in making a decision to get an abortion because they believe Human Tissue can be removed from their bodies on demand and, in good conscience, without regard to the current or future condition of the Human Tissue. Neither the Missouri Tenets nor the Missouri Lectionary is medically necessary for an adherent to the Satanic Tenets or any other woman to make an informed decision to get an abortion. Whenever the state claims life is, that is not the question at hand. It isn't vitally necessary for any woman to be told the states view on this in order to successfully carry out an abortion. There is no compelling reason for the state to burden TST's sincerely held religious belief with this. This is regardless of whether the state claims life begins at insenmination, 22 weeks, or birth, it doesn't matter as long as the state is still letting you get an abortion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:This is pretty much complete nonsense? When life begins is a theological question that's completely irrelevant to the law. The relevant legal question isn't when "life" begins it's under what circumstances the legal right to life exists, which is a different question entirely. Chin Strap posted:Whenever the state claims life is, that is not the question at hand. It isn't vitally necessary for any woman to be told the states view on this in order to successfully carry out an abortion. There is no compelling reason for the state to burden TST's sincerely held religious belief with this. This is regardless of whether the state claims life begins at insenmination, 22 weeks, or birth, it doesn't matter as long as the state is still letting you get an abortion. edit: I guess, since you agree this is wholly irrelevant to the legal argument being made, you're agreeing the author said a dumb thing? twodot fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
twodot posted:How can something possess a right to life if it isn't already alive? Like I think it's fine to concede the question of where life begins and still conclude abortions are good and legal, but regardless the state clearly needs the capability to decide whether certain people are alive or not, or murder becomes a nonsense law. Is this monumental shifting of goalposts an admission that you were wrong? Because this new claim is still dumb but also way less interesting to discuss and even more irrelevant than your last one where you felt the state needed to "declare life begins" at some specific point for some unknown legal reason, and if you don't want to defend that statement I think we can just consider the issue settled and move on with our lives. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Isn't "when life begins" not really the issue? I mean, if we're trying to take a scientific approach, then obviously a fetus or embryo meets the definition of life. But eggs and sperm are also alive, as are tumors. It's not really about alive/not alive. If you want to frame it in the form of "when does X begin" then X has to be something more abstract like personhood. And if we're talking legal personhood, then doesn't it begin at birth? I mean, you can't claim a fetus as a dependent on your taxes, can you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Is this monumental shifting of goalposts an admission that you were wrong? Because this new claim is still dumb but also way less interesting to discuss and even more irrelevant than your last one and if you don't want to defend the previous one I think we can just consider the issue settled and move on with our lives. "There is no persuasive secular justification for the state’s declaration of when life begins; that has been and always will be a theological tenet. Akin to the question of what happens after death." edit: I guess also that punting on standing is dumb, but that seems uncontested.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
twodot posted:Wait, what do you think was my earlier claim? That the state has an interest in declaring when life begins and the article is dumb for thinking it does not. quote:The only claim I've been trying to support is these two sentences are dumb and lead to clearly ridiculous outcomes: I don't get it. The statement seems perfectly fine, and nothing about your new, revised position on the issue (where we only need to do whether or not someone we've given the right to life to is currently alive or not) seems to render it "dumb and clearly ridiculous" so... what? GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
twodot posted:I guess, since you agree this is wholly irrelevant to the legal argument being made, you're agreeing the author said a dumb thing? Yeah that's a dumb sentence I agree.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:That the state has an interest in declaring when life begins and the article is dumb for thinking it does not. edit: I get an argument that says the state is radically inconsistent in both claiming life begins at conception, and also not offering birth certificates at conception, but it's still a thing the state needs to be concerned about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm honestly unsure how to address this. So I assume we agree that the state needs the ability to sort people into categories of "alive" or "not alive". Like we shouldn't issue social security checks to "not alive" people, or, as mentioned, offer tax rebates to people who care for "not alive" entities, or issue birth certificates to "not alive" people. I don't understand how you think the state can do this without an opinion on at what age someone should be considered alive, whether that's conception, viability, birth, or 10 years old at some point someone writes down a social security number. It's just... I mean, I literally can't comprehend what your argument is supposed to be here. It seems to be making all sorts of unstated assumptions at least some of which seem rather theological that I am not privy to the details of, because it just doesn't... hold together. The state has to interests for the purpose of this weird tangent conversation: - Does something have the right to life? - Has the above thing's life ended? In terms of whether or not something is alive, the only limitation is the first one, and it merely requires we agree that something is alive at the earliest point we grant it the right to life. The question of when we should start considering it "alive" is relevant insofar as we need to agree it happens at some point before or at the point where we grant the right to life. So if we grant the legal right to life at birth, we only need to be concerned with 'is a baby that has just been born alive' and 'has this person died' - neither of which require us to decide life begins, and neither of which there is any real disagreement about that could be resolved by pinning down when life begins. "is this baby alive" is certainly not the same question as 'when does life begin', which is a in any reasonable non-religious context a completely nonsense question to begin with, so it's a pretty good thing the state has no recognizable interest in weighing in on it. quote:I get an argument that says the state is radically inconsistent in both claiming life begins at conception, and also not offering birth certificates at conception, but it's still a thing the state needs to be concerned about.  I mean regardless of whether they decide to weigh in on the point life begins despite a lack of interest in declaring such, what the hell does that have to do with birth certificates? Birth certificates are granted on the condition of having been born, they don't even require you to be alive in many places... and don't really seem related to either the question of when life begins or the question of under what circumstances the legal right to life exists.
GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:So if we grant the legal right to life at birth quote:The question of when we should start considering it "alive" is relevant insofar as we need to agree it happens at some point before or at the point where we grant the right to life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think this is the crux. This is certainly a thing the state can do, and if you do this, you no longer need to care about when life begins, because the only reason to care about when life begins is to know when to start protecting it. Making this decision has a built in belief that you've directly acknowledged: Okay, I think the issue is that you just misinterpreted the intent of the quote then. Let me try to unpack it for you: "There is no persuasive secular justification for the state’s declaration of when [read: the specific time at which] life begins; that has been and always will be a theological tenet. Akin to the question of what happens after death." It's the specific date setting that is being argued against, not the agreement that baby's are alive. There is no persuasive secular justification for the state's declaration of a specific point in time being the beginning of life. (the statement they decided being empirically false is also a bit annoying, personally - as far as we know, life began once roughly 4 billion years ago, at least here on earth, and hasn't begun again since then, only diverged) GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
It's alive as sperm and egg, it's alive as embryo and fetus. It's not a question of 'life' beginning it's a question of 'personhood'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
at what point does it make a transition from parasite to person
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
go3 posted:at what point does it make a transition from parasite to person
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:When they get a job and their own insurance and move out of the basement. So basically killing a goon is a 31 year old abortion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
There was a case in Australia where where a baby had gotten stuck exiting the mother's vagina and died and there was a whole deal about whether they had been born, and ergo, had therefore legally died and thus had to be the subject of a coroner's examination. Y'know just simple law school stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:So basically killing a goon is a 31 year old abortion. Call me old fashioned and "Not-PC" but I believe the cutoff should be at the 90th trimester
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:So basically killing a goon is a 31 year old abortion. An abortion is a medical procedure involving the mother. What you propose doesn't involve the mother unless she's the one that opens the basement door for the kill squad or if she wields the bludgeon. So it's some really some form of non-criminal homicide, given that the state has no interest in the goon's life. Not justifiable homicide because no justification is needed. More like meh-homicide, maybe goonicide. The interesting thing is that the state does have an interest in the corpse. Maybe personhood attaches to goons upon death.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:An abortion is a medical procedure involving the mother. What you propose doesn't involve the mother unless she's the one that opens the basement door for the kill squad or if she wields the bludgeon. Perhaps 'rightful death'?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Maybe personhood attaches to goons upon death. In death, we have a name
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:The interesting thing is that the state does have an interest in the corpse. Maybe personhood attaches to goons upon death. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:The Supreme Court just put a hold on the court decision in Virginia forcing the state to allow transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice. Keeping the status quo of loving over trans people doesn't seem terribly courteous? E: I get it, it's just hard not to be snarky about how long such obvious bullshit gets to stay in the system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
go3 posted:In death, we have a name And what is dead may never die.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:48 |
|
|
4 to grant, 5 to stay is straight outta kafka and why they should change the rules to 4 votes required for each
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 04:39
|
|