6 ms·
SCOTUS strikes them down anyway if they don’t like them. And we all know Congress is broken. It cannot possibly make the decisions currently delegated to agenc
by eli 3y ago
SCOTUS strikes them down anyway if they don’t like them.
And we all know Congress is broken. It cannot possibly make the decisions currently delegated to agencies.
- rpmisms 3y agoIf Roe was an actual law, it wouldn't have been overturned. The current Supreme Court is simply remedying years of lazy legislating from executive agencies and the bench, instead of making laws the way we're supposed to. Everyone should support this.
- vkou 3y ago> If Roe was an actual law, it wouldn't have been overturned It would have been overturned at any point that the reps had both the legislature and the executive. 2002-2006, and 2016-2018.
- rpmisms 3y agoMaybe, but not by the court system. That's called a repeal.
- vkou 3y agoYou're splitting hairs. There's not a single human being in this country who actually cares about whether it's been overturned or repealed or froozed. All that they care about is that they've been protected from their state governments one morning, and not protected the next.
- rpmisms 3y agoThen maybe they should live in a state that agrees with them. That's sort of the entire point of being organized the way we are as a nation.
- eli 3y agoYeah that’s not how human rights are supposed to work
- rpmisms 3y agoI don't have a right to self-defense in several states, either, so I left those states. It's pretty simple.
- mindslight 3y agoWhere is this state where you have the right to self defense? From what I can gather, the police can generally execute and otherwise harm commonfolk with impunity nation wide. Some states let you buy more equipment to go out in a blaze of glory with, but that's a pretty poor consolation prize.
- rpmisms 3y agoMine. Guy got off last year on killing a cop who was trespassing. Didn't even get charged. Pretty epic.
- vkou 3y agoTry killing a cop who is threatening you at a traffic stop, and see how that works out for you. You'll quickly discover that your state also has some hard limits on that right, they are just drawn at different points than the states that you mistakenly think don't have a right to 'self-defense'. You can defend yourself anywhere, you just can't always kill people in 'self-defense' when you have other options available to you. (Related question: Does your state have a right to body autonomy, or is it in blatant violation of the fourth amendment?)
- rpmisms 3y agoMy state extends the right to bodily autonomy to the unborn.
- eropple 3y ago> If Roe was an actual law, it wouldn't have been overturned. Nonsense and worse words. They aren't originalists, they don't care about the executive/legislative distinction. It's embarrassing farce to pretend that there is constitutional principle behind achieving their desired political goals. Roe would've been gutted were it law and the general incoherence of Alito and Thomas would have led the way.
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoHave you actually read Roe itself? It struggles to find any real basis for what it was doing in the constitution and the same logic should have rendered unconstitutional e.g. the Controlled Substances Act as well as any equivalent law at the state level, because the government is interfering with what people put into their own bodies in private. People liked it because they liked the outcome, not because it was ever coherent. The real problem is that a lot of people want there to be a right to abortion in the constitution but they don't have enough votes to actually put it there, and they also don't want to read the constitution's general constraints on government power to be restrictive enough to limit this using coherent logic because that would also limit the government from doing many other things they want it to do.
- rpmisms 3y agoRoe is simply a bad court decision. Congress has the right to codify Roe into law. The Supreme Court does not have the power to create law out of whole cloth. Overturning Roe was the Supreme Court taking presumptive power away from itself. Also, the current court absolutely has an originalist majority, even if you happen to disagree with the originals. The Constitution is a very restrictive document for the Federal Government.
- eli 3y agoWho said anything about Roe? The student debt case: perfectly clear law passed by Congress and overturned by SCOTUS in very tenuous grounds with a plaintiff that never even had proper standing.
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoIf Congress actually passed a law clearly forgiving student debt, it's very unlikely they'd have overturned it.
- eli 3y agoI see no reason to believe that. There is a law. It authorized the education dept to “waive or modify” loan provisions. But somehow the court ruled that that means only minor changes are permitted. Obviously this isn’t what Congress intended - waiving entire provisions could of course result in major changes. The entire “major questions” doctrine is a farce. It’s not in a law. It’s not in the Constitution. It’s an invention of the court. And again: the case never should have been heard. The litigant had no standing. The motivation here is SCOTUS striking down a policy they don’t like.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago> I see no reason to believe that. Conservatives don't really like the federal Department of Education, but there is no question that Congress passed a law creating it. Why do you think they would strike down this but not that? > There is a law. It authorized the education dept to “waive or modify” loan provisions. But somehow the court ruled that that means only minor changes are permitted. Obviously this isn’t what Congress intended - waiving entire provisions could of course result in major changes. Under that reading they could waive the entire law and forgive everybody's loans, making any other provisions moot. If that's what Congress wanted then why would they pass a law allowing them to "waive or modify" loan provisions, implying that they contemplated the continued existence of loans, rather than just passing a loan forgiveness bill to begin with? > The entire “major questions” doctrine is a farce. It’s not in a law. It’s not in the Constitution. It’s an invention of the court. The Court interprets the law. The "major questions" doctrine announces how they intend to interpret the laws Congress passes. It was already a thing when the bill in question was passed. Congress therefore knew that if they intended the law to grant the power to do something like that, they would have to spell it out explicitly, and then they didn't, implying that wasn't what they intended. Also, just think about it. If that bill had the words "including the power to forgive all student loans" appended to the bottom, do you think it would have passed? If not, it's because those words would have changed the expected consequence of the law, right?
- pclmulqdq 3y agoIf it were congress's job to pass these rules and regulations instead of pawning off their authority to someone else, I would assume that congresspeople would have to generally take the job a lot more seriously.