<split from "Random News Stories" thread>
In 2022, this is just depressing.
https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-a ... 563jp.html
Roe vs Wade overturned in the US
Moderator: bbmods
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54828
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 126 times
- Been liked: 160 times
Roe vs Wade overturned in the US
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
-
pietillidie
- Posts: 16634
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:41 pm
- Has liked: 14 times
- Been liked: 28 times
^Yeah, that's a horror show of Luddite backwardness. You can't see the US finding any sort of social resolution with a pre-Enlightenment, gun-toting Christian Taliban imposing itself at every point and turn. I would never in a million years live there even if I could. I understand people have to make good of life as it finds them, but there's a whiff of Stockholm Syndrome about it all.
At this rate, the rest of the world will be accepting American refugees. Perhaps we could send some Enlightenment missionaries over before all memory of Western liberalism is lost.
At this rate, the rest of the world will be accepting American refugees. Perhaps we could send some Enlightenment missionaries over before all memory of Western liberalism is lost.
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
-
David
- Posts: 50659
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:04 pm
- Location: the edge of the deep green sea
- Has liked: 15 times
- Been liked: 76 times
Last edited by David on Thu May 05, 2022 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54828
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 126 times
- Been liked: 160 times
I've read a few more articles on this and it is messy.
I can see the argument about how it was an incorrect decision in the first place based on the constitution and how it should be returned to the States to manage, as we do here but that doesn't help the people who live in states with lots of fundamentalist fruitbats.
The people who believe life begins at conception aren't going to change their opinion.
This article of from October last year, describing what was happening WITH Roe v Wade in place. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-12/ ... /100524398
I can see the argument about how it was an incorrect decision in the first place based on the constitution and how it should be returned to the States to manage, as we do here but that doesn't help the people who live in states with lots of fundamentalist fruitbats.
The people who believe life begins at conception aren't going to change their opinion.
This article of from October last year, describing what was happening WITH Roe v Wade in place. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-12/ ... /100524398
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
-
David
- Posts: 50659
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:04 pm
- Location: the edge of the deep green sea
- Has liked: 15 times
- Been liked: 76 times
An interesting analysis of how Roberts (the one "moderate" conservative justice) might be able to achieve a compromise:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... o-now.html
The one thing I don't get is why the author thinks Barrett (a right-wing Catholic fundamentalist) would be party to any such decision. Kavanaugh, sure. Perhaps I've underestimated Gorsuch's unmovability on this issue, but I would have thought combining him and Kavanaugh with two of the progressive judges would be the more likely path.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... o-now.html
The one thing I don't get is why the author thinks Barrett (a right-wing Catholic fundamentalist) would be party to any such decision. Kavanaugh, sure. Perhaps I've underestimated Gorsuch's unmovability on this issue, but I would have thought combining him and Kavanaugh with two of the progressive judges would be the more likely path.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54828
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 126 times
- Been liked: 160 times
I'm not clear on how the powers work between states and Congress, would congress be able to legislate that Abortion is legal and states cannot make it illegal or impose undue restrictions, or something like that? States could still have their own framework, but it has to be "reasonable".
lets assume for the sake of argument that a bill could actually get through both houses without the usual bullshit.
Does Congress have that power or could the states just flip them the bird and do what they want?
lets assume for the sake of argument that a bill could actually get through both houses without the usual bullshit.
Does Congress have that power or could the states just flip them the bird and do what they want?
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Congress has power to legislate on specific subject-matter listed in the Constitution, under specific constitutional amendments (eg, the 14th Amendment's so-called "equal protection" head of power) and under a specific "necessary and proper" (effectively, incidental) power. To the extent that the Congress has the requisite power, it can bind the States because of Article VI, clause 2 (the so-called "Supremacy Clause").
Ultimately, though, the question of whether a particular subject-matter - and the specific legislation in respect of that subject-matter - is within the legislative power of Congress - and, indeed, the scope of operation of the "Supremacy Clause" in any particular case - falls to be determined by the Supreme Court.
The general answer to your question is that Congress could certainly legislate (one can always find a basis in a head of constitutional power to argue that just about any legislation is within power) - to "guarantee" abortion. The real question is whether such a law would survive constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court, given the likely attitude of the Supreme Court, as variously constituted from time to time, to such a law and the prior jurisprudence of the Court.
Because it did not pass the Senate, the question of constitutionality did not get tested but the House of Representatives did pass such a law last year: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con ... /3755/text
Ultimately, though, the question of whether a particular subject-matter - and the specific legislation in respect of that subject-matter - is within the legislative power of Congress - and, indeed, the scope of operation of the "Supremacy Clause" in any particular case - falls to be determined by the Supreme Court.
The general answer to your question is that Congress could certainly legislate (one can always find a basis in a head of constitutional power to argue that just about any legislation is within power) - to "guarantee" abortion. The real question is whether such a law would survive constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court, given the likely attitude of the Supreme Court, as variously constituted from time to time, to such a law and the prior jurisprudence of the Court.
Because it did not pass the Senate, the question of constitutionality did not get tested but the House of Representatives did pass such a law last year: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con ... /3755/text
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/vict ... 5aj69.htmlPies4shaw wrote:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-05/ ... /101041168
Opposition Leader Matthew Guy has lashed out at colleague Bernie Finn for saying he was “praying” for abortion to be banned and warned the upper house MP to be a part of the Liberal team or leave the party and sit on the crossbench.
Other Liberal MPs are furious with Finn over Facebook posts in which he also said rape victims should not be allowed to have abortions and, according to Liberal sources, are discussing the option of expelling him from the parliamentary party.
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54828
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 126 times
- Been liked: 160 times
Bernie Finn's mother should have swallowed.
Thank you for the response on the US Congress powers, so Congress is limited to making laws pertaining to stuff in the constitution. I'm assuming there would be virtual shipping containers full of case law relating to the constitution and what each part does and doesn't cover, but a cursory reading doesn't provide a lot of hope that this matter could be covered. There's not even a mention of "Health" .
Thank you for the response on the US Congress powers, so Congress is limited to making laws pertaining to stuff in the constitution. I'm assuming there would be virtual shipping containers full of case law relating to the constitution and what each part does and doesn't cover, but a cursory reading doesn't provide a lot of hope that this matter could be covered. There's not even a mention of "Health" .
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
^ The legislative basis isn't in "health" - it's in "equal protection", I think. Read the recitals, rather than the operative provisions - I think you'll see from them how the argument as to constitutional power is being put. There's likely a massive body of "scholarly" discourse in which the usual hopelessly partisan "legal experts" trot out why such legislation is and isn't within Congress' power.
Ultimately, I don't think there's much merit in trying to assess closely what the Supreme Court "should" do - because it's so political and has very little to do with with the operation of that which we recognise as "law" (it's true, of course, that "law" and "politics" are never separated by far - but they almost merge in the US). Anyway, there's more likelihood that the Republicans will get control of both houses at the mid-terms and pass a contrary law, relying upon the same purported head of power, than that the Democrats' legislation will pass the Senate.
Ultimately, I don't think there's much merit in trying to assess closely what the Supreme Court "should" do - because it's so political and has very little to do with with the operation of that which we recognise as "law" (it's true, of course, that "law" and "politics" are never separated by far - but they almost merge in the US). Anyway, there's more likelihood that the Republicans will get control of both houses at the mid-terms and pass a contrary law, relying upon the same purported head of power, than that the Democrats' legislation will pass the Senate.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -bill-vote
The Senate roll call was a stark reflection of the partisan divide over abortion rights, with all Republicans and one conservative Democrat, Joe Manchin of Virginia, voting against the measure. The final tally was 49-51, well short of the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.
I've read that polls consistently show between 60 to 70 percent of Americans support a woman's right to abortion and yet 100% of these Republicans seemingly don't.
So much for the separation between church and state.
This should be a wake up call for every Australian also who respects a women's right to choose as it's pretty obvious that organised religion in this country (just like America) is increasingly looking to infiltrate political parties (the Coalition in particular) with candidates to stay relevant and influential as their congregation numbers fall year on year.
So much for the separation between church and state.
This should be a wake up call for every Australian also who respects a women's right to choose as it's pretty obvious that organised religion in this country (just like America) is increasingly looking to infiltrate political parties (the Coalition in particular) with candidates to stay relevant and influential as their congregation numbers fall year on year.
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD!