|
evilweasel posted:Like I said, part of "substantial burden". The RFRA carves out exemptions for individuals, it doesn't overturn laws because they substantially burden one person's exercise of religion. You're assuming that substantial burden in the bolded part: I'm saying this is something that is evidence something is not a substantial burden (or the belief is not sincere). I believe in a lot of cases, the corporations previously covered abortions without thinking about it, and the 'no abortion' policies are relatively new. Doesn't this mean that it's not an undue burden for those companies, since they shouldered that burden before?
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
MrNemo posted:Thing is if they hadn't really examined their policy before they can convincingly claim ignorance of the effects of the health coverage they previously offered. You'd need to be able to make a convincing argument that they were at least properly aware of contraception being covered. My argument is that they were incurious about it, though. quote:Draw a parallel to say a new story coming out about Nike routinely using child slave labour to make it's running shoes. Would you call everyone that decided to start boycotting Nike hypocrites just trying to draw attention to themselves since they were perfectly fine buying those trainers before? After all the effect is the same and if they didn't spend time investigating the production processes involved in their clothing choices it must show that it's not something that troubles their conscience. They'd be hypocrites if they were actually employing child labor themselves. I think that there's a difference between an individual consumer trying to track down the origins of a ton of different purchases and a company claiming it didn't really read through the whole insurance contract that carefully.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I love the courts literally handing Republicans their 2014/16 playbook. That looks kind of like the 2014/16 Democratic playbook, too. Vote Democratic, and keep your health insurance. Vote Republican, and lose it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Again, this can be said of pretty much every politician, and every bill ever. See e.g. the rep from Georgia who thought Guam would fall into the ocean if marines were moved there, and pretty much any statement about "assault rifles" by anyone ever. But then, I don't have much respect for the intelligence of any of our elected officials. So if you're dismissing the opinion of expert groups, how do you actually think that you can determine if the restrictions on abortion clinics are reasonable or just part of the United States hyperreligious attack on female freedom? What is your actual method for determining this, since you're dismissing the common sense ones?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:that's a straw man and you know it. Look, the fact of the matter is, I *am* pro choice. However, arguments that try to suggest abortion is a minor trifle rather that what it is: A medical procedure with significant impact on the woman's body, cheapen the overall cause. What is 'significant impact', and what does that have to do with the issue under discussion? quote:You want to win this argument, acknowledge there *is* a state interest in regulating physicians and argue that in the overall balance, these restrictions go too far. and the goals can be achieved through less restrictive means. Nobody argued that there isn't state interest in regulating physicians, though. What is being pointed out is the regulations for doctors and places that do abortion are totally out of scale with the rest of medical regulation. What's hard to get about that?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:And that right there is why this debate will keep on going. The logic that someone supporting the idea of some regulation on abortion Okay, so this has to be a gimmick, because you can't possibly be ignoring that everyone here supports the idea of some regulation on abortion as a medical procedure.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:What regulations would you support? Whatever OB/GYNs think is appropriate, pretty much. Also include nurses in that. quote:I'll admit where my bias comes from: One of the first cases I handled was a medical malpractice lawsuit in federal court dealing with severe scarring as the result of a botched laser hair removal procedure done in a physician's office. Lasers designed to target melanin + black patient = fail. Said physician had lost his practice privileges at every hospital in the state. So now he was doing in-office procedures, and loving them up. So, at face value, I don't see a problem with holding physicians doing ANY procedure to higher standards, making sure they have hospital practice privileges, making sure their clinic meets certain emergency care standards etc. etc. is a bad thing. Higher standard than what? quote:Where I think the Texas law got it wrong was looking just at abortion rather than including lasik, lypo, etc. etc. What the holy hell is the relationship between these things? Again, seems like you must be a gimmick account to lump abortion in with those. quote:So SOME regulation is needed. Are you under the severely stupid impression that abortion, prior to this law, was unregulated in Texas?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I don't think gay marriage is in danger, and despite being somewhat devil's advocate above, "Ignoring reality" and "Devils advocate" really aren't the same thing. Really, why did you pretend, over and over again, that abortion wasn't already regulated?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I appreciate that fact. My point is that this incredibly stupid back-and-forth in the thread could have been avoided if the first response to ActusRhesus was to cite that and show that the proposed regulation was overinclusive based on its stated rationale. Then we can talk about distinguishing clinics that are performing procedures that might merit admitting status personnel from those only performing outpatient procedures where the reg's political purpose is obvious. ActusRhesus refused to acknowledge that abortions are already regulated, so no, I don't think that would have checked his flow.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No. You repeatedly told me i thought that. I didn't agree. And it's her, not his. I didn't repeatedly say poo poo to you. But to quote you: quote:And there is a middle ground to be found here that acknowledges that abortion is a medical procedure and there is a state's interest in overseeing medical procedures in a way that is not a de facto ban on abortion for anyone outside the greater dallas ft. worth area. The middle ground already existed: abortion was regulated, and the argument was not that the state has no interest in 'overseeing' medical procedures. You also repeatedly made the affirmation that a case had to have some merits to reach this far, but that doesn't mean it has to have rational or reasonable merits, it means it has to have 'within the logic of the constitution' merits. The other said has reasonable legal arguments, but that doesn't detract at all from the very easily verifiable fact that the people pushing this law are anti-abortion and want to reduce the number of abortions, and that the legislation will not actually improve safety for women seeking abortions and they really don't give a poo poo. The actual lay of the land of abortion before this bill was that it was highly regulated. You acted, throughout this discussion, as though we were coming from a point of no regulation and this bill just went 'too far'. No. We were already at the point of 'too far', and abortion needs to be less restricted, not more, in Texas and many other places.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's problematic to think of regulation, or to parse regulatory schema, in terms of a unipolar spectrum between two relative values. That's great, tell ActusRhesus, who was arguing as though this law was coming in a vacuum of regulation. It wasn't, it was further increasing an already overburdensome amount of regulation on abortion providers. Furthermore, that a case progresses this far really doesn't mean a drat thing about its merits as a regulatory force, just about its merits as a legal case. You could have an incredibly well-crafted piece of gun control regulation that'd achieve great ends for modest impact and have it get struck down. The merits of a regulation and whether it will hold up in court are really not very related at all.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So you can have a great law that just happens to be unconstitutional? Inconvenient, that. Yes, exactly. So everything you said about the people supporting this actually being reasonable from a policy perspective is wrong. It is completely verifiable that the people pushing this law are not doing it for the safety of women obtaining abortions. Discendo Vox posted:"overburdensome amount of regulation" is not the right way to discuss regulations. You shouldn't quantify regulations. You know what would have made this post useful? Then explaining what you think is the right way to discuss regulations. As it stands, how am I supposed to reply? The extent of restrictions on abortions in Texas is already far too great. Is that okay? Should I just keep trying sentence and you'll give me a thumbs up or down, or do you actually want to finish your thought?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
drat you interwebs.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You don't talk about regulations in terms of collection or quantification in this setting. You talk about the content of specific regulations and their effect. Talking about too much regulation is meaningless because regulatory "degree" is itself meaningless beyond the specific impact of the regulations. Don't really know what this means. Do you mean that I should list all of the regulations on abortion clinics and why they're medically stupid, every time I claim that the regulations are overbroad?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Overbroad isn't a synonym for "too much". Each regulation will be overbroad in terms of the specific scope of its application- again, it's not meaningful to say they're collectively overbroad unless they are structurally identical. Instead of talking about regulations in the categorical, why not talk about regulations in the particular? Are you writing obtusely on purpose, or do you have some horrible job that requires you to murder English like that? There are a very large numbers of regulations in Texas that have been put in place to inhibit the ability of women to acquire abortions, without having a medical basis. I am referring to these in the collective, since they are numerous. Can you please, in clear, non-jargon English, explain what the problem with this is.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I'm guessing attorney. He's not writing obtusely, he's using the legal definition of overbroad as it's used in constitutional analysis. Since this is a SCOTUS thread, it's not inappropriate. It's inappropriate to insist that we can't also talk about the subject in common language. I'm not making a legal argument. I'm saying that the current amount of regulation of abortion in Texas is already far more than is medically necessary or helpful. Also, the new regulations that cause clinics to close thus absolutely and definitely raise the risks and hazards for women seeking abortions (whether that risk is from a back-alley abortion, unsafe abortifacients, or just more time before the abortion). In other words, even if you're going to do a po-faced analysis of this regulation as a sincere attempt to regulate medical practices for the good of wimmins, you can't analyze it as though these regulations can only improve outcomes: they can also (and would) substantially make them worse. And this is the obvious, common-sense, default position to start from, because the problem is in the other direction: there is too much restriction on obtaining an abortion in Texas, which results in a lot of harm.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Here's my best shot: The problems with the regulations you are talking about are going to be specific to those regulations. To meaningfully attack those regulations, you need to specifically identify how each of them isn't effective at doing what it says it does. What do you mean by 'meaningfully' attack? I'm not laying out a legal strategy. I'm asserting that abortion in Texas already has restrictions on it and regulations on it that are medically unnecessary and problematic and should be done away with. If you're asking me to go through each one and explain to you why it is bad, I"m going to ask you why, what will you do after I explain them all? Why wouldn't you look it up yourself? quote:The intent of the regulation doesn't matter, because it's very hard to prove the intent. I'm not making a legal argument. I understand the SCOTUS makes law, but we have to be able to also talk about the effects of those laws and the conditions in which those laws come about, especially since the Supreme Court has become so ultimately political. So please stop criticizing me for not formatting what I say into a legal argument when I'm not attempting to make one. quote:The ambiguity of the intention of the regulation is why antiabortion people have been able to continue shuttering clinics- they dream up some bullshit regs with a halfassed rationale, but the legal challenge from pro-choice lawyers is usually to say, "hey, these regs are disingenuous and are only intended to stop abortions". That's not an effective argument in the short or the long term. OKay, so use a different legal argument. I'm not saying that what I am saying is a legal argument. I never in the least bit, in any way, indicated that I was. quote:The only way to really stop this is to get down into the weeds and identify the specific problems with each of the regulations. How will me doing that, now, help? quote:This means taking the bullshit rationale at face value, and demonstrating why each reg, case by case, doesn't accomplish its stated goal. A side effect of this approach is you create a body of caselaw establishing the proper limits of abortion regulation. The proper limits of abortion regulation are the same as other medical regulation: that is the main problem, it is treated as though it is different from other medical procedures. There is no need for congress to get fine-grained in its regulation of medical procedures unless there's something weird or exploitative going on, and abortion is a pretty routine and non-problematic area. Discendo Vox posted:Here's my best shot: The problems with the regulations you are talking about are going to be specific to those regulations. To meaningfully attack those regulations, you need to specifically identify how each of them isn't effective at doing what it says it does. What do you mean by 'meaningfully' attack? I'm not laying out a legal strategy. I'm asserting that abortion in Texas already has restrictions on it and regulations on it that are medically unnecessary and problematic and should be done away with. If you're asking me to go through each one and explain to you why it is bad, I"m going to ask you why, what will you do after I explain them all? Why wouldn't you look it up yourself? quote:The intent of the regulation doesn't matter, because it's very hard to prove the intent. I'm not making a legal argument. I understand the SCOTUS makes law, but we have to be able to also talk about the effects of those laws and the conditions in which those laws come about, especially since the Supreme Court has become so ultimately political. So please stop criticizing me for not formatting what I say into a legal argument when I'm not attempting to make one. quote:The ambiguity of the intention of the regulation is why antiabortion people have been able to continue shuttering clinics- they dream up some bullshit regs with a halfassed rationale, but the legal challenge from pro-choice lawyers is usually to say, "hey, these regs are disingenuous and are only intended to stop abortions". That's not an effective argument in the short or the long term. OKay, so use a different legal argument. I'm not saying that what I am saying is a legal argument. I never in the least bit, in any way, indicated that I was. quote:The only way to really stop this is to get down into the weeds and identify the specific problems with each of the regulations. How will me doing that, now, help? quote:This means taking the bullshit rationale at face value, and demonstrating why each reg, case by case, doesn't accomplish its stated goal. A side effect of this approach is you create a body of caselaw establishing the proper limits of abortion regulation. The proper limits of abortion regulation are the same as other medical regulation: that is the main problem, it is treated as though it is different from other medical procedures. There is no need for congress to get fine-grained in its regulation of medical procedures unless there's something weird or exploitative going on, and abortion is a pretty routine and non-problematic area. ActusRhesus posted:Dude...it's the SCOTUS thread. Isn't this whole discussion about the legal framework of this decision (and the likely higher court decisions)? Are you really saying that we can't talk about the politics surrounding a case, the effects the case will have, or anything else? And if you want to talk about holding strictly to the legal framework, then don't do stuff like this: quote:Where I think the Texas law got it wrong was looking just at abortion rather than including lasik, lypo, etc. etc. Now, if you want to say this is because I'm an anti-woman secret pro life plant, fine. But the fact of the matter, again, is that the whole loving point of Roe v. Wade was to prevent women from having to rely on quacks. So SOME regulation is needed. The results of the Texas law are a problem. But at the other end of the spectrum are the Dr. Gosnell cases. There is a reasonable middle ground to be had and, while you may disagree with someone's ideas on where that middle ground might lie, dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as a liar, a troll, or an idiot isn't really a compelling argument. Rarely does a case with absolutely no merit on the opposing side made it this far in the appellate process. Where you're jumping back and forth between talking about the real-world effects of the regulation, the appropriateness of it, and the legal merits of it. The case has legal 'merit'. It has no--in fact, it has negative--regulatory merit. The reasonable middle ground is in the opposite direction of this law. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:a. Congress isn't involved here...it's the Texas state legislature. The texas legislature, then. quote:b. That same argument could be used to criticize significant portions of the Affordable Helathcare Act. (Not saying I would agree with those criticisms, but be careful making blanket statements that can easily be applied in areas you wouldn't want them)] I think it's more that I'd rather the health care act go farther in the direction of putting more decision-making and regulation into the hands of doctors, nurses, etc. If there are parts of the act that actually fine-toothed regulation medical stuff at this level, I think that's a mistake just because of the speed of change in medical practice, but I'd have to see examples to really know. quote:c. Rule 1 of appellate advocacy. No one gives a gently caress what you think. What does the law say and how does the law apply to the case? Then why did you jump back and forth between talking about the actual regulation and the appropriateness of having it or not, and the legal merits? If you want to be a beep-boop lawyer robot, that's cool, but then you shouldn't be talking about how that malpractice case hit you hard, man, and some regulation is necessary--that's not a legal argument about what the law says, it's an opinion about what the law should be, just like mine was.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:That's pretty hosed up. I can't see any reason for denying admission. Even if you don't want tax dollars to go towards funding abortion, at the point of a hospital admission, it's not an abortion...it's a medical emergency from a failed medical procedure. Logically that's like saying "our state doesn't support gang related violence, so if someone gets shot in a gang dispute, they can't come to the hospital." Do no harm etc. What kind of legal argument is that?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:
But you don't. You happily skip between talking about it as a legal issue and as a practical issue, whenever it suits your 'pot-stirring' purposes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I really miss talking about legal subjects in this thread. Warsazawa, where have you gone? We are attempting to talk about legal subjects, and the effect these legalities have. It's easier when there isn't someone loving around and 'stirring the pot' disingenuously. Why do you think there's some sort of problem, in the SCOTUS thread, in talking about the politics surrounding a case, or the effects of the case?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The problem is mostly that Actus raised a set of issues and a set of posters, including you, constructed her into the sort of target you're more comfortable dealing with, using forms of conversation you feel safer using. That's not what happened. Actus came out of the gate 'stirring the pot', bounced back and forth between talking about the regulations in terms of their effects and their legal status, and then sanctimoniously tried to claim she was only interested in the legal argument. Among the 'set of issues' she raised was that some regulation of abortion clinics was necessary, a position that nobody was against. She conflated the regulations having legal and regulatory merit, and generally shitted up the thread. If all she had done was talk about the legal aspects of the case, nobody would have given a poo poo. But she didn't, and I have no clue why you want to pretend she did. spoon daddy posted:We're long past legal subject discussion. It's a gang pile on one poster who pissed everyone off. Weird, the person who concern-trolled and 'stirred the pot' pissed of a lot of people who are annoyed at her for disingenuous posting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:There's a beautiful symmetry here between the structure of an accusation of concern trolling and making the improper purpose argument. You're right. It's really obvious to everyone taking even a brief glance, that the people pushing these abortion regulations have an improper purpose. It's really obvious to everyone taking even a brief glance that she's concern trolling. But proving either legalistically would be difficult.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It might help you here to think why the legal system is constructed this way. Again, these posts of yours where you indicate you could say more but don't are annoying, lovely, and add no value. I do understand why the legal system is constructed this way. I have no objections to the legal system being constructed this way. I am not saying that a bad intent should be easier to prove. What I was pointing out is that Actus shifted back and forth between strict legal analysis and not whenever it suited her, while criticizing others for departing from legal analysis. What about that do you not understand?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Weren't you the one whining that there wasn't lay discussion in posts that pretty much boiled down to "gently caress you I'm not a lawyer stop using big words"? Now you are upset there was (allegedly) lay discussion. Which is it? I'm not saying that the posts are lovely because they're lay discussion, I'm saying they're lovely because they're a half-assed version of the Socratic method. Instead of saying "It might help you here to think why the legal system is constructed this way.", a useful post would say "The legal system is constructed this way because of X". Actually, that would actually still be lovely, just less so, because at no point has anyone said that intent should be easier to legally attack. What I am criticizing you far is your blatant, obnoxious hypocrisy in talking plenty about the non-legalistic aspects of the law, and then criticizing others for talking about the non-legalistic aspects of the law. For example, you have this long post about how malpractice is so bad and why regluation of abortion clinics is important (as if they weren't already regulated, but never mind that) for the moment. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3590854&userid=124707&perpage=40&pagenumber=1#post436303680 And then later, you decide that nobody gives a gently caress what you think: quote:c. Rule 1 of appellate advocacy. No one gives a gently caress what you think. What does the law say and how does the law apply to the case? If you were just a legal pedant, nobody would have a problem with you. It's that you are smugly happy to talk about why this is an important issue and why you think regulation is necessary, and then hop over to sanctimony town to proclaim nobody gives a poo poo about what you think.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:It's the editorial "you". Courts don't give a gently caress what I think either. Yes, I understand that. Did you actually not understand my post? It kind of seems that way. The problem is not giving your "Oh regulation is so important guys because of a malpractice suit I was on once" argument, nor is it you saying "Courts don't give a gently caress what you think". It's doing both of those things, that's where you're an obnoxious hypocrite. Discendo Vox posted:The legal system is structured this way with regard to intent arguments because they aren't easy to prove. Did you miss the bit where I said that I understand why the legal system is set up this way or something? quote:Saying someone is concern trolling is a way of ignoring the content of their arguments based on an unprovable and untestable assertion. Unless you have direct evidence that ActusRhesus is concern trolling, that shouldn't be a basis for criticizing her position. Yeah, I have attacked the content, though, as have plenty of others, along with attacking the 'intent'. Also, we're not actually in a courtroom, so we get to use common sense, too, as well as direct evidence. Ain't that nifty? Like, for example, when Warsawa said: quote:The system is pretty racist. Not sure how you, the ground, or any quantity of air molecules relate to it. When I talk about understanding the opinions and the underlying politics, I mean that when one side of the argument involves any attempt to consider ameliorating racial discrimination, you can be sure you'll find Chief Justice Roberts on the other side of it. it's totally fine, even though he's even asserting something that's unprovable--that Justice Roberts is always going to be on the racist side of an argument.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm not being sufficiently direct here: an accusation of concern trolling is meaningless and rhetorical. It adds nothing. The reason that intent arguments fail in the legal system are why accusations of concern trolling should be discounted in other discourses- they allow a baseless attack on any critical position you don't like. And if people had just said "She's concern trolling", then what you're saying here might have some merit. Instead, what has happened is that people have cited a lot of evidence of the concern trolling, from her opening post to her shift between whether or not we're talking in strictly legal terms or also explaining our thoughts and feelings, from her ignorance about admitting privileges to her refusal to explain what she'd accept as an authoritative professional recommendation if the AMA doesn't cut it. People didn't just say 'concern troll, lol'. So while simply saying 'concern troll' may indeed allow a baseless attack on any critical position you don't like, that's not what has occurred. To move to actually SCOTUS-Y stuff, I got to go to a lunch with Sheila Birnbaum. She talked about her most recent Supreme Court case, and said that the SC is weird and nervous-making for a large number of reasons, even when it isn't your first trip there. One of the things she said was that even though you know that being asked fewer questions is actually better, you've done so much preparation that it can feel like you're 'losing' when your opponent is being asked questions, even critical questions. She talked a lot without interruption, and while she intellectually knew that was good simply because it was unusual it made her nervous.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No. Which asserted argument? She made a bunch, hopping from one the next whenever it suited her. I spent most of my time talking about her "There should be some regulation" argument, which was really easily shown to be invalid by the whole "There already is regulation" fact. quote:By assuming bad intent and working from that point forward, your response wasn't to her arguments, but to the arguments of a concern troll position you constructed in her place. Except I didn't. I read what she said and concluded bad intent from the hypocrisy, shifting goalposts, ignorance, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:OK, we talked about this. The way to respond to "there should be some regulation" is not "There already is regulation". Yes, it is, if the argument is that we need to treat this new regulation as though it's coming from a vacuum, which is what she effectively did. quote:That assumes all regulation is commutative, and that there's some sort of ideal binary or quantity of regulation. No, it doesn't. It just assumes that there is some regulation already, which is what the person said was necessary. It does not make any appeal to a quantity of regulation. if anything, the statement "There should be some regulation" is the stupidly binary argument. quote:Part of the reason I'm having trouble with the accusations against the structure of her arguments is you and other members of the eboladogpile kept showing you don't understand them very well. And I think that you fill in all of the gaps, pave over all of the cracks, and ignore all of the flaws in her 'argument', especially ignoring that she didn't just make one argument, but several, including, as you completely refuse to deal with, strongly stating we should just be talking about the legalities but not, herself, simply talking about the legalities. This has gotten incredibly boring, and you're not showing any signs of even attempting to understand anyone else's position, so I'm going to stop talking to you about it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
captainblastum posted:What exception can you think of that would make it ethical for a doctor to assist in the administration of an execution as they exist in the US today? Here is Atul Gawande's article on the subject: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp068042 The main defense used by the doctors is that the execution is going to happen and their presence can limit the amount of pain and suffering of the patient. quote:Yet he also felt an obligation not to abandon inmates in their dying moments. “We, as doctors, are not the ones deciding the fate of this individual,” he said. “The way I saw it, this is an end-of-life issue, just as with any other terminal disease. It just happens that it involves a legal process instead of a medical process. When we have a patient who can no longer survive his illness, we as physicians must ensure he has comfort. [A death-penalty] patient is no different from a patient dying of cancer — except his cancer is a court order.” Dr. D said he has “the cure for this cancer” — abolition of the death penalty — but “if the people and the government won't let you provide it, and a patient then dies, are you not going to comfort him?” It's actually a quite good argument, but I feel it fails because the participation of the physicians makes the 'cure' less likely.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I Why does he want it, though? You're just pushing things back one step of analysis.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
tsa posted:
Bolding sentences that are completely wrong is pretty swag.  How do you get, from 2% more people supporting the law than wanting it repealed, that twice as many people want to repeal the law as keep it? Wouldn't common sense alone tell you that was really unlikely to be true, and make you reconsider saying something like that, even if you didn't bother to look at your actual link? Willa Rogers posted:
That's not how politics work in America--people blame the national party for state actions as well. if the GOP does offer an extension of the subsidies in return for gutting the mandate, the CBO can score that as costing enormous amounts of money. Really, really huge amounts vs. subsidies and the mandate. Does it ever bother you that your talking points on ACA are indistinguishable from Republican ones, except that once in awhile you wring your hands and say that you'd like single-payer? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 13:29 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. I know Willa wants UHC, and most of the criticisms of PPACA come from the left, but whoa every once in a while they loop back around to the right and it's like I'm reading Sean Hannity or something. It kind of reminds me of a friend of mine who constantly criticizes public schools and the lack of focus of the Democrats on solving the problem--because he wants to reform the public school system, make it a hell of a lot better, and support teachers vs. administrators. What he doesn't get, and what Willa either doesn't get or gets but can't swallow bile fast enough to overcome, is that if you pair virulent criticism with "What should happen" every once in awhile, what you're really doing is providing the side that is opposing you ammunition. If Willa spent the amount of time advocating for single-payer rather than attacking the ACA and the Democrats, it might move the needle a little bit towards single-payer. That's what we can hope for as individuals involved in politics: to have a small effect, possibly, if things go right. By pairing criticism of the ACA with criticism of democrats, and by positing a politically unobtainable fix to the problem, all Willa actually achieves is to poison people's minds against government-managed health insurance a bit more, and make it slightly more likely that Republicans will gain more political power and drive us farther from the chance of single-payer. I get the frustration and the pain of not being able to bring about sweeping change as an individual, but to me the refusal to look at how politics actually works, and above that how communication actually works, makes people like Willa and my friend just seem incredibly vain and self-absorbed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:My point was that the liberal wet dreams about a SCOTUS ruling in favor of King resulting in some massive political victory are nothing more than spin---spin that's even more ludicrous given the Dems' prediction for the last several years that the ACA would be such a boon to their party that they would retake the House in 2014 (instead of losing the Senate, too). Yes, I've heard a lot of Republicans saying the same thing, mocking the Democrats over this and triumping over how little flack they've faced from their opposition to the ACA--helped along by people like you, who have been willing to savage it from the left without actually helping to promote the cause of single-payer one bit. quote:Look: no matter what the spin says, it's just not a massively popular law (nor is it massively unpopular at this point in time). One can torture the stats by pulling out things like "how many people favor guaranteed issue?" in isolation, without acknowledging that only 1 percent of the previously uninsured had been denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions, and one can ignore that the "bend in the cost curve" is almost entirely at the expense of huge costs to consumers, but the fact is that most people don't think it's been that wonderful to mandate private insurance without cost controls and with higher out-of-pocket costs than they've ever had before. Yes, I have heard these talking points from the republicans already. Why do you feel the need to repeat them and carry their water? quote:In any case, we'll know in a matter of weeks (1) what the ruling will be; (2) whether there's a feasible fix if SCOTUS decides in favor of King; and (3) the polling for any resulting scenarios. Until then, dream on, I guess. Care to engage with what I actually said, like a human being, or are you simply a talking-point-parrot?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Why would I "engage" with intellectual dishonesty in the form of smears & lies? If you have a specific question relevant to this thread for which you want my answer, then state it. Figured you'd just dodge. Seriously, ask yourself what you think you're achieving by your repackaging of Republican talking points in this and other threads. Does it actually advance the cause of single payer, or any other cause you (supposedly) support? Since rational people know that single-payer is, for the moment--whatever may have been the case when the ACA was attempted--politically completely out of reach, constantly attacking the Democrats and the ACA is going to have the actual effect of moving us, as a country, farther away from single payer. Again, whether or not it is true, people see the ACA as a step towards single-payer, movement towards 'government control of healthcare'. By shittalking it constantly and using every opportunity to say that the Democrats actually harmed the nation by passing ACA, you erode support for government involvement in health insurance and health care. At this point--after months and months and months of reflexive talking-point posting on your part--it seems like this is either more an emotional thing for you--that you feel betrayed by the Democrats and want to attack them and their supporters, without actually looking at effects--or that you are an accelerationist or some sort of other completely impractical ideologue who refuses to actually self-criticize. Do you entertain the possibility that what you're doing is wrong, that you need to re-evaluate your approach, or do you just dismiss all criticism as 'intellectual dishonesty in the form of smears & lies"?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Not My Leg posted:Obdicut, do I actually have to go read the PPACA thread or can I just assume this is Willa being Willa? Yeah, not actual answers or valid response so far. Some caricatures of what I said, as well as making up poo poo I didn't say, no explanation of how repeatedly attacking the Democrats and the ACA leads to any increased support for single-payer. Maybe in a future post. For actual Supreme Courty stuff: How big a deal is being a clerk of a Supreme? Is it like, career-making, an important step, something given on who you know rather than quality, etc?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It's kind of like going to an Ivy-League school. It's not going to make a career by itself, but the networking and brand name will make it really easy to move onto something big afterwards. Does the actual work help you prepare for a further career--is what you do as a Supreme Court clerk similar to any other sort of legal work that you'd be likely to move on to? It's something you do quite early in your career, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Incredibly big deal, there's very few things that you can have on your resume that top that. Pretty merit-based (except for Alito, iirc, who has a habit of hiring poorly credentialed ideologues). So if I know someone who was a clerk for a supreme and is now working for a mid-tier firm after having been let go after three years at another firm, that probably indicates that something went seriously awry for them? 'cuz I do know that person. It made me overall interested in what the clerk system is like, but it struck me as odd. It wasn't Alioto they clerked for.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It may be they are a fantastic legal academic but not really suited for the firm life (which depending on the firm can be brutal hours and high stress). People who clerked for the Supreme Court usually go into appellate work (handing appeals) or teaching (which is an incredibly cushy gig). He probably had straight A's at a good school, clerked at an appeals court and was thought of highly by his judge. That may not translate well into biglaw where what matters most is being able to churn out the work you're doing reliably while working long hours and under high stress. Kalman posted:Yeah, something went wrong there. SCOTUS clerkship is the kind of thing you keep on your resume 40 years later - it is very much a big deal. Thanks. I don't know if he self-selected out or was pushed out, but either way I've always thought he was more suited to academia and not quite sure why he hasn't gone that route; I bet student debt is part of that. Final random question, I promise: Do law schools have the same situation as regular academia, where adjuncts are doing an enormous proportion of the teaching as compared to twenty years ago?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:You're right. We on the left should just shut up and fall in line. Anytime we criticize an Obama policy, we are only aiding the right. Besides, DISLOYALTY CANNOT BE TOLERATED. This is a silly and insufficient summation of what I said, though. Feel free to come over to the PPCA thread, where I've said even more 'words'.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 21:41
|
|