PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Achieved one of the top legal jobs in the country as a result of his own efforts, having been to a state school.
It was a private school for most of his time there and Mordaunt went to a comprehensive.
Not when he began there. Are you blaming him and his parents for the school's governing body deciding to change?
In any case you've been telling us for years how important it is to have leaders for the Tory Party (and therefore thew UK, Empire and Galaxy) from posh schools and universities.
So is that a black mark against Ms Mordaunt?
No it don't, I support choice in education and if Starmer's parents were happy to send him to a grammar and private school to give him the best start in life so he could go to a Russell Group university and get a postgraduate degree from Oxford and become a posh North London lawyer and Labour leader, good for them.
However it is clear that Labour cannot then play the class war card against Mordaunt, a Portsmouth comprehensive educated, Reading University educated, non Oxbridge, non lawyer and former Naval reservist in the way they have tried to do against our recent Old Etonian PMs and would do against Rishi, the Winchester and Oxford educated ex Goldman Sachs banker
It's a long time since Labour played the class war card, not least as the class difference in voting preference has virtually disappeared (one can debate which is cause and which is effect, maybe). Labour still criticises massive wealth distortions, especially linked to tax avoidance, and wealth-based preferential opportunity (which is why the debate on private schools is still going), but the idea of even Jeremy Corbyn shouting "Let's squeeze the rich till the pips squeak!" as Denis Healey did is difficult to imagine. The world has moved on, and only people like Rees-Mogg still seem to be "acutely alive to the existence of class distinctions", as Jeeves used to put it.
Labour certainly played the class war card against Etonian Cameron, remember the Crewe by election where Labour activists dressed up in top hats and tails and they have also frequently attacked Boris' Eton education too
The attack on Eton is merely a case of a shit school having too much influence on our political system
The overall majority of private schools do a good job for their students preparing them for the professions.
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
Would it be OK for voters in Mississippi to decide that - in future - black voters in Mississippi should not get a vote?
I suspect that would be unconstitutional.
Ignoring that for now to answer your question. Would it be ok? No, absolutely not. Would it be legal? Possibly for state elections but unlikely for federal elections.
I guess my fundamental point is that, while most things are reserved to the States, some things are not.
In particular, the 14th Amendment - the Equal Protections Clause - is designed to ensure that States treat people similarly. Now, we can argue whether that includes areas like marriage, but I don't think you can seriously make the argument that excluding people based on their skin color from voting would not be in breach of the constitution.
They don't exclude people from voting - but there is no limit such as maximum number of voters per a voting center or voting booth so Texas and co spend a lot of time making voting virtually impossible in areas unlikely to vote Republican.
Which is, I have to say, an absolute fucking disgrace.
And is surely something that could be dealt with at federal level, at least for federal elections?
I don't understand all the fuss. America isn't civilisation any more, not universally. Shitkicker states voting to turn themselves into Gilead where guns have more rights than women - if that's what they vote for then what is it to me? Refugees can flee to non-shitkicker states or Canada.
Whilst there is still time - remember that the ban on potentially pregnant people potentially going for a baby murder out of state is brewing. Which is a ban on womenfolk of child-rearing age following Satan to leave Gilead. yes I am dressing this up in dramatic language, but its less dramatic than what Shitkicker GOPpers are saying in their state legislatures...
Democracy is what it is. There are faint parallels with us. The USA suffers from having a number of levels of interlocking and competing levels of authority. Senate, Congress, elected president, SC, State legislatures, Governors.
There are lots of democracies available, but at the heart of those that work are:
OPOV Multi party organisation Free press No power without accountability A constitution which protects democracy, and doesn't otherwise prohibit or compel things and crucially A single overriding supreme authority, democratically elected. Ours is the House of Commons.
The USA lacks this. Brexit happened in part because we looked as if we were starting to lack it.
What is wrong with Roe v Wade and its successor is not the decision, but where it was made.
I disagree. Until recently, the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century. The current incarnation of the Republican party and its representatives on the Supreme Court are not just taking that back fifty years, but aiming to overturn it fundamentally.
I disagree, the US system has never been settled.
Its evolved over time and underwent mammoth changes fifty years ago that were never accepted by a large proportion of society that have been voting to overturn those changes, and now they've won enough elections to achieve that.
Yes the Republicans are seeking to overturn it, but that's not a modern development, the party of Lincoln and the party of the KKK switched sides on a lot of cultural issues about fifty years ago because in no small part the country wasn't carried along with a lot of the changes that were made, unlike in this country where they were settled in the Commons.
Some people tried to short-circuit democracy, and they got want they want. Now the other side is getting what they want, but its never been settled. This is why democracy is so much better for settling disputes than courts.
The danger now is that even when America votes for Democrats like Biden, the Courts might be dominated by those who think like Trump for the next fifty years or more. This shows the weakness about relying upon courts for your "protection".
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Oh, I am so wounded. Surely all lawyers are by definition and position charismatice, witty, intelligent and just overflowing with bonhomine? Except Raab and Suella of course.
Generally speaking, lawyers are arseholes. The exceptions are notable.
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Oh, I am so wounded. Surely all lawyers are by definition and position charismatice, witty, intelligent and just overflowing with bonhomine? Except Raab and Suella of course.
Generally speaking, lawyers are arseholes. The exceptions are notable.
Like bankers, lawyers are imps of Satan.
Also, the descriptor lawyer - like murderer - will follow you to the grave. Nothing you can do will ever erase it.
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Oh, I am so wounded. Surely all lawyers are by definition and position charismatice, witty, intelligent and just overflowing with bonhomine? Except Raab and Suella of course.
Generally speaking, lawyers are arseholes. The exceptions are notable.
A cynic might say that generally speaking, people are arseholes.
Well, I wouldn't. Everyone is capable of acting like an arsehole sometimes, but most people mostly aren't. Obviously when people are arseholes it's more noticeable and so there's an observation bias effect.
Most people want to do good and want to be recognised for doing good. It's a very small minority who don't.
I agree with you, I was making a joke. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
Would it be OK for voters in Mississippi to decide that - in future - black voters in Mississippi should not get a vote?
I suspect that would be unconstitutional.
Ignoring that for now to answer your question. Would it be ok? No, absolutely not. Would it be legal? Possibly for state elections but unlikely for federal elections.
I guess my fundamental point is that, while most things are reserved to the States, some things are not.
In particular, the 14th Amendment - the Equal Protections Clause - is designed to ensure that States treat people similarly. Now, we can argue whether that includes areas like marriage, but I don't think you can seriously make the argument that excluding people based on their skin color from voting would not be in breach of the constitution.
They don't exclude people from voting - but there is no limit such as maximum number of voters per a voting center or voting booth so Texas and co spend a lot of time making voting virtually impossible in areas unlikely to vote Republican.
Which is, I have to say, an absolute fucking disgrace.
And is surely something that could be dealt with at federal level, at least for federal elections?
I don't understand all the fuss. America isn't civilisation any more, not universally. Shitkicker states voting to turn themselves into Gilead where guns have more rights than women - if that's what they vote for then what is it to me? Refugees can flee to non-shitkicker states or Canada.
Whilst there is still time - remember that the ban on potentially pregnant people potentially going for a baby murder out of state is brewing. Which is a ban on womenfolk of child-rearing age following Satan to leave Gilead. yes I am dressing this up in dramatic language, but its less dramatic than what Shitkicker GOPpers are saying in their state legislatures...
Democracy is what it is. There are faint parallels with us. The USA suffers from having a number of levels of interlocking and competing levels of authority. Senate, Congress, elected president, SC, State legislatures, Governors.
There are lots of democracies available, but at the heart of those that work are:
OPOV Multi party organisation Free press No power without accountability A constitution which protects democracy, and doesn't otherwise prohibit or compel things and crucially A single overriding supreme authority, democratically elected. Ours is the House of Commons.
The USA lacks this. Brexit happened in part because we looked as if we were starting to lack it.
What is wrong with Roe v Wade and its successor is not the decision, but where it was made.
I disagree. Until recently, the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century. The current incarnation of the Republican party and its representatives on the Supreme Court are not just taking that back fifty years, but aiming to overturn it fundamentally.
I disagree, the US system has never been settled.
Its evolved over time and underwent mammoth changes fifty years ago that were never accepted by a large proportion of society that have been voting to overturn those changes, and now they've won enough elections to achieve that.
Yes the Republicans are seeking to overturn it, but that's not a modern development, the party of Lincoln and the party of the KKK switched sides on a lot of cultural issues about fifty years ago because in no small part the country wasn't carried along with a lot of the changes that were made, unlike in this country where they were settled in the Commons.
Some people tried to short-circuit democracy, and they got want they want. Now the other side is getting what they want, but its never been settled. This is why democracy is so much better for settling disputes than courts.
The danger now is that even when America votes for Democrats like Biden, the Courts might be dominated by those who think like Trump for the next fifty years or more. This shows the weakness about relying upon courts for your "protection".
This lack of settledness, it's all about slavery, isn't it? Different views over slavery was a challenge when the Constitution was being written. Then there was the Civil War, and the failures of Reconstruction. A century of Jim Crow laws made a mockery of the 13th-15th amendments.
And now it’s 35C so it’s rising 1C every half hour, at the moment
Cheers. I expect it is accurate (if not 'official'). It can get very hot next to buildings.
We have just reached 30°C in Dorset. And at the risk of sounding like a pompous arse that's on our Davis Vantage Pro2 weather station which is quite well sited (if not Met Office standard).
We broke our record yesterday with 34.1°C.
The 2% relative humidity measurement is a bit of a warning flag, though that could be an unrelated issue with the hygrometer, which are generally harder to calibrate. But it's suggestive of the temperature measurement having a positive bias.
On the other hand, it may accurately reflect the urban heating effect of all the concrete and brick.
This afternoon's vote is I think the most unpredictable of the lot and is crunch time. Every result up to now it has been fairly predictable who would be dropping out. Once we get to 3 then I think it will be fairly obvious who will make the final 3. Today is the day where MPs might start switching around their votes. Going to be very interesting at 3pm today!
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
Would it be OK for voters in Mississippi to decide that - in future - black voters in Mississippi should not get a vote?
I suspect that would be unconstitutional.
Ignoring that for now to answer your question. Would it be ok? No, absolutely not. Would it be legal? Possibly for state elections but unlikely for federal elections.
I guess my fundamental point is that, while most things are reserved to the States, some things are not.
In particular, the 14th Amendment - the Equal Protections Clause - is designed to ensure that States treat people similarly. Now, we can argue whether that includes areas like marriage, but I don't think you can seriously make the argument that excluding people based on their skin color from voting would not be in breach of the constitution.
They don't exclude people from voting - but there is no limit such as maximum number of voters per a voting center or voting booth so Texas and co spend a lot of time making voting virtually impossible in areas unlikely to vote Republican.
Which is, I have to say, an absolute fucking disgrace.
And is surely something that could be dealt with at federal level, at least for federal elections?
I don't understand all the fuss. America isn't civilisation any more, not universally. Shitkicker states voting to turn themselves into Gilead where guns have more rights than women - if that's what they vote for then what is it to me? Refugees can flee to non-shitkicker states or Canada.
Whilst there is still time - remember that the ban on potentially pregnant people potentially going for a baby murder out of state is brewing. Which is a ban on womenfolk of child-rearing age following Satan to leave Gilead. yes I am dressing this up in dramatic language, but its less dramatic than what Shitkicker GOPpers are saying in their state legislatures...
Democracy is what it is. There are faint parallels with us. The USA suffers from having a number of levels of interlocking and competing levels of authority. Senate, Congress, elected president, SC, State legislatures, Governors.
There are lots of democracies available, but at the heart of those that work are:
OPOV Multi party organisation Free press No power without accountability A constitution which protects democracy, and doesn't otherwise prohibit or compel things and crucially A single overriding supreme authority, democratically elected. Ours is the House of Commons.
The USA lacks this. Brexit happened in part because we looked as if we were starting to lack it.
What is wrong with Roe v Wade and its successor is not the decision, but where it was made.
I disagree. Until recently, the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century. The current incarnation of the Republican party and its representatives on the Supreme Court are not just taking that back fifty years, but aiming to overturn it fundamentally.
Going back to some of the recent decisions.
One of the biggest problems with defending Roe v Wade was most legal actors agreed it was fundamentally based on a poor legal decision. Even Ginsburg recognised that and wanted its basis changed. That's why the Justices were able to overturn it in such a way and it left the Democrats trying to defend R v W on the basis that previous Supreme Court decisions couldn't be overturned, completely oblivious to the fact on that basis slavery would still be legal.
The advocates for abortion were fundamentally lazy. Once they got the decision they wanted, they didn't care, they put jack shit effort into solidifying the foundations.
That's just Republican propaganda. And it's simply not true to say 'most legal actors' thought Roe a poor decision.
Sigh.
Ginsburg's views on R v W from a legal standpoint are well documented. Even many of R v W's defenders knew this.
Tell you what though, why don't you come up with evidence for your view that the legal community generally thought R v W was fundamentally sound legally?
Well you could start by reading the dissents in Dobbs.
Your blithe assumption that Ginsburg represented all liberal jurisprudence, rather than being something of an outlier on this issue, is daft.
The problem with judicial legislation is that politicians then appoint judges on the basis of their political opinions.
I think you have that arse about face.
That's because judicial legislation is arse over tit.
Judges should be there to interpret the law made by the elected bodies, not to create law and foist it upon elected bodies regardless of what the voters think.
Go down the path of judicial legislation and the politicians will seek to control the courts in a way that's never been needed in this country when the politicians can act via Parliament instead. But we the voters can kick out the Parliament, we can't kick out the courts.
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
Would it be OK for voters in Mississippi to decide that - in future - black voters in Mississippi should not get a vote?
I suspect that would be unconstitutional.
Ignoring that for now to answer your question. Would it be ok? No, absolutely not. Would it be legal? Possibly for state elections but unlikely for federal elections.
I guess my fundamental point is that, while most things are reserved to the States, some things are not.
In particular, the 14th Amendment - the Equal Protections Clause - is designed to ensure that States treat people similarly. Now, we can argue whether that includes areas like marriage, but I don't think you can seriously make the argument that excluding people based on their skin color from voting would not be in breach of the constitution.
They don't exclude people from voting - but there is no limit such as maximum number of voters per a voting center or voting booth so Texas and co spend a lot of time making voting virtually impossible in areas unlikely to vote Republican.
Which is, I have to say, an absolute fucking disgrace.
And is surely something that could be dealt with at federal level, at least for federal elections?
I don't understand all the fuss. America isn't civilisation any more, not universally. Shitkicker states voting to turn themselves into Gilead where guns have more rights than women - if that's what they vote for then what is it to me? Refugees can flee to non-shitkicker states or Canada.
Whilst there is still time - remember that the ban on potentially pregnant people potentially going for a baby murder out of state is brewing. Which is a ban on womenfolk of child-rearing age following Satan to leave Gilead. yes I am dressing this up in dramatic language, but its less dramatic than what Shitkicker GOPpers are saying in their state legislatures...
Democracy is what it is. There are faint parallels with us. The USA suffers from having a number of levels of interlocking and competing levels of authority. Senate, Congress, elected president, SC, State legislatures, Governors.
There are lots of democracies available, but at the heart of those that work are:
OPOV Multi party organisation Free press No power without accountability A constitution which protects democracy, and doesn't otherwise prohibit or compel things and crucially A single overriding supreme authority, democratically elected. Ours is the House of Commons.
The USA lacks this. Brexit happened in part because we looked as if we were starting to lack it.
What is wrong with Roe v Wade and its successor is not the decision, but where it was made.
I disagree. Until recently, the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century. The current incarnation of the Republican party and its representatives on the Supreme Court are not just taking that back fifty years, but aiming to overturn it fundamentally.
Going back to some of the recent decisions.
One of the biggest problems with defending Roe v Wade was most legal actors agreed it was fundamentally based on a poor legal decision. Even Ginsburg recognised that and wanted its basis changed. That's why the Justices were able to overturn it in such a way and it left the Democrats trying to defend R v W on the basis that previous Supreme Court decisions couldn't be overturned, completely oblivious to the fact on that basis slavery would still be legal.
The advocates for abortion were fundamentally lazy. Once they got the decision they wanted, they didn't care, they put jack shit effort into solidifying the foundations.
That's just Republican propaganda. And it's simply not true to say 'most legal actors' thought Roe a poor decision.
Sigh.
Ginsburg's views on R v W from a legal standpoint are well documented. Even many of R v W's defenders knew this.
Tell you what though, why don't you come up with evidence for your view that the legal community generally thought R v W was fundamentally sound legally?
Well you could start by reading the dissents in Dobbs.
Your blithe assumption that Ginsburg represented all liberal jurisprudence, rather than being something of an outlier on this issue, is daft.
The dissenters arguments are essentially the same as the likes of Pelosi et al were saying, including the view that SC decisions fundamentally can't be overturned which would have meant slavery would never have been overturned on that logic.
Ginsburg actually wasn't an outlier. The smarter progressives always knew R v W was on shaky grounds, which is why they wanted to base it on the right to equal protection rather than privacy.
And now it’s 35C so it’s rising 1C every half hour, at the moment
Cheers. I expect it is accurate (if not 'official'). It can get very hot next to buildings.
Indeed. Note that indoors I’ve managed to keep it to 29C - where it has been pretty much since late Sunday. The various techniques advised have worked
Add in a dyson fan and it’s all quite tolerable. So thanks to anyone and everyone - eg @Sandpit - who gave advice on keeping cool in the furnace
I'm still amazed at the number of people who have all their windows open. They wouldn't leave their doors wide open in the middle of winter to let the cold air in. Why do the same in the Summer to let the heat in?
Well Helsingin Sanomat is leading with a story about a walrus.
Hamina's walrus was found in the backyard of a man from Kotka, near a worn-out clothes rack: "It was a pretty little walrus frolicking under the spruce fence"
Nothing else really of note. Lovely summer weather though.
Has the walrus been spotted with any Conservative Cabinet ministers?
"The time has come, the walrus said, to speak of many things …"
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
Would it be OK for voters in Mississippi to decide that - in future - black voters in Mississippi should not get a vote?
I suspect that would be unconstitutional.
Ignoring that for now to answer your question. Would it be ok? No, absolutely not. Would it be legal? Possibly for state elections but unlikely for federal elections.
I guess my fundamental point is that, while most things are reserved to the States, some things are not.
In particular, the 14th Amendment - the Equal Protections Clause - is designed to ensure that States treat people similarly. Now, we can argue whether that includes areas like marriage, but I don't think you can seriously make the argument that excluding people based on their skin color from voting would not be in breach of the constitution.
They don't exclude people from voting - but there is no limit such as maximum number of voters per a voting center or voting booth so Texas and co spend a lot of time making voting virtually impossible in areas unlikely to vote Republican.
Which is, I have to say, an absolute fucking disgrace.
And is surely something that could be dealt with at federal level, at least for federal elections?
I don't understand all the fuss. America isn't civilisation any more, not universally. Shitkicker states voting to turn themselves into Gilead where guns have more rights than women - if that's what they vote for then what is it to me? Refugees can flee to non-shitkicker states or Canada.
Whilst there is still time - remember that the ban on potentially pregnant people potentially going for a baby murder out of state is brewing. Which is a ban on womenfolk of child-rearing age following Satan to leave Gilead. yes I am dressing this up in dramatic language, but its less dramatic than what Shitkicker GOPpers are saying in their state legislatures...
Democracy is what it is. There are faint parallels with us. The USA suffers from having a number of levels of interlocking and competing levels of authority. Senate, Congress, elected president, SC, State legislatures, Governors.
There are lots of democracies available, but at the heart of those that work are:
OPOV Multi party organisation Free press No power without accountability A constitution which protects democracy, and doesn't otherwise prohibit or compel things and crucially A single overriding supreme authority, democratically elected. Ours is the House of Commons.
The USA lacks this. Brexit happened in part because we looked as if we were starting to lack it.
What is wrong with Roe v Wade and its successor is not the decision, but where it was made.
I disagree. Until recently, the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century. The current incarnation of the Republican party and its representatives on the Supreme Court are not just taking that back fifty years, but aiming to overturn it fundamentally.
Going back to some of the recent decisions.
One of the biggest problems with defending Roe v Wade was most legal actors agreed it was fundamentally based on a poor legal decision. Even Ginsburg recognised that and wanted its basis changed. That's why the Justices were able to overturn it in such a way and it left the Democrats trying to defend R v W on the basis that previous Supreme Court decisions couldn't be overturned, completely oblivious to the fact on that basis slavery would still be legal.
The advocates for abortion were fundamentally lazy. Once they got the decision they wanted, they didn't care, they put jack shit effort into solidifying the foundations.
That's just Republican propaganda. And it's simply not true to say 'most legal actors' thought Roe a poor decision.
Sigh.
Ginsburg's views on R v W from a legal standpoint are well documented. Even many of R v W's defenders knew this.
Tell you what though, why don't you come up with evidence for your view that the legal community generally thought R v W was fundamentally sound legally?
Well you could start by reading the dissents in Dobbs.
Your blithe assumption that Ginsburg represented all liberal jurisprudence, rather than being something of an outlier on this issue, is daft.
The dissenters arguments are essentially the same as the likes of Pelosi et al were saying, including the view that SC decisions fundamentally can't be overturned which would have meant slavery would never have been overturned on that logic.
Ginsburg actually wasn't an outlier. The smarter progressives always knew R v W was on shaky grounds, which is why they wanted to base it on the right to equal protection rather than privacy.
Slavery wasn't overturned by the Supreme Court, but by war orders and amendments.
And now it’s 35C so it’s rising 1C every half hour, at the moment
Cheers. I expect it is accurate (if not 'official'). It can get very hot next to buildings.
We have just reached 30°C in Dorset. And at the risk of sounding like a pompous arse that's on our Davis Vantage Pro2 weather station which is quite well sited (if not Met Office standard).
We broke our record yesterday with 34.1°C.
The 2% relative humidity measurement is a bit of a warning flag, though that could be an unrelated issue with the hygrometer, which are generally harder to calibrate. But it's suggestive of the temperature measurement having a positive bias.
On the other hand, it may accurately reflect the urban heating effect of all the concrete and brick.
It followed the official central London weather gauge quite closely yesterday - but was always about 0.5-1C higher
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
Ever heard of gerrymandering? Over a huge range of issues political control no longer aligns with the clear wishes of the electorate (as measured by polling). And even where it arguably does, there are often huge obstacles put in place to prevent the politicians acting to satisfy those wishes (at federal level, the filibuster in the Senate; as well as judges who increasingly are ruling inconsistently in line with an obvious desire to deliver favoured outcomes, regardless of legal principle or precedent)
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Royal Navy reserves are part-time civilians, trained to be called up if needed, no? They're not actually full-time naval professionals. A bit like the TA. And there are a few of those in the Commons. And one Royal Navy Surgeon Commander. There are quite a few MPs with actual battle experience. So being a reservist - while admirable - is not exactly exceptional
I think that's a little unfair. They do have to give up 24 days a year to train, which is a fair commitment. What is more, there is always the chance they will be called up for an operational deployment, to serve the country. And perhaps die for it.
It also would give her a rather different perspective from most of the Westminster bubble. So IMV it is, as you say, admirable, but also very much a feather in her cap. Or dolphins on her top...
This afternoon's vote is I think the most unpredictable of the lot and is crunch time. Every result up to now it has been fairly predictable who would be dropping out. Once we get to 3 then I think it will be fairly obvious who will make the final 3. Today is the day where MPs might start switching around their votes. Going to be very interesting at 3pm today!
In the 2nd ballot, the person bottom in the 1st ballot was eliminated. In the 3rd ballot, the person bottom in the 2nd ballot was eliminated.
In 2019, in every ballot, the person eliminated was the one who came bottom in the previous ballot, except in the second ballot (when Stewart and Javid overtook Raab).
The 2016 leadership only had two ballots, but the candidate eliminated in the second ballot was the one who had fewest votes of the three in the first ballot. That also applies to 2005. That also applies to the 1997 second ballot. (2001 was weird.)
So, it is very unusual for the person bottom in one ballot not to be eliminated in the next round (excluding any withdrawals).
And now it’s 35C so it’s rising 1C every half hour, at the moment
Cheers. I expect it is accurate (if not 'official'). It can get very hot next to buildings.
Indeed. Note that indoors I’ve managed to keep it to 29C - where it has been pretty much since late Sunday. The various techniques advised have worked
Add in a dyson fan and it’s all quite tolerable. So thanks to anyone and everyone - eg @Sandpit - who gave advice on keeping cool in the furnace
I'm still amazed at the number of people who have all their windows open. They wouldn't leave their doors wide open in the middle of winter to let the cold air in. Why do the same in the Summer to let the heat in?
Unless it's proper crazy hot, having windows open to get a bit of breeze is better than keeping them closed and the building getting stuffy. And most of our habits and instincts in the UK were developed when proper crazy hot didn't happen. I wonder what the tipping point temperature is?
All those architects who built houses with big south-facing bay windows weren't idiots, mostly it gets more light and warmth in in a good way. They just didn't anticipate a time when they would create more problems than they solve.
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
Would it be OK for voters in Mississippi to decide that - in future - black voters in Mississippi should not get a vote?
I suspect that would be unconstitutional.
Ignoring that for now to answer your question. Would it be ok? No, absolutely not. Would it be legal? Possibly for state elections but unlikely for federal elections.
I guess my fundamental point is that, while most things are reserved to the States, some things are not.
In particular, the 14th Amendment - the Equal Protections Clause - is designed to ensure that States treat people similarly. Now, we can argue whether that includes areas like marriage, but I don't think you can seriously make the argument that excluding people based on their skin color from voting would not be in breach of the constitution.
They don't exclude people from voting - but there is no limit such as maximum number of voters per a voting center or voting booth so Texas and co spend a lot of time making voting virtually impossible in areas unlikely to vote Republican.
Which is, I have to say, an absolute fucking disgrace.
And is surely something that could be dealt with at federal level, at least for federal elections?
I don't understand all the fuss. America isn't civilisation any more, not universally. Shitkicker states voting to turn themselves into Gilead where guns have more rights than women - if that's what they vote for then what is it to me? Refugees can flee to non-shitkicker states or Canada.
Whilst there is still time - remember that the ban on potentially pregnant people potentially going for a baby murder out of state is brewing. Which is a ban on womenfolk of child-rearing age following Satan to leave Gilead. yes I am dressing this up in dramatic language, but its less dramatic than what Shitkicker GOPpers are saying in their state legislatures...
Democracy is what it is. There are faint parallels with us. The USA suffers from having a number of levels of interlocking and competing levels of authority. Senate, Congress, elected president, SC, State legislatures, Governors.
There are lots of democracies available, but at the heart of those that work are:
OPOV Multi party organisation Free press No power without accountability A constitution which protects democracy, and doesn't otherwise prohibit or compel things and crucially A single overriding supreme authority, democratically elected. Ours is the House of Commons.
The USA lacks this. Brexit happened in part because we looked as if we were starting to lack it.
What is wrong with Roe v Wade and its successor is not the decision, but where it was made.
I disagree. Until recently, the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century. The current incarnation of the Republican party and its representatives on the Supreme Court are not just taking that back fifty years, but aiming to overturn it fundamentally.
Going back to some of the recent decisions.
One of the biggest problems with defending Roe v Wade was most legal actors agreed it was fundamentally based on a poor legal decision. Even Ginsburg recognised that and wanted its basis changed. That's why the Justices were able to overturn it in such a way and it left the Democrats trying to defend R v W on the basis that previous Supreme Court decisions couldn't be overturned, completely oblivious to the fact on that basis slavery would still be legal.
The advocates for abortion were fundamentally lazy. Once they got the decision they wanted, they didn't care, they put jack shit effort into solidifying the foundations.
That's just Republican propaganda. And it's simply not true to say 'most legal actors' thought Roe a poor decision.
Sigh.
Ginsburg's views on R v W from a legal standpoint are well documented. Even many of R v W's defenders knew this.
Tell you what though, why don't you come up with evidence for your view that the legal community generally thought R v W was fundamentally sound legally?
Well you could start by reading the dissents in Dobbs.
Your blithe assumption that Ginsburg represented all liberal jurisprudence, rather than being something of an outlier on this issue, is daft.
The problem with judicial legislation is that politicians then appoint judges on the basis of their political opinions.
I think you have that arse about face.
That's because judicial legislation is arse over tit.
Judges should be there to interpret the law made by the elected bodies, not to create law and foist it upon elected bodies regardless of what the voters think.
Go down the path of judicial legislation and the politicians will seek to control the courts in a way that's never been needed in this country when the politicians can act via Parliament instead. But we the voters can kick out the Parliament, we can't kick out the courts.
Absolutely. Legislators pass laws. Courts interpret and sometimes clarify laws. Legislators can then amend or repeal laws as they see fit. The problem with Roe vs Wade is that instead of legislators passing a law to make abortion legal at federal level, its a judgement of an interpretation of the constitution.
Where "judicial legislation" has come into focus here is when the government passes a law which creates a clash with other laws due to being badly drafted or simply being illegal in the first place as written. Which is where we get to "Enemies of the People" and "leftie lawyers" overturning parliament.
As has been widely pointed out, the political leanings of lawyers and even judges matters not unless the law backs them up. We end up with judges accused of interpreting laws here when the shitty drafting and "don't care" approach to legality forces them to interpret, because law r clashes with law b passed decades earlier.
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
Would it be OK for voters in Mississippi to decide that - in future - black voters in Mississippi should not get a vote?
I suspect that would be unconstitutional.
Ignoring that for now to answer your question. Would it be ok? No, absolutely not. Would it be legal? Possibly for state elections but unlikely for federal elections.
I guess my fundamental point is that, while most things are reserved to the States, some things are not.
In particular, the 14th Amendment - the Equal Protections Clause - is designed to ensure that States treat people similarly. Now, we can argue whether that includes areas like marriage, but I don't think you can seriously make the argument that excluding people based on their skin color from voting would not be in breach of the constitution.
They don't exclude people from voting - but there is no limit such as maximum number of voters per a voting center or voting booth so Texas and co spend a lot of time making voting virtually impossible in areas unlikely to vote Republican.
Which is, I have to say, an absolute fucking disgrace.
And is surely something that could be dealt with at federal level, at least for federal elections?
I don't understand all the fuss. America isn't civilisation any more, not universally. Shitkicker states voting to turn themselves into Gilead where guns have more rights than women - if that's what they vote for then what is it to me? Refugees can flee to non-shitkicker states or Canada.
Whilst there is still time - remember that the ban on potentially pregnant people potentially going for a baby murder out of state is brewing. Which is a ban on womenfolk of child-rearing age following Satan to leave Gilead. yes I am dressing this up in dramatic language, but its less dramatic than what Shitkicker GOPpers are saying in their state legislatures...
Democracy is what it is. There are faint parallels with us. The USA suffers from having a number of levels of interlocking and competing levels of authority. Senate, Congress, elected president, SC, State legislatures, Governors.
There are lots of democracies available, but at the heart of those that work are:
OPOV Multi party organisation Free press No power without accountability A constitution which protects democracy, and doesn't otherwise prohibit or compel things and crucially A single overriding supreme authority, democratically elected. Ours is the House of Commons.
The USA lacks this. Brexit happened in part because we looked as if we were starting to lack it.
What is wrong with Roe v Wade and its successor is not the decision, but where it was made.
I disagree. Until recently, the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century. The current incarnation of the Republican party and its representatives on the Supreme Court are not just taking that back fifty years, but aiming to overturn it fundamentally.
I agree with both of us. The question is the robustness of the process when challenged by difficult circumstances.
Balances are fine as long as there is a single accountable democratic outfit at the top, as the House of Commons here.
The HoC has the power to overturn all delegated authority, and our SC does not have the power to overturn its legislation on a whim, while having the power to scrutinise government.
The USA lacks that single body at the top.
So in the USA we have a situation where a state can pass a barbaric law over guns or abortion, and no higher power can overturn it.
In the UK when we vote in GEs we know that we have that responsibility to elect a supreme body. In the USA there is no equivalent.
But a competing balance of powers was the foundational conception of the the US constitution. The mistake of the founders was inadvertently to make it virtually impossible in modern times to amend the constitution democratically.
Yes and yes.
The flaws are being discovered. Now the mistake of relying on courts and constitutions to do things that are the job of the supreme elected body (the HoC in the UK) is becoming clearer.
At one time I put 6th formers through practice interviews for various things including Oxbridge. Slightly to my surprise quite a few of them (wanting to read law or PPE) were unable to offer anything at all in answer to the question: What is the difference between parliament and government.
In the UK we keep it simple. But bright people still don't get it. The USA is intractably confused by comparison.
The Supreme Court in the UK has, by and large, tried to stay out of legislation. For exactly these reasons.
IIRC back under the Coalition there was an attempt to use human rights and equalities legislation to claim that unless any changes to pensions and benefits were perfectly equitable across protected classes, they would be illegal. The actual effect of this would be to make any changes in pensions or benefits (up or down) impossible. Without the permission of a court. The UK SC (again IIRC) specifically rejected the attempt on the basis that it was a massive attack on Parliament and its ability to legislate.
Well Helsingin Sanomat is leading with a story about a walrus.
Hamina's walrus was found in the backyard of a man from Kotka, near a worn-out clothes rack: "It was a pretty little walrus frolicking under the spruce fence"
Nothing else really of note. Lovely summer weather though.
PM does her Kinnock Jonathan Seagull video. But who is it aimed at? The actual electorate at moment is 350 Tory MPs not the voting public.
Penny Mordaunt has produced a far better video second time around, demonstrating that she can do better.
However, the video lof her life in Portsmouth does not differentiate her from Starmer who could make much the same video.
Except Mordaunt adds charisma to it, has been a Naval reservist and lives in Portsmouth still and Starmer is a dull as dishwater North London ex lawyer
Achieved one of the top legal jobs in the country as a result of his own efforts, having been to a state school.
It was a private school for most of his time there and Mordaunt went to a comprehensive.
AIUI he passed the 11+ to g et there and those boys who have done so remained in the 'private' school on a 'scholarship' basis. What anyone else did is irrelevant!
He still went to a grammar school and private school and Oxford for postgraduate, so still had a posher education than comp and Reading educated Penny
Starmer is, I think, of a similar generation to my children, and I think the situation in Surrey was very similar to that in Essex at the time. The parents of a very bright child would often, at the time, be told by the head of the primary school they attended that the child might well pass the 11+.
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
Would it be OK for voters in Mississippi to decide that - in future - black voters in Mississippi should not get a vote?
I suspect that would be unconstitutional.
Ignoring that for now to answer your question. Would it be ok? No, absolutely not. Would it be legal? Possibly for state elections but unlikely for federal elections.
I guess my fundamental point is that, while most things are reserved to the States, some things are not.
In particular, the 14th Amendment - the Equal Protections Clause - is designed to ensure that States treat people similarly. Now, we can argue whether that includes areas like marriage, but I don't think you can seriously make the argument that excluding people based on their skin color from voting would not be in breach of the constitution.
They don't exclude people from voting - but there is no limit such as maximum number of voters per a voting center or voting booth so Texas and co spend a lot of time making voting virtually impossible in areas unlikely to vote Republican.
Which is, I have to say, an absolute fucking disgrace.
And is surely something that could be dealt with at federal level, at least for federal elections?
I don't understand all the fuss. America isn't civilisation any more, not universally. Shitkicker states voting to turn themselves into Gilead where guns have more rights than women - if that's what they vote for then what is it to me? Refugees can flee to non-shitkicker states or Canada.
Whilst there is still time - remember that the ban on potentially pregnant people potentially going for a baby murder out of state is brewing. Which is a ban on womenfolk of child-rearing age following Satan to leave Gilead. yes I am dressing this up in dramatic language, but its less dramatic than what Shitkicker GOPpers are saying in their state legislatures...
Democracy is what it is. There are faint parallels with us. The USA suffers from having a number of levels of interlocking and competing levels of authority. Senate, Congress, elected president, SC, State legislatures, Governors.
There are lots of democracies available, but at the heart of those that work are:
OPOV Multi party organisation Free press No power without accountability A constitution which protects democracy, and doesn't otherwise prohibit or compel things and crucially A single overriding supreme authority, democratically elected. Ours is the House of Commons.
The USA lacks this. Brexit happened in part because we looked as if we were starting to lack it.
What is wrong with Roe v Wade and its successor is not the decision, but where it was made.
I disagree. Until recently, the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century. The current incarnation of the Republican party and its representatives on the Supreme Court are not just taking that back fifty years, but aiming to overturn it fundamentally.
I agree with both of us. The question is the robustness of the process when challenged by difficult circumstances.
Balances are fine as long as there is a single accountable democratic outfit at the top, as the House of Commons here.
The HoC has the power to overturn all delegated authority, and our SC does not have the power to overturn its legislation on a whim, while having the power to scrutinise government.
The USA lacks that single body at the top.
So in the USA we have a situation where a state can pass a barbaric law over guns or abortion, and no higher power can overturn it.
In the UK when we vote in GEs we know that we have that responsibility to elect a supreme body. In the USA there is no equivalent.
But a competing balance of powers was the foundational conception of the the US constitution. The mistake of the founders was inadvertently to make it virtually impossible in modern times to amend the constitution democratically.
Yes and yes.
The flaws are being discovered. Now the mistake of relying on courts and constitutions to do things that are the job of the supreme elected body (the HoC in the UK) is becoming clearer.
At one time I put 6th formers through practice interviews for various things including Oxbridge. Slightly to my surprise quite a few of them (wanting to read law or PPE) were unable to offer anything at all in answer to the question: What is the difference between parliament and government.
In the UK we keep it simple. But bright people still don't get it. The USA is intractably confused by comparison.
The flaws of the constitution have been obvious for decades. But they fundamentally do not extend far beyond the difficulty of amendment.
I've noted it many times before - but the Equal Rights Amendment to the constitution, which would explicitly have granted women equal rights as citizens, was passed by two thirds majorities of both houses of Congress, in 1972. It has yet to be ratified.
The entire text is this. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:
"ARTICLE —
"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
"Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
"Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."
And now it’s 35C so it’s rising 1C every half hour, at the moment
Cheers. I expect it is accurate (if not 'official'). It can get very hot next to buildings.
Indeed. Note that indoors I’ve managed to keep it to 29C - where it has been pretty much since late Sunday. The various techniques advised have worked
Add in a dyson fan and it’s all quite tolerable. So thanks to anyone and everyone - eg @Sandpit - who gave advice on keeping cool in the furnace
I'm still amazed at the number of people who have all their windows open. They wouldn't leave their doors wide open in the middle of winter to let the cold air in. Why do the same in the Summer to let the heat in?
Unless it's proper crazy hot, having windows open to get a bit of breeze is better than keeping them closed and the building getting stuffy. And most of our habits and instincts in the UK were developed when proper crazy hot didn't happen. I wonder what the tipping point temperature is?
All those architects who built houses with big south-facing bay windows weren't idiots, mostly it gets more light and warmth in in a good way. They just didn't anticipate a time when they would create more problems than they solve.
Modern glass with all the coatings solves that issue, fairly handily.
Your winter heating bills will go down nicely as well.
Asked point-blank whether he would be "okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states," Senator Mike Braun (Rep, Indiana) replied in the affirmative.
So long if a marriage valid in one state is recognised in every other state that’s fine.
If the voters in an individual state want to vote for a racist state government who would pass the at kind of legislation that should be up to them. It’s not democratic to say “this shall not be done”
Would it be OK for voters in Mississippi to decide that - in future - black voters in Mississippi should not get a vote?
I suspect that would be unconstitutional.
Ignoring that for now to answer your question. Would it be ok? No, absolutely not. Would it be legal? Possibly for state elections but unlikely for federal elections.
I guess my fundamental point is that, while most things are reserved to the States, some things are not.
In particular, the 14th Amendment - the Equal Protections Clause - is designed to ensure that States treat people similarly. Now, we can argue whether that includes areas like marriage, but I don't think you can seriously make the argument that excluding people based on their skin color from voting would not be in breach of the constitution.
They don't exclude people from voting - but there is no limit such as maximum number of voters per a voting center or voting booth so Texas and co spend a lot of time making voting virtually impossible in areas unlikely to vote Republican.
Which is, I have to say, an absolute fucking disgrace.
And is surely something that could be dealt with at federal level, at least for federal elections?
I don't understand all the fuss. America isn't civilisation any more, not universally. Shitkicker states voting to turn themselves into Gilead where guns have more rights than women - if that's what they vote for then what is it to me? Refugees can flee to non-shitkicker states or Canada.
Whilst there is still time - remember that the ban on potentially pregnant people potentially going for a baby murder out of state is brewing. Which is a ban on womenfolk of child-rearing age following Satan to leave Gilead. yes I am dressing this up in dramatic language, but its less dramatic than what Shitkicker GOPpers are saying in their state legislatures...
Democracy is what it is. There are faint parallels with us. The USA suffers from having a number of levels of interlocking and competing levels of authority. Senate, Congress, elected president, SC, State legislatures, Governors.
There are lots of democracies available, but at the heart of those that work are:
OPOV Multi party organisation Free press No power without accountability A constitution which protects democracy, and doesn't otherwise prohibit or compel things and crucially A single overriding supreme authority, democratically elected. Ours is the House of Commons.
The USA lacks this. Brexit happened in part because we looked as if we were starting to lack it.
What is wrong with Roe v Wade and its successor is not the decision, but where it was made.
I disagree. Until recently, the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century. The current incarnation of the Republican party and its representatives on the Supreme Court are not just taking that back fifty years, but aiming to overturn it fundamentally.
I disagree, the US system has never been settled....
That's not what I said - rather that the US had a constitutional dispensation setting out the balance between state and federal powers which was fairly settled for half a century.
And now it’s 35C so it’s rising 1C every half hour, at the moment
Worth noting that the Met Office have now reported 35.1C at Kew Gardens for 10am, so your observation looks pretty accurate given you'd expect the vegetation to keep Kew a bit cooler.
Comments
Its evolved over time and underwent mammoth changes fifty years ago that were never accepted by a large proportion of society that have been voting to overturn those changes, and now they've won enough elections to achieve that.
Yes the Republicans are seeking to overturn it, but that's not a modern development, the party of Lincoln and the party of the KKK switched sides on a lot of cultural issues about fifty years ago because in no small part the country wasn't carried along with a lot of the changes that were made, unlike in this country where they were settled in the Commons.
Some people tried to short-circuit democracy, and they got want they want. Now the other side is getting what they want, but its never been settled. This is why democracy is so much better for settling disputes than courts.
The danger now is that even when America votes for Democrats like Biden, the Courts might be dominated by those who think like Trump for the next fifty years or more. This shows the weakness about relying upon courts for your "protection".
Without the Iron.
On the other hand, it may accurately reflect the urban heating effect of all the concrete and brick.
Judges should be there to interpret the law made by the elected bodies, not to create law and foist it upon elected bodies regardless of what the voters think.
Go down the path of judicial legislation and the politicians will seek to control the courts in a way that's never been needed in this country when the politicians can act via Parliament instead. But we the voters can kick out the Parliament, we can't kick out the courts.
Ginsburg actually wasn't an outlier. The smarter progressives always knew R v W was on shaky grounds, which is why they wanted to base it on the right to equal protection rather than privacy.
But it’s quite relevant to me, inasmuch as this is where I live
Meanwhile regular stations are reporting 33C in London, so 🤷♂️
It also would give her a rather different perspective from most of the Westminster bubble. So IMV it is, as you say, admirable, but also very much a feather in her cap. Or dolphins on her top...
In 2019, in every ballot, the person eliminated was the one who came bottom in the previous ballot, except in the second ballot (when Stewart and Javid overtook Raab).
The 2016 leadership only had two ballots, but the candidate eliminated in the second ballot was the one who had fewest votes of the three in the first ballot. That also applies to 2005. That also applies to the 1997 second ballot. (2001 was weird.)
So, it is very unusual for the person bottom in one ballot not to be eliminated in the next round (excluding any withdrawals).
All those architects who built houses with big south-facing bay windows weren't idiots, mostly it gets more light and warmth in in a good way. They just didn't anticipate a time when they would create more problems than they solve.
Where "judicial legislation" has come into focus here is when the government passes a law which creates a clash with other laws due to being badly drafted or simply being illegal in the first place as written. Which is where we get to "Enemies of the People" and "leftie lawyers" overturning parliament.
As has been widely pointed out, the political leanings of lawyers and even judges matters not unless the law backs them up. We end up with judges accused of interpreting laws here when the shitty drafting and "don't care" approach to legality forces them to interpret, because law r clashes with law b passed decades earlier.
IIRC back under the Coalition there was an attempt to use human rights and equalities legislation to claim that unless any changes to pensions and benefits were perfectly equitable across protected classes, they would be illegal. The actual effect of this would be to make any changes in pensions or benefits (up or down) impossible. Without the permission of a court. The UK SC (again IIRC) specifically rejected the attempt on the basis that it was a massive attack on Parliament and its ability to legislate.
https://pledgetimes.com/animals-haminas-walrus-was-found-in-the-home-yard-of-a-man-from-kotka-it-was-a-pretty-little-walrus-romp-around-under-a-spruce-fence/
I've noted it many times before - but the Equal Rights Amendment to the constitution, which would explicitly have granted women equal rights as citizens, was passed by two thirds majorities of both houses of Congress, in 1972.
It has yet to be ratified.
The entire text is this.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:
"ARTICLE —
"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
"Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
"Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."
Your winter heating bills will go down nicely as well.