10 ms·

I mean, Barrett was sworn in less than a week ago. Regardless of how you feel about her, it's far too early to make any kind of judgement about the implications

I mean, Barrett was sworn in less than a week ago. Regardless of how you feel about her, it's far too early to make any kind of judgement about the implications of her confirmation.

fastball 6y ago
There is no possible way the implications will be anywhere near the level of dire that you'd believe after reading the news articles and seeing people's internet comments and tweets. I mean, people are talking about an overturn of Roe v. Wade, somehow failing to realize that RvW was ruled on by a SCOTUS with a conservative majority. If Obergefell gets overturned (it won't), an actual law can be passed this time, hell maybe even a constitutional amendment, since nearly a supermajority of Americans outright support gay marriage.
- wycy 6y ago
  The concern is less that Roe v Wade will be overturned outright so much as it will be de facto overturned by death by a thousand cuts. Dozens of abortion-rights cases are heading toward the Supreme Court, and Mississippi's attempt to pass a 15-week abortion ban is just the start.
  - fastball 6y ago
    Not sure why you think all the originalists on the SCOTUS would want to death-by-a-thousand cuts Roe v Wade. If states pass constitutional laws, I'm sure they'll be upheld by the current SCOTUS. If laws are unconstitutional, I'm sure they won't be. What is the problem here? That originalist conservatives won't be legislating from the bench as has been happening? If abortion needs to be a protected right then amend the constitution.
    - wycy 6y ago
      The idea that the conservatives on the court are "originalists" is a complete farce. Kavanaugh just wrote an opinion last week that it is critical that election results must be called by TV networks on the night of the election. This is of course despite the fact that (a) there is no such law, (b) none of the founding fathers could have ever imagined TV networks calling elections day-of, (c) and election results are routinely not known for many days/weeks after an election. This bizarre opinion is just one of countless that disproves the "originalism" myth. And as for legislating from the bench, few are more guilty of that than Alito and Thomas.
      - fastball 6y ago
        Um. What? The case I think you're talking about (DNC v WSL) was literally about whether or not state legislatures can decide when to require ballots. Wisconsin's legislature decided election day. A lower court said this was unconstitutional, but it's not, so the majority opinion was for WSL. Please show me where in this opinion the assertion was made that election results must be called by TV networks on election night.
        wycy 6y ago
        https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/us/kavanaugh-voting-rights.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/us/kavanaugh-voting-right... Also funny about his opinion is that he doesn't seem to understand that states rarely (never?) "definitively announced results on election night." States typically don't certify their results for weeks. Only TV networks call elections on election night based on projections of what the final results might be after states count all their legally cast ballots. Kavanaugh either doesn't understand or has a problem with how elections in this country have always worked.
        fastball 6y ago
        Huh, literally nothing about announcing results on TV. How can you straight-facedly opine on the opinion when you clearly haven't read it? Instead of reading a NYT article, which is basically a partisan rag at this point, try reading the actual opinion. And then you can quote back to me the parts about television. Except you can't, because they're not there. > Kavanaugh just wrote an opinion last week that it is critical that election results must be called by TV networks on the night of the election. This is a lie. Stop lying.
        wycy 6y ago
        Media networks are the only entities that can call an election on election night. States can't and don't do that. Therefore, Kavanaugh is either talking about (1) the networks "calling" the election or (2) he's talking about some fantasy world in which states certify their elections night-of. Either is lunacy and either flies in the face of originalism. I have a lot of problems with NYT, including ideological problems, but to say it's just a partisan rag tells me all I need to know about this conversation.
    - AshWolfy 6y ago
      Because of different interpretations of the constitution. What do you believe constitutes a reasonable health regulation?
      - fastball 6y ago
        Whatever you can pass as long as it doesn't violate the constitution.
        krapp 6y ago
        But in Roe V. Wade, SCOTUS already determined that abortion rights don't violate the constitution. Why do you believe a constitutional amendment is necessary for a right already determined to be constitutional?
        fennecfoxen 6y ago
        It is possible that this was decided in error. The reasoning referred to it using fuzzy terms about “emanations” and “penumbras” from the fourth amendment, and the right thus found is not clearly stated by the text of the law (let alone the intent of those who wrote it). The late RBG sorta thought it was trash as an opinion. An explicit constitutional amendment would establish it much more firmly, and would be impeccably legitimate in precisely the way Roe isn’t. These are very desirable properties if you value democracy, or if you wish to establish things more permanently.
        krapp 6y ago
        I don't know that RGB thought it was trash as an opinion. She believed in a woman's right to an abortion, but also believed the basis for the decision in Roe V Wade was weak and its scope made it vulnerable to attack (and she was correct in hindsight.) From what I read, she believed a stronger argument could have been made from the equal protection clause rather than right to privacy. But she certainly believed the underlying right was valid. But let's be honest - almost no one opposing Roe V. Wade does so on the grounds that the argument from the fourth amendment is weak, they argue primarily from religious grounds that pregnant women fundamentally do not have the right to terminate, as they consider such to be an act of murder in nearly all, or all cases. The crux of the matter regarding abortion for most people has never really been a legalistic one but a metaphysical and often religious one - the rights of the unborn versus the rights of a woman's autonomy over her body. While I would hope that Republicans who drape themselves in Christian piety and refer to themselves as pro-life in order to imply that their opponents are pro-death, and who have made an existential pillar out of repealing Roe V. Wade for forty years, would stack the courts with judges who would consider the matter without undue bias, I suspect that bias is the intent for stacking the court to begin with,and that the actual constitutional validity of the decision isn't meant to matter.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  There is a difference between a conservative court and a conservative court that has been litmus tested on a specific issue.
- selectodude 6y ago
  >If Obergefell gets overturned (it won't), an actual law can be passed this time, hell maybe even a constitutional amendment, since nearly a supermajority of Americans outright support gay marriage. While that sounds good on paper, 50 percent of people in this country live in 9 states. The population distribution is not compatible with passing legislation in that way. Edit to add: those 9 states only have 44.5 percent of the electoral college and 18 percent of the Senate.
  - fastball 6y ago
    Are you asserting that all 100% of those in the 9 states are the gay marriage supporters?
themaninthedark 6y ago
I'll bite, how about all the dire predictions that Trump would start a war with North Korea? Or that he was going to crash the economy right away? I am someone who does believe that we are having an impact on the global temp. and I do think we need to do something about it. Screaming the sky is falling is not helping. Stonewalling any other source of power except Solar and Wind is not helping. Suggesting that we cut back farmland drastically, in a move that would kill a bunch of people is not helping. Telling people to give up cars and planes is not helping. We need to work to come up with solutions that will work for everyone, not just San Fransisco, New York, Amsterdam. We need solutions for Valdosta, GA, Snowshoe, WV, Salmon, ID. These solutions can not be "Just move out of dying places". That is just as bad as telling coal miners to learn to code. That means that different regions will have to have different standards, something we have not seem to come to grip with here in the US.

I mean, Barrett was sworn in less than a week ago. Regardless of how you feel about her, it's far too early to make any kind of judgement about the implications of her confirmation.

fastball 6y ago

There is no possible way the implications will be anywhere near the level of dire that you'd believe after reading the news articles and seeing people's internet comments and tweets. I mean, people are talking about an overturn of Roe v. Wade, somehow failing to realize that RvW was ruled on by a SCOTUS with a conservative majority. If Obergefell gets overturned (it won't), an actual law can be passed this time, hell maybe even a constitutional amendment, since nearly a supermajority of Americans outright support gay marriage.

wycy 6y ago
The concern is less that Roe v Wade will be overturned outright so much as it will be de facto overturned by death by a thousand cuts. Dozens of abortion-rights cases are heading toward the Supreme Court, and Mississippi's attempt to pass a 15-week abortion ban is just the start.
- fastball 6y ago
  Not sure why you think all the originalists on the SCOTUS would want to death-by-a-thousand cuts Roe v Wade. If states pass constitutional laws, I'm sure they'll be upheld by the current SCOTUS. If laws are unconstitutional, I'm sure they won't be. What is the problem here? That originalist conservatives won't be legislating from the bench as has been happening? If abortion needs to be a protected right then amend the constitution.
  - wycy 6y ago
    The idea that the conservatives on the court are "originalists" is a complete farce. Kavanaugh just wrote an opinion last week that it is critical that election results must be called by TV networks on the night of the election. This is of course despite the fact that (a) there is no such law, (b) none of the founding fathers could have ever imagined TV networks calling elections day-of, (c) and election results are routinely not known for many days/weeks after an election. This bizarre opinion is just one of countless that disproves the "originalism" myth. And as for legislating from the bench, few are more guilty of that than Alito and Thomas.
    - fastball 6y ago
      Um. What? The case I think you're talking about (DNC v WSL) was literally about whether or not state legislatures can decide when to require ballots. Wisconsin's legislature decided election day. A lower court said this was unconstitutional, but it's not, so the majority opinion was for WSL. Please show me where in this opinion the assertion was made that election results must be called by TV networks on election night.
      - wycy 6y ago
        https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/us/kavanaugh-voting-rights.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/us/kavanaugh-voting-right... Also funny about his opinion is that he doesn't seem to understand that states rarely (never?) "definitively announced results on election night." States typically don't certify their results for weeks. Only TV networks call elections on election night based on projections of what the final results might be after states count all their legally cast ballots. Kavanaugh either doesn't understand or has a problem with how elections in this country have always worked.
        fastball 6y ago
        Huh, literally nothing about announcing results on TV. How can you straight-facedly opine on the opinion when you clearly haven't read it? Instead of reading a NYT article, which is basically a partisan rag at this point, try reading the actual opinion. And then you can quote back to me the parts about television. Except you can't, because they're not there. > Kavanaugh just wrote an opinion last week that it is critical that election results must be called by TV networks on the night of the election. This is a lie. Stop lying.
        wycy 6y ago
        Media networks are the only entities that can call an election on election night. States can't and don't do that. Therefore, Kavanaugh is either talking about (1) the networks "calling" the election or (2) he's talking about some fantasy world in which states certify their elections night-of. Either is lunacy and either flies in the face of originalism. I have a lot of problems with NYT, including ideological problems, but to say it's just a partisan rag tells me all I need to know about this conversation.
  - AshWolfy 6y ago
    Because of different interpretations of the constitution. What do you believe constitutes a reasonable health regulation?
    - fastball 6y ago
      Whatever you can pass as long as it doesn't violate the constitution.
      - krapp 6y ago
        But in Roe V. Wade, SCOTUS already determined that abortion rights don't violate the constitution. Why do you believe a constitutional amendment is necessary for a right already determined to be constitutional?
        fennecfoxen 6y ago
        It is possible that this was decided in error. The reasoning referred to it using fuzzy terms about “emanations” and “penumbras” from the fourth amendment, and the right thus found is not clearly stated by the text of the law (let alone the intent of those who wrote it). The late RBG sorta thought it was trash as an opinion. An explicit constitutional amendment would establish it much more firmly, and would be impeccably legitimate in precisely the way Roe isn’t. These are very desirable properties if you value democracy, or if you wish to establish things more permanently.
        krapp 6y ago
        I don't know that RGB thought it was trash as an opinion. She believed in a woman's right to an abortion, but also believed the basis for the decision in Roe V Wade was weak and its scope made it vulnerable to attack (and she was correct in hindsight.) From what I read, she believed a stronger argument could have been made from the equal protection clause rather than right to privacy. But she certainly believed the underlying right was valid. But let's be honest - almost no one opposing Roe V. Wade does so on the grounds that the argument from the fourth amendment is weak, they argue primarily from religious grounds that pregnant women fundamentally do not have the right to terminate, as they consider such to be an act of murder in nearly all, or all cases. The crux of the matter regarding abortion for most people has never really been a legalistic one but a metaphysical and often religious one - the rights of the unborn versus the rights of a woman's autonomy over her body. While I would hope that Republicans who drape themselves in Christian piety and refer to themselves as pro-life in order to imply that their opponents are pro-death, and who have made an existential pillar out of repealing Roe V. Wade for forty years, would stack the courts with judges who would consider the matter without undue bias, I suspect that bias is the intent for stacking the court to begin with,and that the actual constitutional validity of the decision isn't meant to matter.
lern_too_spel 6y ago
There is a difference between a conservative court and a conservative court that has been litmus tested on a specific issue.
selectodude 6y ago
>If Obergefell gets overturned (it won't), an actual law can be passed this time, hell maybe even a constitutional amendment, since nearly a supermajority of Americans outright support gay marriage. While that sounds good on paper, 50 percent of people in this country live in 9 states. The population distribution is not compatible with passing legislation in that way. Edit to add: those 9 states only have 44.5 percent of the electoral college and 18 percent of the Senate.
- fastball 6y ago
  Are you asserting that all 100% of those in the 9 states are the gay marriage supporters?

themaninthedark 6y ago

I'll bite, how about all the dire predictions that Trump would start a war with North Korea? Or that he was going to crash the economy right away? I am someone who does believe that we are having an impact on the global temp. and I do think we need to do something about it. Screaming the sky is falling is not helping. Stonewalling any other source of power except Solar and Wind is not helping. Suggesting that we cut back farmland drastically, in a move that would kill a bunch of people is not helping. Telling people to give up cars and planes is not helping. We need to work to come up with solutions that will work for everyone, not just San Fransisco, New York, Amsterdam. We need solutions for Valdosta, GA, Snowshoe, WV, Salmon, ID. These solutions can not be "Just move out of dying places". That is just as bad as telling coal miners to learn to code. That means that different regions will have to have different standards, something we have not seem to come to grip with here in the US.