After another awful night for the country club republicans vs the Trumpists, is this now a voter class the Dems might be have half an eye on?
Could the Dems get some cashmere sweater wearing votes if they are aggressive enough with China and Russia??
Is this the agenda behind Pelosi's visit??
Pelosi is a long term and consistent anti-PRC hawk. From well before it was at all fashionable. She unfurled a banner in Tiananmen Square more than 30 years ago, causing quite an incident.
Sorry to lower the tone, but she was quite a looker..
Her eyes look manic.
She looks great, like Pat Benetar in her heyday.
Only true Conservatives can see through the Satanic eyes of Socialists (and Democrats).
There's a picture of a young Pelosi with JFK, where she looks absolutely stunning. Someone posted it on here a few weeks back, I think.
You know that thing when you knew something all along, but it's still a shock to see it in black and white? That.
Given a choice between Johnson, Sunak and Truss, 40% of members would vote for the prime minister to continue in office, 28% would support Truss and only 23% would back Sunak
Its the road not traveled. Yes we would have been at liberty to do as we did, but many suspect we would have been under pressure to stay within the EU procurement. Indeed even at the time the government was criticized for not going with the EU despite Brexit.
In the end it may seem like it made little difference. I'd suggest that some lives were saved by earlier vaccination, but its impossible to really know.
Those who hate Brexit will say bollocks, those who love Brexit will claim it as a win (there don't seem many wins around to claim right now).
The covid vaccines are estimated to have saved over 200,000 lives in the UK now. That's over 300 lives per day since the first vaccination took place. And the UK not only started vaccination earlier than other European countries we also stretched the interval between first and second dose to 12 weeks to get more people some protectition sooner than otherwise. That interval stretching was also heavily criticised by Europhiles who were wrong.
You can never say for certain how many lives the other path would have cost, as we can't rerun history, but it is undoubtably thousands of lives, and very probably tens of thousands of lives.
Every picture Russia has released showing 'destroyed HIMARS' has been of something else. There were a couple of close lookalike trucks (used to tow the M777 howitzers) that got their groupies very excited.
Pentagon denied Russian Def Min Shouigu's claims that Russian troops ostensibly destroyed 6 HIMARS in Ukraine
HIMARS must be getting something of a mythic monster status with Russian troops. They appear from nowhere with pin-point precision at their weapons caches and supply dumps and dug-in positions. And they are unstoppable. They must be horrific for morale.
About the only thing worse would be Zelenskyy appearing out of the sky on a Game of Thrones dragon. But that would be barely more destructive.
I was going to say only in the US.... but on reflection, she'd have lost in our courts, too.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AriCohn/status/1554590244107845632 Demon Sperm Doctor Stella Immanuel loses her defamation suit against CNN for many reasons, not least of which is: it's not defamatory to quote stupid things you've said; if your own words make you look like you're unfit to be an MD, stop saying crazy shit.
Did you see the bit someone else quoted a little further down the thread? If this is an accurate extract from the judgement, it's like something from James VI/I's courts. Obviously not dreams about "movie stars" though.
You know that thing when you knew something all along, but it's still a shock to see it in black and white? That.
Given a choice between Johnson, Sunak and Truss, 40% of members would vote for the prime minister to continue in office, 28% would support Truss and only 23% would back Sunak
After another awful night for the country club republicans vs the Trumpists, is this now a voter class the Dems might be have half an eye on?
Could the Dems get some cashmere sweater wearing votes if they are aggressive enough with China and Russia??
Is this the agenda behind Pelosi's visit??
Pelosi is a long term and consistent anti-PRC hawk. From well before it was at all fashionable. She unfurled a banner in Tiananmen Square more than 30 years ago, causing quite an incident.
Sorry to lower the tone, but she was quite a looker..
Her eyes look manic.
There's something weird about that photo that makes it look like the lower half of her face does not belong to the upper half. Cover the top, and the mouth and chin look normal, cover the mouth and chin and the nose and eyes look normal.
I guess it is unfortunate make-up and lighting.
(ETA: I was intending to comment on the photography; apologies as I shouldn't be commenting on her appearance, which I realise is the net effect of my post.)
One of the eyes is open far wider than the other. It's probably due to the hair over one. It makes her look insane. She's very pretty though.
When you hit 60 you'll realise beggars can't be choosers.
Indeed. Also lighting becomes an increasingly crucial matter. Just bought a selection of daylight LEDs of an appropriate colour temperature to try out, as my old workbench Anglepoise plus 60W filament blue bulbs has given up.
I've seen ads for 'Serious Reader' lights but they seem very expensive.
After another awful night for the country club republicans vs the Trumpists, is this now a voter class the Dems might be have half an eye on?
Could the Dems get some cashmere sweater wearing votes if they are aggressive enough with China and Russia??
Is this the agenda behind Pelosi's visit??
Pelosi is a long term and consistent anti-PRC hawk. From well before it was at all fashionable. She unfurled a banner in Tiananmen Square more than 30 years ago, causing quite an incident.
Sorry to lower the tone, but she was quite a looker..
Her eyes look manic.
That is the fierce glow of liberal enlightenment shining through, David.
Phew what a progressive! ... was my instinctive reaction.
You know that thing when you knew something all along, but it's still a shock to see it in black and white? That.
Given a choice between Johnson, Sunak and Truss, 40% of members would vote for the prime minister to continue in office, 28% would support Truss and only 23% would back Sunak
Every picture Russia has released showing 'destroyed HIMARS' has been of something else. There were a couple of close lookalike trucks (used to tow the M777 howitzers) that got their groupies very excited.
Pentagon denied Russian Def Min Shouigu's claims that Russian troops ostensibly destroyed 6 HIMARS in Ukraine
HIMARS must be getting something of a mythic monster status with Russian troops. They appear from nowhere with pin-point precision at their weapons caches and supply dumps and dug-in positions. And they are unstoppable. They must be horrific for morale.
About the only thing worse would be Zelenskyy appearing out of the sky on a Game of Thrones dragon. But that would be barely more destructive.
Also - if they keep claiming to have destroyed more and more HIMARS systems, and yet they keep coming, the troops are going to think there's an inexhaustible supply.
I was going to say only in the US.... but on reflection, she'd have lost in our courts, too.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AriCohn/status/1554590244107845632 Demon Sperm Doctor Stella Immanuel loses her defamation suit against CNN for many reasons, not least of which is: it's not defamatory to quote stupid things you've said; if your own words make you look like you're unfit to be an MD, stop saying crazy shit.
Did you see the bit someone else quoted a little further down the thread? If this is an accurate extract from the judgement, it's like something from James VI/I's courts. Obviously not dreams about "movie stars" though.
This is one of the perplexing things for me. The Russians should have been able to easily get air superiority by taking out the Uke's high-altitude SAM systems, and then operated above the range of the hand-held SAM systems.
I've seen it claimed that the reason is that the Russian air force is terrible at precision targeting from altitude, meaning the planes need to go low to hit a target - right into SAM range. Possibly because they haven't developed a Litening-style targeting pod - or at least fielded one in quantity.
If so, it is a classic example of going for the sexy things ("Look! We have a 5th Generation Fighter!") whilst missing the unsexy but really important things.
We've seen Russian aircraft packing the kind of handheld GPS you could buy in Radio Shack. I think it's fair to say Russian avionics are as crap as everything else they have fielded.
I was going to say only in the US.... but on reflection, she'd have lost in our courts, too.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AriCohn/status/1554590244107845632 Demon Sperm Doctor Stella Immanuel loses her defamation suit against CNN for many reasons, not least of which is: it's not defamatory to quote stupid things you've said; if your own words make you look like you're unfit to be an MD, stop saying crazy shit.
Did you see the bit someone else quoted a little further down the thread? If this is an accurate extract from the judgement, it's like something from James VI/I's courts. Obviously not dreams about "movie stars" though.
The Alex Jones trial is also quite entertaining. The judge has already admonished him twice for committing perjury.
Oh, thanks. JUst had a look at the Indy feed ... quite cutting I thought!
'The judge was scolding Jones for telling the jury that he complied with the pretrial evidence gathering despite not complying and that he is bankrupt which has not been proven.
“Mr Jones, you may not say to this jury that you complied with the discovery. That is not true. You may not tell this jury you are bankrupt. That is also not true. You may have filed for bankruptcy..that doesn’t make a person or a company bankrupt,” the judeg said.
After another awful night for the country club republicans vs the Trumpists, is this now a voter class the Dems might be have half an eye on?
Could the Dems get some cashmere sweater wearing votes if they are aggressive enough with China and Russia??
Is this the agenda behind Pelosi's visit??
Pelosi is a long term and consistent anti-PRC hawk. From well before it was at all fashionable. She unfurled a banner in Tiananmen Square more than 30 years ago, causing quite an incident.
Sorry to lower the tone, but she was quite a looker..
Her eyes look manic.
She looks great, like Pat Benetar in her heyday.
Only true Conservatives can see through the Satanic eyes of Socialists (and Democrats).
There's a picture of a young Pelosi with JFK, where she looks absolutely stunning. Someone posted it on here a few weeks back, I think.
She would have hoped for a much bigger lead than that though, especially if some of her primary opponent's voters then vote Democrat in November.
Remember Biden won Arizona in 2020, it is not really Trump country
Biden won by 0.3% in 2020. Its a hyper marginal state
Yes and Kari Lake may ensure most suburban swing voters go Democrat again in that hyper marginal state
She might. Things have moved against the democrats since 2020 however
I thought that the Democrats polling for the mid terms had improved significantly since Trump's SC overturned Roe v Wade.
More and more moderate GOP voters seem to be being put off by Trump's continued obsession with the evidence-free "stolen" 2020 election meme together with his role in the events of Jan 6th.
Are the voters really going to elect someone who maintains that had they been in office in 2020 they would have nullified the Presidential vote in Arizona? Personally I don't think they are that crazy.
After another awful night for the country club republicans vs the Trumpists, is this now a voter class the Dems might be have half an eye on?
Could the Dems get some cashmere sweater wearing votes if they are aggressive enough with China and Russia??
Is this the agenda behind Pelosi's visit??
Pelosi is a long term and consistent anti-PRC hawk. From well before it was at all fashionable. She unfurled a banner in Tiananmen Square more than 30 years ago, causing quite an incident.
Sorry to lower the tone, but she was quite a looker..
Her eyes look manic.
There's something weird about that photo that makes it look like the lower half of her face does not belong to the upper half. Cover the top, and the mouth and chin look normal, cover the mouth and chin and the nose and eyes look normal.
I guess it is unfortunate make-up and lighting.
(ETA: I was intending to comment on the photography; apologies as I shouldn't be commenting on her appearance, which I realise is the net effect of my post.)
One of the eyes is open far wider than the other. It's probably due to the hair over one. It makes her look insane. She's very pretty though.
After another awful night for the country club republicans vs the Trumpists, is this now a voter class the Dems might be have half an eye on?
Could the Dems get some cashmere sweater wearing votes if they are aggressive enough with China and Russia??
Is this the agenda behind Pelosi's visit??
Is "country club" the new term for "possessing a shred of decency" in the US then?
Thought it just meant burdened with a golf habit.
I am happy to accept whatever term you would use for this strand of republican? Neocon? Romneyite? McCainite?
You choose. We all know who we're talking about.
We're talking about Trump impeacher Peter Meijer, the guy who got beaten by 2020 black election denier John Gibbs last night.
Coming soon: Liz Cheney's last stand.
Yes, I know, just kidding. But no kidding it's a real state the GOP are getting themselves in - and dragging America into. Basically to run for them in an election you have to make it clear you don't believe in elections. Heller would work that in if he were writing the novel now.
You know that thing when you knew something all along, but it's still a shock to see it in black and white? That.
Given a choice between Johnson, Sunak and Truss, 40% of members would vote for the prime minister to continue in office, 28% would support Truss and only 23% would back Sunak
The two candidates aren't exactly inspiring anyone, are they?
Were MPs too busy trying to back who they thought would win - in order to curry favour - rather than the best candidate?
The long, drawn out process doesn't help as it forces, or at least encourages, candidates to make increasingly bizarre announcements. The members' section could be run in a week with a single televised hustings rather than three televised debates and a dozen or so regional hustings spread over six weeks.
After another awful night for the country club republicans vs the Trumpists, is this now a voter class the Dems might be have half an eye on?
Could the Dems get some cashmere sweater wearing votes if they are aggressive enough with China and Russia??
Is this the agenda behind Pelosi's visit??
Plenty of country club Republicans already now vote Democrat, Biden won plenty in 2020 and Democrats occupy 51 of the 63 wealthiest suburban seats (81 percent) in the 117th Congress.
You know that thing when you knew something all along, but it's still a shock to see it in black and white? That.
Given a choice between Johnson, Sunak and Truss, 40% of members would vote for the prime minister to continue in office, 28% would support Truss and only 23% would back Sunak
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
The GOP seem to doing their best to throw away the mid terms .
The interesting aspect of this is the non correlation between Biden’s job approval and the polling for Dem candidates .
Ordinarily you’d find some convergence .
The GOP need the elections to be a referendum on Biden and the economy .
Putting forward the stop the steal loons isn’t helping , together with the SCOTUS decision and what was originally perceived as an easy path for the GOP looks nothing of the sort now .
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
After another awful night for the country club republicans vs the Trumpists, is this now a voter class the Dems might be have half an eye on?
Could the Dems get some cashmere sweater wearing votes if they are aggressive enough with China and Russia??
Is this the agenda behind Pelosi's visit??
Plenty of country club Republicans already now vote Democrat, Biden won plenty in 2020 and Democrats occupy 51 of the 63 wealthiest suburban seats (81 percent) in the 117th Congress.
The GOP seem to doing their best to throw away the mid terms .
The interesting aspect of this is the non correlation between Biden’s job approval and the polling for Dem candidates .
Ordinarily you’d find some convergence .
The GOP need the elections to be a referendum on Biden and the economy .
Putting forward the stop the steal loons isn’t helping , together with the SCOTUS decision and what was originally perceived as an easy path for the GOP looks nothing of the sort now .
The one and only upside to this whole dreadful 'maga' thing. I'm growing increasingly confident my Big Short on Trump 24 is going to pay off.
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
You do not understand the ruling.
Yes I do. The SC made clear they don’t believe that there is any right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment that Congress might be safeguarding if it enacted a federal protection for abortion. They would therefore likely hold such a Statute exceeds Congress' powers.
Plus of course any such law could be filibustered in the Senate
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
A Federal law legalising abortion would not be unconstitutional by the Dobbs ruling, otherwise you wouldn't have any Federal Law.
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
A Federal law legalising abortion would not be unconstitutional by the Dobbs ruling, otherwise you wouldn't have any Federal Law.
There is no Federal law allowed which is not in keeping with the Constitution and how the SC interprets it
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
Haven't they said it's up to politicians - who could be Federal or State - rather than in the Constitution?
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
You do not understand the ruling.
Yes I do. The SC made clear they don’t believe that there is any right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment that Congress might be safeguarding if it enacted a federal protection for abortion. They would therefore likely hold such a Statute exceeds Congress' powers.
Plus of course any such law could be filibustered in the Senate
I am going to be gentle and kind to you. The ruling says the constitution has nothing to say on abortion. It is neither protected nor forbidden.
As a result Congress can pass a Federal level law on abortion and that would be constitutional as the Supreme Court has just said the constitution has no view on abortion.
The only way the Supreme Court could then overturn that law is to overturn Dobbs, the ruling they just made.
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
You do not understand the ruling.
I'm sure Alito could rustle up something (States rights) to get a federal law legalising abortion ruled uncsonstitutional mind.
I know many think the parents should give up but I think for them to be able to move on they feel that they have to have exhausted every possibility to save him .
The application to the ECHR is the last chance for them now . It’s likely that even if this succeeds that there will be no miracle but people should not judge the patents for what may seem refusing to accept reality .
A loving parents desperation to save their child against all the odds is something I hope all will empathize with .
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
A Federal law legalising abortion would not be unconstitutional by the Dobbs ruling, otherwise you wouldn't have any Federal Law.
There is no Federal law allowed which is not in keeping with the Constitution and how the SC interprets it
Of course - but they's need to rule on that first. Congress owes them no respect whatsoever. Especially as at least three of them would be more at home on Iran's Council of Guardians.
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
You do not understand the ruling.
I'm sure Alito could rustle up something (States rights) to get a federal law legalising abortion ruled uncsonstitutional mind.
I'm sure Alito already has the decision written to overturn a Federal abortion law.
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
You do not understand the ruling.
Yes I do. The SC made clear they don’t believe that there is any right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment that Congress might be safeguarding if it enacted a federal protection for abortion. They would therefore likely hold such a Statute exceeds Congress' powers.
Plus of course any such law could be filibustered in the Senate
I am going to be gentle and kind to you. The ruling says the constitution has nothing to say on abortion. It is neither protected nor forbidden.
As a result Congress can pass a Federal level law on abortion and that would be constitutional as the Supreme Court has just said the constitution has no view on abortion.
The only way the Supreme Court could then overturn that law is to overturn Dobbs, the ruling they just made.
Though of course the counterfactual is that Congress cold issue a federal ban on abortion. Which is the dream of the religious state tendency.
I know many think the parents should give up but I think for them to be able to move on they feel that they have to have exhausted every possibility to save him .
The application to the ECHR is the last chance for them now . It’s likely that even if this succeeds that there will be no miracle but people should not judge the patents for what may seem refusing to accept reality .
A loving parents desperation to save their child against all the odds is something I hope all will empathize with .
It's the groups around the parents I blame, and as I've said before I don't think the ECHR should have juridstiction in and around our courts & doctors on this matter.
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
You do not understand the ruling.
Yes I do. The SC made clear they don’t believe that there is any right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment that Congress might be safeguarding if it enacted a federal protection for abortion. They would therefore likely hold such a Statute exceeds Congress' powers.
Plus of course any such law could be filibustered in the Senate
I am going to be gentle and kind to you. The ruling says the constitution has nothing to say on abortion. It is neither protected nor forbidden.
As a result Congress can pass a Federal level law on abortion and that would be constitutional as the Supreme Court has just said the constitution has no view on abortion.
The only way the Supreme Court could then overturn that law is to overturn Dobbs, the ruling they just made.
I was quoting from Leah Litman, an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan and a liberal.
I am going to be gentle and kind to you. The ruling says the constitution has nothing to say on abortion. It is neither protected nor forbidden.
As a result Congress can pass a Federal level law on abortion and that would be constitutional as the Supreme Court has just said the constitution has no view on abortion.
Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
You do not understand the ruling.
Yes I do. The SC made clear they don’t believe that there is any right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment that Congress might be safeguarding if it enacted a federal protection for abortion. They would therefore likely hold such a Statute exceeds Congress' powers.
Plus of course any such law could be filibustered in the Senate
I am going to be gentle and kind to you. The ruling says the constitution has nothing to say on abortion. It is neither protected nor forbidden.
As a result Congress can pass a Federal level law on abortion and that would be constitutional as the Supreme Court has just said the constitution has no view on abortion.
The only way the Supreme Court could then overturn that law is to overturn Dobbs, the ruling they just made.
Though of course the counterfactual is that Congress cold issue a federal ban on abortion. Which is the dream of the religious state tendency.
Exactly, as the constitution has no view that means Congress can enact a federal ban on abortion as well. It cuts both ways.
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
You do not understand the ruling.
I'm sure Alito could rustle up something (States rights) to get a federal law legalising abortion ruled uncsonstitutional mind.
I'm sure Alito already has the decision written to overturn a Federal abortion law.
I am going to be gentle and kind to you. The ruling says the constitution has nothing to say on abortion. It is neither protected nor forbidden.
As a result Congress can pass a Federal level law on abortion and that would be constitutional as the Supreme Court has just said the constitution has no view on abortion.
Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
A Federal law legalising abortion would not be unconstitutional by the Dobbs ruling, otherwise you wouldn't have any Federal Law.
There is no Federal law allowed which is not in keeping with the Constitution and how the SC interprets it
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Federal Law concerning healthcare. There are many Federal Laws concerning healthcare. There would be nothing Unconstitutional about a Federal Law concerning abortion, unless and until the Supreme Court were to rule that abortion itself was unconstitutional.
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
You do not understand the ruling.
Yes I do. The SC made clear they don’t believe that there is any right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment that Congress might be safeguarding if it enacted a federal protection for abortion. They would therefore likely hold such a Statute exceeds Congress' powers.
Plus of course any such law could be filibustered in the Senate
I am going to be gentle and kind to you. The ruling says the constitution has nothing to say on abortion. It is neither protected nor forbidden.
As a result Congress can pass a Federal level law on abortion and that would be constitutional as the Supreme Court has just said the constitution has no view on abortion.
The only way the Supreme Court could then overturn that law is to overturn Dobbs, the ruling they just made.
Though of course the counterfactual is that Congress cold issue a federal ban on abortion. Which is the dream of the religious state tendency.
That's where things now get interesting.
Up to this point, states rights constitutional purists and baby savers have been on the same side.
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
You do not understand the ruling.
Yes I do. The SC made clear they don’t believe that there is any right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment that Congress might be safeguarding if it enacted a federal protection for abortion. They would therefore likely hold such a Statute exceeds Congress' powers.
Plus of course any such law could be filibustered in the Senate
I am going to be gentle and kind to you. The ruling says the constitution has nothing to say on abortion. It is neither protected nor forbidden.
As a result Congress can pass a Federal level law on abortion and that would be constitutional as the Supreme Court has just said the constitution has no view on abortion.
The only way the Supreme Court could then overturn that law is to overturn Dobbs, the ruling they just made.
Though of course the counterfactual is that Congress cold issue a federal ban on abortion. Which is the dream of the religious state tendency.
That is unlikely to happen either, it will just be left to the States for the foreseeable
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
You do not understand the ruling.
Yes I do. The SC made clear they don’t believe that there is any right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment that Congress might be safeguarding if it enacted a federal protection for abortion. They would therefore likely hold such a Statute exceeds Congress' powers.
Plus of course any such law could be filibustered in the Senate
I am going to be gentle and kind to you. The ruling says the constitution has nothing to say on abortion. It is neither protected nor forbidden.
As a result Congress can pass a Federal level law on abortion and that would be constitutional as the Supreme Court has just said the constitution has no view on abortion.
The only way the Supreme Court could then overturn that law is to overturn Dobbs, the ruling they just made.
That's not the way the USA works.
It could be argued that if constitution has no view on abortion then it is not within Congresses remit to pass any Federal laws on the subject, therefore any Federal laws are unconstitutional - unless authorised via other means.
Congress doesn't have a blank cheque to pass a law on any subject it pleases, it can only pass laws in areas its authorised to do so - all other powers are reserved to the States. If the constitution says nothing about abortion then under Dobbs it could be argued it isn't a Federal issue, then it becomes a State issue, so any Federal statue permitting or forbidding nationwide would be unconstitutional Federal overreach under Dobbs.
A Federal law granting protection for people who travel from one state (where its forbidden) to another (where it isn't) should be protected under the Interstate Commerce clause, which is how Congress passes much of its laws, but a Federal ban or Federal authorisation is probably unconstitutional under Dobbs.
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
A Federal law legalising abortion would not be unconstitutional by the Dobbs ruling, otherwise you wouldn't have any Federal Law.
There is no Federal law allowed which is not in keeping with the Constitution and how the SC interprets it
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Federal Law concerning healthcare. There are many Federal Laws concerning healthcare. There would be nothing Unconstitutional about a Federal Law concerning abortion, unless and until the Supreme Court were to rule that abortion itself was unconstitutional.
Yes there would, for as has been pointed out under the 10th Amendment whatever is not held to be within the Federal Government's constitutional powers is reserved to the states. Even Obamacare needed a SC ruling it was constitutional to be implemented
I know many think the parents should give up but I think for them to be able to move on they feel that they have to have exhausted every possibility to save him .
The application to the ECHR is the last chance for them now . It’s likely that even if this succeeds that there will be no miracle but people should not judge the patents for what may seem refusing to accept reality .
A loving parents desperation to save their child against all the odds is something I hope all will empathize with .
It's the groups around the parents I blame, and as I've said before I don't think the ECHR should have juridstiction in and around our courts & doctors on this matter.
The GOP wouldn’t dare legislate to ban abortion at the federal level as they would be destroyed at the next election so will leave it to each state that wants to .
The Kansas result shows that even in seemingly red states the idea of banning abortion completely isn’t a vote winner .
The Dems will also argue that this is just the first of many rights that could be removed .
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
You do not understand the ruling.
Yes I do. The SC made clear they don’t believe that there is any right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment that Congress might be safeguarding if it enacted a federal protection for abortion. They would therefore likely hold such a Statute exceeds Congress' powers.
Plus of course any such law could be filibustered in the Senate
I am going to be gentle and kind to you. The ruling says the constitution has nothing to say on abortion. It is neither protected nor forbidden.
As a result Congress can pass a Federal level law on abortion and that would be constitutional as the Supreme Court has just said the constitution has no view on abortion.
The only way the Supreme Court could then overturn that law is to overturn Dobbs, the ruling they just made.
Though of course the counterfactual is that Congress cold issue a federal ban on abortion. Which is the dream of the religious state tendency.
That is unlikely to happen either, it will just be left to the States for the foreseeable
If the Republicans win control of the Presidency, House and Senate, then there will be a lot of pressure for a Federal ban on abortion.
I know many think the parents should give up but I think for them to be able to move on they feel that they have to have exhausted every possibility to save him .
The application to the ECHR is the last chance for them now . It’s likely that even if this succeeds that there will be no miracle but people should not judge the patents for what may seem refusing to accept reality .
A loving parents desperation to save their child against all the odds is something I hope all will empathize with .
It's the groups around the parents I blame, and as I've said before I don't think the ECHR should have juridstiction in and around our courts & doctors on this matter.
The 3 Polls with most recent fieldwork dates have an average Lab lead of 3
SKS fans please explain
(7+1+3)/3 = 4
Happy to help.
Correction
(7+1+4)/3 =4
I'd just pulled my ⅔ out to correct your calculation (=3⅔)
I don't know how to do fractions on PB
The easiest ways, I think, are to use "Character Map" app on Windows (I guess there are Mac/mobile equivalents), or simply google "two thirds symbol" and it'll come up with something you can copy and paste.
The GOP wouldn’t dare legislate to ban abortion at the federal level as they would be destroyed at the next election so will leave it to each state that wants to .
The Kansas result shows that even in seemingly red states the idea of banning abortion completely isn’t a vote winner .
The Dems will also argue that this is just the first of many rights that could be removed .
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
A Federal law legalising abortion would not be unconstitutional by the Dobbs ruling, otherwise you wouldn't have any Federal Law.
There is no Federal law allowed which is not in keeping with the Constitution and how the SC interprets it
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Federal Law concerning healthcare. There are many Federal Laws concerning healthcare. There would be nothing Unconstitutional about a Federal Law concerning abortion, unless and until the Supreme Court were to rule that abortion itself was unconstitutional.
Precisely.
Were the Court to overturn a federal abortion law, they would invite some very complicated consequences, which would likely see their jurisdiction limited in due course. They've already greatly disturbed the balance of powers between federal judiciary and legislature. If they continue with legislation form the bench not just unmoored unmoored from precedent, but in sharp conflict with it, they invite the overthrow of the court's authority. Which at root rests on consent.
2nd half of Biden's term looks like being GOP House/Dem senate.
I assume that means nothing legally happens ?
The senate may well not fall to GOP. Look at the Penn race where man-of-the-people Fentermann (Dem) is fighting a TV quack who doesn't live in the state.
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
A Federal law legalising abortion would not be unconstitutional by the Dobbs ruling, otherwise you wouldn't have any Federal Law.
There is no Federal law allowed which is not in keeping with the Constitution and how the SC interprets it
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Federal Law concerning healthcare. There are many Federal Laws concerning healthcare. There would be nothing Unconstitutional about a Federal Law concerning abortion, unless and until the Supreme Court were to rule that abortion itself was unconstitutional.
Precisely.
Were the Court to overturn a federal abortion law, they would invite some very complicated consequences, which would likely see their jurisdiction limited in due course. They've already greatly disturbed the balance of powers between federal judiciary and legislature. If they continue with legislation form the bench not just unmoored unmoored from precedent, but in sharp conflict with it, they invite the overthrow of the court's authority. Which at root rests on consent.
The greater danger is that they don't overturn a Federal law banning abortion nationwide.
A decision that it is a State not Federal issue would be entirely in keeping AFAIK with precedent and Dobbs.
I know many think the parents should give up but I think for them to be able to move on they feel that they have to have exhausted every possibility to save him .
The application to the ECHR is the last chance for them now . It’s likely that even if this succeeds that there will be no miracle but people should not judge the patents for what may seem refusing to accept reality .
A loving parents desperation to save their child against all the odds is something I hope all will empathize with .
It's the groups around the parents I blame, and as I've said before I don't think the ECHR should have juridstiction in and around our courts & doctors on this matter.
2nd half of Biden's term looks like being GOP House/Dem senate.
I assume that means nothing legally happens ?
The senate may well not fall to GOP. Look at the Penn race where man-of-the-people Fentermann (Dem) is fighting a TV quack who doesn't live in the state.
Comments
Given a choice between Johnson, Sunak and Truss, 40% of members would vote for the prime minister to continue in office, 28% would support Truss and only 23% would back Sunak
https://twitter.com/timespolitics/status/1554763194777980928
You can never say for certain how many lives the other path would have cost, as we can't rerun history, but it is undoubtably thousands of lives, and very probably tens of thousands of lives.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-campaign-rows-back-on-arming-taiwan-brxfxxm9x?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1659523358
About the only thing worse would be Zelenskyy appearing out of the sky on a Game of Thrones dragon. But that would be barely more destructive.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AriCohn/status/1554591158675947523/photo/1
Were MPs too busy trying to back who they thought would win - in order to curry favour - rather than the best candidate?
And I wished she’d stayed in nursing or any other occupation rather than become the terrible politician she is.
I've seen ads for 'Serious Reader' lights but they seem very expensive.
Phew what a progressive! ... was my instinctive reaction.
Meanwhile, more U-turns from Dizzy Lizzy. She's doing her best to throw this away.
The Alex Jones trial is also quite entertaining.
The judge has already admonished him twice for committing perjury.
Thought it just meant burdened with a golf habit.
https://stateofgreen.com/en/news/new-danish-test-centre-to-install-450-meter-high-wind-turbines/
"Denmark plans to build a new national test centre, where eight wind turbines measuring up to 450 meters will be installed by 2027."
'The judge was scolding Jones for telling the jury that he complied with the pretrial evidence gathering despite not complying and that he is bankrupt which has not been proven.
“Mr Jones, you may not say to this jury that you complied with the discovery. That is not true. You may not tell this jury you are bankrupt. That is also not true. You may have filed for bankruptcy..that doesn’t make a person or a company bankrupt,” the judeg said.
She added: “This is not your show!”'
You choose. We all know who we're talking about.
We're talking about Trump impeacher Peter Meijer, the guy who got beaten by 2020 black election denier John Gibbs last night.
Coming soon: Liz Cheney's last stand.
@ElectionWiz
RACE CALLED: Kari Lake will win the GOP nomination for Arizona Governor and face Katie Hobbs in November.
The other places that are really heavy users are western red states outside "the south" of the USA.
More and more moderate GOP voters seem to be being put off by Trump's continued obsession with the evidence-free "stolen" 2020 election meme together with his role in the events of Jan 6th.
Are the voters really going to elect someone who maintains that had they been in office in 2020 they would have nullified the Presidential vote in Arizona? Personally I don't think they are that crazy.
https://www.booksradar.com/dorries-nadine/dorries.html
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/12/democrats-win-in-wealthy-suburbs
But it does explain why, unless she utterly self-combusts in the next few weeks, Truss is on track to win.
And the chance of Truss doing someting career-endingly stupid? Ten percent a month feels about right.
Was she paying attention when she was a Lib Dem?
Trending on Twitter...
https://twitter.com/JUSTIN_AVFC_/status/1554795057865170946
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
Diamond and Silk®
@DiamondandSilk
·
13m
Congratulations Kari Lake of Arizona!
https://twitter.com/DiamondandSilk/status/1554814474040786945?s=20&t=skHEWNcZuDCYIAht6RiL0g
That's surely it?
The interesting aspect of this is the non correlation between Biden’s job approval and the polling for Dem candidates .
Ordinarily you’d find some convergence .
The GOP need the elections to be a referendum on Biden and the economy .
Putting forward the stop the steal loons isn’t helping , together with the SCOTUS decision and what was originally perceived as an easy path for the GOP looks nothing of the sort now .
She's challenging the result, isn't she ?
Given what is happening to the US economy on Biden's watch, is Pelosi's visit an attempt to keep the 'sane' republicans onside?
Plus of course any such law could be filibustered in the Senate
Best get the election truthers on it stat.
Complacency, cheap Russian gas and NIMBYISM.
Judges really appreciate this.
Alex Jones Calls Sandy Hook Trial Judge ‘Demonically Possessed’ Just Before He’s Set To Testify
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/alex-jones-calls-sandy-hook-trial-judge-demonically-possessed-just-before-he-s-set-to-testify/
As a result Congress can pass a Federal level law on abortion and that would be constitutional as the Supreme Court has just said the constitution has no view on abortion.
The only way the Supreme Court could then overturn that law is to overturn Dobbs, the ruling they just made.
I know many think the parents should give up but I think for them to be able to move on they feel that they have to have exhausted every possibility to save him .
The application to the ECHR is the last chance for them now . It’s likely that even if this succeeds that there will be no miracle but people should not judge the patents for what may seem refusing to accept reality .
A loving parents desperation to save their child against all the odds is something I hope all will empathize with .
Congress owes them no respect whatsoever. Especially as at least three of them would be more at home on Iran's Council of Guardians.
Which is the dream of the religious state tendency.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-the-supreme-court-could-approach-federal-laws-upholding-or-banning-abortion
If you think you know the US constitution and Federal law better than her, fine
I assume that means nothing legally happens ?
Up to this point, states rights constitutional purists and baby savers have been on the same side.
Now- not so much.
The 3 Polls with most recent fieldwork dates have an average Lab lead of 3
SKS fans please explain
It could be argued that if constitution has no view on abortion then it is not within Congresses remit to pass any Federal laws on the subject, therefore any Federal laws are unconstitutional - unless authorised via other means.
Congress doesn't have a blank cheque to pass a law on any subject it pleases, it can only pass laws in areas its authorised to do so - all other powers are reserved to the States. If the constitution says nothing about abortion then under Dobbs it could be argued it isn't a Federal issue, then it becomes a State issue, so any Federal statue permitting or forbidding nationwide would be unconstitutional Federal overreach under Dobbs.
A Federal law granting protection for people who travel from one state (where its forbidden) to another (where it isn't) should be protected under the Interstate Commerce clause, which is how Congress passes much of its laws, but a Federal ban or Federal authorisation is probably unconstitutional under Dobbs.
Happy to help.
(7+1+4)/3 =4
Truss will take a lead when she becomes leader. That's how it works. See Brown v Cameron.
The Kansas result shows that even in seemingly red states the idea of banning abortion completely isn’t a vote winner .
The Dems will also argue that this is just the first of many rights that could be removed .
I doubt they are motivated by what's best for Archie or his parents, tbh.
Were the Court to overturn a federal abortion law, they would invite some very complicated consequences, which would likely see their jurisdiction limited in due course.
They've already greatly disturbed the balance of powers between federal judiciary and legislature. If they continue with legislation form the bench not just unmoored unmoored from precedent, but in sharp conflict with it, they invite the overthrow of the court's authority.
Which at root rests on consent.
By contrast 76% of Rishi Sunak voters think Sunak would be a better PM than Boris, only 18% think Boris would have been better
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1554797759290642433?s=20&t=CHhFCGkZ19aAWyrlBlxESA
https://twitter.com/bgmasters/status/1541436490563067905
Ѿ
is the international symbol for cleavageActually it's a Cyrillic capital Ot
A decision that it is a State not Federal issue would be entirely in keeping AFAIK with precedent and Dobbs.