So there are crazy violent people supporting one side. It doesn't necessarily say anything though as people could find similar statements about almost any political position. You'd have to show this is mainstream or necessarily flowing from the ideology for it to make a point surely?
US Politics Megathread
Re: US Politics Megathread
Re: US Politics Megathread
It's usually well-organised agitation groups that create events. Majorities are passive and silent.You'd have to show this is mainstream or necessarily flowing from the ideology for it to make a point surely?
We'll see what comes out of this. This isn't like the Floyd/BLM protests, because this time they have the federal government on their side. There isn't any big, visible target to riot against.
They could just take it to the streets to project force and to validate their own anger by seeing other protesters do the same.
Re: US Politics Megathread
Whether or not the government will try to legislate their way around this ruling is an interesting question. I think it might be a non-starter. The court's argument will likely be that the right to abortion is not in the constitution, which makes it hard to get around with legislation that doesn't amend the constitution, right? How would you word said law? You have to enshrine it as a right, which I would think requires a constitutional amendment though IANAL. @Mr_Bramboy
In Roe v Wade they tried to use the 14th amendment to argue for a constitutional right to privacy, but if that is now struck down, what kind of law could you write that fixes this and doesn't need a supermajority?
So I wonder what these people from your Twitter screenshots are going to be protesting for. What are their demands, exactly?
- princeofcarthage
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 8861
- Joined: Aug 28, 2015
- Location: Milky Way!
Re: US Politics Megathread
Surely some republicans would also support right to abortion? With some negotiating and concessions in other laws supermajority might be possible. Maybe some kind of temporary executive power?
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
Re: US Politics Megathread
That's what Biden said once, that he'll put it back in place through federal law.
I have heard this idea that he can't really force states to recognise a right that is not specifically enshrined in the constitution. It would go back to the supreme court and get the same ruling.The court's argument will likely be that the right to abortion is not in the constitution, which makes it hard to get around with legislation that doesn't amend the constitution, right? How would you word said law? You have to enshrine it as a right, which I would think requires a constitutional amendment though IANAL. @Mr_Bramboy
IANAL either, but they could try and bind abortion to the general right to healthcare.In Roe v Wade they tried to use the 9th amendment to argue for a constitutional right to privacy, but if that is now struck down, what kind of law could you write that fixes this and doesn't need a supermajority?
So far they're angry and want to stop what they imagine comes next.So what are these people from your Twitter screenshots going to be protesting for? What are their demands, exactly?
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
-
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5996
- Joined: Jun 4, 2019
Re: US Politics Megathread
The USA are a weird place.
Re: US Politics Megathread
Imagine going backwards
Re: US Politics Megathread
What kind of cases are that? Were "interracial" marriages forbidden? Like full-scale Nuremberg Law Blutschande style?
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.
Beati pauperes spiritu.
Beati pauperes spiritu.
-
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5996
- Joined: Jun 4, 2019
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: US Politics Megathread
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: US Politics Megathread
Obergefell v Hodges and Loving v Virginia respectivelyduckzilla wrote: β03 May 2022, 12:33What kind of cases are that? Were "interracial" marriages forbidden? Like full-scale Nuremberg Law Blutschande style?
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Re: US Politics Megathread
Shit, really? You guys fought and defeated the Nazis and then went on to sign its main ideology into law?fightinfrenchman wrote: β03 May 2022, 12:38Obergefell v Hodges and Loving v Virginia respectively
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.
Beati pauperes spiritu.
Beati pauperes spiritu.
Re: US Politics Megathread
I meant social change specifically. This has been an area of somewhat constant progress throughout the world. It's very weird to see a country move the other way on abortion rights.RefluxSemantic wrote: β03 May 2022, 12:35You don't have to imagine. It's not like NL is moving forwards.
Re: US Politics Megathread
Women are beneath men anyway, so this ruling is fair. Thanks Republicans
Re: US Politics Megathread
Criminalizing murder is generally a sign of progress.
And I'll believe it when I see it. My guess is Kavanaugh or Gorsuch will change their mind and vote to uphold the law. The leak is obviously meant to intimidate them into doing just that.
And I'll believe it when I see it. My guess is Kavanaugh or Gorsuch will change their mind and vote to uphold the law. The leak is obviously meant to intimidate them into doing just that.
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: US Politics Megathread
if it's trump or desantis in 2024 there won't be a future liberal court. it's now or neverGoodspeed wrote: β03 May 2022, 07:19Yeah.. Imo, legally you can't make a strong argument either way so while the US continues to be mostly religious and this continues to be a moral issue, courts are going to make judgments that are ultimately moral but obfuscated by weak legal arguments. It follows that a conservative court can (and apparently will) simply overrule the earlier court's decision, and a future liberal court can overrule it again etc.
fightinfrenchman wrote: β03 May 2022, 12:38Obergefell v Hodges and Loving v Virginia respectively
@Goodspeed @harcha what ear said as well as Griswold (access to birth control), Lawrence (invalidating laws against sodomy), and Romer (preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation)
shut the fuck up nerd
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: US Politics Megathread
Should also point out for the people who think that social issues are just somehow totally separate from economic ones, the Court will also gut the administrative state and make the government unable to regulate anything effectively
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Re: US Politics Megathread
The reason I made the distinction is that in the past few decades, with neoliberalism being the prevailing doctrine, economic changes have been leaning conservative with deregulation and privatization, whereas social change has been mostly progressive.
So it's strange to see a country regress on social issues specifically.
So it's strange to see a country regress on social issues specifically.
- princeofcarthage
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 8861
- Joined: Aug 28, 2015
- Location: Milky Way!
Re: US Politics Megathread
It is not going backwards though, is it? Supreme court basically admitted overreach in the case and sent the issue back to congress/states where it should be resolved.
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
- Mr_Bramboy
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 8219
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: [VOC] Bram
- Location: Amsterdam
Re: US Politics Megathread
It's American and common law, so I wouldn't be sure. Our continental law works differently in many ways. For starters, our judges don't disclose their political preferencesGoodspeed wrote: β03 May 2022, 08:55Whether or not the government will try to legislate their way around this ruling is an interesting question. I think it might be a non-starter. The court's argument will likely be that the right to abortion is not in the constitution, which makes it hard to get around with legislation that doesn't amend the constitution, right? How would you word said law? You have to enshrine it as a right, which I would think requires a constitutional amendment though IANAL. @Mr_Bramboy
In Roe v Wade they tried to use the 14th amendment to argue for a constitutional right to privacy, but if that is now struck down, what kind of law could you write that fixes this and doesn't need a supermajority?
So I wonder what these people from your Twitter screenshots are going to be protesting for. What are their demands, exactly?
One feature of common law is that precedents are established because people find a vague situation and step to a court to resolve it. A problem with this approach is that it leads to situations such as Roe v Wade where a complex legal question is based on a foundation that has very little to do with the issue at hand. Common law is reactive in nature. I guess abortion has been such a hot topic for the past decades that no legislative branch has deemed it worth the effort to pass a federal law codifying the Roe v Wade judgment. Leaving policies regarding basic human rights such as gay marriage up to seemingly volatile courts seems like an unreasonable way to run a country, but what do I know.
Then again, I saw this map in the papers today.
I'm not quite sure what this looks like population-wise, but seeing this map the controversy surrounding abortion in the US becomes a lot less surprising.
In The Netherlands (and most of continental Europe), I can't see a similar situation as overseas happening. The claim would have to be based on a legal issue, not on a moral one, and the abortion framework is based on a strong set of formal laws. The court cannot just set aside formal laws (as long as they were created correctly). European courts dodge questions surrounding controversial issues such as abortion because different member states have different views on controversial issues so it is impossible to create one European precedent.
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: US Politics Megathread
There is no way to write a law protecting abortion rights that would get through this court
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
- princeofcarthage
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 8861
- Joined: Aug 28, 2015
- Location: Milky Way!
Re: US Politics Megathread
Laws are based on preferences of majority of people of particular region. If majority of Americans are against or pro some x thing and if there is majority then what is the issueMr_Bramboy wrote: β03 May 2022, 19:22It's American and common law, so I wouldn't be sure. Our continental law works differently in many ways. For starters, our judges don't disclose their political preferencesGoodspeed wrote: β03 May 2022, 08:55Whether or not the government will try to legislate their way around this ruling is an interesting question. I think it might be a non-starter. The court's argument will likely be that the right to abortion is not in the constitution, which makes it hard to get around with legislation that doesn't amend the constitution, right? How would you word said law? You have to enshrine it as a right, which I would think requires a constitutional amendment though IANAL. @Mr_Bramboy
In Roe v Wade they tried to use the 14th amendment to argue for a constitutional right to privacy, but if that is now struck down, what kind of law could you write that fixes this and doesn't need a supermajority?
So I wonder what these people from your Twitter screenshots are going to be protesting for. What are their demands, exactly?
One feature of common law is that precedents are established because people find a vague situation and step to a court to resolve it. A problem with this approach is that it leads to situations such as Roe v Wade where a complex legal question is based on a foundation that has very little to do with the issue at hand. Common law is reactive in nature. I guess abortion has been such a hot topic for the past decades that no legislative branch has deemed it worth the effort to pass a federal law codifying the Roe v Wade judgment. Leaving policies regarding basic human rights such as gay marriage up to seemingly volatile courts seems like an unreasonable way to run a country, but what do I know.
Then again, I saw this map in the papers today.
I'm not quite sure what this looks like population-wise, but seeing this map the controversy surrounding abortion in the US becomes a lot less surprising.
In The Netherlands (and most of continental Europe), I can't see a similar situation as overseas happening. The claim would have to be based on a legal issue, not on a moral one, and the abortion framework is based on a strong set of formal laws. The court cannot just set aside formal laws (as long as they were created correctly). European courts dodge questions surrounding controversial issues such as abortion because different member states have different views on controversial issues so it is impossible to create one European precedent.
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
Re: US Politics Megathread
Source?fightinfrenchman wrote: β03 May 2022, 19:29There is no way to write a law protecting abortion rights that would get through this court
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests