Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The polling on Roe v Wade looks bad for the Supreme Court – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,127
edited July 2022 in General
The polling on Roe v Wade looks bad for the Supreme Court – politicalbetting.com

OPINION TODAYSupreme Court goes against public opinion in rulings on abortion, guns … Voters may be a lot angrier about Roe’s repeal than the right assumes … Abortion Decision Roils Midterms … America Is Growing Apart, Possibly for Good … & more: https://t.co/F0SVU7rXu9 pic.twitter.com/5UR5XyVRaQ

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,292
    edited June 2022
    First.

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,177
    fitalass said:

    First.

    2nd, like the class of women in the USA.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    What it shows more than anything is that the constitution is totally unfit for purpose.

    But then, that has been true since about 1855.

    The difficulty is actually getting it changed. The only hope would be an Article 5 Convention to redraw the whole lot, and that will never happen.
  • Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?
  • Exclusive:

    Boris Johnson planned to build a £150,000 treehouse at Chequers but was forced to abandon idea after police raised security concerns

    Discussions were held about Tory donor Lord Brownlow funding the project in Autumn 2020
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,575
    SCOTUS is not a democracy. This polling is only bad if you view SCOTUS as a bunch of partisan GOP hacks, in which case even Donald Trump thinks so.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,177

    Exclusive:

    Boris Johnson planned to build a £150,000 treehouse at Chequers but was forced to abandon idea after police raised security concerns

    Discussions were held about Tory donor Lord Brownlow funding the project in Autumn 2020

    Not exclusive - been disussed on here before.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,575
    edited June 2022
    Spectator TV on the aftermath of the by-elections.
    By-election special: Is Boris heading for a 1997 moment?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5-OxnaVB6E
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,314
    I try not to comment on issues that are, in my view (and I know some don't share it), decisions for women. However, my other half is furious, describing the SC as "a bunch of reactionary tossers who have set women's rights back a generation and probably want us to return to the kitchen". I always agree with her, of course, but I reckon she's nailed it. It's not complicated.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    edited June 2022

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Roe v Wade was arguably a very tenuous finding that twisted the law in a way it should not have been. Judges making laws is not good, partly because they are often arrogant fools but also because they can't be ordered to change their minds by the electorate, which is unhealthy for democracy. See DavidL's posts on the subject. In this country, there is a safeguard in that Parliament can pass laws to negate Supreme Court rulings if necessary. In the US that safeguard is absent.

    But this is a case of 'two wrongs don't make a right.' If the ruling had not been made, the law and possibly the Constitution would have been changed a long time ago, leaving none of the wriggle room that has been so ruthlessly exploited in this new ruling.

    So they are trying to second guess themselves and their predecessors, which whatever the rights and wrongs of the original ruling is just awful.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639

    Exclusive:

    Boris Johnson planned to build a £150,000 treehouse at Chequers but was forced to abandon idea after police raised security concerns

    Discussions were held about Tory donor Lord Brownlow funding the project in Autumn 2020

    Not exclusive - been disussed on here before.
    I missed that. Did anyone discuss the cost, which exceeds Mr Cameron's caravan pro rata, or the implications it has for Mr and Mrs J's perception of their tenure?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,360

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Absolutely. Such issues (I am pro abortion) are for voters and legislators. As they are in the UK. All the SC has done is give USA voters the same rights we enjoy. They have neither banned nor compelled anything at all.

    What inherent right can enshrine the pro abortion principle so that it is beyond the reach of the voters? The debate itself, however dire, shows that the issues are not easy or obvious.

    This whole issue is bedeviled by all the people on all sides who think only one answer is possible or rational.

    Mr Smithson is right: this issue will stir voters to do their job. Good. Perhaps they will demolish Trumpism at the same time too.

  • The CEO of First Group is currently on a salary in excess of £500,000 a year.

    It is interesting that the Government don't want to talk about that waste of money that we're giving him and his chums to run our railways because we can't do it ourselves
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639

    The CEO of First Group is currently on a salary in excess of £500,000 a year.

    It is interesting that the Government don't want to talk about that waste of money that we're giving him and his chums to run our railways because we can't do it ourselves

    Ditto buses.
  • algarkirk said:

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Absolutely. Such issues (I am pro abortion) are for voters and legislators. As they are in the UK. All the SC has done is give USA voters the same rights we enjoy. They have neither banned nor compelled anything at all.

    What inherent right can enshrine the pro abortion principle so that it is beyond the reach of the voters? The debate itself, however dire, shows that the issues are not easy or obvious.

    This whole issue is bedeviled by all the people on all sides who think only one answer is possible or rational.

    Mr Smithson is right: this issue will stir voters to do their job. Good. Perhaps they will demolish Trumpism at the same time too.

    The question is, why did Obama and co not legislate for this - and why is Biden not either?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    The CEO of First Group is currently on a salary in excess of £500,000 a year.

    It is interesting that the Government don't want to talk about that waste of money that we're giving him and his chums to run our railways because we can't do it ourselves

    If First Group weren't paid to run the railways, would they go bussed?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,706

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Roe-v-Wade was not a good decision from a legal perspective.

    It was seeking to apply a document which clearly didn't address the problem because it simply wasn't a problem in 1778. The document had nothing really to say on the matter but they pretended it did because they wanted to give everyone a federal right to an abortion. Which was really a state matter. So the Court was right to say that there was no basis for the decision. But wrong to say that a Constitution which was designed within the state of the knowledge at the time to give people some basic rights, added to by the Bill of Rights, would not have included such a right had the authors been aware of it.

    The real question that any properly instructed court should have asked is do we as a society have the right to interfere with the body of a woman who has a foetus within it for the sake of the foetus. That's a complicated question on which there are a number of legitimate answers. None of which are in the document from 1778.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,691
    ydoethur said:

    What it shows more than anything is that the constitution is totally unfit for purpose.

    But then, that has been true since about 1855.

    The difficulty is actually getting it changed. The only hope would be an Article 5 Convention to redraw the whole lot, and that will never happen.

    I hate this phrase - 'unfit/fit for purpose'. Ghastly.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,549
    DavidL said:

    They are appointed for life and they don't care what popular opinion is because they know better. Apparently.

    Historical record is pretty clear - SCOTUS does take public opinion into account. Certainly it is a big factor in their selection and confirmation. AND it has always had impact on decision making.

    However, the impacts are generally rather indirect AND often take some time to percolate through the judiciary.

    Famous example is SCOTUS repeal of whole slew of New Deal legislation during FDR's first term, most notably overturning the National Recovery Act (NRA). Which in turn prompted the President to attempt his (in)famous "court packing" after he was reelected by a landslide in 1936.

    Irony being that, even as FDR was losing that battle - and expending much political capital in the process - the court was already shifting his way, lead by . . . wait for it . . . the Chief Justice.

    Then within a few years, thanks to vacancies AND strong Dem majority in the Senate, Roosevelt was able to replace many of his SCOTUS opponent with new Justices who were his supporters.

    Most of the time, anyway. Which is the best that any POTUS - with exception of 45 obviously - can hope to expect.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    What it shows more than anything is that the constitution is totally unfit for purpose.

    But then, that has been true since about 1855.

    The difficulty is actually getting it changed. The only hope would be an Article 5 Convention to redraw the whole lot, and that will never happen.

    I hate this phrase - 'unfit/fit for purpose'. Ghastly.
    OK, try 'totally fucking useless' then. That better?
  • ydoethur said:

    The CEO of First Group is currently on a salary in excess of £500,000 a year.

    It is interesting that the Government don't want to talk about that waste of money that we're giving him and his chums to run our railways because we can't do it ourselves

    If First Group weren't paid to run the railways, would they go bussed?
    The wheels would certainly not be going round and round that is for sure
  • Carnyx said:

    The CEO of First Group is currently on a salary in excess of £500,000 a year.

    It is interesting that the Government don't want to talk about that waste of money that we're giving him and his chums to run our railways because we can't do it ourselves

    Ditto buses.
    Why the fuck does TfL by law have to outsource the running of buses to private companies? TfL sets the routes, the timetables, the livery, they just aren't allowed to actually run the buses. What sort of nonsense is that?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,360
    DavidL said:

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Roe-v-Wade was not a good decision from a legal perspective.

    It was seeking to apply a document which clearly didn't address the problem because it simply wasn't a problem in 1778. The document had nothing really to say on the matter but they pretended it did because they wanted to give everyone a federal right to an abortion. Which was really a state matter. So the Court was right to say that there was no basis for the decision. But wrong to say that a Constitution which was designed within the state of the knowledge at the time to give people some basic rights, added to by the Bill of Rights, would not have included such a right had the authors been aware of it.

    The real question that any properly instructed court should have asked is do we as a society have the right to interfere with the body of a woman who has a foetus within it for the sake of the foetus. That's a complicated question on which there are a number of legitimate answers. None of which are in the document from 1778.
    Exactly.

  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,549

    algarkirk said:

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Absolutely. Such issues (I am pro abortion) are for voters and legislators. As they are in the UK. All the SC has done is give USA voters the same rights we enjoy. They have neither banned nor compelled anything at all.

    What inherent right can enshrine the pro abortion principle so that it is beyond the reach of the voters? The debate itself, however dire, shows that the issues are not easy or obvious.

    This whole issue is bedeviled by all the people on all sides who think only one answer is possible or rational.

    Mr Smithson is right: this issue will stir voters to do their job. Good. Perhaps they will demolish Trumpism at the same time too.

    The question is, why did Obama and co not legislate for this - and why is Biden not either?
    Didn't have the votes to do so then. And still don't have them today.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,691
    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    What it shows more than anything is that the constitution is totally unfit for purpose.

    But then, that has been true since about 1855.

    The difficulty is actually getting it changed. The only hope would be an Article 5 Convention to redraw the whole lot, and that will never happen.

    I hate this phrase - 'unfit/fit for purpose'. Ghastly.
    OK, try 'totally fucking useless' then. That better?
    Yeah - just hate the wording, but have nothing against the concept.
  • algarkirk said:

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Absolutely. Such issues (I am pro abortion) are for voters and legislators. As they are in the UK. All the SC has done is give USA voters the same rights we enjoy. They have neither banned nor compelled anything at all.

    What inherent right can enshrine the pro abortion principle so that it is beyond the reach of the voters? The debate itself, however dire, shows that the issues are not easy or obvious.

    This whole issue is bedeviled by all the people on all sides who think only one answer is possible or rational.

    Mr Smithson is right: this issue will stir voters to do their job. Good. Perhaps they will demolish Trumpism at the same time too.

    The question is, why did Obama and co not legislate for this - and why is Biden not either?
    Didn't have the votes to do so then. And still don't have them today.
    Doesn't he have a senate majority?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,549

    algarkirk said:

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Absolutely. Such issues (I am pro abortion) are for voters and legislators. As they are in the UK. All the SC has done is give USA voters the same rights we enjoy. They have neither banned nor compelled anything at all.

    What inherent right can enshrine the pro abortion principle so that it is beyond the reach of the voters? The debate itself, however dire, shows that the issues are not easy or obvious.

    This whole issue is bedeviled by all the people on all sides who think only one answer is possible or rational.

    Mr Smithson is right: this issue will stir voters to do their job. Good. Perhaps they will demolish Trumpism at the same time too.

    The question is, why did Obama and co not legislate for this - and why is Biden not either?
    Didn't have the votes to do so then. And still don't have them today.
    Doesn't he have a senate majority?
    Simple majority NOT enough in US Senate.
  • algarkirk said:

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Absolutely. Such issues (I am pro abortion) are for voters and legislators. As they are in the UK. All the SC has done is give USA voters the same rights we enjoy. They have neither banned nor compelled anything at all.

    What inherent right can enshrine the pro abortion principle so that it is beyond the reach of the voters? The debate itself, however dire, shows that the issues are not easy or obvious.

    This whole issue is bedeviled by all the people on all sides who think only one answer is possible or rational.

    Mr Smithson is right: this issue will stir voters to do their job. Good. Perhaps they will demolish Trumpism at the same time too.

    The question is, why did Obama and co not legislate for this - and why is Biden not either?
    Didn't have the votes to do so then. And still don't have them today.
    Doesn't he have a senate majority?
    Simple majority NOT enough in US Senate.
    ???
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    algarkirk said:

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Absolutely. Such issues (I am pro abortion) are for voters and legislators. As they are in the UK. All the SC has done is give USA voters the same rights we enjoy. They have neither banned nor compelled anything at all.

    What inherent right can enshrine the pro abortion principle so that it is beyond the reach of the voters? The debate itself, however dire, shows that the issues are not easy or obvious.

    This whole issue is bedeviled by all the people on all sides who think only one answer is possible or rational.

    Mr Smithson is right: this issue will stir voters to do their job. Good. Perhaps they will demolish Trumpism at the same time too.

    The question is, why did Obama and co not legislate for this - and why is Biden not either?
    Didn't have the votes to do so then. And still don't have them today.
    Doesn't he have a senate majority?
    Simple majority NOT enough in US Senate.
    Well, not on this. The SC would find it unconstitutional and strike it down in about a week.

    It would have to be a constitutional amendment and that's impossible given the threshold to amend the USC.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Yes. The original RvW decision, and other such decisions on moral issues since then, were based on the judiciary assuming powers that go beyond what the Constitution intended them to have. Such judicial over-reach should be replaced by legislation from the political class, rather than assumed by courts.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,549

    algarkirk said:

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Absolutely. Such issues (I am pro abortion) are for voters and legislators. As they are in the UK. All the SC has done is give USA voters the same rights we enjoy. They have neither banned nor compelled anything at all.

    What inherent right can enshrine the pro abortion principle so that it is beyond the reach of the voters? The debate itself, however dire, shows that the issues are not easy or obvious.

    This whole issue is bedeviled by all the people on all sides who think only one answer is possible or rational.

    Mr Smithson is right: this issue will stir voters to do their job. Good. Perhaps they will demolish Trumpism at the same time too.

    The question is, why did Obama and co not legislate for this - and why is Biden not either?
    Didn't have the votes to do so then. And still don't have them today.
    Doesn't he have a senate majority?
    Simple majority NOT enough in US Senate.
    ???
    Filibuster
  • https://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1540726546607943681

    NADINE DORRIES: Ban transgender athletes from competing against women, exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday @NadineDorries mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/p… via @mailplus

    Oh goody, more of this.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,287
    An ancient exam question:

    'The Supreme Court follows the Election Returns'. Discuss
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,549
    JohnO said:

    An ancient exam question:

    'The Supreme Court follows the Election Returns'. Discuss

    Sort of, fairly often, reluctantly, inconsistently, eventually
  • 2010 Conservatives formed a ConDem coalition Government with Lib Dems

    2017 Conservatives did a £1bn Bung Parliament deal for DUP votes

    2019 Conservatives benefited from Farage’s Brexit Party withdrawing in all Tory seats

    Remind me again which party relies on pacts and deals?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,549
    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Absolutely. Such issues (I am pro abortion) are for voters and legislators. As they are in the UK. All the SC has done is give USA voters the same rights we enjoy. They have neither banned nor compelled anything at all.

    What inherent right can enshrine the pro abortion principle so that it is beyond the reach of the voters? The debate itself, however dire, shows that the issues are not easy or obvious.

    This whole issue is bedeviled by all the people on all sides who think only one answer is possible or rational.

    Mr Smithson is right: this issue will stir voters to do their job. Good. Perhaps they will demolish Trumpism at the same time too.

    The question is, why did Obama and co not legislate for this - and why is Biden not either?
    Didn't have the votes to do so then. And still don't have them today.
    Doesn't he have a senate majority?
    Simple majority NOT enough in US Senate.
    Well, not on this. The SC would find it unconstitutional and strike it down in about a week.

    It would have to be a constitutional amendment and that's impossible given the threshold to amend the USC.
    Supreme Court has zero jurisdiction re: rules of US Senate OR House of Representatives.

    Indeed, shoe is on the other foot.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Absolutely. Such issues (I am pro abortion) are for voters and legislators. As they are in the UK. All the SC has done is give USA voters the same rights we enjoy. They have neither banned nor compelled anything at all.

    What inherent right can enshrine the pro abortion principle so that it is beyond the reach of the voters? The debate itself, however dire, shows that the issues are not easy or obvious.

    This whole issue is bedeviled by all the people on all sides who think only one answer is possible or rational.

    Mr Smithson is right: this issue will stir voters to do their job. Good. Perhaps they will demolish Trumpism at the same time too.

    The question is, why did Obama and co not legislate for this - and why is Biden not either?
    Didn't have the votes to do so then. And still don't have them today.
    Doesn't he have a senate majority?
    Simple majority NOT enough in US Senate.
    Well, not on this. The SC would find it unconstitutional and strike it down in about a week.

    It would have to be a constitutional amendment and that's impossible given the threshold to amend the USC.
    Supreme Court has zero jurisdiction re: rules of US Senate OR House of Representatives.

    Indeed, shoe is on the other foot.
    I meant if they passed a law legalising abortion!

    My goodness, I must be being unclear today.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,162

    fitalass said:

    First.

    2nd, like the class of women in the USA.
    Can’t men get pregnant now ?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    algarkirk said:

    DavidL said:

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Roe-v-Wade was not a good decision from a legal perspective.

    It was seeking to apply a document which clearly didn't address the problem because it simply wasn't a problem in 1778. The document had nothing really to say on the matter but they pretended it did because they wanted to give everyone a federal right to an abortion. Which was really a state matter. So the Court was right to say that there was no basis for the decision. But wrong to say that a Constitution which was designed within the state of the knowledge at the time to give people some basic rights, added to by the Bill of Rights, would not have included such a right had the authors been aware of it.

    The real question that any properly instructed court should have asked is do we as a society have the right to interfere with the body of a woman who has a foetus within it for the sake of the foetus. That's a complicated question on which there are a number of legitimate answers. None of which are in the document from 1778.
    Exactly.

    Wasn't the original 1970s SC decision based on the "right to privacy" amendments of constitution. A woman has a right to make her own decision?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,549
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Absolutely. Such issues (I am pro abortion) are for voters and legislators. As they are in the UK. All the SC has done is give USA voters the same rights we enjoy. They have neither banned nor compelled anything at all.

    What inherent right can enshrine the pro abortion principle so that it is beyond the reach of the voters? The debate itself, however dire, shows that the issues are not easy or obvious.

    This whole issue is bedeviled by all the people on all sides who think only one answer is possible or rational.

    Mr Smithson is right: this issue will stir voters to do their job. Good. Perhaps they will demolish Trumpism at the same time too.

    The question is, why did Obama and co not legislate for this - and why is Biden not either?
    Didn't have the votes to do so then. And still don't have them today.
    Doesn't he have a senate majority?
    Simple majority NOT enough in US Senate.
    Well, not on this. The SC would find it unconstitutional and strike it down in about a week.

    It would have to be a constitutional amendment and that's impossible given the threshold to amend the USC.
    Supreme Court has zero jurisdiction re: rules of US Senate OR House of Representatives.

    Indeed, shoe is on the other foot.
    I meant if they passed a law legalising abortion!

    My goodness, I must be being unclear today.
    Believe that Congress COULD remove SCOTUS jurisdiction re: abortion by legislation. In theory.

    Don't bet on it.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,162

    https://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1540726546607943681

    NADINE DORRIES: Ban transgender athletes from competing against women, exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday @NadineDorries mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/p… via @mailplus

    Oh goody, more of this.

    This is already starting to happen in sport.
  • Taz said:

    https://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1540726546607943681

    NADINE DORRIES: Ban transgender athletes from competing against women, exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday @NadineDorries mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/p… via @mailplus

    Oh goody, more of this.

    This is already starting to happen in sport.
    You just wonder why the Government would want to make this a big deal, is it because they have nothing to say on anything of actual interest?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,549

    algarkirk said:

    DavidL said:

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Roe-v-Wade was not a good decision from a legal perspective.

    It was seeking to apply a document which clearly didn't address the problem because it simply wasn't a problem in 1778. The document had nothing really to say on the matter but they pretended it did because they wanted to give everyone a federal right to an abortion. Which was really a state matter. So the Court was right to say that there was no basis for the decision. But wrong to say that a Constitution which was designed within the state of the knowledge at the time to give people some basic rights, added to by the Bill of Rights, would not have included such a right had the authors been aware of it.

    The real question that any properly instructed court should have asked is do we as a society have the right to interfere with the body of a woman who has a foetus within it for the sake of the foetus. That's a complicated question on which there are a number of legitimate answers. None of which are in the document from 1778.
    Exactly.

    Wasn't the original 1970s SC decision based on the "right to privacy" amendments of constitution. A woman has a right to make her own decision?
    Right to privacy inferred (correctly IMHO) but NOT explicit.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,177

    https://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1540726546607943681

    NADINE DORRIES: Ban transgender athletes from competing against women, exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday @NadineDorries mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/p… via @mailplus

    Oh goody, more of this.

    On this I am with her. Development through puberty as a man, followed by drug treatment to lower testosterone, does confer advantages in sport. I have sympathy for trans athletes, but I also have sympathy for women athletes. I think the swimmers have got it right in their recent decision.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    ydoethur said:

    What it shows more than anything is that the constitution is totally unfit for purpose.

    But then, that has been true since about 1855.

    The difficulty is actually getting it changed. The only hope would be an Article 5 Convention to redraw the whole lot, and that will never happen.

    The Founding Fathers had already realised they'd fucked it by the early 1800s. Practical reality had showed them that it was going to be far harder to amended the doc than many of them they had intended.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,037
    edited June 2022

    2010 Conservatives formed a ConDem coalition Government with Lib Dems

    2017 Conservatives did a £1bn Bung Parliament deal for DUP votes

    2019 Conservatives benefited from Farage’s Brexit Party withdrawing in all Tory seats

    Remind me again which party relies on pacts and deals?

    The former two were after an election and the verdict of the electorate.
    The last one is inaccurate, the BXP stood aside in some seats, there was also a pact between LDs, Greens and PC and mutual stand downs
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077
    Taz said:

    https://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1540726546607943681

    NADINE DORRIES: Ban transgender athletes from competing against women, exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday @NadineDorries mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/p… via @mailplus

    Oh goody, more of this.

    This is already starting to happen in sport.
    Yep swimming have already stated we’re the cut of point, athletics will follow shortly,

    It’s old news
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,549
    DavidL said:

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Roe-v-Wade was not a good decision from a legal perspective.

    It was seeking to apply a document which clearly didn't address the problem because it simply wasn't a problem in 1778. The document had nothing really to say on the matter but they pretended it did because they wanted to give everyone a federal right to an abortion. Which was really a state matter. So the Court was right to say that there was no basis for the decision. But wrong to say that a Constitution which was designed within the state of the knowledge at the time to give people some basic rights, added to by the Bill of Rights, would not have included such a right had the authors been aware of it.

    The real question that any properly instructed court should have asked is do we as a society have the right to interfere with the body of a woman who has a foetus within it for the sake of the foetus. That's a complicated question on which there are a number of legitimate answers. None of which are in the document from 1778.
    1778? Think you mean 1789.

    BTW (also FYI) US Bill of Rights (amendments I - X) ratified in 1791
  • https://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1540726546607943681

    NADINE DORRIES: Ban transgender athletes from competing against women, exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday @NadineDorries mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/p… via @mailplus

    Oh goody, more of this.

    On this I am with her. Development through puberty as a man, followed by drug treatment to lower testosterone, does confer advantages in sport. I have sympathy for trans athletes, but I also have sympathy for women athletes. I think the swimmers have got it right in their recent decision.
    This issue is so down in the list of important things right now
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,177
    Taz said:

    fitalass said:

    First.

    2nd, like the class of women in the USA.
    Can’t men get pregnant now ?
    Not in my world, but then I’m a dinosaur. And frankly if a trans man (I.e. a woman transitioned to a man) wished to have a baby, I’d question their commitment to being male.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    DavidL said:

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Roe-v-Wade was not a good decision from a legal perspective.

    It was seeking to apply a document which clearly didn't address the problem because it simply wasn't a problem in 1778. The document had nothing really to say on the matter but they pretended it did because they wanted to give everyone a federal right to an abortion. Which was really a state matter. So the Court was right to say that there was no basis for the decision. But wrong to say that a Constitution which was designed within the state of the knowledge at the time to give people some basic rights, added to by the Bill of Rights, would not have included such a right had the authors been aware of it.

    The real question that any properly instructed court should have asked is do we as a society have the right to interfere with the body of a woman who has a foetus within it for the sake of the foetus. That's a complicated question on which there are a number of legitimate answers. None of which are in the document from 1778.
    The founders actually thought they had provided for the future by provisions for a “living constitution”. No, not lawyers and judges rereading it like the Mormon Plates until they could pull a suitable ruling out of their fundaments - I mean the Amendment process.

    Roe should have been followed by a explicit amendment. But “now wasn’t the time” and the politicians were too chicken…
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,177

    https://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1540726546607943681

    NADINE DORRIES: Ban transgender athletes from competing against women, exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday @NadineDorries mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/p… via @mailplus

    Oh goody, more of this.

    On this I am with her. Development through puberty as a man, followed by drug treatment to lower testosterone, does confer advantages in sport. I have sympathy for trans athletes, but I also have sympathy for women athletes. I think the swimmers have got it right in their recent decision.
    This issue is so down in the list of important things right now
    Not to women athletes. And to be honest government can do more than one thing/task at a time.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,691

    Taz said:

    https://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1540726546607943681

    NADINE DORRIES: Ban transgender athletes from competing against women, exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday @NadineDorries mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/p… via @mailplus

    Oh goody, more of this.

    This is already starting to happen in sport.
    You just wonder why the Government would want to make this a big deal, is it because they have nothing to say on anything of actual interest?
    They'll just go with the obvious. The argument has been settled. There will be and always will be terms, spaces, and who knows what that women can consider their own.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    Taz said:

    fitalass said:

    First.

    2nd, like the class of women in the USA.
    Can’t men get pregnant now ?
    Not in my world, but then I’m a dinosaur. And frankly if a trans man (I.e. a woman transitioned to a man) wished to have a baby, I’d question their commitment to being male.
    Are you suggesting they would, in Mme de Gaulle's famous phrase, be seeking a penis?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    https://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1540726546607943681

    NADINE DORRIES: Ban transgender athletes from competing against women, exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday @NadineDorries mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/p… via @mailplus

    Oh goody, more of this.

    On this I am with her. Development through puberty as a man, followed by drug treatment to lower testosterone, does confer advantages in sport. I have sympathy for trans athletes, but I also have sympathy for women athletes. I think the swimmers have got it right in their recent decision.
    This issue is so down in the list of important things right now
    Not to women athletes. And to be honest government can do more than one thing/task at a time.
    I seriously question whether this lot can even do one thing at a time.

    That said, it is part of her remit to form policy on this.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    OT It will be interesting to see what this does for Trump and the Trumpets.

    He delivered on the judges the Religious Right wanted.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,123
    edited June 2022
    DavidL said:

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Roe-v-Wade was not a good decision from a legal perspective.

    It was seeking to apply a document which clearly didn't address the problem because it simply wasn't a problem in 1778. The document had nothing really to say on the matter but they pretended it did because they wanted to give everyone a federal right to an abortion. Which was really a state matter. So the Court was right to say that there was no basis for the decision. But wrong to say that a Constitution which was designed within the state of the knowledge at the time to give people some basic rights, added to by the Bill of Rights, would not have included such a right had the authors been aware of it.

    The real question that any properly instructed court should have asked is do we as a society have the right to interfere with the body of a woman who has a foetus within it for the sake of the foetus. That's a complicated question on which there are a number of legitimate answers. None of which are in the document from 1778.
    I think you're taking a very originalist approach to the constitution. Lots of lawyers, myself included, would say that is very much NOT a sensible legal approach. Indeed, even the most extreme originalists, shall we say, back away from its full implications.

    In theory, the originalist approach says you must interpret based on the understanding of the text at the time it was adopted. The Constitution did not, at the time it was adopted, intend to confer the same rights on Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett (two justices in the majority overturning Roe v Wade) as it did on John Roberts and Stephen Breyer (two in the minority - Roberts was an oddity in that he sided with the majority but NOT based on repudiating Roe v Wade). Not, I'm afraid by a long, long way.

    Now it's true to say that there have been amendments since. But all the stuff at that is still in there from the original constitution as enacted, and there is a lot, was very clearly neither understood nor intended to apply equally to black people or women.

    Given that you HAVE to back away from originalism, and accept the constitution is to some extent a living document where the text needs to be understood as if it isn't 1788, a fairly sensible approach is to understand and interpret it as if it is 2022, with science, morality and language as it exists in 2022. Because it is 2022.

    The problem for Thomas and Coney Barrett (for instance) is that they won't accept it being 2022, and can't quite pretend it's 1788. So where does that leave us? It looks to me like a sort of fantasy where you pretend the Constitution exists at some kind of undefined point of perfection, divorced from time and space, and existing precisely where it is most convenient given your personal faith and politics. I'm not saying liberal justices are untainted by that too... but I'd rather have their explicitly pragmatic and grounded approach than the pseudo-intellectualism and utterly bogus and self-serving pretence of purity of the court's originalists.

    This, I'm afraid, isn't just the death of a 50 year old legal judgment - it's the continued death of the pragmatism on which the entire era of American dominance has been based.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,661
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    fitalass said:

    First.

    2nd, like the class of women in the USA.
    Can’t men get pregnant now ?
    Not in my world, but then I’m a dinosaur. And frankly if a trans man (I.e. a woman transitioned to a man) wished to have a baby, I’d question their commitment to being male.
    Are you suggesting they would, in Mme de Gaulle's famous phrase, be seeking a penis?
    She sought (h)appiness..

  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,549
    Alistair said:

    ydoethur said:

    What it shows more than anything is that the constitution is totally unfit for purpose.

    But then, that has been true since about 1855.

    The difficulty is actually getting it changed. The only hope would be an Article 5 Convention to redraw the whole lot, and that will never happen.

    The Founding Fathers had already realised they'd fucked it by the early 1800s. Practical reality had showed them that it was going to be far harder to amended the doc than many of them they had intended.
    FF did NOT see things quite that way. They thought they'd been remarkably successful (or lucky) in crafting a constitution that could survive the shocks of (quasi-) war, major international upheaval AND extreme domestic polarization.

    Perfect? Hell no. But these guys were pragmatic politicos NOT philosopher kings.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,412
    Would it make more sense for SCOTUS nominees to be in a “cab rank” so on reaching a certain level of experience the prospective judges go on a rank - one rank for Reps and one for Dems.

    They make clear they wish to be in the rank and are vetted at various intervals for suitability each time there is a vacancy.

    When a new judge is required the sitting President can choose from the next on rank - Rep or Dem and as long as since their appointment to the waiting list they haven’t done anything stupid then they are the choice without quibble.

    Almost like a draft list where the top coach gets the top pick.

    This would hopefully prevent more extreme presidents from either wing selecting a matching nutter as the chances are their pick would have been moving up through previous administrations.

    So we would have maybe had under Trump, people who were working their way through the system under the Bushes - at the time this might have been unpalatable but now they look like moderates.

    It might be a stupid or unworkable idea but would appreciate the input from our US posters especially.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947

    I try not to comment on issues that are, in my view (and I know some don't share it), decisions for women. However, my other half is furious, describing the SC as "a bunch of reactionary tossers who have set women's rights back a generation and probably want us to return to the kitchen". I always agree with her, of course, but I reckon she's nailed it. It's not complicated.

    Your wife seems to be missing the "deep philosophical dilemma" of when life begins, Al. :smile:
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589

    https://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1540726546607943681

    NADINE DORRIES: Ban transgender athletes from competing against women, exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday @NadineDorries mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/p… via @mailplus

    Oh goody, more of this.

    On this I am with her. Development through puberty as a man, followed by drug treatment to lower testosterone, does confer advantages in sport. I have sympathy for trans athletes, but I also have sympathy for women athletes. I think the swimmers have got it right in their recent decision.
    This issue is so down in the list of important things right now
    Not to women athletes. And to be honest government can do more than one thing/task at a time.
    Well, some governments can. Not convinced about this one.
  • https://twitter.com/GdnPolitics/status/1540731683074215936

    Andy Burnham is fucking useless, what bandwagon will he not jump on?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,872
    edited June 2022
    DavidL said:

    They are appointed for life and they don't care what popular opinion is because they know better. Apparently.

    They are guided the immutable word of the constitution. Which just happens to align to political goals.

    I like malmesbury's summary of their methods as a court in rereading things.
  • https://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1540726546607943681

    NADINE DORRIES: Ban transgender athletes from competing against women, exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday @NadineDorries mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/p… via @mailplus

    Oh goody, more of this.

    On this I am with her. Development through puberty as a man, followed by drug treatment to lower testosterone, does confer advantages in sport. I have sympathy for trans athletes, but I also have sympathy for women athletes. I think the swimmers have got it right in their recent decision.
    This issue is so down in the list of important things right now
    Not to women athletes. And to be honest government can do more than one thing/task at a time.
    This lot can't.
  • NEW: Opinium rail strike poll

    - 70% support inflation-level pay rise
    - 62% believe govt should intervene
    - 70% against cuts to rail staff
    - 84% say invest rail profits in maintaining staff
    - 59% say workers right to strike if talks fail
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,549

    OT It will be interesting to see what this does for Trump and the Trumpets.

    He delivered on the judges the Religious Right wanted.

    One thing I think it means, is that 45 will NOT need to pick a god-botherer like Mike Pence to reassure the religious right.

    Instead, assuming he's the 2024 GOP nominee, he can use the VP pick to achieve other goals with other sectors of the electorate.

    For example, selecting a woman and/or minority. To seize the day AND scramble the Dems.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,162

    Taz said:

    https://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1540726546607943681

    NADINE DORRIES: Ban transgender athletes from competing against women, exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday @NadineDorries mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/p… via @mailplus

    Oh goody, more of this.

    This is already starting to happen in sport.
    You just wonder why the Government would want to make this a big deal, is it because they have nothing to say on anything of actual interest?
    Culture wars, mate.

    It’s not really a matter for the govt. it’s a matter for respective sporting bodies.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    Alistair said:

    ydoethur said:

    What it shows more than anything is that the constitution is totally unfit for purpose.

    But then, that has been true since about 1855.

    The difficulty is actually getting it changed. The only hope would be an Article 5 Convention to redraw the whole lot, and that will never happen.

    The Founding Fathers had already realised they'd fucked it by the early 1800s. Practical reality had showed them that it was going to be far harder to amended the doc than many of them they had intended.
    FF did NOT see things quite that way. They thought they'd been remarkably successful (or lucky) in crafting a constitution that could survive the shocks of (quasi-) war, major international upheaval AND extreme domestic polarization.

    Perfect? Hell no. But these guys were pragmatic politicos NOT philosopher kings.
    Of course, if legal abortion had been a thing in the 1800s Jefferson might well have been in favour of it, so he could rape his slaves without awkward complications.
  • Taz said:

    Taz said:

    https://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1540726546607943681

    NADINE DORRIES: Ban transgender athletes from competing against women, exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday @NadineDorries mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/p… via @mailplus

    Oh goody, more of this.

    This is already starting to happen in sport.
    You just wonder why the Government would want to make this a big deal, is it because they have nothing to say on anything of actual interest?
    Culture wars, mate.

    It’s not really a matter for the govt. it’s a matter for respective sporting bodies.
    How are you Taz?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401

    https://twitter.com/GdnPolitics/status/1540731683074215936

    Andy Burnham is fucking useless, what bandwagon will he not jump on?

    He's been saying this for some time to be fair.

    I suspect it is a mistake to get Labour dragged onto this territory, as it will be used as yet another culture war wedge by Tories in 2024 GE. Maybe it wont matter as by then the country will have made one of Callaghan's sea changes and nothing will save Johnson, but its a risk.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589

    NEW: Opinium rail strike poll

    - 70% support inflation-level pay rise
    - 62% believe govt should intervene
    - 70% against cuts to rail staff
    - 84% say invest rail profits in maintaining staff
    - 59% say workers right to strike if talks fail

    The interesting thing is that the RMT aren't asking for an inflation-level pay rise. They're asking for 7% which is below the current annualised rate of inflation, and will be significantly below the peak inflation level this year. In that respect they're not even playing into the government's "oh no wage spiral" argument.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,162

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    https://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1540726546607943681

    NADINE DORRIES: Ban transgender athletes from competing against women, exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday @NadineDorries mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/p… via @mailplus

    Oh goody, more of this.

    This is already starting to happen in sport.
    You just wonder why the Government would want to make this a big deal, is it because they have nothing to say on anything of actual interest?
    Culture wars, mate.

    It’s not really a matter for the govt. it’s a matter for respective sporting bodies.
    How are you Taz?
    I’m good thank you, how are you ? I see you got a good knock at the crease the other day. Your cricket seems to go from strength to strength.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited June 2022

    Alistair said:

    ydoethur said:

    What it shows more than anything is that the constitution is totally unfit for purpose.

    But then, that has been true since about 1855.

    The difficulty is actually getting it changed. The only hope would be an Article 5 Convention to redraw the whole lot, and that will never happen.

    The Founding Fathers had already realised they'd fucked it by the early 1800s. Practical reality had showed them that it was going to be far harder to amended the doc than many of them they had intended.
    FF did NOT see things quite that way. They thought they'd been remarkably successful (or lucky) in crafting a constitution that could survive the shocks of (quasi-) war, major international upheaval AND extreme domestic polarization.

    Perfect? Hell no. But these guys were pragmatic politicos NOT philosopher kings.
    We literally have Madison writing a lemnt that the ascension of new states would make passing ammendments unduly difficult and they should have written the constitution differently with respects to how to change it.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,162
    OnboardG1 said:

    NEW: Opinium rail strike poll

    - 70% support inflation-level pay rise
    - 62% believe govt should intervene
    - 70% against cuts to rail staff
    - 84% say invest rail profits in maintaining staff
    - 59% say workers right to strike if talks fail

    The interesting thing is that the RMT aren't asking for an inflation-level pay rise. They're asking for 7% which is below the current annualised rate of inflation, and will be significantly below the peak inflation level this year. In that respect they're not even playing into the government's "oh no wage spiral" argument.
    There’s nothing unreasonable about the RMT position and as @dixiedean has said. A below inflation rise is not inflationary.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401

    OT It will be interesting to see what this does for Trump and the Trumpets.

    He delivered on the judges the Religious Right wanted.

    Trump himself has been wondering out loud if this is a mistake that will cost him suburban women when he runs.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589
    Taz said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    NEW: Opinium rail strike poll

    - 70% support inflation-level pay rise
    - 62% believe govt should intervene
    - 70% against cuts to rail staff
    - 84% say invest rail profits in maintaining staff
    - 59% say workers right to strike if talks fail

    The interesting thing is that the RMT aren't asking for an inflation-level pay rise. They're asking for 7% which is below the current annualised rate of inflation, and will be significantly below the peak inflation level this year. In that respect they're not even playing into the government's "oh no wage spiral" argument.
    There’s nothing unreasonable about the RMT position and as @dixiedean has said. A below inflation rise is not inflationary.
    Quite. I'm not expecting an inflation level payrise this year because the ministry in charge of our arms-length wouldn't know staff retention if it hit them in the face. I will be seriously upset at anything less than 5% though, so I'm expecting to be seriously upset.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,549
    boulay said:

    Would it make more sense for SCOTUS nominees to be in a “cab rank” so on reaching a certain level of experience the prospective judges go on a rank - one rank for Reps and one for Dems.

    They make clear they wish to be in the rank and are vetted at various intervals for suitability each time there is a vacancy.

    When a new judge is required the sitting President can choose from the next on rank - Rep or Dem and as long as since their appointment to the waiting list they haven’t done anything stupid then they are the choice without quibble.

    Almost like a draft list where the top coach gets the top pick.

    This would hopefully prevent more extreme presidents from either wing selecting a matching nutter as the chances are their pick would have been moving up through previous administrations.

    So we would have maybe had under Trump, people who were working their way through the system under the Bushes - at the time this might have been unpalatable but now they look like moderates.

    It might be a stupid or unworkable idea but would appreciate the input from our US posters especially.

    One obvious issue, is assumption that current two-party division between Democrats and Republicans is eternal.

    Which it ain't, going backwards or (I suspect) forwards.

    Also assumes that Justices always vote in accordance with the views, wishes, interests & perspectives of them that appointed and got them confirmed in the first place.

    Which again just ain't so. Perhaps most notable example being Earl Warren.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,549
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    ydoethur said:

    What it shows more than anything is that the constitution is totally unfit for purpose.

    But then, that has been true since about 1855.

    The difficulty is actually getting it changed. The only hope would be an Article 5 Convention to redraw the whole lot, and that will never happen.

    The Founding Fathers had already realised they'd fucked it by the early 1800s. Practical reality had showed them that it was going to be far harder to amended the doc than many of them they had intended.
    FF did NOT see things quite that way. They thought they'd been remarkably successful (or lucky) in crafting a constitution that could survive the shocks of (quasi-) war, major international upheaval AND extreme domestic polarization.

    Perfect? Hell no. But these guys were pragmatic politicos NOT philosopher kings.
    We literally have Madison writing a lemnt that the ascension of new states would make passing ammendments unduly difficult and they should have written the constitution differently with respects to how to change it.
    Which is slightly different than saying the whole think was fucked up?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    EXC: David Cameron's Mayfair plotting against Boris Johnson

    The former PM held secret meetings with Oliver Dowden in 5 Hertford Street amid talk Dowden was about to get sacked

    Dowden yesterday quit the Cabinet saying 'somebody must take responsibility’
    https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/politics/195606?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=shared_link
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,314
    kinabalu said:

    I try not to comment on issues that are, in my view (and I know some don't share it), decisions for women. However, my other half is furious, describing the SC as "a bunch of reactionary tossers who have set women's rights back a generation and probably want us to return to the kitchen". I always agree with her, of course, but I reckon she's nailed it. It's not complicated.

    Your wife seems to be missing the "deep philosophical dilemma" of when life begins, Al. :smile:
    I do hope you're not casting aspersions on her intellect! There's no dilemma - it's her body, and she can decide that. There's obviously a legitimate debate to be had about how late abortions should be allowable in normal circumstances, but it strikes me that most countries in which abortion is legal have got this more or less right. Outside that debate, it's her inalienable right to do as she pleases.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    algarkirk said:

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Absolutely. Such issues (I am pro abortion) are for voters and legislators. As they are in the UK. All the SC has done is give USA voters the same rights we enjoy. They have neither banned nor compelled anything at all.

    What inherent right can enshrine the pro abortion principle so that it is beyond the reach of the voters? The debate itself, however dire, shows that the issues are not easy or obvious.

    This whole issue is bedeviled by all the people on all sides who think only one answer is possible or rational.

    Mr Smithson is right: this issue will stir voters to do their job. Good. Perhaps they will demolish Trumpism at the same time too.
    The issue is bedeviled by people finding false complexity in the debate and going down blind allies.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,037
    Rentoul believes Dowden is plotting to install Rishi Washy.
    If he can persuade Rishi to stop doing the hokey cokey presumably
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,177
    Taz said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    NEW: Opinium rail strike poll

    - 70% support inflation-level pay rise
    - 62% believe govt should intervene
    - 70% against cuts to rail staff
    - 84% say invest rail profits in maintaining staff
    - 59% say workers right to strike if talks fail

    The interesting thing is that the RMT aren't asking for an inflation-level pay rise. They're asking for 7% which is below the current annualised rate of inflation, and will be significantly below the peak inflation level this year. In that respect they're not even playing into the government's "oh no wage spiral" argument.
    There’s nothing unreasonable about the RMT position and as @dixiedean has said. A below inflation rise is not inflationary.
    No, the pay question seems reasonable. The issues about redundancy are more tangled. Does an organisation have the right to make roles redundant? I’d argue yes, with all the safeguards around employment law. Is the union right to resist this? Their role is to look after the members, so you can see why they are taking the stance they have adopted.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Taz said:

    https://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1540726546607943681

    NADINE DORRIES: Ban transgender athletes from competing against women, exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday @NadineDorries mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/p… via @mailplus

    Oh goody, more of this.

    This is already starting to happen in sport.
    You just wonder why the Government would want to make this a big deal, is it because they have nothing to say on anything of actual interest?
    Did Dorries make it the only topic of the interview?

    Or was it just one question raised in a wide-ranging interview, appropriately so given this week's FINA ruling and Dorries' portfolio, which the newspaper has chosen to make the headline?
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    2010 Conservatives formed a ConDem coalition Government with Lib Dems

    2017 Conservatives did a £1bn Bung Parliament deal for DUP votes

    2019 Conservatives benefited from Farage’s Brexit Party withdrawing in all Tory seats

    Remind me again which party relies on pacts and deals?

    The former two were after an election and the verdict of the electorate.
    The last one is inaccurate, the BXP stood aside in some seats, there was also a pact between LDs, Greens and PC and mutual stand downs
    The last one didn't help the Tories win a majority. To do that, BXP would have had to stand aside in Tory target seats.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,872

    DavidL said:

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Roe-v-Wade was not a good decision from a legal perspective.

    It was seeking to apply a document which clearly didn't address the problem because it simply wasn't a problem in 1778. The document had nothing really to say on the matter but they pretended it did because they wanted to give everyone a federal right to an abortion. Which was really a state matter. So the Court was right to say that there was no basis for the decision. But wrong to say that a Constitution which was designed within the state of the knowledge at the time to give people some basic rights, added to by the Bill of Rights, would not have included such a right had the authors been aware of it.

    The real question that any properly instructed court should have asked is do we as a society have the right to interfere with the body of a woman who has a foetus within it for the sake of the foetus. That's a complicated question on which there are a number of legitimate answers. None of which are in the document from 1778.
    I think you're taking a very originalist approach to the constitution. Lots of lawyers, myself included, would say that is very much NOT a sensible legal approach. Indeed, even the most extreme originalists, shall we say, back away from its full implications.

    In theory, the originalist approach says you must interpret based on the understanding of the text at the time it was adopted. The Constitution did not, at the time it was adopted, intend to confer the same rights on Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett (two justices in the majority overturning Roe v Wade) as it did on John Roberts and Stephen Breyer (two in the minority - Roberts was an oddity in that he sided with the majority but NOT based on repudiating Roe v Wade). Not, I'm afraid by a long, long way.

    Now it's true to say that there have been amendments since. But all the stuff at that is still in there from the original constitution as enacted, and there is a lot, was very clearly neither understood nor intended to apply equally to black people or women.

    Given that you HAVE to back away from originalism, and accept the constitution is to some extent a living document where the text needs to be understood as if it isn't 1788, a fairly sensible approach is to understand and interpret it as if it is 2022, with science, morality and language as it exists in 2022. Because it is 2022.

    The problem for Thomas and Coney Barrett (for instance) is that they won't accept it being 2022, and can't quite pretend it's 1788. So where does that leave us? It looks to me like a sort of fantasy where you pretend the Constitution exists at some kind of undefined point of perfection, divorced from time and space, and existing precisely where it is most convenient given your personal faith and politics. I'm not saying liberal justices are untainted by that too... but I'd rather have their explicitly pragmatic and grounded approach than the pseudo-intellectualism and utterly bogus and self-serving pretence of purity of the court's originalists.

    This, I'm afraid, isn't just the death of a 50 year old legal judgment - it's the continued death of the pragmatism on which the entire era of American dominance has been based.
    Good post explaining the fantasy position pretence rather than just admitting the pragmatic reality.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,037
    Applicant said:

    2010 Conservatives formed a ConDem coalition Government with Lib Dems

    2017 Conservatives did a £1bn Bung Parliament deal for DUP votes

    2019 Conservatives benefited from Farage’s Brexit Party withdrawing in all Tory seats

    Remind me again which party relies on pacts and deals?

    The former two were after an election and the verdict of the electorate.
    The last one is inaccurate, the BXP stood aside in some seats, there was also a pact between LDs, Greens and PC and mutual stand downs
    The last one didn't help the Tories win a majority. To do that, BXP would have had to stand aside in Tory target seats.
    True. If they'd stood aside in Sunderland all 3 seats would likely have been Conservative for example. Hartlepool would have been blue pre by election and so on
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,162

    Taz said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    NEW: Opinium rail strike poll

    - 70% support inflation-level pay rise
    - 62% believe govt should intervene
    - 70% against cuts to rail staff
    - 84% say invest rail profits in maintaining staff
    - 59% say workers right to strike if talks fail

    The interesting thing is that the RMT aren't asking for an inflation-level pay rise. They're asking for 7% which is below the current annualised rate of inflation, and will be significantly below the peak inflation level this year. In that respect they're not even playing into the government's "oh no wage spiral" argument.
    There’s nothing unreasonable about the RMT position and as @dixiedean has said. A below inflation rise is not inflationary.
    No, the pay question seems reasonable. The issues about redundancy are more tangled. Does an organisation have the right to make roles redundant? I’d argue yes, with all the safeguards around employment law. Is the union right to resist this? Their role is to look after the members, so you can see why they are taking the stance they have adopted.
    Yes, you’re right. I should have made it clear it was pay.

    As for Redundancy I’d expect them to move from trying to stop them to trying to get the best deal possible.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,872

    Rentoul believes Dowden is plotting to install Rishi Washy.
    If he can persuade Rishi to stop doing the hokey cokey presumably

    I like the idea Rishi has been loyal the whole time but Boris undercut him out if fear, and would be rebels would try to force him to step up.

    Like rebels forcibly crowning that bloke in the Nika riots.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,677
    I have landed in the Wrong Continent
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,037
    kle4 said:

    Rentoul believes Dowden is plotting to install Rishi Washy.
    If he can persuade Rishi to stop doing the hokey cokey presumably

    I like the idea Rishi has been loyal the whole time but Boris undercut him out if fear, and would be rebels would try to force him to step up.

    Like rebels forcibly crowning that bloke in the Nika riots.
    Rishi the pure Johnsonite, a willing cakist
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,360
    edited June 2022
    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Anyone here want to defend the court's decision?

    Absolutely. Such issues (I am pro abortion) are for voters and legislators. As they are in the UK. All the SC has done is give USA voters the same rights we enjoy. They have neither banned nor compelled anything at all.

    What inherent right can enshrine the pro abortion principle so that it is beyond the reach of the voters? The debate itself, however dire, shows that the issues are not easy or obvious.

    This whole issue is bedeviled by all the people on all sides who think only one answer is possible or rational.

    Mr Smithson is right: this issue will stir voters to do their job. Good. Perhaps they will demolish Trumpism at the same time too.
    The issue is bedeviled by people finding false complexity in the debate and going down blind allies.
    Strongly agree. There are enough real difficulties, and enough fruitful paths to follow without the problems of rubbishy debate which seems to infest America.

    Curiously it's a problem in which despite its difficulty neither religion nor humanism nor science can shed much light.

  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,959
    A judge in Maryland threw out Democratic map: "A Maryland judge has thrown out the state’s congressional map, calling it an “extreme partisan gerrymander” in what is a victory for Republicans who said Democrats in the state General Assembly sought to silence their votes.
    . . .
    Maryland’s congressional map — passed on an overwhelming party-line vote in December — created seven safe Democratic seats and put the state’s sole Republican incumbent in Congress, Rep. Andy Harris, in jeopardy by making the 1st district competitive."
    source ($): https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/03/25/maryland-congressional-map-thrown-out-gerrymandering/

    Something similar happened in New York. So, yes, Democrats in those two states are not very good at gerrymandering. But that wasn't for lack of trying. Democrats in other states were more successful as you can see from 538's table: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-new-national-congressional-map-is-biased-toward-republicans/

    Need an example of what it was like when Democrats did almost all of the gerrymandering? Try 1992, when the Democrats won 258 House seats out of 435, with 50.1 percent of the popular vote.

    By the way, the attempts by Democrats to create "majority-minority" districts often concentrate Democrats, thus helping Republicans, net.

    (Incidentally, when Americans say House seats, without qualification, we almost always mean national House seats not state house seats.)
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    NEW: Opinium rail strike poll

    - 70% support inflation-level pay rise
    - 62% believe govt should intervene
    - 70% against cuts to rail staff
    - 84% say invest rail profits in maintaining staff
    - 59% say workers right to strike if talks fail

    The interesting thing is that the RMT aren't asking for an inflation-level pay rise. They're asking for 7% which is below the current annualised rate of inflation, and will be significantly below the peak inflation level this year. In that respect they're not even playing into the government's "oh no wage spiral" argument.
    There’s nothing unreasonable about the RMT position and as @dixiedean has said. A below inflation rise is not inflationary.
    No, the pay question seems reasonable. The issues about redundancy are more tangled. Does an organisation have the right to make roles redundant? I’d argue yes, with all the safeguards around employment law. Is the union right to resist this? Their role is to look after the members, so you can see why they are taking the stance they have adopted.
    Yes, you’re right. I should have made it clear it was pay.

    As for Redundancy I’d expect them to move from trying to stop them to trying to get the best deal possible.
    The redundancy issue is 2 different bits:

    ,maximise the payments and minimise the numbers

    But for the track safety savings you really want the replacement systems bought, implemented and confirmed as suitable before you reduce manual checks - instead every report is that the cuts will be made now and the automated systems will follow (as if). That’s just a risk

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    Applicant said:

    2010 Conservatives formed a ConDem coalition Government with Lib Dems

    2017 Conservatives did a £1bn Bung Parliament deal for DUP votes

    2019 Conservatives benefited from Farage’s Brexit Party withdrawing in all Tory seats

    Remind me again which party relies on pacts and deals?

    The former two were after an election and the verdict of the electorate.
    The last one is inaccurate, the BXP stood aside in some seats, there was also a pact between LDs, Greens and PC and mutual stand downs
    The last one didn't help the Tories win a majority. To do that, BXP would have had to stand aside in Tory target seats.
    True. If they'd stood aside in Sunderland all 3 seats would likely have been Conservative for example. Hartlepool would have been blue pre by election and so on
    If Brexit Party voters had all voted Conservative, they would also have won five more seats in Wales - Gower, Alyn and Deeside, Torfaen and both seats in Newport.

    And if my auntie had balls, she would be awaiting gender reassignment surgery.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    Right, that's the warm up complete. Now let the serious batting begin.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,123
    edited June 2022
    boulay said:

    Would it make more sense for SCOTUS nominees to be in a “cab rank” so on reaching a certain level of experience the prospective judges go on a rank - one rank for Reps and one for Dems.

    They make clear they wish to be in the rank and are vetted at various intervals for suitability each time there is a vacancy.

    When a new judge is required the sitting President can choose from the next on rank - Rep or Dem and as long as since their appointment to the waiting list they haven’t done anything stupid then they are the choice without quibble.

    Almost like a draft list where the top coach gets the top pick.

    This would hopefully prevent more extreme presidents from either wing selecting a matching nutter as the chances are their pick would have been moving up through previous administrations.

    So we would have maybe had under Trump, people who were working their way through the system under the Bushes - at the time this might have been unpalatable but now they look like moderates.

    It might be a stupid or unworkable idea but would appreciate the input from our US posters especially.

    I don't think this would work for several reasons.

    Firstly, you have to define seniority. Is a judge on the Nebraska Supreme Court equivalent to one on the California Supreme Court? I'm sure there are some excellent judges in Nebraska, and some poor ones in California. But the ones in Nebraska have risen to the top in a very small pond (to mix metaphors horribly). And what of someone who has followed the academic law route? Is a renowned and brilliant Professor of Law at Harvard equal to a highly experienced judge in Miami? I don't know.

    Secondly, even if you cobble together a highly arguable order of precedence, aren't people going to be completely equal? Or does it in the end come down to who is oldest and has more years on a particular rung (which seems a massive problem in itself)?

    Thirdly, judges are hard to remove for good reason to protect their independence from politicians and so on. Weaker judges, and those with failing faculties tend to be managed. You might very well have several at a particular level, but one has a reputation for being the person to allocate to the more intellectually taxing and sensitive cases.

    Fourthly, it doesn't give balance on the court as a whole. There are some who say that shouldn't matter at all. But it isn't the worst thing that the most recent addition (not yet sworn in) is a black woman, and she and the one before that are notably younger than some colleagues, and that there is some regional diversity etc. You can, I think, secure diversity without compromising ability. Ketanji Brown Jackson is a highly respected judge who went through rigorous screening - she wasn't plucked off the street because she was a black woman with a law degree.

    Finally, I think it's targeting the wrong issue. I vehemently disagree with Samuel Alito, but he isn't thick - he could eat me and many, many others for lunch on toast in a legal discussion. Brett Kavanaugh is morally more than dubious - he sounds like the worst kind of frat boy in his college days, and you'd be nuts to think the testimony against him wasn't substantially true. But he's very clever and he'd not be weeded out on the basis of conduct as a judge or the rigour of his judgments - it's just that in a fairer world he'd probably have done some prison time as a younger man. So the issues relate to balance, pragmatism, and polarisation. I don't think your approach addresses that.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    Leon said:

    I have landed in the Wrong Continent

    You got the plane from Tbilisi to Istanbul, which landed at the Asian airport, Sabiha Gokcen International, rather than Istanbul International.
This discussion has been closed.