|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:The second amendment, what do you think it means? The second amendment means that the founders didn't like standing armies because they thought they were a tool of tyranny so they support (white male) militias, which of course were used as tools of tyranny in much the same way as standing armies and then we quickly established a standing army anyway so honestly the whole thing is pretty moot.
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
OldMold posted:Not to Madison - while true he viewed state militias as a bulwark against federal ambitions, he was clearly proud of most americans being armed: Mmmmmm..... most Americans were not armed. Might want to rephrase that with some qualifiers.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 05:07
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:If they followed their judicial logic used in Dobbs and not their policy preferrences they would have to overturn them all and thereby force Congress to codify them through the legislative process, which should be uncontroversial except for Obergefell. I refuse to believe you actually live in the US
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 15:04
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:"voting rights" was never the only thing that could have prevented this. Voting could have prevented this. Had to be the right voting in very specific places, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2022 00:41
|
|
|
Unfortunately runs afoul of the Hyde amendment, which the Democrats have never managed to get rid of and has been a blight for 40 years. They could at probably least offer use of federal land to non-government doctors, but that would be logistically difficult Or they could just ignore the Hyde amendment and offer abortions anyway, and then ignore the court when they’re ordered to stop. What would the court do?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2022 19:14
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If Biden could count on Congress to support him in what would be a clearly illegal use of the VCA, then he wouldn't need to do it illegally at all, because he could just have them pass a law making it legal. The bars for Congress passing a law supporting something and Congress taking action against an something are very different though. He wouldn’t need congress to pass a law, just not effectively interfere.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2022 19:44
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:The only option in that case is for Maine to kill the program and preset remote learning as the public option. No more of this lazy voucher bullshit. It’s doesn’t seem like it’s the only option - they could officially contract the specific secular schools instead of using the indirect voucher system. That would at least be different enough that the religious propaganda schools would have to go through the courts again.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2022 04:24
|
|
|
But have you considered the pros and cons of dismantling the administrative state?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 01:20
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:That's the entire basis of the dem's popular vote compact scheme to subvert the electoral college. You really need to stop getting your news from propaganda outlets. The case is directly about directly about state constitutional restrictions on gerrymandering, and only tangentially affects the popular vote compact in the sense that if it goes the way Republicans want then state legislatures would not be bound to follow state constitutions that had been amended to incorporate the compact. Republicans want this ruling because it would give Republican legislatures basically unchecked power to gerrymander, suppress votes, or even chose representatives and presidential electors without regard to existing laws or state constitutions. They would ostensibly still be restricted by the federal constitution and laws, but the VRA has been neutered and congress is paralyzed so clearly won't take up the slack. Chamale posted:The NIPV is a different method of democratically electing a president, not state officials choosing the president with no recourse for how the country actually voted. R's winning this would effectively kill the NIPV is the sense that state legislatures would no longer be bound by law or state constitution to follow it, but the NIPV doesn't really even need killing anyway. It's stuck with no effective path to a majority of EC.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
Just forcing a woman to give birth in general - the principle applies up to consented birth (on the mother’s part). To place a cutoff earlier we’d need to move away from principle and into some other balance of rights and risks (and the risks are usually discounted).
Stickman fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Oct 12, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2022 05:20
|
|
|
Lol, “occupational citizenship” is unpaid overtime and giving your boss free babysitting?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
Naw, they just want to skip a potentially sane court lifting the injunction long enough for disbursement to happen.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2022 18:08
|
|
|
Honestly amazed they’re still bother to put Korematsu on these lists. Doesn’t seem like it’ll be too much longer before they can drop the pretense.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2023 03:54
|
|
|
It literally lists several right wing “harm” arguments without pushback (notably “taking away scholarships” and “physical injury”) and goes on to say that it anticipates that bans in competitive sports at the high school level will satisfy the requirements. It also lists examples of potentially “acceptable” gender gatekeeping requirements, which include legal documentation and treatment which are now [i]either not legally obtainable or illegal[i] to obtain in many states where blanket bans were a concern. No, this is not 10-dimensional chess. It’s capitulation and a roadmap for “acceptable” discrimination.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2023 04:21
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Yes, it lists several things that are impossible to prove and asks that someone prove them before a ban is put in place. Show me one trans legal group that says that the administration worked with them on this strategy and trust the administration to not do what the letter of the document says they will. In the meantime I’ll trust the ones that feel blindsided and betrayed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2023 13:09
|
|
|
Everyone who has a marketplace health insurance plan with subsidies has to file, regardless of income.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2023 03:39
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Always illegal. A good piece of fanfic is a perfect competitive product for more of the author's original works, which you can think of as more or less a counterfeit. I get that this is the simplest approach for the law to take, but it’s a laughably inaccurate model of how most fanfic commercially interacts with the source material.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2023 18:51
|
|
|
Since the “creative expression” associated with the supposed “message” added by the cake-maker in making a cake with the names of two men on it is so incredibly minor there’s a lot of wiggle room to say “anything even remotely adjacent to serving someone you have sincere bigoted feelings towards is coerced expression”. Does your business talk to customers? Sounds like speech to me!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 19:14
|
|
|
This is from a month ago but it’s now likely influenced a Florida reversal on trans access to healthcare as well. Eleventh circuit uses Dobbs’ “deeply rooted” standard as a right-wing discrimination “we win” button against specific unenumerated rights they don’t like, saying there is no deeply-rooted right to access healthcare that isn’t arbitrarily sufficiently old. Now a Federal judge in Florida has refused to stay a law that would eliminate roughly 80% of the gender-affirming care providers in the state, citing low chance of success given the Elevenths’ decision.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2023 19:34
|
|
|
Well states reserving the right to enact deeply prejudiced and inconsistent laws is deeply rooted in our history and tradition, so…
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2023 22:32
|
|
|
Presidential ballots already vary from state to state because candidates must independently file for inclusion in each state and rules vary. We just don’t notice because few people care about the third-party candidates that these rules affect.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2024 02:27
|
|
|
What gives SCOTUS jurisdiction in this case but not in the case where some arbitrary state law was offered as justification? “States can’t uphold the constitution” seems pretty spurious.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2024 20:53
|
|
|
It’s also a bad decision because the Arizona constitution has an explicit right to privacy clause, so it would be extremely easy for them to supersede any terrible state law (Alaska SC did this).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 21:50
|
|
|
If they thought that they were allowing implementation of an unconstitutional (and obviously damaging) law, would they not have stayed enforcement for longer than two weeks?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
SCOTUS doesn’t like district courts issuing injunctions against authoritarian conservative laws that cause immediate direct harm, but congratulations to the two anonymous transgender teens in Idaho who won’t be forcibly detransitioned while the courts take their sweet time. Also wtf Kagan.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 03:12
|
|