Neither of the scrutiny standards nor their rational basis alternative have the slightest thing to do with the degree of the government's involvement in enforcing or administering a law, and their use or lack of it doesn't have a thing to do with "new cases working through the system." And this isn't high-level legal material. This is high school government/civics material.
You try being dense but are in fact dense.
This is what I was saying all along...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
The fact that there is a legal theory rationale does not prove or even imply that it's actually the case. Except for Barret, all of the majority justices had previously been against stays even in cases where there was no such issue. In fact, the Louisiana case I specifically cited has them all dissenting from the decision to grant a stay even though there was already a relatively recent case already clearly decided on that issue*. The main purpose of such stays is to prevent irreparable injuries to the parties that might occur by adherence to a ruling before the appeal is resolved. The interpretation of these justices on when to grant a stay seems to be about preventing irreparable harm to the fetuses rather than either legal party. The ONLY reason I mention it is because, again, Barrett just doesn't have much appellate background and I can't be 100% about lumping her in with the other four even if other parts of her background suggest it.
*makeup of the court had changed in the meantime so the clearly unconstitutional law was passed to test if the court was ready to overturn. Not entirely dissimilar to what's going on here except in that case, Roberts voted to uphold the precedent, disapproving of such tactics and their disruptive effect on the legal system (not to mention the court's constantly increasing docket)
International observers increasingly concerned about backward North American nation's ongoing attacks on women's and children's rights as well as on democracy. With a growing number of legislators implicated in various criminal conspiracies to derail the normal functioning of democratic government, the world is left wondering—why do these "Republicans" hate women and democracy so much, and why are they so keen on safeguarding sickos' ability to marry children? Does anyone know?
Just because you think abortion and free cake are fundamental rights doesn't mean everyone agrees. There's reasonable debates about this stuff.
There's nothing reasonable about the recent spate of anti-abortion legislation, except from the perspective of religious extremists. You know this as well as I do, yet you insist on noshing down steaming piles of shit like it's chocolate cake because you have no ethical algorithm beyond being anti-anti.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I agree there is nothing reasonable about them, except for the fact that they are the products of a democratic process. A democratic process likely would have removed fuel from the fire of said alleged extremists. Instead, our Supreme Court gave them a rallying cry right as the issue became controversial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
This is the same democratic process being used to prevent people from voting. It's majoritarianism, not democracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
A democratic process would have done nothing of the sort. It would have just led us here earlier, as some states legalized abortion and others tried to find ways to punish "abortion-tourists" as murderers. Which would end up requiring SCOTUS rulings as those kinds of interstate conflicts are most fundamental reason for existence in the first place and hey, we're right back here.
Another one of Lewk's heroes:
Twitter Link
Yes, indeed we've seen black and Hispanic voter participation rates positively cratering over the past two decades. And that cratering is definitely because of a patchwork of state level legislation in Georgia and Texas, where a legal apartheid reigns to make it easier to vote in NY and Delaware.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I think it depends on how you define "here". A Supreme Court ruling on interstate travel for services legal in one state but not in another would be a fairly "normal" ruling.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
What's never been normal has been how Roe prevented democratic debate on a controversial issue. Interstate policy competition isn't new, and stepping on the policy debate helped turn it into a moral crusade. It's not for nothing that places like Ireland have legalized abortion via referendum.
Right, voter suppression isn't a problem if it fails. Just like a coup isn't a problem if it fails. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
:rolleyes: You can insert anything into that circular logic.
A: We need to require homeowners to fix leaks
B: This will KILL homeowners, we need water repair equity NAO
A [Five years later]: Well, homeownership rates are higher and per-capita water waste is lower.
B: Just because you didn't kill homeowners doesn't mean you weren't trying to kill homeowners!
So you're saying attempting to stop people from voting isn't a problem as long as the attempt fails at that goal (while still making it harder for certain groups to vote)?
Voter fraud is a big problem Loki, it must be prevented at all costs :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61302740
But I'm sure the other justices who said during their confirmation hearings that they wouldn't overturn this, won't, right? :confused:
The wording...dear god, the wording in that opinion is such trash. Guaranteed if this opinion makes it to decision that its going to be used to attack the LGBTQ community. The US is being driven to the brink by the craziest 30% of its citizens. Are we ready to pack the court yet?
I'm sure the language will be cleaned up in the final draft, but this just shows that a majority of Supreme Court justices are basically Lewk.
What a shithole country :heart:
I am having fun calling out liberals on socials who are once again using the term "women's right to choose" as being transphobic bigots. ;)
why would you brag on this forum about being a halfwit elsewhereQuote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You don't find "women's right to choose" as 'TERFy" ? Think of all those born women who choose to identify as male. Don't they have reproductive rights as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Some states are already targeting pharmaceutical abortions (and whether a prescription can be mailed across state lines like birth control pills). The "Christian Conservatives" don't want tax dollars funding sex ed in public schools, or birth control at PP clinics. Hell, they don't even want condom distribution in third world countries as part of global public health initiatives. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Their next "mission" is already underway: to overturn other Rights not specifically enumerated in the US Constitution, like transgender health care or sports participation, or which restroom they can use. Then they'll take on gay pride parades, gay sex and same-sex marriage....just like Putin did with "blessings" from the Russian Orthodox Church patriarch.
Almost everyone (ie, lay people) knows the US Supreme Court is ultimately a *political* body, regardless of how hard the legal community pushes against that, and wants to be perceived as apolitical, above the fray. But now it's out there in the open. They lie during their confirmation process and we're stuck with them for LIFE. :(
Why would you, upon being mocked for bragging about being a halfwit elsewhere, go on to talk like a halfwit here as well? Isn't there any part of your hairy ass you'd like to keep to yourself?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
You can add states thinking they can determine what their residents do in other states, and states thinking they control all decision making if you simply conceive in their state. The right is out of their god damn minds with this nonsense.
Why? Because Lewk gets his marching orders from his church, or Fox & Friends, or Tucker Carlson. He's all in on the Culture Wars, "white replacement theory", and men as victims of feminism. He's a troll that's been given permission to be bigoted in the name of Freee Speech, with plenty of big donors and Think Tanks like the Federalist Society, social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, and cable news outlets like Fox.
Yee Haw for USA exceptionalism! :(
This "states rights" approach to legislation is toxic to a Constitutional Republic that wants to form a "more perfect Union".Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I wonder what would happen if churches were outed for being political orgs, and lost their special tax exemptions? hmmm
I hope Kennedy is satisfied with what he's done.
Which Kennedy do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy