She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible
Christ, that's worse than Roger's 'No' to Obama succeeding Bush 43.
The PB Rogerdamus award is now renamed the TimTdamus award,
Some fascinating, jaw-dropping stuff on that thread, now we know what we know. Complaint about the "lefty" Allegra Stratton being just one.
Question for those in the know. Today there were reports on the Alliance coming 2nd in NI. Who becomes deputy then as they are not defined by sectarianism and my understanding is the leader and deputy have to come from either side.
The largest party designating as Unionist. Alliance have done so in the past, but only for short-term tactical reasons.
So if the Alliance somehow got 51% of the vote but did not designate either way they still would not get either leader or deputy leader positions?
Would seem to be a bonkers outcome. Presumably they'd designate as unionist for convenience/democratic reasons were they to be runner up as polled. They could then say, "we will try to abolish these stupid sectarian rules now we are in power".
Someone, I'm ashamed to have forgotten whom, explained on PB the other day that for certain constitutional purposes in NI, anyone who is not a RC is deened to be Protestant. So we get the official UK Government notion of protestant atheists, protestant Muslims, protestant Pagans, protestant Jedi Knights ... I'm not sure if the Alliance are deemed to be protestant non-sectarians on the same logic ...
Edit: I did check the date of the post and it wasn't 1 April. It is just batty enough to be true ...
That was me….
NI police service - has to be 50/50 Catholic/Protestant.
The peak, perfect moment was when a couple of Eastern Europeans joined the PSNI. They were, of course, Catholic. The Shinners got upset because they were the wrong kind of Catholics. Possibly because immigrants to NI tend not to be Nationalist.
Anyway - the solution was to count them in the Protestant quota. So we have Protestant Catholics.
Aren't Anglicans Protestant Catholics in the first place technically?
Aren't christians all part of the one, holy, apostolic, catholic church, just not necessarily the Roman Catholic
If they are Protestant evangelicals rather than Anglicans they are certainly not part of the Apostolic and Catholic Church, Presbyterians and Baptists do not even have Bishops and reject the doctrine of apostolic succession through Bishops
apostolic has nothing to do with bishops, that is episcopalian.
I think it does indirectly, because bishopy goodness is handed down the papal line via St Peter the apostle
But an apostolic essentially means relating to the faith of the apostles and hence really the new testament. Bishops may be inspired by the spirit of the apostles, but apostolic does not necessitate the existence of bishops.
Wake up; scroll through thread. Big G is STILL trying to ramp the non story about Keir’s curry.
He should be ashamed of himself.
I have not raised it since this morning and reporting on news media interviews and reports is the nature of this forum
You have actually reintroduced it when the narrative has moved on until the media or Durham Police respond to Richard Holden
Trying to shame a poster no matter how much you disagree is uncalled for
I was referring to this morning’s thread. (I catch up hours later).
You are transparently ramping for Johnson’s smears, and it is disgraceful.
Utter and complete nonsense
Richard Holden the local mp is asking legitimate questions and awaiting a response to his letter from Durham Police
Maybe less personal and more address the legitimate questions posed by Kay Burley on Sky this morning
This story is not journalism, it is an attempt to deflect from the disgraceful behaviour of Johnson and his supporters in No10. It tries to con the public into believing all politicians on all sides are as low as Boris Johnson. It is therefore very toxic.
As Starmer hasn't disarmed this story yet, you have to start to assume he's a bit shit at politics....
The thing is I suspect you @MarqueeMark agree with me that the police were wrong to investigate this matter in the first place. Aside from the retrospective nature and the divergence from the Met's explicitly stated policy on Covid policing, we are supposed to be coming out of the pandemic and looking forward with positivity. Regarding chasing other politicians, inc SKS, this has the risk of becoming very petty - who did what and when - and I don't think two wrongs make a right. Let's move on for goodness sake.
Kirill Budanov, the head of the Ukrainian Military Intelligence (GUR):
Mattia Nelles @mattia_n · 19h At the end of the interview, Bodanov says he sees two scenarios for ending the war: the disintegration of Russia or the removal of Putin and relative preservation of RU. Giving Putin a face-saving way out of the war is almost impossible, he says.
I’m anti-Catholic. I think it a backward, hierarchical, patriarchal religion. But I think it’s unfair that it is labelled institutional kiddy-fiddling.
Fair enough.
I'm not particularly anti-Catholic - I'm not particularly anti- any religion. If people wish to worship, fair enough - as long as it does not affect others.
How on earth can you claim that the church was not complicit in what was going on? Even cardinals such as Bernard Francis Law covered up allegations for years, and was promoted to the Vatican to protect him.
Knowledge of what was going went right to the top, and so did the cover-ups.
(Again, the Catholic church is not the only offender.)
I think the Catholic hierarchy have been complicit, yes. I just don’t want to label the whole institution which includes millions of decent priests and worshippers.
(And again, I am anti-catholic, or perhaps more accurately, anti having a pope).
If the heirarchy has been complicit then the institution has been complicit.
That doesn't mean every individual within the institution has been.
When the Police were found to be institutionally racist, did that mean that every single decent officer was racist? Or that the institution was, including some dodgy ones who were able to get away with it due to the heirarchy?
I didn’t agree with the institutionally racist tag. Enabling a culture of racism? Sure.
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
I’m not sure even the GOP are that stupid . To ban abortion nationwide would cause such a furore that they would be pulverized in future elections . And banning contraception would be unbelievable given most Americans aren’t Catholic.
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
She was a monster. I was living in Westminster at the time and Greville Janner wrote the most pompous article in praise of the 'great woman' (after she had escaped to Israel) that it was possible to write. I wrote him a funnyish pastiche on his article and he sent me the rudest reply any MP has ever sent to a member of the public! It was hilarious.
The Pope criticises "Nato barking at Russia’s gate" and suspects the invasion was "facilitated by the West’s attitude". He also questions whether weapons should be sent to Ukraine.
The less said by that kiddy fiddler institution the better it seems.
I don't agree with what he said, but calling the Pope a "kiddy fiddler" just demonstrates to us all (if we needed further evidence) what an ignorant unpleasant and unthinking right wing bigot you are.
Indeed and when Bartholmew Roberts posted under his name Phillip Thompson he said he would be happy to see the Troubles return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying for a pure Brexit.
I think Barty Bobbins is a total ratbag. But I agree, we need to maintain this standard.
Mods might want to consider this issue.
Agreed. I got doxxed a few weeks back - suddenly found myself reading a post from someone using my name and image off Facebook. Mods did a great job removing it quickly...
That’s outrageous. What would motivate anyone to do that.
I’m anti-Catholic. I think it a backward, hierarchical, patriarchal religion. But I think it’s unfair that it is labelled institutional kiddy-fiddling.
Fair enough.
I'm not particularly anti-Catholic - I'm not particularly anti- any religion. If people wish to worship, fair enough - as long as it does not affect others.
How on earth can you claim that the church was not complicit in what was going on? Even cardinals such as Bernard Francis Law covered up allegations for years, and was promoted to the Vatican to protect him.
Knowledge of what was going went right to the top, and so did the cover-ups.
(Again, the Catholic church is not the only offender.)
I think the Catholic hierarchy have been complicit, yes. I just don’t want to label the whole institution which includes millions of decent priests and worshippers.
(And again, I am anti-catholic, or perhaps more accurately, anti having a pope).
If the heirarchy has been complicit then the institution has been complicit.
That doesn't mean every individual within the institution has been.
When the Police were found to be institutionally racist, did that mean that every single decent officer was racist? Or that the institution was, including some dodgy ones who were able to get away with it due to the heirarchy?
I didn’t agree with the institutionally racist tag. Enabling a culture of racism? Sure.
Ok, I did agree with the institutionally racist tag and I am used the word institution in the same linguistic manner.
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
There was a suggestion yesterday that gay sex and gay marriage might also lose their protection.
I feel differently about gay sex, and possibly marriage too, as I feel (I am not a lawyer) that such are protected either by the constitution or by indeed by common law rights.
Gay marriage was upheld under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment of the constitution.
There doesn't seem to be as much desire from SC justices to reinterpret that as Roe v Wade
We will see.
The leaked Alito opinion was scathing about the entire concept of the right to privacy being found in the 14th Amendment*, and directly critiqued the decision allowing gay marriage.
Of course while the leak has now been confirmed as genuine, it is not yet the final published decision, and could be amended before it becomes law, since all we know for sure is that it is Alito's opinion, and that a majority of the court support him in striking down Roe.
( *An opinion which contradicts his sworn evidence during his confirmation: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/politics/politicsspecial1/alito-at-hearing-pledges-an-open-mind-on-abortion.html ...Much as Judge John G. Roberts Jr. did during his confirmation hearings last year to become chief justice, Judge Alito steered a noncommittal course on abortion. He agreed that the Constitution protected the right to privacy, and endorsed the idea that even the Supreme Court should think long and hard before overturning well-established precedents )
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
I’m not sure even the GOP are that stupid . To ban abortion nationwide would cause such a furore that they would be pulverized in future elections . And banning contraception would be unbelievable given most Americans aren’t Catholic.
Indeed, someone has already noted on twitter that the GOP were probably neither expecting nor wanting a total overturning of RvW
She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible
Christ, that's worse than Roger's 'No' to Obama succeeding Bush 43.
The PB Rogerdamus award is now renamed the TimTdamus award,
And credit to @JosiasJessop for being absolutely correct during that discussion.
"Why not peace with Hitler?" "Arm Britain and prolong war" "Lend-lease, lose-lives" "Europe for Europeans, America for Americans" "Stay out of South America, Europe, War"
Well they did stay out of it until the Japanese attacked them, so clearly the march worked.
NOT re: Lend Lease. Or US occupation of Iceland. Or undeclared US anti-sub war versus Germany in North Atlantic in 1941.
Charles Lindbergh was THE most prominent spokesperson for America First. A plus at first, but really a minus because of his less-than-restrained anti-Semitic rhetoric.
Among student leaders of AF was Gerald Ford, then attending Yale Law School. Interestingly, his experiences in US Navy during WW2 converted him from an isolationist to an internationalist. Similar to the transition in outlook of then US Sen. Arthur Vandenberg (R-Michigan). After the war, Ford challenged incumbent GOP isolationist congressman from his home town, Grand Rapids, defeated him in the 1948 primary, and went on to win the first of many terms in US House.
Greens have a good night? What about the Lib Dems? They are keeping their counsel but I hear things are going well, Hull, Sheffield, Barnsley, Sunderland, Wokingham etc etc. Greens may have more gains because they start from a miniscule base but on total votes could be outdone 3 -1.
I doubt the LDs will gain many seats in the North, the Southeast is their best prospect
I'm surprised how few candidates the LDs are standing in the Northeast. I think even the Greens are standing more candidates. They seem to be only concentrating on the parts of Newcastle, Gateshead and Sunderland where they already have seats.
The Greens could actually do surprisingly well as a protest vote in the Northeast because they are the only alternative to Lab and Con in a bunch of wards.
I expect they will do pretty well. They are the perfect protest vote and perfect local councillors. Complete NIMBYs. I’d even vote for them if they stood here.
I know I am always on Johnson's case, and for that I apologise.
I am currently listening to today's Boris Churchill Ukraine speech. Will it benefit the Tories on Thursday?
Well is it me or are there shades of Peppa Pig in this speech? Not the sentiment (which I agree with) but the presentation, the long, long pauses and the odd analogies. Did he forget his notes?
It made me want to retch. I suspect that will be the feeling of most who don't like him. Only his biggest fans would believe it was other than trying to aggrandise himself. That's the thing about lying to the public. Everything is now viewed through that prism and he can do nothing about it.
It would me too - require the bucket - and because I know this I assiduously didn't watch it. These are the strategies you learn and they work. It's a far from ideal situation, though, since he's the PM and you don't really want to have to be investing lots of time & energy in avoiding all sight or sound of him.
She mentions some concerned locals, and asks for police to "Look at it again" with "all the new evidence".
She merely hints at unanswered questions and new evidence. Is there a more direct source as to what that new evidence might be and what questions it raises?
I really do not want to continue this mornings debate and let's just wait for Durham's Police response to the letter
OK, the letter:
1. Asks, in light of FPNs for a different set of circumstances, whether the Durham event should be reviewed, effectively asking both ways to tie up what the Met are doing with what Durham police are doing.
Given the different circumstances, especially presence of non-co-workers joining for the sharing of cake, there is no reason at the moment to imagine there is an inconsistency between the handling of the two events.
2. Asks whether the law has been applied specifically in light of the (brief example based) guidance for political campaigning, basically asking whether the later guidance modified the law in relation to work meetings.
And I cannot see why it would, given this was deemed a working event by the police (and Richard Holden is not actually questioning whether it was a work event).
So, sure, Durham police can answer, and you can await that answer, but I cannot see in light of the known facts and prior investigation, where further this has to go.
Obviously, for 10 Downing Street there are numerous other events that were unequivocally parties, and the question of lying to parliament. On what is already known fact, but is awaiting to report, those events have far further to go.
So, it does look very much, given already known facts and the lack of new revelations, like the Tories are primarily, to mix metaphors, flogging a dead cat.
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
I’m not sure of the point here. The USA can do what it likes. They had a revolution for just this purpose. They can repeal every amendment and bring back slavery if they want.
All we can do is 1. Criticise or praise - as outsiders, or 2. Parse what any change means for our own security and democracy as the USA still looms large in our culture and as part of our civilisation
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
There was a suggestion yesterday that gay sex and gay marriage might also lose their protection.
I feel differently about gay sex, and possibly marriage too, as I feel (I am not a lawyer) that such are protected either by the constitution or by indeed by common law rights.
Gay marriage was upheld under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment of the constitution.
There doesn't seem to be as much desire from SC justices to reinterpret that as Roe v Wade
We will see.
The leaked Alito opinion was scathing about the entire concept of the right to privacy being found in the 14th Amendment*, and directly critiqued the decision allowing gay marriage.
Of course while the leak has now been confirmed as genuine, it is not yet the final published decision, and could be amended before it becomes law, since all we know for sure is that it is Alito's opinion, and that a majority of the court support him in striking down Roe.
( *An opinion which contradicts his sworn evidence during his confirmation: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/politics/politicsspecial1/alito-at-hearing-pledges-an-open-mind-on-abortion.html ...Much as Judge John G. Roberts Jr. did during his confirmation hearings last year to become chief justice, Judge Alito steered a noncommittal course on abortion. He agreed that the Constitution protected the right to privacy, and endorsed the idea that even the Supreme Court should think long and hard before overturning well-established precedents )
Worth saying that the leak won't be coming from any liberal (they will be trying to soften things). It comes from a hardline conservative who wishes to ensure the Alito opinion isn't watered down - see https://twitter.com/akapczynski/status/1521494553877962754 for the gory details.
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
I’m not sure even the GOP are that stupid . To ban abortion nationwide would cause such a furore that they would be pulverized in future elections . And banning contraception would be unbelievable given most Americans aren’t Catholic.
Indeed, someone has already noted on twitter that the GOP were probably neither expecting nor wanting a total overturning of RvW
It's like The War in 1984- it doesn't matter whether the Republicans win or lose the culture war, the important thing is that the war exists.
And like some theories about proposals coming out of Westminster, it can be good politics to suggest outrageous things that get thrown out by The Enemy.
Having all the power is much less fun than it looks. You either have to do the things you promised, or come up with another excuse for not doing them.
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This is essentially the RBG line of Roe vs Wade.
Not really, given she was strongly against striking it down.
Wake up; scroll through thread. Big G is STILL trying to ramp the non story about Keir’s curry.
He should be ashamed of himself.
I have not raised it since this morning and reporting on news media interviews and reports is the nature of this forum
You have actually reintroduced it when the narrative has moved on until the media or Durham Police respond to Richard Holden
Trying to shame a poster no matter how much you disagree is uncalled for
I was referring to this morning’s thread. (I catch up hours later).
You are transparently ramping for Johnson’s smears, and it is disgraceful.
Utter and complete nonsense
Richard Holden the local mp is asking legitimate questions and awaiting a response to his letter from Durham Police
Maybe less personal and more address the legitimate questions posed by Kay Burley on Sky this morning
I’m just mystified why you’re willing to shred the last remnants of your PB credibility on “Richard Holden’s legitimate questions”.
Only a professional troll would continue a ramping campaign in the manner you have.
And you still haven’t explained how big your curries were. I have legitimate questions over your tikka masala, and I’m THIS close to writing a letter to law enforcement in Betsw y Coed.
And when they fail to reply, I will be on here, every morning, claiming that while we must wait for deliberations from Betsw y Coed, that there are still questions to be answered!
Dear me, is this the level of debate you have been reduced to
And I would observe you are the one who has reopened it from this morning when it was discussed
He's right - this IS the level of debate. What you and others and the Tories propose is very simple. Gardenwalker makes a baseless complaint against you. The police look at the complaint and the evidence supplied. It is clear there is no case to answer and dismiss the complaint.
"Oh no" says the complainant. "You aren't listening. Big_G is a Bad Man. And because this other person got done for something else you must do him too. There is no evidence, but I and all my friends are making a fuss so clearly an investigation is in the public interest and its for Big_G to provide the evidence to disprove it".
This is a preposterous concept, the polar opposite of how our justice system works. And yet you are demanding its imposition. As I said asked earlier is the world you want for your kids and grandkids? Where baseless evidence-free allegations launch a persecution by the authorities to harass you for acting in a way that the law and the police say is legal?
To be honest it would benefit everyone if we now wait for Durham Police
I’d rather my local constabulary wasn’t wasting its time, and our council taxpayer money, on this politically motivated mud slinging.
I said the same when labour types were demanding they investigate Cummings.
She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible
Christ, that's worse than Roger's 'No' to Obama succeeding Bush 43.
The PB Rogerdamus award is now renamed the TimTdamus award,
And credit to @JosiasJessop for being absolutely correct during that discussion.
LOL. To be fair though, it was not Trump that overturned it, but rather his Supreme Court nominees, a situation enabled by RBG refusing to stand down.
Have to say, I am surprised and dismayed (if this turns out to be the court's decision). The only silver lining is that it may be the thing that saves Congress from turning Trump this mid-term.
PS I had totally forgotten about that post and am really impressed that (1) others remembered it, and (2) they could find it.
I’m anti-Catholic. I think it a backward, hierarchical, patriarchal religion. But I think it’s unfair that it is labelled institutional kiddy-fiddling.
Fair enough.
I'm not particularly anti-Catholic - I'm not particularly anti- any religion. If people wish to worship, fair enough - as long as it does not affect others.
How on earth can you claim that the church was not complicit in what was going on? Even cardinals such as Bernard Francis Law covered up allegations for years, and was promoted to the Vatican to protect him.
Knowledge of what was going went right to the top, and so did the cover-ups.
(Again, the Catholic church is not the only offender.)
I think the Catholic hierarchy have been complicit, yes. I just don’t want to label the whole institution which includes millions of decent priests and worshippers.
(And again, I am anti-catholic, or perhaps more accurately, anti having a pope).
If the heirarchy has been complicit then the institution has been complicit.
That doesn't mean every individual within the institution has been.
When the Police were found to be institutionally racist, did that mean that every single decent officer was racist? Or that the institution was, including some dodgy ones who were able to get away with it due to the heirarchy?
I didn’t agree with the institutionally racist tag. Enabling a culture of racism? Sure.
The meaning of “Institutional Racism” is supposed to be that the effective results of the institution are racist. Not that any person in the organisation is actually in the KKK. The output result, as it were.
In the case of the Catholic Church and child abuse, there were specific, concrete policies to coverup up abuse. These were enacted at a high level.
Wake up; scroll through thread. Big G is STILL trying to ramp the non story about Keir’s curry.
He should be ashamed of himself.
I have not raised it since this morning and reporting on news media interviews and reports is the nature of this forum
You have actually reintroduced it when the narrative has moved on until the media or Durham Police respond to Richard Holden
Trying to shame a poster no matter how much you disagree is uncalled for
I was referring to this morning’s thread. (I catch up hours later).
You are transparently ramping for Johnson’s smears, and it is disgraceful.
Utter and complete nonsense
Richard Holden the local mp is asking legitimate questions and awaiting a response to his letter from Durham Police
Maybe less personal and more address the legitimate questions posed by Kay Burley on Sky this morning
This story is not journalism, it is an attempt to deflect from the disgraceful behaviour of Johnson and his supporters in No10. It tries to con the public into believing all politicians on all sides are as low as Boris Johnson. It is therefore very toxic.
As Starmer hasn't disarmed this story yet, you have to start to assume he's a bit shit at politics....
The thing is I suspect you @MarqueeMark agree with me that the police were wrong to investigate this matter in the first place. Aside from the retrospective nature and the divergence from the Met's explicitly stated policy on Covid policing, we are supposed to be coming out of the pandemic and looking forward with positivity. Regarding chasing other politicians, inc SKS, this has the risk of becoming very petty - who did what and when - and I don't think two wrongs make a right. Let's move on for goodness sake.
But the case has nothing to do with breaking Covid regulations. The British public would only ever get mildly excited about that. It was about lying and behaving like a privileged arse and the public won't let that go. There are too many images that get under people's skin. The more he squirms and tries to spread the net wider the worse it gets. I really don't think he can do anything now.
I know I am always on Johnson's case, and for that I apologise.
I am currently listening to today's Boris Churchill Ukraine speech. Will it benefit the Tories on Thursday?
Well is it me or are there shades of Peppa Pig in this speech? Not the sentiment (which I agree with) but the presentation, the long, long pauses and the odd analogies. Did he forget his notes?
It made me want to retch. I suspect that will be the feeling of most who don't like him. Only his biggest fans would believe it was other than trying to aggrandise himself. That's the thing about lying to the public. Everything is now viewed through that prism and he can do nothing about it.
Well I do believe you were of the view early on that the Ukrainians should adopt Gandhi-style non violent resistance.
It's an interesting post, although I would take issue with his description of Trump as "packing" the Supreme Court. He did no such thing (at least not as commonlty understood) - he merely filled vacancies as they arose with members of his tribe.
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
I’m not sure of the point here. The USA can do what it likes. They had a revolution for just this purpose. They can repeal every amendment and bring back slavery if they want.
All we can do is 1. Criticise or praise - as outsiders, or 2. Parse what any change means for our own security and democracy as the USA still looms large in our culture and as part of our civilisation
The point is the difference between a bare majority vote in Congress, and the almost impossible hurdle of passing and having ratified a constitutional amendment.
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
There was a suggestion yesterday that gay sex and gay marriage might also lose their protection.
I feel differently about gay sex, and possibly marriage too, as I feel (I am not a lawyer) that such are protected either by the constitution or by indeed by common law rights.
Gay marriage was upheld under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment of the constitution.
There doesn't seem to be as much desire from SC justices to reinterpret that as Roe v Wade
We will see.
The leaked Alito opinion was scathing about the entire concept of the right to privacy being found in the 14th Amendment*, and directly critiqued the decision allowing gay marriage.
Of course while the leak has now been confirmed as genuine, it is not yet the final published decision, and could be amended before it becomes law, since all we know for sure is that it is Alito's opinion, and that a majority of the court support him in striking down Roe.
( *An opinion which contradicts his sworn evidence during his confirmation: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/politics/politicsspecial1/alito-at-hearing-pledges-an-open-mind-on-abortion.html ...Much as Judge John G. Roberts Jr. did during his confirmation hearings last year to become chief justice, Judge Alito steered a noncommittal course on abortion. He agreed that the Constitution protected the right to privacy, and endorsed the idea that even the Supreme Court should think long and hard before overturning well-established precedents )
Worth saying that the leak won't be coming from any liberal (they will be trying to soften things). It comes from a hardline conservative who wishes to ensure the Alito opinion isn't watered down - see https://twitter.com/akapczynski/status/1521494553877962754 for the gory details.
I agree on that i.e. it came from a conservative, not liberal. source and for pretty much the reasons outlined there i.e. it locks in the 5 justices as any other decision will now be seen as one being a "traitor"
I know I am always on Johnson's case, and for that I apologise.
I am currently listening to today's Boris Churchill Ukraine speech. Will it benefit the Tories on Thursday?
Well is it me or are there shades of Peppa Pig in this speech? Not the sentiment (which I agree with) but the presentation, the long, long pauses and the odd analogies. Did he forget his notes?
It made me want to retch. I suspect that will be the feeling of most who don't like him. Only his biggest fans would believe it was other than trying to aggrandise himself. That's the thing about lying to the public. Everything is now viewed through that prism and he can do nothing about it.
It would me too - require the bucket - and because I know this I assiduously didn't watch it. These are the strategies you learn and they work. It's a far from ideal situation, though, since he's the PM and you don't really want to have to be investing lots of time & energy in avoiding all sight or sound of him.
Can you watch Fred Scuttle anymore, or does the repulsion carry over?
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This is essentially the RBG line of Roe vs Wade.
Not really, given she was strongly against striking it down.
She stressed that hanging it on 'privacy' provisions was the wrong route, and that it should have been dealt with through legislation:
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
I’m not sure even the GOP are that stupid . To ban abortion nationwide would cause such a furore that they would be pulverized in future elections . And banning contraception would be unbelievable given most Americans aren’t Catholic.
They can't ban it nationwide unless they elect the President and majorities of both Houses of Congress committed to do so.
They can however ban it in the most conservative states where there are already GOP governors and state legislatures if Roe v Wade is overturned
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
There was a suggestion yesterday that gay sex and gay marriage might also lose their protection.
I feel differently about gay sex, and possibly marriage too, as I feel (I am not a lawyer) that such are protected either by the constitution or by indeed by common law rights.
Gay marriage was upheld under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment of the constitution.
There doesn't seem to be as much desire from SC justices to reinterpret that as Roe v Wade
We will see.
The leaked Alito opinion was scathing about the entire concept of the right to privacy being found in the 14th Amendment*, and directly critiqued the decision allowing gay marriage.
Of course while the leak has now been confirmed as genuine, it is not yet the final published decision, and could be amended before it becomes law, since all we know for sure is that it is Alito's opinion, and that a majority of the court support him in striking down Roe.
( *An opinion which contradicts his sworn evidence during his confirmation: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/politics/politicsspecial1/alito-at-hearing-pledges-an-open-mind-on-abortion.html ...Much as Judge John G. Roberts Jr. did during his confirmation hearings last year to become chief justice, Judge Alito steered a noncommittal course on abortion. He agreed that the Constitution protected the right to privacy, and endorsed the idea that even the Supreme Court should think long and hard before overturning well-established precedents )
The notion that an unborn child has the right to life is in no way outlandish. It is a crime to destroy an unborn child in this country and in many other jurisdictions, and not just an offence against the mother.
The Abortion Act 1967 provides a specific exemption from the offence of child destruction, but I think it's quite right that in principle, child destruction should be a criminal offence.
So, I think abortion is very clearly an issue of competing rights (as between child and mother) and a case of where one draws the line. The notion that the unborn child has no rights is without merit.
I know I am always on Johnson's case, and for that I apologise.
I am currently listening to today's Boris Churchill Ukraine speech. Will it benefit the Tories on Thursday?
Well is it me or are there shades of Peppa Pig in this speech? Not the sentiment (which I agree with) but the presentation, the long, long pauses and the odd analogies. Did he forget his notes?
It made me want to retch. I suspect that will be the feeling of most who don't like him. Only his biggest fans would believe it was other than trying to aggrandise himself. That's the thing about lying to the public. Everything is now viewed through that prism and he can do nothing about it.
Well I do believe you were of the view early on that the Ukrainians should adopt Gandhi-style non violent resistance.
Several Russians of the Right Sort have lost their last yacht, as a result of the sanctions.
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
There was a suggestion yesterday that gay sex and gay marriage might also lose their protection.
I feel differently about gay sex, and possibly marriage too, as I feel (I am not a lawyer) that such are protected either by the constitution or by indeed by common law rights.
Gay marriage was upheld under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment of the constitution.
There doesn't seem to be as much desire from SC justices to reinterpret that as Roe v Wade
We will see.
The leaked Alito opinion was scathing about the entire concept of the right to privacy being found in the 14th Amendment*, and directly critiqued the decision allowing gay marriage.
Of course while the leak has now been confirmed as genuine, it is not yet the final published decision, and could be amended before it becomes law, since all we know for sure is that it is Alito's opinion, and that a majority of the court support him in striking down Roe.
( *An opinion which contradicts his sworn evidence during his confirmation: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/politics/politicsspecial1/alito-at-hearing-pledges-an-open-mind-on-abortion.html ...Much as Judge John G. Roberts Jr. did during his confirmation hearings last year to become chief justice, Judge Alito steered a noncommittal course on abortion. He agreed that the Constitution protected the right to privacy, and endorsed the idea that even the Supreme Court should think long and hard before overturning well-established precedents )
Worth saying that the leak won't be coming from any liberal (they will be trying to soften things). It comes from a hardline conservative who wishes to ensure the Alito opinion isn't watered down - see https://twitter.com/akapczynski/status/1521494553877962754 for the gory details.
I agree on that i.e. it came from a conservative, not liberal. source and for pretty much the reasons outlined there i.e. it locks in the 5 justices as any other decision will now be seen as one being a "traitor"
Not according to the Senate's gaslighter in chief. "Last night’s stunning breach was an attack on the independence of the supreme court. By every indication, this was yet another escalation in the radical left’s ongoing campaign to bully and intimidate federal judges and substitute mob rule for the rule of law."
It's an interesting post, although I would take issue with his description of Trump as "packing" the Supreme Court. He did no such thing (at least not as commonlty understood) - he merely filled vacancies as they arose with members of his tribe.
Indeed. Obama chose Sotomayor who certainly could not be described as a 'compromise' candidate. Given Merrick Garland's performance so far as AG any idea he would have been even-handed if he was on the SC do not hold much weight.
The Pope criticises "Nato barking at Russia’s gate" and suspects the invasion was "facilitated by the West’s attitude". He also questions whether weapons should be sent to Ukraine.
The less said by that kiddy fiddler institution the better it seems.
I don't agree with what he said, but calling the Pope a "kiddy fiddler" just demonstrates to us all (if we needed further evidence) what an ignorant unpleasant and unthinking right wing bigot you are.
Indeed and when Bartholmew Roberts posted under his name Phillip Thompson he said he would be happy to see the Troubles return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying for a pure Brexit.
If I retire the 'kinabalu' moniker and come back as 'raging_bull', saying to people please don't call me kinabalu now, or kintibula or the kinster, or kinny, or special k, none of that please, always call me raging bull, or just 'bull' for short, if someone ignores this and slips in my old name, or version of, is that doxxing then?
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
There was a suggestion yesterday that gay sex and gay marriage might also lose their protection.
I feel differently about gay sex, and possibly marriage too, as I feel (I am not a lawyer) that such are protected either by the constitution or by indeed by common law rights.
Gay marriage was upheld under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment of the constitution.
There doesn't seem to be as much desire from SC justices to reinterpret that as Roe v Wade
We will see.
The leaked Alito opinion was scathing about the entire concept of the right to privacy being found in the 14th Amendment*, and directly critiqued the decision allowing gay marriage.
Of course while the leak has now been confirmed as genuine, it is not yet the final published decision, and could be amended before it becomes law, since all we know for sure is that it is Alito's opinion, and that a majority of the court support him in striking down Roe.
( *An opinion which contradicts his sworn evidence during his confirmation: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/politics/politicsspecial1/alito-at-hearing-pledges-an-open-mind-on-abortion.html ...Much as Judge John G. Roberts Jr. did during his confirmation hearings last year to become chief justice, Judge Alito steered a noncommittal course on abortion. He agreed that the Constitution protected the right to privacy, and endorsed the idea that even the Supreme Court should think long and hard before overturning well-established precedents )
Worth saying that the leak won't be coming from any liberal (they will be trying to soften things). It comes from a hardline conservative who wishes to ensure the Alito opinion isn't watered down - see https://twitter.com/akapczynski/status/1521494553877962754 for the gory details.
I agree on that i.e. it came from a conservative, not liberal. source and for pretty much the reasons outlined there i.e. it locks in the 5 justices as any other decision will now be seen as one being a "traitor"
Not according to the Senate's gaslighter in chief. "Last night’s stunning breach was an attack on the independence of the supreme court. By every indication, this was yet another escalation in the radical left’s ongoing campaign to bully and intimidate federal judges and substitute mob rule for the rule of law."
Ok, but that's not my view. I think, working on cui bono, it it far more realistic to think this came from a conservative, not liberal, side.
It's an interesting post, although I would take issue with his description of Trump as "packing" the Supreme Court. He did no such thing (at least not as commonlty understood) - he merely filled vacancies as they arose with members of his tribe.
Indeed. Obama chose Sotomayor who certainly could not be described as a 'compromise' candidate. Given Merrick Garland's performance so far as AG any idea he would have been even-handed if he was on the SC do not hold much weight.
@MrEd I've liked a post from you this morning (very late by me but have only just seen it) where you took me to task. Good response and it was lazy thinking on my part (although not unreasonable).
I know I am always on Johnson's case, and for that I apologise.
I am currently listening to today's Boris Churchill Ukraine speech. Will it benefit the Tories on Thursday?
Well is it me or are there shades of Peppa Pig in this speech? Not the sentiment (which I agree with) but the presentation, the long, long pauses and the odd analogies. Did he forget his notes?
It made me want to retch. I suspect that will be the feeling of most who don't like him. Only his biggest fans would believe it was other than trying to aggrandise himself. That's the thing about lying to the public. Everything is now viewed through that prism and he can do nothing about it.
Well I do believe you were of the view early on that the Ukrainians should adopt Gandhi-style non violent resistance.
The two things are unrelated. As with a lot of people I don't believe or trust the motives of anything the Prime Minister does.
OT. Great play on BBC Radio 4 about Clive Ponting and the Sinking of the Belgrano. Even so many years later you still feel like cheering the Jury's verdict.Thatcher might be even more dislikable than Johnson
Question for those in the know. Today there were reports on the Alliance coming 2nd in NI. Who becomes deputy then as they are not defined by sectarianism and my understanding is the leader and deputy have to come from either side.
The largest party designating as Unionist. Alliance have done so in the past, but only for short-term tactical reasons.
So if the Alliance somehow got 51% of the vote but did not designate either way they still would not get either leader or deputy leader positions?
Would seem to be a bonkers outcome. Presumably they'd designate as unionist for convenience/democratic reasons were they to be runner up as polled. They could then say, "we will try to abolish these stupid sectarian rules now we are in power".
Someone, I'm ashamed to have forgotten whom, explained on PB the other day that for certain constitutional purposes in NI, anyone who is not a RC is deened to be Protestant. So we get the official UK Government notion of protestant atheists, protestant Muslims, protestant Pagans, protestant Jedi Knights ... I'm not sure if the Alliance are deemed to be protestant non-sectarians on the same logic ...
Edit: I did check the date of the post and it wasn't 1 April. It is just batty enough to be true ...
That was me….
NI police service - has to be 50/50 Catholic/Protestant.
The peak, perfect moment was when a couple of Eastern Europeans joined the PSNI. They were, of course, Catholic. The Shinners got upset because they were the wrong kind of Catholics. Possibly because immigrants to NI tend not to be Nationalist.
Anyway - the solution was to count them in the Protestant quota. So we have Protestant Catholics.
Aren't Anglicans Protestant Catholics in the first place technically?
Aren't christians all part of the one, holy, apostolic, catholic church, just not necessarily the Roman Catholic
If they are Protestant evangelicals rather than Anglicans they are certainly not part of the Apostolic and Catholic Church, Presbyterians and Baptists do not even have Bishops and reject the doctrine of apostolic succession through Bishops
apostolic has nothing to do with bishops, that is episcopalian.
I think it does indirectly, because bishopy goodness is handed down the papal line via St Peter the apostle
But an apostolic essentially means relating to the faith of the apostles and hence really the new testament. Bishops may be inspired by the spirit of the apostles, but apostolic does not necessitate the existence of bishops.
Quite. The Presbyterian kirks don't need bishops. The elders of the parish do it themselves. Here is an extract from the current Church of Scotland service:
11. The Narrative When a minister is to be inducted or introduced, the Presbytery Clerk gives a brief account of the steps leading to the appointment. 12. Preamble The Ordinand or Minister to be inducted/introduced stands before the Presbytery. The Moderator says: In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, the King and Head of the Church, who, being ascended on high, has given gifts for the edifying of the body of Christ, we are met as a Presbytery to ordain N_____ to the office of the Holy Ministry (and to induct/introduce N_____ to the pastoral charge of ...) by prayer and the laying on of hands by Presbyters to whom it belongs (And to induct him/her into the pastoral charge of...) (and to confirm her/him in her/his appointment as...) (and to welcome/introduce him/her as..
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This is essentially the RBG line of Roe vs Wade.
Not really, given she was strongly against striking it down.
She stressed that hanging it on 'privacy' provisions was the wrong route, and that it should have been dealt with through legislation:
Perhaps so, but to argue that she felt "there is nothing in the US Constitution which says when have a basic right to terminate a foetus" is plain wrong. She rather argued that the right would have been more solidly grounded in a doctrine of equality.
The notion that an unborn child has the right to life is in no way outlandish. It is a crime to destroy an unborn child in this country and in many other jurisdictions, and not just an offence against the mother.
The Abortion Act 1967 provides a specific exemption from the offence of child destruction, but I think it's quite right that in principle, child destruction should be a criminal offence.
So, I think abortion is very clearly an issue of competing rights (as between child and mother) and a case of where one draws the line. The notion that the unborn child has no rights is without merit.
Agree completely. I posted likewise earlier, but also included the father in that difficult decision on weighing up the rights.
I respect the view that life begins at conception, but strongly disagree with it. In disagreeing you them have to balance the rights of the 3 parties involved. It is an impossible dilemma but I think we pretty much have it right in the UK. Maybe with medical advances reducing the time limit by 2 weeks.
Question for those in the know. Today there were reports on the Alliance coming 2nd in NI. Who becomes deputy then as they are not defined by sectarianism and my understanding is the leader and deputy have to come from either side.
The largest party designating as Unionist. Alliance have done so in the past, but only for short-term tactical reasons.
So if the Alliance somehow got 51% of the vote but did not designate either way they still would not get either leader or deputy leader positions?
Would seem to be a bonkers outcome. Presumably they'd designate as unionist for convenience/democratic reasons were they to be runner up as polled. They could then say, "we will try to abolish these stupid sectarian rules now we are in power".
Someone, I'm ashamed to have forgotten whom, explained on PB the other day that for certain constitutional purposes in NI, anyone who is not a RC is deened to be Protestant. So we get the official UK Government notion of protestant atheists, protestant Muslims, protestant Pagans, protestant Jedi Knights ... I'm not sure if the Alliance are deemed to be protestant non-sectarians on the same logic ...
Edit: I did check the date of the post and it wasn't 1 April. It is just batty enough to be true ...
That was me….
NI police service - has to be 50/50 Catholic/Protestant.
The peak, perfect moment was when a couple of Eastern Europeans joined the PSNI. They were, of course, Catholic. The Shinners got upset because they were the wrong kind of Catholics. Possibly because immigrants to NI tend not to be Nationalist.
Anyway - the solution was to count them in the Protestant quota. So we have Protestant Catholics.
Aren't Anglicans Protestant Catholics in the first place technically?
Aren't christians all part of the one, holy, apostolic, catholic church, just not necessarily the Roman Catholic
If they are Protestant evangelicals rather than Anglicans they are certainly not part of the Apostolic and Catholic Church, Presbyterians and Baptists do not even have Bishops and reject the doctrine of apostolic succession through Bishops
apostolic has nothing to do with bishops, that is episcopalian.
I think it does indirectly, because bishopy goodness is handed down the papal line via St Peter the apostle
But an apostolic essentially means relating to the faith of the apostles and hence really the new testament. Bishops may be inspired by the spirit of the apostles, but apostolic does not necessitate the existence of bishops.
Indeed there are no bishops in the New Testament. That is a post Apostalic development of the early church.
The sale of Chelsea has hit a serious obstacle over fears that Russian-born owner Roman Abramovich is attempting to renege on his promise to write off a £1.6 billion debt.
It is understood that Chelsea told the government — as well as the rival bidding groups — last week that they want to restructure the way the club is being sold, which would include paying off the debt from Chelsea’s parent company Fordstam Ltd to a Jersey-based company Camberley International Investments, which appears to be linked to Abramovich.
There are big concerns about allowing that to happen when Abramovich has been sanctioned and has had his assets frozen. Ministers have been under the impression that all proceeds from the sale would be given over to the government to be used for good causes, including helping the victims of the war in Ukraine.
Last week the consortium led by Todd Boehly, the co-owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team, was informed by Chelsea’s US bankers that it had been given a five-day period of exclusivity as preferred bidders.
But sources from the rival bid groups said it was only “days” before that decision was taken that they were informed that the loan, which is in trust in Jersey, needs to be repaid on the sale of the club.
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
There was a suggestion yesterday that gay sex and gay marriage might also lose their protection.
I feel differently about gay sex, and possibly marriage too, as I feel (I am not a lawyer) that such are protected either by the constitution or by indeed by common law rights.
Gay marriage was upheld under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment of the constitution.
There doesn't seem to be as much desire from SC justices to reinterpret that as Roe v Wade
We will see.
The leaked Alito opinion was scathing about the entire concept of the right to privacy being found in the 14th Amendment*, and directly critiqued the decision allowing gay marriage.
Of course while the leak has now been confirmed as genuine, it is not yet the final published decision, and could be amended before it becomes law, since all we know for sure is that it is Alito's opinion, and that a majority of the court support him in striking down Roe.
( *An opinion which contradicts his sworn evidence during his confirmation: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/politics/politicsspecial1/alito-at-hearing-pledges-an-open-mind-on-abortion.html ...Much as Judge John G. Roberts Jr. did during his confirmation hearings last year to become chief justice, Judge Alito steered a noncommittal course on abortion. He agreed that the Constitution protected the right to privacy, and endorsed the idea that even the Supreme Court should think long and hard before overturning well-established precedents )
Worth saying that the leak won't be coming from any liberal (they will be trying to soften things). It comes from a hardline conservative who wishes to ensure the Alito opinion isn't watered down - see https://twitter.com/akapczynski/status/1521494553877962754 for the gory details.
I agree on that i.e. it came from a conservative, not liberal. source and for pretty much the reasons outlined there i.e. it locks in the 5 justices as any other decision will now be seen as one being a "traitor"
Not according to the Senate's gaslighter in chief. "Last night’s stunning breach was an attack on the independence of the supreme court. By every indication, this was yet another escalation in the radical left’s ongoing campaign to bully and intimidate federal judges and substitute mob rule for the rule of law."
Ok, but that's not my view. I think, working on cui bono, it it far more realistic to think this came from a conservative, not liberal, side.
I'd agree (though it's not impossible someone on the liberal side of the argument leaked it). I was just noting a leading voice in the chorus of what seems like performative outrage from US conservative politicians.
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This is essentially the RBG line of Roe vs Wade.
Not really, given she was strongly against striking it down.
She stressed that hanging it on 'privacy' provisions was the wrong route, and that it should have been dealt with through legislation:
Perhaps so, but to argue that she felt "there is nothing in the US Constitution which says when have a basic right to terminate a foetus" is plain wrong. She rather argued that the right would have been more solidly grounded in a doctrine of equality.
I can accept that. The point I was making was that she was uncomfortable for the basis of Roe vs Wade, not being against abortion, or indeed rooting it in other constitutional rights.
Politico.com - 7 ways Tuesday’s primaries could shake the 2022 election Voters in Ohio and Indiana will nominate candidates in a key Senate race and more.
1. The Ohio Senate pileup [US Senate race for Republican nomination, so far over $70m spent by all candidates, lions share by GOPers]
2. DeWine defusing conservative frustration [incumbent GOP Governor opposed for re-nomination by two (more) conservative challengers, but 45 endorsed neither; expect MDeW to win tonight AND in November]
3. Another Trump acolyte in Congress [former 45 aid Max Miller on glide path to open-seat US House nomination, thanks to wirepulling = well-timed retirement announcement by incumbent]
4. Establishment strikes back [in greatly-altered-by-redistricting 9th CD for right to run against long-time Dem incumbent Marcy Kaptur (who BTW is pro-life) looks like establishment pick for Republican nomination will prevail over MAGA maniac]
5. The left tries again in Cleveland [in repeat race for Dem nomination in 11th CD between incumbent Shontel Brown, elected in 2021 special election and a moderate, versus progressive Nina Turner; thus something of a referendum re: President Biden among Black Democratic voters]
6. An emerging battlefield [in northwest Indiana, where slipping Democratic margins provide possible opening for Republicans in 1st CD, who today will nominate a woman military veteran among two on offer (one White, other Black)]
7. Safe Seat Super PAC Battle [in southwest Indiana 8th CD between incumbent GOPer and several challengers for the nomination, which these days is tantamount to election; FYI yours truly cut his electoral eye-teeth in the "Bloody 8th" back in the day, when Democrats were competitive here to say the least, back when the district still included most of Bloomington home of Indiana University]
She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible
Christ, that's worse than Roger's 'No' to Obama succeeding Bush 43.
The PB Rogerdamus award is now renamed the TimTdamus award,
And credit to @JosiasJessop for being absolutely correct during that discussion.
LOL. To be fair though, it was not Trump that overturned it, but rather his Supreme Court nominees, a situation enabled by RBG refusing to stand down.
Have to say, I am surprised and dismayed (if this turns out to be the court's decision). The only silver lining is that it may be the thing that saves Congress from turning Trump this mid-term.
PS I had totally forgotten about that post and am really impressed that (1) others remembered it, and (2) they could find it.
I hadn't gone specifically searching it out but discovered it when looking up my past comments on the future of Roe vs Wade in America.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg was a narcissistic, selfish old bat. Discuss.
The larger problem is the lack of term limits for SC justices. Which would be the most sensible and least partisan way to improve the court, but also one of the most difficult since it would require a constitutional amendment.
When would have been the ideal time for her to retire ?
The Pope criticises "Nato barking at Russia’s gate" and suspects the invasion was "facilitated by the West’s attitude". He also questions whether weapons should be sent to Ukraine.
The less said by that kiddy fiddler institution the better it seems.
I don't agree with what he said, but calling the Pope a "kiddy fiddler" just demonstrates to us all (if we needed further evidence) what an ignorant unpleasant and unthinking right wing bigot you are.
He didn't call the Pope a kiddy-fiddler, he called the institution a 'kiddy-fiddling institution'. What he said was offensive and crass enough without exaggerating it.
Had he said that the Pope is antichrist, he would of course, have been correct.
I’m anti-Catholic. I think it a backward, hierarchical, patriarchal religion. But I think it’s unfair that it is labelled institutional kiddy-fiddling.
I am part Irish, and was brought up RC. I think your view is perhaps simplistic, but not without some merit, but also applies to other religions to a greater or lesser extent. The type of bollocks "Barty" puts out is in a long tradition of English anti-Catholic/ anti-Irish bigotry that dates back centuries and I can smell it a mile off. It is not that dissimilar to anti-Semitism and it stinks.
I don't think that's true. My feel from his posts is that he watches a lot of US films and TV programmes and as a big consumer of their pop culture, is very suggestible to the messaging therein, which is virrulently anti-Christian. I think his embrace of woke comes from the same source.
Question for those in the know. Today there were reports on the Alliance coming 2nd in NI. Who becomes deputy then as they are not defined by sectarianism and my understanding is the leader and deputy have to come from either side.
The largest party designating as Unionist. Alliance have done so in the past, but only for short-term tactical reasons.
So if the Alliance somehow got 51% of the vote but did not designate either way they still would not get either leader or deputy leader positions?
Would seem to be a bonkers outcome. Presumably they'd designate as unionist for convenience/democratic reasons were they to be runner up as polled. They could then say, "we will try to abolish these stupid sectarian rules now we are in power".
Someone, I'm ashamed to have forgotten whom, explained on PB the other day that for certain constitutional purposes in NI, anyone who is not a RC is deened to be Protestant. So we get the official UK Government notion of protestant atheists, protestant Muslims, protestant Pagans, protestant Jedi Knights ... I'm not sure if the Alliance are deemed to be protestant non-sectarians on the same logic ...
Edit: I did check the date of the post and it wasn't 1 April. It is just batty enough to be true ...
That was me….
NI police service - has to be 50/50 Catholic/Protestant.
The peak, perfect moment was when a couple of Eastern Europeans joined the PSNI. They were, of course, Catholic. The Shinners got upset because they were the wrong kind of Catholics. Possibly because immigrants to NI tend not to be Nationalist.
Anyway - the solution was to count them in the Protestant quota. So we have Protestant Catholics.
Aren't Anglicans Protestant Catholics in the first place technically?
Aren't christians all part of the one, holy, apostolic, catholic church, just not necessarily the Roman Catholic
If they are Protestant evangelicals rather than Anglicans they are certainly not part of the Apostolic and Catholic Church, Presbyterians and Baptists do not even have Bishops and reject the doctrine of apostolic succession through Bishops
apostolic has nothing to do with bishops, that is episcopalian.
I think it does indirectly, because bishopy goodness is handed down the papal line via St Peter the apostle
But an apostolic essentially means relating to the faith of the apostles and hence really the new testament. Bishops may be inspired by the spirit of the apostles, but apostolic does not necessitate the existence of bishops.
It does if you are a Roman Catholic and believe in the principle of apostolic succession from St Peter on and that holds too for Protestant churches in the Catholic tradition like Anglicans and Lutherans but not for evangelical churches like Baptists and Presbyterians
The Pope criticises "Nato barking at Russia’s gate" and suspects the invasion was "facilitated by the West’s attitude". He also questions whether weapons should be sent to Ukraine.
The less said by that kiddy fiddler institution the better it seems.
I don't agree with what he said, but calling the Pope a "kiddy fiddler" just demonstrates to us all (if we needed further evidence) what an ignorant unpleasant and unthinking right wing bigot you are.
Indeed and when Bartholmew Roberts posted under his name Phillip Thompson he said he would be happy to see the Troubles return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying for a pure Brexit.
If I retire the 'kinabalu' moniker and come back as 'raging_bull', saying to people please don't call me kinabalu now, or kintibula or the kinster, or kinny, or special k, none of that please, always call me raging bull, or just 'bull' for short, if someone ignores this and slips in my old name, or version of, is that doxxing then?
If they specifically asked not to be referred to their previous name then yes
Ruth Bader Ginsberg was a narcissistic, selfish old bat. Discuss.
The larger problem is the lack of term limits for SC justices. Which would be the most sensible and least partisan way to improve the court, but also one of the most difficult since it would require a constitutional amendment.
When would have been the ideal time for her to retire ?
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This is essentially the RBG line of Roe vs Wade.
Not really, given she was strongly against striking it down.
She stressed that hanging it on 'privacy' provisions was the wrong route, and that it should have been dealt with through legislation:
Perhaps so, but to argue that she felt "there is nothing in the US Constitution which says when have a basic right to terminate a foetus" is plain wrong. She rather argued that the right would have been more solidly grounded in a doctrine of equality.
I can accept that. The point I was making was that she was uncomfortable for the basis of Roe vs Wade, not being against abortion, or indeed rooting it in other constitutional rights.
An interesting point is that both Thomas and Alito stated during their confirmation hearings that the constitution does give rise to a right to privacy with respect to family life. Alito at least appears to have now disavowed that.
The Pope criticises "Nato barking at Russia’s gate" and suspects the invasion was "facilitated by the West’s attitude". He also questions whether weapons should be sent to Ukraine.
The less said by that kiddy fiddler institution the better it seems.
I don't agree with what he said, but calling the Pope a "kiddy fiddler" just demonstrates to us all (if we needed further evidence) what an ignorant unpleasant and unthinking right wing bigot you are.
Indeed and when Bartholmew Roberts posted under his name Phillip Thompson he said he would be happy to see the Troubles return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying for a pure Brexit.
If I retire the 'kinabalu' moniker and come back as 'raging_bull', saying to people please don't call me kinabalu now, or kintibula or the kinster, or kinny, or special k, none of that please, always call me raging bull, or just 'bull' for short, if someone ignores this and slips in my old name, or version of, is that doxxing then?
No. of course it isn't. It's an unfair charge - just as if someone slips a wrong pronoun in relation to someone they have always known but now identifies differently and gets accused of "mis-gendering".
She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible
Christ, that's worse than Roger's 'No' to Obama succeeding Bush 43.
The PB Rogerdamus award is now renamed the TimTdamus award,
And credit to @JosiasJessop for being absolutely correct during that discussion.
LOL. To be fair though, it was not Trump that overturned it, but rather his Supreme Court nominees, a situation enabled by RBG refusing to stand down.
Have to say, I am surprised and dismayed (if this turns out to be the court's decision). The only silver lining is that it may be the thing that saves Congress from turning Trump this mid-term.
PS I had totally forgotten about that post and am really impressed that (1) others remembered it, and (2) they could find it.
I hadn't gone specifically searching it out but discovered it when looking up my past comments on the future of Roe vs Wade in America.
It's an interesting post, although I would take issue with his description of Trump as "packing" the Supreme Court. He did no such thing (at least not as commonlty understood) - he merely filled vacancies as they arose with members of his tribe.
Indeed. Obama chose Sotomayor who certainly could not be described as a 'compromise' candidate. Given Merrick Garland's performance so far as AG any idea he would have been even-handed if he was on the SC do not hold much weight.
Except that Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice are VERY different roles.
Assuming justices appointed to life terms will consistently mirror the views of those who sent them AND their own previous public positions, is fraught with error - as American history has shown MANY times.
The notion that an unborn child has the right to life is in no way outlandish. It is a crime to destroy an unborn child in this country and in many other jurisdictions, and not just an offence against the mother.
The Abortion Act 1967 provides a specific exemption from the offence of child destruction, but I think it's quite right that in principle, child destruction should be a criminal offence.
So, I think abortion is very clearly an issue of competing rights (as between child and mother) and a case of where one draws the line. The notion that the unborn child has no rights is without merit.
Agree completely. I posted likewise earlier, but also included the father in that difficult decision on weighing up the rights.
I respect the view that life begins at conception, but strongly disagree with it. In disagreeing you them have to balance the rights of the 3 parties involved. It is an impossible dilemma but I think we pretty much have it right in the UK. Maybe with medical advances reducing the time limit by 2 weeks.
The question is, if life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin? If at birth, doesn't that open the door to abortion much later in the term than current consensus accepts?
Ruth Bader Ginsberg was a narcissistic, selfish old bat. Discuss.
The larger problem is the lack of term limits for SC justices. Which would be the most sensible and least partisan way to improve the court, but also one of the most difficult since it would require a constitutional amendment.
When would have been the ideal time for her to retire ?
Obama tried to persuade her many times, for precisely this reason, but she declined.
Giving people smugglers a whole summer to go with a Last Chance Before Rwanda campaign. Genius.
'The spokesman was unable to say when the first flight would be: “We have received pre-action correspondence from a number of legal firms, I can’t get into that more … but we still maintain our hope to have the first flights take place in a matter of months.”'
Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and targeted? Well, perhaps the last, but that's exploded by the look of it.
Are you saying they should ignore due legal process?
No; just noting the general disorganization. Now you raise it, however, HMG don't seem to have considered the implications of due legal process.
I think the are saying (whether it is true or a cover I don’t know) that because of the legal actions the flights are being delayed
Ruth Bader Ginsberg was a narcissistic, selfish old bat. Discuss.
The larger problem is the lack of term limits for SC justices. Which would be the most sensible and least partisan way to improve the court, but also one of the most difficult since it would require a constitutional amendment.
When would have been the ideal time for her to retire ?
Ruth Bader Ginsberg was a narcissistic, selfish old bat. Discuss.
The larger problem is the lack of term limits for SC justices. Which would be the most sensible and least partisan way to improve the court, but also one of the most difficult since it would require a constitutional amendment.
When would have been the ideal time for her to retire ?
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
There was a suggestion yesterday that gay sex and gay marriage might also lose their protection.
I feel differently about gay sex, and possibly marriage too, as I feel (I am not a lawyer) that such are protected either by the constitution or by indeed by common law rights.
Gay marriage was upheld under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment of the constitution.
There doesn't seem to be as much desire from SC justices to reinterpret that as Roe v Wade
We will see.
The leaked Alito opinion was scathing about the entire concept of the right to privacy being found in the 14th Amendment*, and directly critiqued the decision allowing gay marriage.
Of course while the leak has now been confirmed as genuine, it is not yet the final published decision, and could be amended before it becomes law, since all we know for sure is that it is Alito's opinion, and that a majority of the court support him in striking down Roe.
( *An opinion which contradicts his sworn evidence during his confirmation: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/politics/politicsspecial1/alito-at-hearing-pledges-an-open-mind-on-abortion.html ...Much as Judge John G. Roberts Jr. did during his confirmation hearings last year to become chief justice, Judge Alito steered a noncommittal course on abortion. He agreed that the Constitution protected the right to privacy, and endorsed the idea that even the Supreme Court should think long and hard before overturning well-established precedents )
Worth saying that the leak won't be coming from any liberal (they will be trying to soften things). It comes from a hardline conservative who wishes to ensure the Alito opinion isn't watered down - see https://twitter.com/akapczynski/status/1521494553877962754 for the gory details.
I agree on that i.e. it came from a conservative, not liberal. source and for pretty much the reasons outlined there i.e. it locks in the 5 justices as any other decision will now be seen as one being a "traitor"
Not according to the Senate's gaslighter in chief. "Last night’s stunning breach was an attack on the independence of the supreme court. By every indication, this was yet another escalation in the radical left’s ongoing campaign to bully and intimidate federal judges and substitute mob rule for the rule of law."
Ok, but that's not my view. I think, working on cui bono, it it far more realistic to think this came from a conservative, not liberal, side.
I'd agree (though it's not impossible someone on the liberal side of the argument leaked it). I was just noting a leading voice in the chorus of what seems like performative outrage from US conservative politicians.
That could be genuine - if you are the GOP in Congress, you are pretty comfortable right now in thinking at least the House and possibly both Houses of Congress will turn to the GOP. Overturning R v W potentially upsets that equation (although there are other considerations).
It's an interesting post, although I would take issue with his description of Trump as "packing" the Supreme Court. He did no such thing (at least not as commonlty understood) - he merely filled vacancies as they arose with members of his tribe.
Indeed. Obama chose Sotomayor who certainly could not be described as a 'compromise' candidate. Given Merrick Garland's performance so far as AG any idea he would have been even-handed if he was on the SC do not hold much weight.
@MrEd I've liked a post from you this morning (very late by me but have only just seen it) where you took me to task. Good response and it was lazy thinking on my part (although not unreasonable).
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
There was a suggestion yesterday that gay sex and gay marriage might also lose their protection.
I feel differently about gay sex, and possibly marriage too, as I feel (I am not a lawyer) that such are protected either by the constitution or by indeed by common law rights.
Gay marriage was upheld under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment of the constitution.
There doesn't seem to be as much desire from SC justices to reinterpret that as Roe v Wade
We will see.
The leaked Alito opinion was scathing about the entire concept of the right to privacy being found in the 14th Amendment*, and directly critiqued the decision allowing gay marriage.
Of course while the leak has now been confirmed as genuine, it is not yet the final published decision, and could be amended before it becomes law, since all we know for sure is that it is Alito's opinion, and that a majority of the court support him in striking down Roe.
( *An opinion which contradicts his sworn evidence during his confirmation: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/politics/politicsspecial1/alito-at-hearing-pledges-an-open-mind-on-abortion.html ...Much as Judge John G. Roberts Jr. did during his confirmation hearings last year to become chief justice, Judge Alito steered a noncommittal course on abortion. He agreed that the Constitution protected the right to privacy, and endorsed the idea that even the Supreme Court should think long and hard before overturning well-established precedents )
Worth saying that the leak won't be coming from any liberal (they will be trying to soften things). It comes from a hardline conservative who wishes to ensure the Alito opinion isn't watered down - see https://twitter.com/akapczynski/status/1521494553877962754 for the gory details.
I agree on that i.e. it came from a conservative, not liberal. source and for pretty much the reasons outlined there i.e. it locks in the 5 justices as any other decision will now be seen as one being a "traitor"
Not according to the Senate's gaslighter in chief. "Last night’s stunning breach was an attack on the independence of the supreme court. By every indication, this was yet another escalation in the radical left’s ongoing campaign to bully and intimidate federal judges and substitute mob rule for the rule of law."
Ok, but that's not my view. I think, working on cui bono, it it far more realistic to think this came from a conservative, not liberal, side.
I'd agree (though it's not impossible someone on the liberal side of the argument leaked it). I was just noting a leading voice in the chorus of what seems like performative outrage from US conservative politicians.
That could be genuine - if you are the GOP in Congress, you are pretty comfortable right now in thinking at least the House and possibly both Houses of Congress will turn to the GOP. Overturning R v W potentially upsets that equation (although there are other considerations).
That requires me to believe that Mitch is capable of being genuine.
Giving people smugglers a whole summer to go with a Last Chance Before Rwanda campaign. Genius.
'The spokesman was unable to say when the first flight would be: “We have received pre-action correspondence from a number of legal firms, I can’t get into that more … but we still maintain our hope to have the first flights take place in a matter of months.”'
Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and targeted? Well, perhaps the last, but that's exploded by the look of it.
Are you saying they should ignore due legal process?
They should anticipate it and respond robustly. With questions like So who is yer akshull client on whose behalf you are writing to me, you ambulance chasing vermin?
And what is their standing to bring a case.
I’m not a lawyer but those were my first 2 questions
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
Constitutions written ages ago can lose their utility - indeed become harmful - if they're taken as tablets of stone rather than interpreted for the times.
Notion that all Protestant denominations not recognizing apostolic succession also reject the Nicene Creed as matter of faith & doctrine, is NOT correct.
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
Constitutions written ages ago can lose their utility - indeed become harmful - if they're taken as tablets of stone rather than interpreted for the times.
Are there any examples of constitutions which have addressed this with a sunset clause or similar?
The notion that an unborn child has the right to life is in no way outlandish. It is a crime to destroy an unborn child in this country and in many other jurisdictions, and not just an offence against the mother.
The Abortion Act 1967 provides a specific exemption from the offence of child destruction, but I think it's quite right that in principle, child destruction should be a criminal offence.
So, I think abortion is very clearly an issue of competing rights (as between child and mother) and a case of where one draws the line. The notion that the unborn child has no rights is without merit.
Agree completely. I posted likewise earlier, but also included the father in that difficult decision on weighing up the rights.
I respect the view that life begins at conception, but strongly disagree with it. In disagreeing you them have to balance the rights of the 3 parties involved. It is an impossible dilemma but I think we pretty much have it right in the UK. Maybe with medical advances reducing the time limit by 2 weeks.
The question is, if life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin? If at birth, doesn't that open the door to abortion much later in the term than current consensus accepts?
That is exactly the problem. It is a dilemma and whatever decision you come to is debatable and heart breaking. If you are going to accept conception then you have just removed several forms of contraception, IVF (every egg will need to be implanted) and much medical research on cells that have only split one or two times.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg was a narcissistic, selfish old bat. Discuss.
The larger problem is the lack of term limits for SC justices. Which would be the most sensible and least partisan way to improve the court, but also one of the most difficult since it would require a constitutional amendment.
When would have been the ideal time for her to retire ?
On her 80th birthday (March 2013)?
One could argue that her obsession with clinging on to her seat until her last breath may end up causing more harm than all the good she did previously. I don't see any other way of looking at it other than she was so obsessed with herself and her position it took priority over any long term thinking whatsoever. I don't see anyone who was praising her at her death now praising what she has caused. If she had gone when Obama had asked her to then I don't think this situation would be happening.
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
Constitutions written ages ago can lose their utility - indeed become harmful - if they're taken as tablets of stone rather than interpreted for the times.
I agree. But the US are in a bind where it's practically impossible to amend the constitution by democratic means, and so the fight to redefine, rather than rewrite the tablets of stone has become a largely disingenuous one. On both sides, albeit the conservative side has been both more determined and more shameless in recent years.
I'm not entirely sure what the consequences of this decision will be, but I think they will be far reaching and probably not benign.
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
I’m not sure even the GOP are that stupid . To ban abortion nationwide would cause such a furore that they would be pulverized in future elections . And banning contraception would be unbelievable given most Americans aren’t Catholic.
The democracy angle is a red herring imo. An outright ban on abortion is removing a fundamental right of women that I think should be protected regardless of which party happens to be in power, state or federal level, at any one time. States' Rights - ie "democracy" - was offered in the 1960s as for why racial segregation should continue in parts of the South. It didn't wash then, as a reason for allowing something appalling, and for me it doesn't scrub up any better now.
Another interesting vox pop getting the views of Russians on an important subject. What do they think of Zelensky? As ever with such videos there seems a clear generational divide.
The Pope criticises "Nato barking at Russia’s gate" and suspects the invasion was "facilitated by the West’s attitude". He also questions whether weapons should be sent to Ukraine.
The less said by that kiddy fiddler institution the better it seems.
I don't agree with what he said, but calling the Pope a "kiddy fiddler" just demonstrates to us all (if we needed further evidence) what an ignorant unpleasant and unthinking right wing bigot you are.
Indeed and when Bartholmew Roberts posted under his name Phillip Thompson he said he would be happy to see the Troubles return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying for a pure Brexit.
I think Barty Bobbins is a total ratbag. But I agree, we need to maintain this standard.
Mods might want to consider this issue.
A blind man on a galloping camel knows that Thompson is Roberts. I don't agree with posters being able to whitewash their posting history. Though in the case of RT I can understand why he wants to do it. To have hero worshipped Johnson over 99,000 posts would have embarrassed anyone.
I'm not sure I'm understanding here, but surely Barty admitted he was PT when he changed his name here in his postings? Something to do with not using his real name to protect his work interests I think. Not sure it's doxxing if it's common knowledge.
The Pope criticises "Nato barking at Russia’s gate" and suspects the invasion was "facilitated by the West’s attitude". He also questions whether weapons should be sent to Ukraine.
The less said by that kiddy fiddler institution the better it seems.
I don't agree with what he said, but calling the Pope a "kiddy fiddler" just demonstrates to us all (if we needed further evidence) what an ignorant unpleasant and unthinking right wing bigot you are.
Indeed and when Bartholmew Roberts posted under his name Phillip Thompson he said he would be happy to see the Troubles return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying for a pure Brexit.
I think Barty Bobbins is a total ratbag. But I agree, we need to maintain this standard.
Mods might want to consider this issue.
A blind man on a galloping camel knows that Thompson is Roberts. I don't agree with posters being able to whitewash their posting history. Though in the case of RT I can understand why he wants to do it. To have hero worshipped Johnson over 99,000 posts would have embarrassed anyone.
I'm not sure I'm understanding here, but surely Barty admitted he was PT when he changed his name here in his postings? Something to do with not using his real name to protect his work interests I think. Not sure it's doxxing if it's common knowledge.
I'm not certain if "doxxing" is technically accurate. Regardless, BR asked that his real name not be used and that should be respected. In particular, using his real name as ammunition is beyond the pale and flat-out trolling.
The notion that an unborn child has the right to life is in no way outlandish. It is a crime to destroy an unborn child in this country and in many other jurisdictions, and not just an offence against the mother.
The Abortion Act 1967 provides a specific exemption from the offence of child destruction, but I think it's quite right that in principle, child destruction should be a criminal offence.
So, I think abortion is very clearly an issue of competing rights (as between child and mother) and a case of where one draws the line. The notion that the unborn child has no rights is without merit.
Particularly when you look at alleged abominations like Partial Late Term Abortion, when a viable fetus is essentially born then killed. It is rare but it happens and there have been cases when - allegedly - there was no threat to the mother’s life
She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible
Did you save that link so you could post it and say “ner-ner-ni-ner-ner your wife got it wrong”?
Do the boundary changes in Westminster tilt the field back toward Labour at all? The old boundaries VERamY heavily favour the Tories but there's been a seat reduction from the prior elections. Are the odds correct for the new boundaries ?
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
A federal law would be unconstitutional, as Congress only has the power to legislate as far as it affects inter-state commerce.
Ohio recorded a slight bump in the number of votes that were cast early by mail or in person compared with the previous midterm primary election in 2018, but the totals were nowhere near the record levels set during the 2020 presidential election.
At the conclusion of early voting on Monday, 263,542 early votes had been cast and 301,837 absentee ballots had been requested by mail or in person, according to the secretary of state’s office.
In 2018, the secretary’s office said, 260,443 early votes were cast and 300,765 absentee ballots were requested. That was, of course, before the coronavirus pandemic, which the Census Bureau said resulted in 43 percent of people voting by mail in the 2020 presidential election. In Ohio, about 3.4 million people voted early, accounting for 59 percent of the ballots cast that year.
This year, Republicans and Democrats in Ohio voted by mail in similar numbers, totals released by the secretary of state show. Republican lawmakers have sought to scale back or eliminate mail-in voting in many places across the country.
Republican primary voters in Ohio cast 61,847 ballots by mail, compared with 61,681 mail-in ballots from Democrats. The total number of early votes cast by Republicans was 141,313. For Democrats, the total was 118,096. Both totals included early, in-person votes.
At least one of Ohio’s largest cities recorded a decline in early voting this year. The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, which administers elections in Cleveland, told local media that the number of mail-in ballot requests it had received was about half as many as it had expected. The return rate was also lower than it had anticipated.
The general point about things better being done by states themselves is not without merit, but as has been noted it is not unusual in the USA for the Court to be far punchier about such matters given their constitutional settlement. And call me suspicious, but I don't quite buy that adherents of that line on the court will have been completely consistent about it for something they like.
They are politicians in fancy dress after all, they're just more learned and erudite than most politicians.
She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible
Christ, that's worse than Roger's 'No' to Obama succeeding Bush 43.
The PB Rogerdamus award is now renamed the TimTdamus award,
And credit to @JosiasJessop for being absolutely correct during that discussion.
Normal service was soon resumed,
There's something slightly cringeworthy about reading posts I wrote years ago - even when I still agree with them. And particularly when I do not...
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
A federal law would be unconstitutional, as Congress only has the power to legislate as far as it affects inter-state commerce.
If abortion is legal in some states but not others, then given the role of money in the American medical industry wouldn't it be a case of inter-state commerce?
That appears to be the most likely scenario. An impasse over a Republican redistricting plan that the Ohio Supreme Court rejected four times means that state legislative races will be conspicuously absent from the ballot when primary voters go to the polls on Tuesday.
Barring the last-minute intervention of the courts or the legislature, Ohio will be forced to hold a second primary, which state officials have said will most likely occur on Aug. 2. Splitting up the primaries into two elections could cost an additional $15 million to $20 million, according to Frank LaRose, Ohio’s secretary of state, who is a Republican.
At least nine lawsuits have been filed in response to the maps drawn by the Ohio Redistricting Commission, a seven-member panel controlled by Republicans.
Democrats contend that the maps give Republicans an unfair advantage in legislative races, while Republicans maintain that they reflect the election results from the past decade in Ohio.
A three-judge federal court panel in Ohio ruled on April 20 that if the commission does not develop an acceptable map by May 28, the panel will have no choice but to require the state to use the third version of the commission’s map, even though the Ohio Supreme Court previously rejected it.
Republicans don’t appear to be in any hurry to redraw the map. The two Democrats on the redistricting commission tried to hold a meeting of the group on April 25 but were unable to persuade at least one Republican on the panel to take part as required. The doors to a conference room where the panel usually meets were locked.
Seems like wishful thinking - and overconfidence that what comes after will necessarily be better:
Paul Singh @Paul1Singh · 2h Rumours are swirling in Moscow that a number of former generals and KGB officials are preparing to oust Putin and plan to end the war in Ukraine, which is increasingly seen across Russia as a strategic mistake and, above all, an economic disaster.
If Boris Johnson can singlehandedly overthrow Putin by Thursday the Conservatives can retain Wandsworth.
Incoming Falklands Factor for GE23, and it was all Boris...according to the Sun, Mail and Express.
Ukraine is being massively overplayed as an influence on the UK electorate, I think.
Standards of living, energy policy and taxation policy, vice versa.
Just caught that nice Mr Johnson being interviewed by Labour's Susanna Reid. He has Elsie's energy requirements covered. In response to Susanna commenting that Elsie keeps herself warm by spending all day on the bus, he explains to Red Susanna that "Just to remind you that the 24 hour freedom bus pass was something that I introduced".
Is Susanna a great interviewer or was Boris just overwhelmed by Susanna's luscious legs? Phwoar, ding dong!
The fact is that under the tories ordinary voters of all shapes and sizes are getting poorer. Not just slightly poorer, but significantly poorer. And not just slowly, but by the month.
The penalties for this are going to be absolutely brutal, especially for the tories. Prosperity is meant to be a totem for them, whereas its less so for labour, who tend to stress community.
The MPs are delusional and in dreamland. The other day one on the radio claimed they were the party of low taxation. That is demonstrably an outright lie. Taxes are at Corbynite levels Debt and spending, ditto. It's like telling someone black is white.
The voters are cottoning on to this and it cannot continue. The tories, right now, are going out of business.
Elsie's fuel bills 17 a month to 85 a month. That's your government killer right there
Yes , some old pensioner having to spend every day doing circles on a bus to keep warm and then scrounging about supermarkets for out of date bargains to eat is not a nice platform to be pushing.
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
A federal law would be unconstitutional, as Congress only has the power to legislate as far as it affects inter-state commerce.
Just because Russia may be breaking the Geneva convention ,two wrongs dont make a right and Ukraine must refrain from sending in an Ed Sheeran collaboration group to fight
Ruth Bader Ginsberg was a narcissistic, selfish old bat. Discuss.
The larger problem is the lack of term limits for SC justices. Which would be the most sensible and least partisan way to improve the court, but also one of the most difficult since it would require a constitutional amendment.
When would have been the ideal time for her to retire ?
Obama tried to persuade her many times, for precisely this reason, but she declined.
Comments
Complaint about the "lefty" Allegra Stratton being just one.
Mattia Nelles
@mattia_n
·
19h
At the end of the interview, Bodanov says he sees two scenarios for ending the war: the disintegration of Russia or the removal of Putin and relative preservation of RU. Giving Putin a face-saving way out of the war is almost impossible, he says.
https://twitter.com/mattia_n/status/1521226385422966788
Enabling a culture of racism? Sure.
This is essentially the RBG line of Roe vs Wade.
The leaked Alito opinion was scathing about the entire concept of the right to privacy being found in the 14th Amendment*, and directly critiqued the decision allowing gay marriage.
Of course while the leak has now been confirmed as genuine, it is not yet the final published decision, and could be amended before it becomes law, since all we know for sure is that it is Alito's opinion, and that a majority of the court support him in striking down Roe.
( *An opinion which contradicts his sworn evidence during his confirmation:
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/politics/politicsspecial1/alito-at-hearing-pledges-an-open-mind-on-abortion.html
...Much as Judge John G. Roberts Jr. did during his confirmation hearings last year to become chief justice, Judge Alito steered a noncommittal course on abortion. He agreed that the Constitution protected the right to privacy, and endorsed the idea that even the Supreme Court should think long and hard before overturning well-established precedents )
Trump voters weren't wrong. The SC was the prize for decades to come.
Charles Lindbergh was THE most prominent spokesperson for America First. A plus at first, but really a minus because of his less-than-restrained anti-Semitic rhetoric.
Among student leaders of AF was Gerald Ford, then attending Yale Law School. Interestingly, his experiences in US Navy during WW2 converted him from an isolationist to an internationalist. Similar to the transition in outlook of then US Sen. Arthur Vandenberg (R-Michigan). After the war, Ford challenged incumbent GOP isolationist congressman from his home town, Grand Rapids, defeated him in the 1948 primary, and went on to win the first of many terms in US House.
1. Asks, in light of FPNs for a different set of circumstances, whether the Durham event should be reviewed, effectively asking both ways to tie up what the Met are doing with what Durham police are doing.
Given the different circumstances, especially presence of non-co-workers joining for the sharing of cake, there is no reason at the moment to imagine there is an inconsistency between the handling of the two events.
2. Asks whether the law has been applied specifically in light of the (brief example based) guidance for political campaigning, basically asking whether the later guidance modified the law in relation to work meetings.
And I cannot see why it would, given this was deemed a working event by the police (and Richard Holden is not actually questioning whether it was a work event).
So, sure, Durham police can answer, and you can await that answer, but I cannot see in light of the known facts and prior investigation, where further this has to go.
Obviously, for 10 Downing Street there are numerous other events that were unequivocally parties, and the question of lying to parliament. On what is already known fact, but is awaiting to report, those events have far further to go.
So, it does look very much, given already known facts and the lack of new revelations, like the Tories are primarily, to mix metaphors, flogging a dead cat.
All we can do is 1. Criticise or praise - as outsiders, or 2. Parse what any change means for our own security and democracy as the USA still looms large in our culture and as part of our civilisation
https://twitter.com/akapczynski/status/1521494553877962754 for the gory details.
And like some theories about proposals coming out of Westminster, it can be good politics to suggest outrageous things that get thrown out by The Enemy.
Having all the power is much less fun than it looks. You either have to do the things you promised, or come up with another excuse for not doing them.
I said the same when labour types were demanding they investigate Cummings.
Have to say, I am surprised and dismayed (if this turns out to be the court's decision). The only silver lining is that it may be the thing that saves Congress from turning Trump this mid-term.
PS I had totally forgotten about that post and am really impressed that (1) others remembered it, and (2) they could find it.
In the case of the Catholic Church and child abuse, there were specific, concrete policies to coverup up abuse. These were enacted at a high level.
See, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
Fair enough if you don't really care what the US does, but the two things are not the same.
https://twitter.com/antonyshepherd/status/1153914452661723136
She stressed that hanging it on 'privacy' provisions was the wrong route, and that it should have been dealt with through legislation:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html
They can however ban it in the most conservative states where there are already GOP governors and state legislatures if Roe v Wade is overturned
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-same-sex-marriage/by/state/
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
The Abortion Act 1967 provides a specific exemption from the offence of child destruction, but I think it's quite right that in principle, child destruction should be a criminal offence.
So, I think abortion is very clearly an issue of competing rights (as between child and mother) and a case of where one draws the line. The notion that the unborn child has no rights is without merit.
Have you no pity for them?
"Last night’s stunning breach was an attack on the independence of the supreme court. By every indication, this was yet another escalation in the radical left’s ongoing campaign to bully and intimidate federal judges and substitute mob rule for the rule of law."
11. The Narrative
When a minister is to be inducted or introduced, the Presbytery Clerk gives a brief account
of the steps leading to the appointment.
12. Preamble
The Ordinand or Minister to be inducted/introduced stands before the Presbytery.
The Moderator says:
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,
the King and Head of the Church,
who, being ascended on high,
has given gifts for the edifying of the body of Christ,
we are met as a Presbytery
to ordain N_____ to the office of the Holy Ministry
(and to induct/introduce N_____ to the pastoral charge of ...)
by prayer and the laying on of hands by Presbyters to whom it belongs
(And to induct him/her into the pastoral charge of...)
(and to confirm her/him in her/his appointment as...)
(and to welcome/introduce him/her as..
She rather argued that the right would have been more solidly grounded in a doctrine of equality.
I respect the view that life begins at conception, but strongly disagree with it. In disagreeing you them have to balance the rights of the 3 parties involved. It is an impossible dilemma but I think we pretty much have it right in the UK. Maybe with medical advances reducing the time limit by 2 weeks.
The sale of Chelsea has hit a serious obstacle over fears that Russian-born owner Roman Abramovich is attempting to renege on his promise to write off a £1.6 billion debt.
It is understood that Chelsea told the government — as well as the rival bidding groups — last week that they want to restructure the way the club is being sold, which would include paying off the debt from Chelsea’s parent company Fordstam Ltd to a Jersey-based company Camberley International Investments, which appears to be linked to Abramovich.
There are big concerns about allowing that to happen when Abramovich has been sanctioned and has had his assets frozen. Ministers have been under the impression that all proceeds from the sale would be given over to the government to be used for good causes, including helping the victims of the war in Ukraine.
Last week the consortium led by Todd Boehly, the co-owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team, was informed by Chelsea’s US bankers that it had been given a five-day period of exclusivity as preferred bidders.
But sources from the rival bid groups said it was only “days” before that decision was taken that they were informed that the loan, which is in trust in Jersey, needs to be repaid on the sale of the club.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chelsea-sale-hits-snag-over-fears-roman-abramovich-wants-1-6bn-loan-repaid-sxjn5h8d7
I was just noting a leading voice in the chorus of what seems like performative outrage from US conservative politicians.
Voters in Ohio and Indiana will nominate candidates in a key Senate race and more.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/03/2022-primary-elections-ohio-indiana-00029491
1. The Ohio Senate pileup [US Senate race for Republican nomination, so far over $70m spent by all candidates, lions share by GOPers]
2. DeWine defusing conservative frustration [incumbent GOP Governor opposed for re-nomination by two (more) conservative challengers, but 45 endorsed neither; expect MDeW to win tonight AND in November]
3. Another Trump acolyte in Congress [former 45 aid Max Miller on glide path to open-seat US House nomination, thanks to wirepulling = well-timed retirement announcement by incumbent]
4. Establishment strikes back [in greatly-altered-by-redistricting 9th CD for right to run against long-time Dem incumbent Marcy Kaptur (who BTW is pro-life) looks like establishment pick for Republican nomination will prevail over MAGA maniac]
5. The left tries again in Cleveland [in repeat race for Dem nomination in 11th CD between incumbent Shontel Brown, elected in 2021 special election and a moderate, versus progressive Nina Turner; thus something of a referendum re: President Biden among Black Democratic voters]
6. An emerging battlefield [in northwest Indiana, where slipping Democratic margins provide possible opening for Republicans in 1st CD, who today will nominate a woman military veteran among two on offer (one White, other Black)]
7. Safe Seat Super PAC Battle [in southwest Indiana 8th CD between incumbent GOPer and several challengers for the nomination, which these days is tantamount to election; FYI yours truly cut his electoral eye-teeth in the "Bloody 8th" back in the day, when Democrats were competitive here to say the least, back when the district still included most of Bloomington home of Indiana University]
When would have been the ideal time for her to retire ?
I think the police should investigate the thread to see whether any crimes have been committed.
Alito at least appears to have now disavowed that.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/1340054/#Comment_1340054
Assuming justices appointed to life terms will consistently mirror the views of those who sent them AND their own previous public positions, is fraught with error - as American history has shown MANY times.
For example, Earl Warren. Just sayin'.
I’m not a lawyer but those were my first 2 questions
As wee bit o' googling soon shows. For example,
http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/evangelicals-and-nicene-faith/325911
This is a rather complex subject NOT susceptible to shade-tree do-it-yourself theology.
But the US are in a bind where it's practically impossible to amend the constitution by democratic means, and so the fight to redefine, rather than rewrite the tablets of stone has become a largely disingenuous one. On both sides, albeit the conservative side has been both more determined and more shameless in recent years.
I'm not entirely sure what the consequences of this decision will be, but I think they will be far reaching and probably not benign.
A very sad debate indeed, but it must be had
Otherwise that’s a really weird post to dig out
The old boundaries VERamY heavily favour the Tories but there's been a seat reduction from the prior elections.
Are the odds correct for the new boundaries ?
Image
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/03/us/ohio-indiana-primary-election
Ohio recorded a slight bump in the number of votes that were cast early by mail or in person compared with the previous midterm primary election in 2018, but the totals were nowhere near the record levels set during the 2020 presidential election.
At the conclusion of early voting on Monday, 263,542 early votes had been cast and 301,837 absentee ballots had been requested by mail or in person, according to the secretary of state’s office.
In 2018, the secretary’s office said, 260,443 early votes were cast and 300,765 absentee ballots were requested. That was, of course, before the coronavirus pandemic, which the Census Bureau said resulted in 43 percent of people voting by mail in the 2020 presidential election. In Ohio, about 3.4 million people voted early, accounting for 59 percent of the ballots cast that year.
This year, Republicans and Democrats in Ohio voted by mail in similar numbers, totals released by the secretary of state show. Republican lawmakers have sought to scale back or eliminate mail-in voting in many places across the country.
Republican primary voters in Ohio cast 61,847 ballots by mail, compared with 61,681 mail-in ballots from Democrats. The total number of early votes cast by Republicans was 141,313. For Democrats, the total was 118,096. Both totals included early, in-person votes.
At least one of Ohio’s largest cities recorded a decline in early voting this year. The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, which administers elections in Cleveland, told local media that the number of mail-in ballot requests it had received was about half as many as it had expected. The return rate was also lower than it had anticipated.
They are politicians in fancy dress after all, they're just more learned and erudite than most politicians.
There's something slightly cringeworthy about reading posts I wrote years ago - even when I still agree with them. And particularly when I do not...
So, wait, Ohio will have a second primary?
That appears to be the most likely scenario. An impasse over a Republican redistricting plan that the Ohio Supreme Court rejected four times means that state legislative races will be conspicuously absent from the ballot when primary voters go to the polls on Tuesday.
Barring the last-minute intervention of the courts or the legislature, Ohio will be forced to hold a second primary, which state officials have said will most likely occur on Aug. 2.
Splitting up the primaries into two elections could cost an additional $15 million to $20 million, according to Frank LaRose, Ohio’s secretary of state, who is a Republican.
At least nine lawsuits have been filed in response to the maps drawn by the Ohio Redistricting Commission, a seven-member panel controlled by Republicans.
Democrats contend that the maps give Republicans an unfair advantage in legislative races, while Republicans maintain that they reflect the election results from the past decade in Ohio.
A three-judge federal court panel in Ohio ruled on April 20 that if the commission does not develop an acceptable map by May 28, the panel will have no choice but to require the state to use the third version of the commission’s map, even though the Ohio Supreme Court previously rejected it.
Republicans don’t appear to be in any hurry to redraw the map. The two Democrats on the redistricting commission tried to hold a meeting of the group on April 25 but were unable to persuade at least one Republican on the panel to take part as required. The doors to a conference room where the panel usually meets were locked.