“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
If only they would let you beat your girlfriend and spit at shirt lifters. Like in the good old days.
no arguments again do better mate im here and waiting
You asked "has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole" and I answered "yes".
You don't agree and that is your right. But the majority of people in the UK do not have to explain themselves to repressed people like yourself. There isn't going to be any rolling back of the sexual revolution no matter how puce you get. Perhaps moving to a more backwards country would make you happier? Saudi Arabia perhaps - they don't let women drive and behead gayers. You'll be right at home.
I don't agree with micktrain but I don't know why your first assumption is that he's "repressed".
Christ, guns everywhere and a return to back street abortions. America is in a grim place. Especially as a majority of voters don't want either policy. I guess the lesson is don't have an eighteenth century rule book that is almost impossible to change unless you want to live in the eighteenth century.
Eighteenth? Surely they're looking to live in a century older than that.
One thing about the leaked draft of the abortion decision -the published opinion is very similar to the leak. That pretty well confirms the motive for leaking it was ensuring that the slightly less hardline conservatives on the bench didn't try to water down the outright repeal of the right to abortion which it represents.
This is about a rumour that some Tories might write to the 1922 asking for a change in the leadership vote rules, padded out with a few quotes from on-the-record malcontents. It's not news, it's idle speculation.
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
As for why...
It has meant that (statistically) unusual but harmless geniuses like Alan Turing can get on with being brilliant, instead of being pushed to suicide.
It means that blackmailers have fewer handles to ply their evil.
It means the state isn't wasting time and money policing what goes on between consenting adults.
More honesty about stuff is generally better than less.
Will that do for starters?
Though taking away from younger generations freedoms they enjoyed is very on-brand for a certain group of baby boomers.
i wasnt talking about criminalising homosexuality mate for example roll back of the sexual revolution could mean for example getting rid of Pride month
As far as I know there's no law forcing you to celebrate Pride month. Shame you're of a mindset that means that people can enjoy only things you agree with.
Christ, guns everywhere and a return to back street abortions. America is in a grim place. Especially as a majority of voters don't want either policy. I guess the lesson is don't have an eighteenth century rule book that is almost impossible to change unless you want to live in the eighteenth century.
Eighteenth? Surely they're looking to live in a century older than that.
Significant civil strife is now more likely than not, in America
I don’t see how else this ends. It is a fight to the death
to be fair its time parts of the sexual revolution were rolled back and its got to start somewhere
Ok, I've already made an arse of myself once today, by taking a joke as serious comment, so help me out here - should there be a at the end of that statement?
If not, which bits, exactly?
is total sexual freedom beneficial for society or not...answer me that...not talking about for women or men but society as a whole
Broadly speaking what consenting adults do is no business of society, state or church.
but is it beneficial for society as a whole...you havent answered my question so i think we can take it you can agree its negative for society as a whole even if beneficial for some individuals
I'm sorry I wasn't plain enough.
It's got f*ck all to do with society and is therefor totally beneficial to society.
thats not an answer...do you care about society pal
Society is best served by not interfering in other people's private affairs. What goes on behind the closed bedroom door between consenting adults is none of society's business.
Christ, guns everywhere and a return to back street abortions. America is in a grim place. Especially as a majority of voters don't want either policy. I guess the lesson is don't have an eighteenth century rule book that is almost impossible to change unless you want to live in the eighteenth century.
Eighteenth? Surely they're looking to live in a century older than that.
Like I said not so long ago, it's only around the turn of the century that the Americans had a go at trying to turn Afghanistan into the United States - now a lot of them are trying to turn the United States into Afghanistan. Go figure.
Significant civil strife is now more likely than not, in America
I don’t see how else this ends. It is a fight to the death
to be fair its time parts of the sexual revolution were rolled back and its got to start somewhere
Ok, I've already made an arse of myself once today, by taking a joke as serious comment, so help me out here - should there be a at the end of that statement?
If not, which bits, exactly?
is total sexual freedom beneficial for society or not...answer me that...not talking about for women or men but society as a whole
Broadly speaking what consenting adults do is no business of society, state or church.
but is it beneficial for society as a whole...you havent answered my question so i think we can take it you can agree its negative for society as a whole even if beneficial for some individuals
I'm sorry I wasn't plain enough.
It's got f*ck all to do with society and is therefor totally beneficial to society.
thats not an answer...do you care about society pal
It's an answer that you neither like or understand.
I'm forgiving, indeed indulgent of your attitude but "pal" ... oh deary me no !!
Can the US Senate and House overrule decisions by individual states?
As long as it is constitutional to do so then yes.
The federal government could pass a law to encode Roe if it so chose.
The current Supreme Court would strike it down for spurious reasons obviously (see their gutting of the Civil Rights Act) but yes, the Federal Gov can overrule.
Christ, guns everywhere and a return to back street abortions. America is in a grim place. Especially as a majority of voters don't want either policy. I guess the lesson is don't have an eighteenth century rule book that is almost impossible to change unless you want to live in the eighteenth century.
Eighteenth? Surely they're looking to live in a century older than that.
Christ, guns everywhere and a return to back street abortions. America is in a grim place. Especially as a majority of voters don't want either policy...
The abortion decision will likely lead to something worse than just a return to the pre-70s regime.
There are movements in some states for full legal fetal personhood. That would make all pregnant women second class citizens liable to state surveillance, and potential punishment should anything happen to their pregnancy.
Can the US Senate and House overrule decisions by individual states?
A federal bill granting the right to abortion could be tabled, but contentious legislation can only pass if the party proposing controls the White House, a majority in the House of Representatives and sixty votes in the Senate. The latter is the obstacle. IIRC the Democrats have a bare majority in the Senate on the Vice President's casting vote (and I believe that one of the Democrat senators has strong anti-abortion views in any case.) Any number of votes short of the supermajority and the standing orders of the Senate effectively allow the opposing party to block any bill by filibuster.
There is, consequently, no chance of abortion rights legislation making it onto the federal statute book.
This is about a rumour that some Tories might write to the 1922 asking for a change in the leadership vote rules, padded out with a few quotes from on-the-record malcontents. It's not news, it's idle speculation.
The ‘22 aren’t going to change their rules, it would open up Pandora’s Box.
The MPs had their chance and didn’t take it. Now it’s up to the Cabinet, or the “Men in Grey Suits” to effect a leadership change.
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Republicans v women.
pal.
It’s not outrageous to believe that all human life begins at conception, and must therefore be protected as much as a baby
I don’t agree but I respect that sincere belief honestly held by many in the USA
Trouble is SOME right wingers have hijacked this cause as a way to monster the Left, as they believe the Left is bent on destroying the America they know
It’s a war. Pal.
Enough of this chippy 'pal' thing. It's a cringer.
On the 'respect' front, for me it depends. People who believe abortion is morally wrong and (if a woman) would never contemplate it - I respect that. But people (esp men) who seek to impose that view by law on everyone else and in the process roll back the emancipation of women by 50 years - I don't respect that. I have contempt for it tbh.
This is about a rumour that some Tories might write to the 1922 asking for a change in the leadership vote rules, padded out with a few quotes from on-the-record malcontents. It's not news, it's idle speculation.
Seems Boris supporters are attempting to get their place people elected to the 1922 committee in July but this is being resisted by the 148
I would say the change of rule by the 1922 is not idle speculation but very real
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
If only they would let you beat your girlfriend and spit at shirt lifters. Like in the good old days.
no arguments again do better mate im here and waiting
You asked "has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole" and I answered "yes".
You don't agree and that is your right. But the majority of people in the UK do not have to explain themselves to repressed people like yourself. There isn't going to be any rolling back of the sexual revolution no matter how puce you get. Perhaps moving to a more backwards country would make you happier? Saudi Arabia perhaps - they don't let women drive and behead gayers. You'll be right at home.
ah the old saudi arabia trope...you do realise there is a middle ground between the us and saudia arabia....and yes the sexual revolution will be rolled back for the simple reason societies as decadent as ours start to collapse which is what is happening now
Ah, the capital letters giveaway. Oh those Russians!
Yes, the decadent west will collapse. The rodina will succeed because it is promoting traditional family values like genocide and rape as a weapon of war.
Abortion is legal in Russia, only in Poland now in Europe and the Anglosphere is it mostly illegal and soon some US states
Can the US Senate and House overrule decisions by individual states?
In some things, not in others. The boundaries between state and federal powers are broadly defined by the Constitution, and have been fleshed out by decisions of the Supreme Court, which adjudicates those boundaries.
As an example, states make laws to set their own taxes (federal taxes are set by the federal government). But the federal government potentially can challenge some of those laws if it can demonstrate they interfere with inter-state commerce, which is a matter for the federal government. (Note that doesn't, for example prevent states having different levels of sales tax.) It's complicated.
This is about a rumour that some Tories might write to the 1922 asking for a change in the leadership vote rules, padded out with a few quotes from on-the-record malcontents. It's not news, it's idle speculation.
Seems Boris supporters are attempting to get their place people elected to the 1922 committee in July but this is being resisted by the 148
I would say the change of rule by the 1922 is not idle speculation but very real
There are so many on the payroll that the electorate must be small. And overwhelmingly anti-Boris, one would have thought. However. They just voted to keep him. On what grounds should they vote again?
This is about a rumour that some Tories might write to the 1922 asking for a change in the leadership vote rules, padded out with a few quotes from on-the-record malcontents. It's not news, it's idle speculation.
Seems Boris supporters are attempting to get their place people elected to the 1922 committee in July but this is being resisted by the 148
I would say the change of rule by the 1922 is not idle speculation but very real
There are so many on the payroll that the electorate must be small. And overwhelmingly anti-Boris, one would have thought. However. They just voted to keep him. On what grounds should they vote again?
Resignation of cabinet minister and shocking by election results
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Republicans v women.
pal.
It’s not outrageous to believe that all human life begins at conception, and must therefore be protected as much as a baby
I don’t agree but I respect that sincere belief honestly held by many in the USA
Trouble is SOME right wingers have hijacked this cause as a way to monster the Left, as they believe the Left is bent on destroying the America they know
It’s a war. Pal.
Enough of this chippy 'pal' thing. It's a cringer.
On the 'respect' front, for me it depends. People who believe abortion is morally wrong and (if a woman) would never contemplate it - I respect that. But people (esp men) who seek to impose that view by law on everyone else and in the process roll back the emancipation of women by 50 years - I don't respect that. I have contempt for it tbh.
It's a subset of the right isn't it - the deeply religious conservative ones. Very niche over here thankfully. Plenty of them are women.
This is about a rumour that some Tories might write to the 1922 asking for a change in the leadership vote rules, padded out with a few quotes from on-the-record malcontents. It's not news, it's idle speculation.
The ‘22 aren’t going to change their rules, it would open up Pandora’s Box.
The MPs had their chance and didn’t take it. Now it’s up to the Cabinet, or the “Men in Grey Suits” to effect a leadership change.
And that isn't going to happen because most of them will be on the backbenches as soon as the next leader is elected.
Equally Bozo won't go - because that simply isn't his style - if it was he would have left last Autumn having declared Brexit done and Covid dealt with.
Christ, guns everywhere and a return to back street abortions. America is in a grim place. Especially as a majority of voters don't want either policy. I guess the lesson is don't have an eighteenth century rule book that is almost impossible to change unless you want to live in the eighteenth century.
Eighteenth? Surely they're looking to live in a century older than that.
This is about a rumour that some Tories might write to the 1922 asking for a change in the leadership vote rules, padded out with a few quotes from on-the-record malcontents. It's not news, it's idle speculation.
Seems Boris supporters are attempting to get their place people elected to the 1922 committee in July but this is being resisted by the 148
I would say the change of rule by the 1922 is not idle speculation but very real
There are so many on the payroll that the electorate must be small. And overwhelmingly anti-Boris, one would have thought. However. They just voted to keep him. On what grounds should they vote again?
Should the Commons' privileges committee report conclude that he misled the House, that could be used as reasonable grounds to have another go.
However fucked up the UK seems, I'm thankful that we're nothing like America.
Boris is Trump-lite, though. And Brexit is essentially MAGA.
But yes, thank fuck the UK has thus far avoided much of the abortion lunacy, critical race theory, obscene political funding, political judge appointments, gun nuttery, and the opiate crisis.
Christ, guns everywhere and a return to back street abortions. America is in a grim place. Especially as a majority of voters don't want either policy. I guess the lesson is don't have an eighteenth century rule book that is almost impossible to change unless you want to live in the eighteenth century.
America demonstrating unequivocally why a "written constitution" is not all its defenders crack it up to being.
However fucked up the UK seems, I'm thankful that we're nothing like America.
Boris is Trump-lite, though. And Brexit is essentially MAGA.
But yes, thank fuck the UK has thus far avoided much of the abortion lunacy, critical race theory, obscene political funding, political judge appointments, gun nuttery, and the opiate crisis.
difference beween boris and trump is i dont think boris believes half the stuff he says...res really a part of the establishmnet whereas Trump is more of an outsider
Tory whips are plotting to push pro-Boris MPs onto the 1922 Committee Executive in elections expected next month.
Would help block a rule change to allow another leadership challenge. The 50-odd PPSs will be told to back the pro-PM ticket. Story w/ @christopherhope.
Election for the 18 senior roles on the 1922 is one of the next big battles. Johnson is protected for a year from another leadership challenge. But that rule can change and it is those 18 people who decide.
This is about a rumour that some Tories might write to the 1922 asking for a change in the leadership vote rules, padded out with a few quotes from on-the-record malcontents. It's not news, it's idle speculation.
Seems Boris supporters are attempting to get their place people elected to the 1922 committee in July but this is being resisted by the 148
I would say the change of rule by the 1922 is not idle speculation but very real
There are so many on the payroll that the electorate must be small. And overwhelmingly anti-Boris, one would have thought. However. They just voted to keep him. On what grounds should they vote again?
Resignation of cabinet minister and shocking by election results
We could have a vote every month in that case. Not a great way to run a Party. Let alone a government. One thing I don't get is why the vote happened the next day? It's almost as if it was designed so nobody thought through their vote. You wouldn't have a GE or referendum like that.
This is about a rumour that some Tories might write to the 1922 asking for a change in the leadership vote rules, padded out with a few quotes from on-the-record malcontents. It's not news, it's idle speculation.
Seems Boris supporters are attempting to get their place people elected to the 1922 committee in July but this is being resisted by the 148
I would say the change of rule by the 1922 is not idle speculation but very real
There are so many on the payroll that the electorate must be small. And overwhelmingly anti-Boris, one would have thought. However. They just voted to keep him. On what grounds should they vote again?
There are no grounds unless the 22 changes the rules mid-term. Cabinet resignations hold more hope I think.
David Bereit, who founded 40 Days for Life, a grassroots faith-based effort with prayer and fasting campaigns to end abortion, could not stop crying.
He had not been able to sleep, having just landed from a red eye from the California March for Life, wondering what the news would be. When he saw the ruling, he called his wife, and she wept. They called their children. For years they had traveled as a family across the country, and the world for the cause.
Tory whips are plotting to push pro-Boris MPs onto the 1922 Committee Executive in elections expected next month.
Would help block a rule change to allow another leadership challenge. The 50-odd PPSs will be told to back the pro-PM ticket. Story w/ @christopherhope.
Election for the 18 senior roles on the 1922 is one of the next big battles. Johnson is protected for a year from another leadership challenge. But that rule can change and it is those 18 people who decide.
One thing about the leaked draft of the abortion decision -the published opinion is very similar to the leak. That pretty well confirms the motive for leaking it was ensuring that the slightly less hardline conservatives on the bench didn't try to water down the outright repeal of the right to abortion which it represents.
The judgement repeals nothing. It returns the USA to the same position as the UK. It's a matter for voters and legislators. Works OK here. It's called democracy. It seems to me that in the US people have been paying far too much attention to litigating and far to little to voting. And over moral matters far too many people on all sides think only one view is rational or possible. They are wrong.
If only the SC would do the same with guns. Absolutely a matter for voters. New York and Wyoming are not in the same position.
Tory whips are plotting to push pro-Boris MPs onto the 1922 Committee Executive in elections expected next month.
Would help block a rule change to allow another leadership challenge. The 50-odd PPSs will be told to back the pro-PM ticket. Story w/ @christopherhope.
Election for the 18 senior roles on the 1922 is one of the next big battles. Johnson is protected for a year from another leadership challenge. But that rule can change and it is those 18 people who decide.
However fucked up the UK seems, I'm thankful that we're nothing like America.
Boris is Trump-lite, though. And Brexit is essentially MAGA.
But yes, thank fuck the UK has thus far avoided much of the abortion lunacy, critical race theory, obscene political funding, political judge appointments, gun nuttery, and the opiate crisis.
difference beween boris and trump is i dont think boris believes half the stuff he says...res really a part of the establishmnet whereas Trump is more of an outsider
They are both, essentially, sociopathic entertainers who believe if you shout (or guffaw) loud enough you can make the real world conform to your inner visions.
The simularities are eerie, right down to the hair-as-visual-branding.
However fucked up the UK seems, I'm thankful that we're nothing like America.
Yep, definitely. They are close to gone. Some of the 'cw' tone & techniques will be coming soon to an election near us though. We need to reject it. Hope and pray we will.
Tory whips are plotting to push pro-Boris MPs onto the 1922 Committee Executive in elections expected next month.
Would help block a rule change to allow another leadership challenge. The 50-odd PPSs will be told to back the pro-PM ticket. Story w/ @christopherhope.
Election for the 18 senior roles on the 1922 is one of the next big battles. Johnson is protected for a year from another leadership challenge. But that rule can change and it is those 18 people who decide.
So, have any Tory MPs gone on the record yet to say "Mea culpa. We should have binned the PM when we had the chance...."?
If any have - kudos. You fucking muppet.
For the rest - you fucking muppets.
What about those deluded fools who voted for him in the first place? Have they declared their mea culpae* yet?
*Or whatever the plural is.
Nostra culpa?
First declension like mensa, and feminine. Plainly the possessive pertains to more than one person, so 'their blame'. But what I'm not sure is if the blame is singular or plural. On the principle that people vote for different reasons, I suppose we want 'their blames', so suae culpae (strictly: in that sentence it is the object, so should be suas culpas - or just put in quotation marks to insulate things ... which also breaks the subject to object element, so we can then then have "nostrae culpae" ...
Significant civil strife is now more likely than not, in America
I don’t see how else this ends. It is a fight to the death
to be fair its time parts of the sexual revolution were rolled back and its got to start somewhere
Ok, I've already made an arse of myself once today, by taking a joke as serious comment, so help me out here - should there be a at the end of that statement?
If not, which bits, exactly?
is total sexual freedom beneficial for society or not...answer me that...not talking about for women or men but society as a whole
Broadly speaking what consenting adults do is no business of society, state or church.
but is it beneficial for society as a whole...you havent answered my question so i think we can take it you can agree its negative for society as a whole even if beneficial for some individuals
I'm sorry I wasn't plain enough.
It's got f*ck all to do with society and is therefor totally beneficial to society.
thats not an answer...do you care about society pal
Stop digging your hole, already plenty deep enough - pal.
IF you don't have a clue who JackW is, then somehow am NOT surprised.
Tory whips are plotting to push pro-Boris MPs onto the 1922 Committee Executive in elections expected next month.
Would help block a rule change to allow another leadership challenge. The 50-odd PPSs will be told to back the pro-PM ticket. Story w/ @christopherhope.
Election for the 18 senior roles on the 1922 is one of the next big battles. Johnson is protected for a year from another leadership challenge. But that rule can change and it is those 18 people who decide.
Tory whips are plotting to push pro-Boris MPs onto the 1922 Committee Executive in elections expected next month.
Would help block a rule change to allow another leadership challenge. The 50-odd PPSs will be told to back the pro-PM ticket. Story w/ @christopherhope.
Election for the 18 senior roles on the 1922 is one of the next big battles. Johnson is protected for a year from another leadership challenge. But that rule can change and it is those 18 people who decide.
its all very interesting but i dont think a change of leader will save the tories
Really? I can see Penny Mordaunt being a very difficult opponent for Keir Starmer.
Really? Seems she cannot even compose an original tweet!
A single post that inadvertently encapsulates the left. The real world exists outside of Twitter. "Winning" the internet for a day doesn't mean anything. Retweets and likes are not votes.
its all very interesting but i dont think a change of leader will save the tories
Really? I can see Penny Mordaunt being a very difficult opponent for Keir Starmer.
Really? Seems she cannot even compose an original tweet!
A single post that inadvertently encapsulates the left. The real world exists outside of Twitter. "Winning" the internet for a day doesn't mean anything. Retweets and likes are not votes.
The venal and narcissistic nature of Twitter is summed up best in their notion of getting "ratioed".
I come here to have interesting discussions and back and forths with people, replies are interesting parts of discussions and help you learn from others viewpoints.
That replies are considered a bad thing unlike mindless retweets or likes on Twitter just sums up everything that is wrong with that "community".
However fucked up the UK seems, I'm thankful that we're nothing like America.
Yep, definitely. They are close to gone. Some of the 'cw' tone & techniques will be coming soon to an election near us though. We need to reject it. Hope and pray we will.
What on earth does “close to gone” mean. Get a grip.
The dems need to start planning for a constitutional amendment on this, America can't be governed by a document written 250 years ago.
Well it can be governed by a document written 250 years ago (it currently is) - but it really shouldn't be.
Said ancient document contains within it all the mechanisms needed to permit modernisation, through adoption of new amendments and repeal of existing ones. The issue being, of course, that the barriers to passing an amendment are quite deliberately set so very high that one can presently envisage almost no circumstances under which this could be done.
I went and checked: since an amendment fixing the voting age at 18 was passed in 1971, only one further amendment has been added, a technical measure concerning congressional pay. There's probably nothing sufficiently anodyne that might still need adding to the document that wouldn't attract the necessary minority of blocking votes to veto its inclusion.
The dems need to start planning for a constitutional amendment on this, America can't be governed by a document written 250 years ago.
Well it can be governed by a document written 250 years ago (it currently is) - but it really shouldn't be.
How on earth will they get a amendment passed when each state has two senators whatever the size and the filibuster seems never to be removable?
Even when they pass amendments, they still have to be ratified by the states. Look at the history of the Equal Rights Amendment. Approved by both Houses of Congress in 1972.. still to be ratified: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
However fucked up the UK seems, I'm thankful that we're nothing like America.
Boris is Trump-lite, though. And Brexit is essentially MAGA.
But yes, thank fuck the UK has thus far avoided much of the abortion lunacy, critical race theory, obscene political funding, political judge appointments, gun nuttery, and the opiate crisis.
difference beween boris and trump is i dont think boris believes half the stuff he says...res really a part of the establishmnet whereas Trump is more of an outsider
They are both, essentially, sociopathic entertainers who believe if you shout (or guffaw) loud enough you can make the real world conform to your inner visions.
The simularities are eerie, right down to the hair-as-visual-branding.
@alexanderdecroo Very concerned about implications of @USSupremeCourt decision on #RoeVWade and the signal it sends to the world.
Banning abortion never leads to fewer abortions, only to more unsafe abortions.
Belgium will continue to work with other countries to advance #SRHR everywhere.
The SC has not banned abortions. Voters and legislators do so. I think they are wrong to do so but democracy is what it is. On other issues liberals tend to like democracy but not on this one. Enlightenment does not consist of thinking only one view is possible.
This could be good news for the Democrats wrt the mid-term elections. It will probably galvanise their voters slightly more than GOP voters.
GOP will now be able to run on the carrot of a federal abortion ban. I think the motivation differential is a wash.
Disagree, as many of the less-extreme pro-lifers will be satisfied with banning abortion in their own bailiwick. But we shall see.
Also, differential views with respect to age & education will have an impact, in that many suburban moderates who are highly likely to vote in midterm general elections MAY be persuaded to support Dems on this issue. Plus it has potential for motivating younger, less-likely voters to actually turn out.
On other side, suspect that wish to expand upon pro-life legal momentum will have LESS impact in motivating less-likely pro-life voters to turn out this Fall.
Will be interesting to see IF this is how it actually pans out.
@alexanderdecroo Very concerned about implications of @USSupremeCourt decision on #RoeVWade and the signal it sends to the world.
Banning abortion never leads to fewer abortions, only to more unsafe abortions.
Belgium will continue to work with other countries to advance #SRHR everywhere.
The SC has not banned abortions. Voters and legislators do so. I think they are wrong to do so but democracy is what it is. On other issues liberals tend to like democracy but not on this one. Enlightenment does not consist of thinking only one view is possible.
I am pro-democracy, and think Parliament should be able to make any law it chooses.
I can also simultaneously think that its wrong to make other people's bodies subject to laws, rather than other people choosing what to do with their own bodies.
Its possible to have more than one point of view. It is also possible to think that some points of view are reprehensible.
I'd rather abortions never needed to happen, but if they do, then they ought to happen safely and legally, and nobody should be compelled by law to carry a pregnancy they don't want to carry - even if I think its right that Parliament ought to be able to decide that democratically (and I'm glad it has done).
Since America has a written constitution, the 14th amendment should apply to women and not just men.
It has made clear abortion will now be decided by the American people via their elected representatives not the Supreme Court. So the pro life states, especially in the South and Bible Belt, can respect the rights of the unborn in their legislation.
The coastal pro choice states will likely largely stay as was
The corollary is that abortion rights will become an election issue in each state, which might stir things up more than expected by either side.
The SC has returned the matter to where it belongs: voters and legislators. Exactly where is lies in the UK. In that sense it is not a conservative judgement but a liberal pro-democracy one.
Shame they have not done the same over guns.
The people cannot be trusted to make decisions about guns, they night take away someone's toys.
Comments
That pretty well confirms the motive for leaking it was ensuring that the slightly less hardline conservatives on the bench didn't try to water down the outright repeal of the right to abortion which it represents.
If any have - kudos. You fucking muppet.
For the rest - you fucking muppets.
I'm forgiving, indeed indulgent of your attitude but "pal" ... oh deary me no !!
It's the difference between not much chance with a new leader and no chance at all with the current one.
The federal government could pass a law to encode Roe if it so chose.
The current Supreme Court would strike it down for spurious reasons obviously (see their gutting of the Civil Rights Act) but yes, the Federal Gov can overrule.
There are movements in some states for full legal fetal personhood. That would make all pregnant women second class citizens liable to state surveillance, and potential punishment should anything happen to their pregnancy.
We'll see a lot more of this sort of thing:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/18/opinion/poolaw-miscarriage.html
There is, consequently, no chance of abortion rights legislation making it onto the federal statute book.
The MPs had their chance and didn’t take it. Now it’s up to the Cabinet, or the “Men in Grey Suits” to effect a leadership change.
On the 'respect' front, for me it depends. People who believe abortion is morally wrong and (if a woman) would never contemplate it - I respect that. But people (esp men) who seek to impose that view by law on everyone else and in the process roll back the emancipation of women by 50 years - I don't respect that. I have contempt for it tbh.
I would say the change of rule by the 1922 is not idle speculation but very real
The boundaries between state and federal powers are broadly defined by the Constitution, and have been fleshed out by decisions of the Supreme Court, which adjudicates those boundaries.
As an example, states make laws to set their own taxes (federal taxes are set by the federal government).
But the federal government potentially can challenge some of those laws if it can demonstrate they interfere with inter-state commerce, which is a matter for the federal government. (Note that doesn't, for example prevent states having different levels of sales tax.) It's complicated.
No10 chose this. They picked the by-election date. They knew he’d be away at CHOGM/G7/Nato.
The plan was always for the PM to be swimming in Kigali while the Tories were drowning back home.
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1540362388192518145
Maybe businesses moving out of those states would concentrate minds.
Or the Lysistrata approach.
*Or whatever the plural is.
However. They just voted to keep him.
On what grounds should they vote again?
That would please some folks.
Equally Bozo won't go - because that simply isn't his style - if it was he would have left last Autumn having declared Brexit done and Covid dealt with.
And Brexit is essentially MAGA.
But yes, thank fuck the UK has thus far avoided much of the abortion lunacy, critical race theory, obscene political funding, political judge appointments, gun nuttery, and the opiate crisis.
Tory whips are plotting to push pro-Boris MPs onto the 1922 Committee Executive in elections expected next month.
Would help block a rule change to allow another leadership challenge. The 50-odd PPSs will be told to back the pro-PM ticket. Story w/ @christopherhope.
Election for the 18 senior roles on the 1922 is one of the next big battles. Johnson is protected for a year from another leadership challenge. But that rule can change and it is those 18 people who decide.
Other bits of intel in our full story over here. Inc Downing St accepting they won’t try to replace chairman Sir Graham Brady. And grumbling already over whips’ plan to meddle. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/24/boris-johnsons-whips-plotting-block-attempt-change-1922-committee/
I have zero Latin and even worse Greek.
Not a great way to run a Party. Let alone a government.
One thing I don't get is why the vote happened the next day? It's almost as if it was designed so nobody thought through their vote.
You wouldn't have a GE or referendum like that.
He had not been able to sleep, having just landed from a red eye from the California March for Life, wondering what the news would be. When he saw the ruling, he called his wife, and she wept. They called their children. For years they had traveled as a family across the country, and the world for the cause.
NY Times blog
Or maybe Dowden is a 2022 James Purnell, who hurt no-one but himself.
Starmer will be on the beers tonight I think. Fantastic day for him.
If only the SC would do the same with guns. Absolutely a matter for voters. New York and Wyoming are not in the same position.
The simularities are eerie, right down to the hair-as-visual-branding.
Trump seems more loyal to his family though.
IF you don't have a clue who JackW is, then somehow am NOT surprised.
https://www.twitter.com/alexanderdecroo/status/1540340020644659202
@alexanderdecroo
Very concerned about implications of @USSupremeCourt decision on #RoeVWade and the signal it sends to the world.
Banning abortion never leads to fewer abortions, only to more unsafe abortions.
Belgium will continue to work with other countries to advance #SRHR everywhere.
OR the Tory Party?
Dr. Ian Malcolm: God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs.
Dr. Ellie Sattler: Dinosaurs eat man. Woman inherits the earth.
He’s going to hobble the 1922 with place-men, and bring down the entire Tory temple with him in ‘24.
Only the Cabinet can stop him, in my opinion.
But they have been specifically selected for their craven support and stupidity.
I come here to have interesting discussions and back and forths with people, replies are interesting parts of discussions and help you learn from others viewpoints.
That replies are considered a bad thing unlike mindless retweets or likes on Twitter just sums up everything that is wrong with that "community".
Get a grip.
I went and checked: since an amendment fixing the voting age at 18 was passed in 1971, only one further amendment has been added, a technical measure concerning congressional pay. There's probably nothing sufficiently anodyne that might still need adding to the document that wouldn't attract the necessary minority of blocking votes to veto its inclusion.
Look at the history of the Equal Rights Amendment. Approved by both Houses of Congress in 1972.. still to be ratified:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
... made their professions of 'mea culpa' yet? would do nicely.
Also, differential views with respect to age & education will have an impact, in that many suburban moderates who are highly likely to vote in midterm general elections MAY be persuaded to support Dems on this issue. Plus it has potential for motivating younger, less-likely voters to actually turn out.
On other side, suspect that wish to expand upon pro-life legal momentum will have LESS impact in motivating less-likely pro-life voters to turn out this Fall.
Will be interesting to see IF this is how it actually pans out.
1) The publication of the Sue Gray report into Partygate.
2) A decision by the police to fine Johnson over Partygate.
3) The end of the police investigation into Partygate.
4) The local elections.
5) Johnson’s Commons response to the Partygate.
6) The end of the platinum jubilee celebrations.
7) The Wakefield, and Tiverton and Honiton byelections.
I can also simultaneously think that its wrong to make other people's bodies subject to laws, rather than other people choosing what to do with their own bodies.
Its possible to have more than one point of view. It is also possible to think that some points of view are reprehensible.
I'd rather abortions never needed to happen, but if they do, then they ought to happen safely and legally, and nobody should be compelled by law to carry a pregnancy they don't want to carry - even if I think its right that Parliament ought to be able to decide that democratically (and I'm glad it has done).
Since America has a written constitution, the 14th amendment should apply to women and not just men.
The "stupid" wall is crumbling...
Or is it just homosexual having sex that bothers you?
Human life? Thats much simpler.