I agree that Starmer is stuck with the "tried to thwart Brexit" label, and will struggle to get rid of it. It could well be his downfall.
However, it is a bit more complicated than that. Starmer didn't determine Labour's (awful) Brexit policy at the relevant time. Conference determined the policy, and the leadership (including Corbyn of course) agreed to it. It's Starmer's misfortune that he was landed with the Shadow Brexit Secretary job at the time. I'm not saying that Starmer disagreed with the policy. I'm merely pointing out that it was not, as many commenters on here say, "his" policy. It was the Labour Party's. Collective responsibility and all that.
The thing is: a close economic relationship with the EU *was* a credible Labour policy.
They could simply have argued consistently for EEA-EFTA with a customs union, and said they'd negotiate for an emergency brake on free movement too, and just ignored/rebutted those wanting a 2nd referendum saying it had to be implemented.
But, they chose not to lead.
I mean, they didn't have to lead. They could simply have quietly allowed de Piero et al to vote with the Government instead of leaning on them not to do so.
Surely the biggest political miscalculation of modern times. Arguably since Suez.
Bigger than Suez IMHO.
Suez is overrated as a political crisis to judge other crises by. At the election after Suez the government that oversaw the crisis increased its majority, winning a landslide 100 seat majority.
Suez as a crisis may be overrated, but as a miscalculation specifically I think it is a good example.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
Yet there is a clearly defined right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' It is thus impossible for the SC to interpret that to remove the right to bear arms short of the President, Congress and 2/3 of the states voting to repeal it and replace it with another amendment.
The 14th amendment due process clause however 'nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law' does not clearly give a right to abort the lives of the unborn, the SC in Roe v Wade merely interpreted it to give a right to privacy to enable a woman to have an abortion.
If a different more conservative SC interprets it differently and that it at least does not give a constitutional right to an abortion beyond the first 6 weeks of pregnancy that is its right to do so
The 14th amendment could perfectly well be interpreted to mean that the right to bear arms is linked to the need for a militia. It does not have to mean the right to carry guns about one's person.
What you are missing is that the whole point about the Texas law is that it is designed to prevent the Supreme Court having a say. That is why it is so objectionable as a matter or law, regardless of the subject matter. It undermines the existence of the Constitution. And if Texas does this for abortion then other states can do it for the right to bear arms, regardless of what the Constitution says. If you prevent challenge then you prevent challenge and any Constitutional rights can be nullified by a simple state law. That's what Texas lawmakers have done. And it will apply to rights under the 14th amendment just as much as to Wade v Roe.
The right may cheer them on now. But they will find that such a development will affect them just as well. It will serve them right. In the meanwhile women will suffer.
I agree that Starmer is stuck with the "tried to thwart Brexit" label, and will struggle to get rid of it. It could well be his downfall.
However, it is a bit more complicated than that. Starmer didn't determine Labour's (awful) Brexit policy at the relevant time. Conference determined the policy, and the leadership (including Corbyn of course) agreed to it. It's Starmer's misfortune that he was landed with the Shadow Brexit Secretary job at the time. I'm not saying that Starmer disagreed with the policy. I'm merely pointing out that it was not, as many commenters on here say, "his" policy. It was the Labour Party's. Collective responsibility and all that.
The thing is: a close economic relationship with the EU *was* a credible Labour policy.
They could simply have argued consistently for EEA-EFTA with a customs union, and said they'd negotiate for an emergency brake on free movement too, and just ignored/rebutted those wanting a 2nd referendum saying it had to be implemented.
But, they chose not to lead.
I mean, they didn't have to lead. They could simply have quietly allowed de Piero et al to vote with the Government instead of leaning on them not to do so.
Surely the biggest political miscalculation of modern times. Arguably since Suez.
Bigger than Suez IMHO.
Suez is overrated as a political crisis to judge other crises by. At the election after Suez the government that oversaw the crisis increased its majority, winning a landslide 100 seat majority.
Suez as a crisis may be overrated, but as a miscalculation specifically I think it is a good example.
It was a bad miscalculation, but was it a bigger miscalculation than the Opposition rejecting a soft Brexit deal that would have torn the government asunder which could have won them a majority, leading to Boris taking over and getting a hard deal and a massive majority instead?
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
Yet there is a clearly defined right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' It is thus impossible for the SC to interpret that to remove the right to bear arms short of the President, Congress and 2/3 of the states voting to repeal it and replace it with another amendment.
The 14th amendment due process clause however 'nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law' does not clearly give a right to abort the lives of the unborn, the SC in Roe v Wade merely interpreted it to give a right to privacy to enable a woman to have an abortion.
If a different more conservative SC interprets it differently and that it at least does not give a constitutional right to an abortion beyond the first 6 weeks of pregnancy that is its right to do so
The 14th amendment could perfectly well be interpreted to mean that the right to bear arms is linked to the need for a militia. It does not have to mean the right to carry guns about one's person.
What you are missing is that the whole point about the Texas law is that it is designed to prevent the Supreme Court having a say. That is why it is so objectionable as a matter or law, regardless of the subject matter. It undermines the existence of the Constitution. And if Texas does this for abortion then other states can do it for the right to bear arms, regardless of what the Constitution says. If you prevent challenge then you prevent challenge and any Constitutional rights can be nullified by a simple state law. That's what Texas lawmakers have done. And it will apply to rights under the 14th amendment just as much as to Wade v Roe.
The right may cheer them on now. But they will find that such a development will affect them just as well. It will serve them right. In the meanwhile women will suffer.
I wonder what State will be the first to pick up on the fact and use the Texas approach to ban everyone except the police from carrying a gun? California or somewhere on the East coast.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
I agree that Starmer is stuck with the "tried to thwart Brexit" label, and will struggle to get rid of it. It could well be his downfall.
However, it is a bit more complicated than that. Starmer didn't determine Labour's (awful) Brexit policy at the relevant time. Conference determined the policy, and the leadership (including Corbyn of course) agreed to it. It's Starmer's misfortune that he was landed with the Shadow Brexit Secretary job at the time. I'm not saying that Starmer disagreed with the policy. I'm merely pointing out that it was not, as many commenters on here say, "his" policy. It was the Labour Party's. Collective responsibility and all that.
That's a bit disingenuous. He steered it in that direction by manoeuvring Labour into a position where it couldn't vote for any deal and gave a crowd-pleasing speech with a possibly ad-libbed line about not ruling out Remain.
Worse than that. He did, in fact, explicitly say it was “an important point of principle” that, if they got a second referendum, Labour would campaign for Remain
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/supreme-court-overturn-roe-wade-texas.html ...While Roberts’ dissent was the least impassioned of the four, it may be the most surprising. The chief justice had no obligation to note his vote in this (or any) shadow docket case. Instead, he made it very clear that he could not condone the majority’s hasty, bad-faith retreat from precedent. By doing so, he highlighted the fact that Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s vote made all the difference in this case. If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were alive, Texas women would have retained their right to reproductive autonomy.
The same would be true if Justice Anthony Kennedy had remained on the court and not been replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. (Or if Merrick Garland, rather than Neil Gorsuch, had replaced Justice Antonin Scalia.) In defending her vote to confirm him to the bench, Republican Sen. Susan Collins said Kavanaugh believed that precedent was “not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked.” Now Kavanaugh has allowed Texas to overturn Roe, a nearly half-century-old precedent. He took less than three years to prove her wrong.
It was predictable that the Supreme Court would abandon Roe after Barrett replaced Ginsburg. But it is still “stunning,” as Sotomayor put it, that it would do so at midnight on a Wednesday in a shadow docket order with a few slapdash sentences of opaque reasoning....
The Democrats have until the midterms to add at least 2 more Justices to the already-politicised SCOTUS.
If they don't, more fool them.
I don't understand why DC and Puerto Rico are not states already.
Because the Democrats still believe they need to play fair. When the reality is that since 2016 those that play fair always lose.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/supreme-court-overturn-roe-wade-texas.html ...While Roberts’ dissent was the least impassioned of the four, it may be the most surprising. The chief justice had no obligation to note his vote in this (or any) shadow docket case. Instead, he made it very clear that he could not condone the majority’s hasty, bad-faith retreat from precedent. By doing so, he highlighted the fact that Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s vote made all the difference in this case. If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were alive, Texas women would have retained their right to reproductive autonomy.
The same would be true if Justice Anthony Kennedy had remained on the court and not been replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. (Or if Merrick Garland, rather than Neil Gorsuch, had replaced Justice Antonin Scalia.) In defending her vote to confirm him to the bench, Republican Sen. Susan Collins said Kavanaugh believed that precedent was “not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked.” Now Kavanaugh has allowed Texas to overturn Roe, a nearly half-century-old precedent. He took less than three years to prove her wrong.
It was predictable that the Supreme Court would abandon Roe after Barrett replaced Ginsburg. But it is still “stunning,” as Sotomayor put it, that it would do so at midnight on a Wednesday in a shadow docket order with a few slapdash sentences of opaque reasoning....
The Democrats have until the midterms to add at least 2 more Justices to the already-politicised SCOTUS.
If they don't, more fool them.
I don't understand why DC and Puerto Rico are not states already.
Because the Democrats still believe they need to play fair. When the reality is that since 2016 those that play fair always lose.
Correction : a small number of conservative Democrats (2 basically) in the Senate think that. Since the Democrats only have a majority when the VP breaks the tie...
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/supreme-court-overturn-roe-wade-texas.html ...While Roberts’ dissent was the least impassioned of the four, it may be the most surprising. The chief justice had no obligation to note his vote in this (or any) shadow docket case. Instead, he made it very clear that he could not condone the majority’s hasty, bad-faith retreat from precedent. By doing so, he highlighted the fact that Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s vote made all the difference in this case. If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were alive, Texas women would have retained their right to reproductive autonomy.
The same would be true if Justice Anthony Kennedy had remained on the court and not been replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. (Or if Merrick Garland, rather than Neil Gorsuch, had replaced Justice Antonin Scalia.) In defending her vote to confirm him to the bench, Republican Sen. Susan Collins said Kavanaugh believed that precedent was “not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked.” Now Kavanaugh has allowed Texas to overturn Roe, a nearly half-century-old precedent. He took less than three years to prove her wrong.
It was predictable that the Supreme Court would abandon Roe after Barrett replaced Ginsburg. But it is still “stunning,” as Sotomayor put it, that it would do so at midnight on a Wednesday in a shadow docket order with a few slapdash sentences of opaque reasoning....
The Democrats have until the midterms to add at least 2 more Justices to the already-politicised SCOTUS.
If they don't, more fool them.
I don't understand why DC and Puerto Rico are not states already.
Puerto Rico is full of Catholic Hispanics who take a pro life position on abortion too
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/supreme-court-overturn-roe-wade-texas.html ...While Roberts’ dissent was the least impassioned of the four, it may be the most surprising. The chief justice had no obligation to note his vote in this (or any) shadow docket case. Instead, he made it very clear that he could not condone the majority’s hasty, bad-faith retreat from precedent. By doing so, he highlighted the fact that Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s vote made all the difference in this case. If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were alive, Texas women would have retained their right to reproductive autonomy.
The same would be true if Justice Anthony Kennedy had remained on the court and not been replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. (Or if Merrick Garland, rather than Neil Gorsuch, had replaced Justice Antonin Scalia.) In defending her vote to confirm him to the bench, Republican Sen. Susan Collins said Kavanaugh believed that precedent was “not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked.” Now Kavanaugh has allowed Texas to overturn Roe, a nearly half-century-old precedent. He took less than three years to prove her wrong.
It was predictable that the Supreme Court would abandon Roe after Barrett replaced Ginsburg. But it is still “stunning,” as Sotomayor put it, that it would do so at midnight on a Wednesday in a shadow docket order with a few slapdash sentences of opaque reasoning....
The Democrats have until the midterms to add at least 2 more Justices to the already-politicised SCOTUS.
If they don't, more fool them.
I don't understand why DC and Puerto Rico are not states already.
Because the Democrats still believe they need to play fair. When the reality is that since 2016 those that play fair always lose.
The Democrats do not play fair. Hence the almost four years we had of undermining Trump by claiming he was a Russian plant p1ssed on by hookers, and going down the impeachment route twice.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
Yet there is a clearly defined right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' It is thus impossible for the SC to interpret that to remove the right to bear arms short of the President, Congress and 2/3 of the states voting to repeal it and replace it with another amendment.
The 14th amendment due process clause however 'nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law' does not clearly give a right to abort the lives of the unborn, the SC in Roe v Wade merely interpreted it to give a right to privacy to enable a woman to have an abortion.
If a different more conservative SC interprets it differently and that it at least does not give a constitutional right to an abortion beyond the first 6 weeks of pregnancy that is its right to do so
The 14th amendment could perfectly well be interpreted to mean that the right to bear arms is linked to the need for a militia. It does not have to mean the right to carry guns about one's person.
What you are missing is that the whole point about the Texas law is that it is designed to prevent the Supreme Court having a say. That is why it is so objectionable as a matter or law, regardless of the subject matter. It undermines the existence of the Constitution. And if Texas does this for abortion then other states can do it for the right to bear arms, regardless of what the Constitution says. If you prevent challenge then you prevent challenge and any Constitutional rights can be nullified by a simple state law. That's what Texas lawmakers have done. And it will apply to rights under the 14th amendment just as much as to Wade v Roe.
The right may cheer them on now. But they will find that such a development will affect them just as well. It will serve them right. In the meanwhile women will suffer.
I wonder what State will be the first to pick up on the fact and use the Texas approach to ban everyone except the police from carrying a gun? California or somewhere on the East coast.
They can't without repealing and replacing the 2nd amendment
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
There are two arguments against Roe v Wade
1. It is badly argued as a matter of law. 2. This is something which should be decided democratically.
On 2 this is how we do things here. But the US is different. So the Supreme Court is entitled to rule. On 1 I'm aware of these arguments. It is the same as happened with equal rights for black people - the change from Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education.
I do not know enough about the legal arguments to comment on whether Roe v Wade is good law or whether it should have been made on a different basis. But the problem now is that Texas has passed a law which makes abortion unobtainable, which does so in a way which is hugely intrusive and horrible (see the Unherd article posted earlier) and which they have sought to make proof against any sort of challenge or review. Regardless of your views on abortion, this last point is very worrying indeed and has implications far beyond Texas.
I think Trudeau will lose the election in Canada on 20th September, in the sense of getting less seats that the main opposition party.
I still think Trudeau will narrowly win most seats but only because of Quebec.
O'Toole's Conservatives will win most seats across Canada excluding Quebec.
It would be the first time French Canada has made the difference in a Canadian election since Trudeau's father Pierre's narrow Liberal victory over Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives in 1980
I agree that Starmer is stuck with the "tried to thwart Brexit" label, and will struggle to get rid of it. It could well be his downfall.
However, it is a bit more complicated than that. Starmer didn't determine Labour's (awful) Brexit policy at the relevant time. Conference determined the policy, and the leadership (including Corbyn of course) agreed to it. It's Starmer's misfortune that he was landed with the Shadow Brexit Secretary job at the time. I'm not saying that Starmer disagreed with the policy. I'm merely pointing out that it was not, as many commenters on here say, "his" policy. It was the Labour Party's. Collective responsibility and all that.
The thing is: a close economic relationship with the EU *was* a credible Labour policy.
They could simply have argued consistently for EEA-EFTA with a customs union, and said they'd negotiate for an emergency brake on free movement too, and just ignored/rebutted those wanting a 2nd referendum saying it had to be implemented.
But, they chose not to lead.
I mean, they didn't have to lead. They could simply have quietly allowed de Piero et al to vote with the Government instead of leaning on them not to do so.
Surely the biggest political miscalculation of modern times. Arguably since Suez.
Bigger than Suez IMHO.
Suez is overrated as a political crisis to judge other crises by. At the election after Suez the government that oversaw the crisis increased its majority, winning a landslide 100 seat majority.
Suez as a crisis may be overrated, but as a miscalculation specifically I think it is a good example.
It was a bad miscalculation, but was it a bigger miscalculation than the Opposition rejecting a soft Brexit deal that would have torn the government asunder which could have won them a majority, leading to Boris taking over and getting a hard deal and a massive majority instead?
I doubt it?
And for someone committed to listening to voters/learning lessons, Sir Keir sounds awfully like someone doubling down on that mistake
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/supreme-court-overturn-roe-wade-texas.html ...While Roberts’ dissent was the least impassioned of the four, it may be the most surprising. The chief justice had no obligation to note his vote in this (or any) shadow docket case. Instead, he made it very clear that he could not condone the majority’s hasty, bad-faith retreat from precedent. By doing so, he highlighted the fact that Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s vote made all the difference in this case. If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were alive, Texas women would have retained their right to reproductive autonomy.
The same would be true if Justice Anthony Kennedy had remained on the court and not been replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. (Or if Merrick Garland, rather than Neil Gorsuch, had replaced Justice Antonin Scalia.) In defending her vote to confirm him to the bench, Republican Sen. Susan Collins said Kavanaugh believed that precedent was “not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked.” Now Kavanaugh has allowed Texas to overturn Roe, a nearly half-century-old precedent. He took less than three years to prove her wrong.
It was predictable that the Supreme Court would abandon Roe after Barrett replaced Ginsburg. But it is still “stunning,” as Sotomayor put it, that it would do so at midnight on a Wednesday in a shadow docket order with a few slapdash sentences of opaque reasoning....
The Democrats have until the midterms to add at least 2 more Justices to the already-politicised SCOTUS.
If they don't, more fool them.
I don't understand why DC and Puerto Rico are not states already.
Puerto Rico is full of Catholic Hispanics who take a pro life position on abortion too
And looking increasingly in the balance re GOP / Dems. There is a reason the calls have been more vocal for DC Statehood from the Democrats than the ones for statehood for Puerto Rico. Which gives you an idea of how much this is about fairness, even not taking into account the logical solution to resolve DC issues of splitting it between Virginia and Maryland.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
Yet there is a clearly defined right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' It is thus impossible for the SC to interpret that to remove the right to bear arms short of the President, Congress and 2/3 of the states voting to repeal it and replace it with another amendment.
The 14th amendment due process clause however 'nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law' does not clearly give a right to abort the lives of the unborn, the SC in Roe v Wade merely interpreted it to give a right to privacy to enable a woman to have an abortion.
If a different more conservative SC interprets it differently and that it at least does not give a constitutional right to an abortion beyond the first 6 weeks of pregnancy that is its right to do so
The 2nd amendment could perfectly well be interpreted to mean that the right to bear arms is linked to the need for a militia. It does not have to mean the right to carry guns about one's person.
What you are missing is that the whole point about the Texas law is that it is designed to prevent the Supreme Court having a say. That is why it is so objectionable as a matter or law, regardless of the subject matter. It undermines the existence of the Constitution. And if Texas does this for abortion then other states can do it for the right to bear arms, regardless of what the Constitution says. If you prevent challenge then you prevent challenge and any Constitutional rights can be nullified by a simple state law. That's what Texas lawmakers have done. And it will apply to rights under the 14th amendment just as much as to Wade v Roe.
The right may cheer them on now. But they will find that such a development will affect them just as well. It will serve them right. In the meanwhile women will suffer.
I wonder what State will be the first to pick up on the fact and use the Texas approach to ban everyone except the police from carrying a gun? California or somewhere on the East coast.
They can't without repealing and replacing the 2nd amendment
Yes they can. They simply pass a law allowing citizens to sue anyone involved in the sale and manufacture of guns with a bounty if they succeed and no costs awarded against them if they lose. Exactly the same as Texas has done. Since the law is not enforced by state officials it too is not open to challenge. And the SC has just decided that it does not need to follow its own precedents.
'Wallace also contrasted the Ministry of Defence’s handling of the evacuation crisis with the FCDO. Over the weekend, it emerged that officials from Dominic Raab’s department had failed to read thousands of emails from MPs and charities detailing urgent cases of Afghans trying to escape from Kabul.
But the defence secretary argued the MoD was on top of its own cases, largely a well-defined group of Afghan interpreters and their families, about 1,000 of whom remain trapped in the country after the RAF airlift ended over the weekend.
“All of us have big email inboxes, we have already analysed ours, we’ve sent defence intelligence analysts around Whitehall to help deal with that,” Wallace said.'
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
Yet there is a clearly defined right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' It is thus impossible for the SC to interpret that to remove the right to bear arms short of the President, Congress and 2/3 of the states voting to repeal it and replace it with another amendment.
The 14th amendment due process clause however 'nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law' does not clearly give a right to abort the lives of the unborn, the SC in Roe v Wade merely interpreted it to give a right to privacy to enable a woman to have an abortion.
If a different more conservative SC interprets it differently and that it at least does not give a constitutional right to an abortion beyond the first 6 weeks of pregnancy that is its right to do so
The 2nd amendment could perfectly well be interpreted to mean that the right to bear arms is linked to the need for a militia. It does not have to mean the right to carry guns about one's person.
What you are missing is that the whole point about the Texas law is that it is designed to prevent the Supreme Court having a say. That is why it is so objectionable as a matter or law, regardless of the subject matter. It undermines the existence of the Constitution. And if Texas does this for abortion then other states can do it for the right to bear arms, regardless of what the Constitution says. If you prevent challenge then you prevent challenge and any Constitutional rights can be nullified by a simple state law. That's what Texas lawmakers have done. And it will apply to rights under the 14th amendment just as much as to Wade v Roe.
The right may cheer them on now. But they will find that such a development will affect them just as well. It will serve them right. In the meanwhile women will suffer.
I wonder what State will be the first to pick up on the fact and use the Texas approach to ban everyone except the police from carrying a gun? California or somewhere on the East coast.
They can't without repealing and replacing the 2nd amendment
Yes they can. They simply pass a law allowing citizens to sue anyone involved in the sale and manufacture of guns with a bounty if they succeed and no costs awarded against them if they lose. Exactly the same as Texas has done. Since the law is not enforced by state officials it too is not open to challenge. And the SC has just decided that it does not need to follow its own precedents.
Does such a [edit] strategy, for instance, allow laws to be passed permitting citizens to, say, sue a foreign individual or state irrespective of US treaty obligations and rights?
I agree that Starmer is stuck with the "tried to thwart Brexit" label, and will struggle to get rid of it. It could well be his downfall.
However, it is a bit more complicated than that. Starmer didn't determine Labour's (awful) Brexit policy at the relevant time. Conference determined the policy, and the leadership (including Corbyn of course) agreed to it. It's Starmer's misfortune that he was landed with the Shadow Brexit Secretary job at the time. I'm not saying that Starmer disagreed with the policy. I'm merely pointing out that it was not, as many commenters on here say, "his" policy. It was the Labour Party's. Collective responsibility and all that.
There were people on here saying that Labour should abstain and allow all the Blue on Blue to destroy the Tories. Ultimately Starmer would have been hailed as a genius if that had been his counsel.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
There are two arguments against Roe v Wade
1. It is badly argued as a matter of law. 2. This is something which should be decided democratically.
On 2 this is how we do things here. But the US is different. So the Supreme Court is entitled to rule. On 1 I'm aware of these arguments. It is the same as happened with equal rights for black people - the change from Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education.
I do not know enough about the legal arguments to comment on whether Roe v Wade is good law or whether it should have been made on a different basis. But the problem now is that Texas has passed a law which makes abortion unobtainable, which does so in a way which is hugely intrusive and horrible (see the Unherd article posted earlier) and which they have sought to make proof against any sort of challenge or review. Regardless of your views on abortion, this last point is very worrying indeed and has implications far beyond Texas.
Agree on both those points.
At the risk of throwing in the proverbial hand grenade, does the right to abortion have the same moral force as equal rights for black people? Arguably, no. The latter was always difficult to defend logically even by its most fervent defenders because it went against one of the core principles of the Judeo-Christian principles which underpin the US, namely all people are equal under God. Abortion is more tricky because there is no defined point at which "life" is deemed to start.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
There are two arguments against Roe v Wade
1. It is badly argued as a matter of law. 2. This is something which should be decided democratically.
On 2 this is how we do things here. But the US is different. So the Supreme Court is entitled to rule. On 1 I'm aware of these arguments. It is the same as happened with equal rights for black people - the change from Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education.
I do not know enough about the legal arguments to comment on whether Roe v Wade is good law or whether it should have been made on a different basis. But the problem now is that Texas has passed a law which makes abortion unobtainable, which does so in a way which is hugely intrusive and horrible (see the Unherd article posted earlier) and which they have sought to make proof against any sort of challenge or review. Regardless of your views on abortion, this last point is very worrying indeed and has implications far beyond Texas.
Agree on both those points.
At the risk of throwing in the proverbial hand grenade, does the right to abortion have the same moral force as equal rights for black people? Arguably, no. The latter was always difficult to defend logically even by its most fervent defenders because it went against one of the core principles of the Judeo-Christian principles which underpin the US, namely all people are equal under God. Abortion is more tricky because there is no defined point at which "life" is deemed to start.
Sorry I meant opposition to equal rights was always difficult to defend...
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
There are two arguments against Roe v Wade
1. It is badly argued as a matter of law. 2. This is something which should be decided democratically.
On 2 this is how we do things here. But the US is different. So the Supreme Court is entitled to rule. On 1 I'm aware of these arguments. It is the same as happened with equal rights for black people - the change from Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education.
I do not know enough about the legal arguments to comment on whether Roe v Wade is good law or whether it should have been made on a different basis. But the problem now is that Texas has passed a law which makes abortion unobtainable, which does so in a way which is hugely intrusive and horrible (see the Unherd article posted earlier) and which they have sought to make proof against any sort of challenge or review. Regardless of your views on abortion, this last point is very worrying indeed and has implications far beyond Texas.
Agree on both those points.
At the risk of throwing in the proverbial hand grenade, does the right to abortion have the same moral force as equal rights for black people? Arguably, no. The latter was always difficult to defend logically even by its most fervent defenders because it went against one of the core principles of the Judeo-Christian principles which underpin the US, namely all people are equal under God. Abortion is more tricky because there is no defined point at which "life" is deemed to start.
I think it is pushing it very hard trying to define Gordon Brown as a model of financial rectitude.
They completely forget to mention the £70bn (?) or so Brown under PFI borrowed from future generations of taxpayers and future budgets, which was I think off-balance-sheet, at a cost of around £300bn to be paid over terms of up to 60 years.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
Yet there is a clearly defined right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' It is thus impossible for the SC to interpret that to remove the right to bear arms short of the President, Congress and 2/3 of the states voting to repeal it and replace it with another amendment.
The 14th amendment due process clause however 'nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law' does not clearly give a right to abort the lives of the unborn, the SC in Roe v Wade merely interpreted it to give a right to privacy to enable a woman to have an abortion.
If a different more conservative SC interprets it differently and that it at least does not give a constitutional right to an abortion beyond the first 6 weeks of pregnancy that is its right to do so
The 2nd amendment could perfectly well be interpreted to mean that the right to bear arms is linked to the need for a militia. It does not have to mean the right to carry guns about one's person.
What you are missing is that the whole point about the Texas law is that it is designed to prevent the Supreme Court having a say. That is why it is so objectionable as a matter or law, regardless of the subject matter. It undermines the existence of the Constitution. And if Texas does this for abortion then other states can do it for the right to bear arms, regardless of what the Constitution says. If you prevent challenge then you prevent challenge and any Constitutional rights can be nullified by a simple state law. That's what Texas lawmakers have done. And it will apply to rights under the 14th amendment just as much as to Wade v Roe.
The right may cheer them on now. But they will find that such a development will affect them just as well. It will serve them right. In the meanwhile women will suffer.
I wonder what State will be the first to pick up on the fact and use the Texas approach to ban everyone except the police from carrying a gun? California or somewhere on the East coast.
They can't without repealing and replacing the 2nd amendment
Yes they can. They simply pass a law allowing citizens to sue anyone involved in the sale and manufacture of guns with a bounty if they succeed and no costs awarded against them if they lose. Exactly the same as Texas has done. Since the law is not enforced by state officials it too is not open to challenge. And the SC has just decided that it does not need to follow its own precedents.
I think you've found the issue in your final sentence.
I bet a "New York gun control (bounty)" law would be stayed by the SCOTUS PDQ, since the SC has just decided that it does not need to follow its own precedents.
I think it is pushing it very hard trying to define Gordon Brown as a model of financial rectitude.
They completely forget to mention the £70bn (?) or so Brown under PFI borrowed from future generations of taxpayers and future budgets, which was I think off-balance-sheet, at a cost of around £300bn to be paid over terms of up to 60 years.
It's the New Statesman, so no amount of money can be too much.
I agree that Starmer is stuck with the "tried to thwart Brexit" label, and will struggle to get rid of it. It could well be his downfall.
However, it is a bit more complicated than that. Starmer didn't determine Labour's (awful) Brexit policy at the relevant time. Conference determined the policy, and the leadership (including Corbyn of course) agreed to it. It's Starmer's misfortune that he was landed with the Shadow Brexit Secretary job at the time. I'm not saying that Starmer disagreed with the policy. I'm merely pointing out that it was not, as many commenters on here say, "his" policy. It was the Labour Party's. Collective responsibility and all that.
The thing is: a close economic relationship with the EU *was* a credible Labour policy.
They could simply have argued consistently for EEA-EFTA with a customs union, and said they'd negotiate for an emergency brake on free movement too, and just ignored/rebutted those wanting a 2nd referendum saying it had to be implemented.
But, they chose not to lead.
I mean, they didn't have to lead. They could simply have quietly allowed de Piero et al to vote with the Government instead of leaning on them not to do so.
Surely the biggest political miscalculation of modern times. Arguably since Suez.
Bigger than Suez IMHO.
Suez is overrated as a political crisis to judge other crises by. At the election after Suez the government that oversaw the crisis increased its majority, winning a landslide 100 seat majority.
Suez as a crisis may be overrated, but as a miscalculation specifically I think it is a good example.
Suez just brought home the reality of the limitations of British power about 14 years late.
We were playing a junior role to the USA from 1942 onwards, and arguably 1940 since that's when we started to go to them with a begging bowl.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
There are two arguments against Roe v Wade
1. It is badly argued as a matter of law. 2. This is something which should be decided democratically.
On 2 this is how we do things here. But the US is different. So the Supreme Court is entitled to rule. On 1 I'm aware of these arguments. It is the same as happened with equal rights for black people - the change from Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education.
I do not know enough about the legal arguments to comment on whether Roe v Wade is good law or whether it should have been made on a different basis. But the problem now is that Texas has passed a law which makes abortion unobtainable, which does so in a way which is hugely intrusive and horrible (see the Unherd article posted earlier) and which they have sought to make proof against any sort of challenge or review. Regardless of your views on abortion, this last point is very worrying indeed and has implications far beyond Texas.
It was made democratically, by a pro life Republican governor and a pro life Republican legislature.
As I posted earlier 52% of voters in the US South (which includes Texas) want abortion to be made illegal even if 54% of US adults overall want to keep abortion legal.
The SC has just upheld the right of elected Texan lawmakers to restrict abortion in their state
I agree that Starmer is stuck with the "tried to thwart Brexit" label, and will struggle to get rid of it. It could well be his downfall.
However, it is a bit more complicated than that. Starmer didn't determine Labour's (awful) Brexit policy at the relevant time. Conference determined the policy, and the leadership (including Corbyn of course) agreed to it. It's Starmer's misfortune that he was landed with the Shadow Brexit Secretary job at the time. I'm not saying that Starmer disagreed with the policy. I'm merely pointing out that it was not, as many commenters on here say, "his" policy. It was the Labour Party's. Collective responsibility and all that.
The thing is: a close economic relationship with the EU *was* a credible Labour policy.
They could simply have argued consistently for EEA-EFTA with a customs union, and said they'd negotiate for an emergency brake on free movement too, and just ignored/rebutted those wanting a 2nd referendum saying it had to be implemented.
But, they chose not to lead.
I mean, they didn't have to lead. They could simply have quietly allowed de Piero et al to vote with the Government instead of leaning on them not to do so.
Surely the biggest political miscalculation of modern times. Arguably since Suez.
Bigger than Suez IMHO.
Suez is overrated as a political crisis to judge other crises by. At the election after Suez the government that oversaw the crisis increased its majority, winning a landslide 100 seat majority.
Suez as a crisis may be overrated, but as a miscalculation specifically I think it is a good example.
Suez just brought home the reality of the limitations of British power about 14 years late.
We were playing a junior role to the USA from 1942 onwards, and arguably 1940 since that's when we started to go to them with a begging bowl.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/supreme-court-overturn-roe-wade-texas.html ...While Roberts’ dissent was the least impassioned of the four, it may be the most surprising. The chief justice had no obligation to note his vote in this (or any) shadow docket case. Instead, he made it very clear that he could not condone the majority’s hasty, bad-faith retreat from precedent. By doing so, he highlighted the fact that Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s vote made all the difference in this case. If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were alive, Texas women would have retained their right to reproductive autonomy.
The same would be true if Justice Anthony Kennedy had remained on the court and not been replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. (Or if Merrick Garland, rather than Neil Gorsuch, had replaced Justice Antonin Scalia.) In defending her vote to confirm him to the bench, Republican Sen. Susan Collins said Kavanaugh believed that precedent was “not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked.” Now Kavanaugh has allowed Texas to overturn Roe, a nearly half-century-old precedent. He took less than three years to prove her wrong.
It was predictable that the Supreme Court would abandon Roe after Barrett replaced Ginsburg. But it is still “stunning,” as Sotomayor put it, that it would do so at midnight on a Wednesday in a shadow docket order with a few slapdash sentences of opaque reasoning....
The Democrats have until the midterms to add at least 2 more Justices to the already-politicised SCOTUS.
If they don't, more fool them.
I don't understand why DC and Puerto Rico are not states already.
Because the Democrats still believe they need to play fair. When the reality is that since 2016 those that play fair always lose.
The Democrats do not play fair. Hence the almost four years we had of undermining Trump by claiming he was a Russian plant p1ssed on by hookers, and going down the impeachment route twice.
They weren't hookers, Trump is too cheap to pay to get peed on.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
All of that is irrelevant to the fact that this is a shadow docket decision, with zero airing of the legal arguments, allowing a law to stand which is plainly unconstitutional irrespective of the abortion issue.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
Yet there is a clearly defined right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' It is thus impossible for the SC to interpret that to remove the right to bear arms short of the President, Congress and 2/3 of the states voting to repeal it and replace it with another amendment.
The 14th amendment due process clause however 'nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law' does not clearly give a right to abort the lives of the unborn, the SC in Roe v Wade merely interpreted it to give a right to privacy to enable a woman to have an abortion.
If a different more conservative SC interprets it differently and that it at least does not give a constitutional right to an abortion beyond the first 6 weeks of pregnancy that is its right to do so
The 2nd amendment could perfectly well be interpreted to mean that the right to bear arms is linked to the need for a militia. It does not have to mean the right to carry guns about one's person.
What you are missing is that the whole point about the Texas law is that it is designed to prevent the Supreme Court having a say. That is why it is so objectionable as a matter or law, regardless of the subject matter. It undermines the existence of the Constitution. And if Texas does this for abortion then other states can do it for the right to bear arms, regardless of what the Constitution says. If you prevent challenge then you prevent challenge and any Constitutional rights can be nullified by a simple state law. That's what Texas lawmakers have done. And it will apply to rights under the 14th amendment just as much as to Wade v Roe.
The right may cheer them on now. But they will find that such a development will affect them just as well. It will serve them right. In the meanwhile women will suffer.
I wonder what State will be the first to pick up on the fact and use the Texas approach to ban everyone except the police from carrying a gun? California or somewhere on the East coast.
They can't without repealing and replacing the 2nd amendment
Yes they can. They simply pass a law allowing citizens to sue anyone involved in the sale and manufacture of guns with a bounty if they succeed and no costs awarded against them if they lose. Exactly the same as Texas has done. Since the law is not enforced by state officials it too is not open to challenge. And the SC has just decided that it does not need to follow its own precedents.
The 2nd amendment ' the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' means they cannot unless it is repealed and replaced
I agree that Starmer is stuck with the "tried to thwart Brexit" label, and will struggle to get rid of it. It could well be his downfall.
However, it is a bit more complicated than that. Starmer didn't determine Labour's (awful) Brexit policy at the relevant time. Conference determined the policy, and the leadership (including Corbyn of course) agreed to it. It's Starmer's misfortune that he was landed with the Shadow Brexit Secretary job at the time. I'm not saying that Starmer disagreed with the policy. I'm merely pointing out that it was not, as many commenters on here say, "his" policy. It was the Labour Party's. Collective responsibility and all that.
The thing is: a close economic relationship with the EU *was* a credible Labour policy.
They could simply have argued consistently for EEA-EFTA with a customs union, and said they'd negotiate for an emergency brake on free movement too, and just ignored/rebutted those wanting a 2nd referendum saying it had to be implemented.
But, they chose not to lead.
I mean, they didn't have to lead. They could simply have quietly allowed de Piero et al to vote with the Government instead of leaning on them not to do so.
Surely the biggest political miscalculation of modern times. Arguably since Suez.
Bigger than Suez IMHO.
Suez is overrated as a political crisis to judge other crises by. At the election after Suez the government that oversaw the crisis increased its majority, winning a landslide 100 seat majority.
Suez as a crisis may be overrated, but as a miscalculation specifically I think it is a good example.
Suez just brought home the reality of the limitations of British power about 14 years late.
We were playing a junior role to the USA from 1942 onwards, and arguably 1940 since that's when we started to go to them with a begging bowl.
1922: Washington Naval Treaty, arguably.
Yes, very probably. We weren't fighting a major power in the 1920s and 1930s, so the fact we weren't superpower match-fit anymore didn't really show up.
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
One of the bits of gallows humour in science is that duff theories only die out when their proponents do. And that's in science- not perfect, but consciously set up to remind practitioners that knowledge is imperfect and provisional, that we should never take anyone's word for it.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
Yet there is a clearly defined right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' It is thus impossible for the SC to interpret that to remove the right to bear arms short of the President, Congress and 2/3 of the states voting to repeal it and replace it with another amendment.
The 14th amendment due process clause however 'nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law' does not clearly give a right to abort the lives of the unborn, the SC in Roe v Wade merely interpreted it to give a right to privacy to enable a woman to have an abortion.
If a different more conservative SC interprets it differently and that it at least does not give a constitutional right to an abortion beyond the first 6 weeks of pregnancy that is its right to do so
The 2nd amendment could perfectly well be interpreted to mean that the right to bear arms is linked to the need for a militia. It does not have to mean the right to carry guns about one's person.
What you are missing is that the whole point about the Texas law is that it is designed to prevent the Supreme Court having a say. That is why it is so objectionable as a matter or law, regardless of the subject matter. It undermines the existence of the Constitution. And if Texas does this for abortion then other states can do it for the right to bear arms, regardless of what the Constitution says. If you prevent challenge then you prevent challenge and any Constitutional rights can be nullified by a simple state law. That's what Texas lawmakers have done. And it will apply to rights under the 14th amendment just as much as to Wade v Roe.
The right may cheer them on now. But they will find that such a development will affect them just as well. It will serve them right. In the meanwhile women will suffer.
I wonder what State will be the first to pick up on the fact and use the Texas approach to ban everyone except the police from carrying a gun? California or somewhere on the East coast.
They can't without repealing and replacing the 2nd amendment
Yes they can. They simply pass a law allowing citizens to sue anyone involved in the sale and manufacture of guns with a bounty if they succeed and no costs awarded against them if they lose. Exactly the same as Texas has done. Since the law is not enforced by state officials it too is not open to challenge. And the SC has just decided that it does not need to follow its own precedents.
The 2nd amendment ' the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' means they cannot unless it is repealed and replaced
They won't be infringing the right to keep and bear Arms, only making it illegal to sell them. Technically it doesn't say the right to sell them is a right in the second amendment.
Now you may say that you believe its inferred from the second. Just as abortion is from the 14th.
'Wallace also contrasted the Ministry of Defence’s handling of the evacuation crisis with the FCDO. Over the weekend, it emerged that officials from Dominic Raab’s department had failed to read thousands of emails from MPs and charities detailing urgent cases of Afghans trying to escape from Kabul.
But the defence secretary argued the MoD was on top of its own cases, largely a well-defined group of Afghan interpreters and their families, about 1,000 of whom remain trapped in the country after the RAF airlift ended over the weekend.
“All of us have big email inboxes, we have already analysed ours, we’ve sent defence intelligence analysts around Whitehall to help deal with that,” Wallace said.'
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
One of the bits of gallows humour in science is that duff theories only die out when their proponents do. And that's in science- not perfect, but consciously set up to remind practitioners that knowledge is imperfect and provisional, that we should never take anyone's word for it.
Brexiteers will die off first, so die later remainers will get to write the history.
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
One of the bits of gallows humour in science is that duff theories only die out when their proponents do. And that's in science- not perfect, but consciously set up to remind practitioners that knowledge is imperfect and provisional, that we should never take anyone's word for it.
Brexiteers will die off first, so die later remainers will get to write the history.
Remainers will become Remain out-ers as they grow up.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
Yet there is a clearly defined right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' It is thus impossible for the SC to interpret that to remove the right to bear arms short of the President, Congress and 2/3 of the states voting to repeal it and replace it with another amendment.
The 14th amendment due process clause however 'nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law' does not clearly give a right to abort the lives of the unborn, the SC in Roe v Wade merely interpreted it to give a right to privacy to enable a woman to have an abortion.
If a different more conservative SC interprets it differently and that it at least does not give a constitutional right to an abortion beyond the first 6 weeks of pregnancy that is its right to do so
The 2nd amendment could perfectly well be interpreted to mean that the right to bear arms is linked to the need for a militia. It does not have to mean the right to carry guns about one's person.
What you are missing is that the whole point about the Texas law is that it is designed to prevent the Supreme Court having a say. That is why it is so objectionable as a matter or law, regardless of the subject matter. It undermines the existence of the Constitution. And if Texas does this for abortion then other states can do it for the right to bear arms, regardless of what the Constitution says. If you prevent challenge then you prevent challenge and any Constitutional rights can be nullified by a simple state law. That's what Texas lawmakers have done. And it will apply to rights under the 14th amendment just as much as to Wade v Roe.
The right may cheer them on now. But they will find that such a development will affect them just as well. It will serve them right. In the meanwhile women will suffer.
I wonder what State will be the first to pick up on the fact and use the Texas approach to ban everyone except the police from carrying a gun? California or somewhere on the East coast.
They can't without repealing and replacing the 2nd amendment
Yes they can. They simply pass a law allowing citizens to sue anyone involved in the sale and manufacture of guns with a bounty if they succeed and no costs awarded against them if they lose. Exactly the same as Texas has done. Since the law is not enforced by state officials it too is not open to challenge. And the SC has just decided that it does not need to follow its own precedents.
I think you've found the issue in your final sentence.
I bet a "New York gun control (bounty)" law would be stayed by the SCOTUS PDQ, since the SC has just decided that it does not need to follow its own precedents.
Perhaps. But it would make very clear how the majority of the court is now operating, maybe even to those like HYUFD with their fingers in their ears.
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
One of the bits of gallows humour in science is that duff theories only die out when their proponents do. And that's in science- not perfect, but consciously set up to remind practitioners that knowledge is imperfect and provisional, that we should never take anyone's word for it.
Brexiteers will die off first, so remainers will get to write the history.
- “God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates Man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs." - "Dinosaurs eat man... Woman inherits the earth.”
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
The point here though, is those who opposed it are not willing to admit they got it wrong by gambling on getting a second referendum, at the expense of a harder Brexit, rather than accepting the formality of a Leave win meaning the PMs deal with the EU being nodded through.
I agree that Starmer is stuck with the "tried to thwart Brexit" label, and will struggle to get rid of it. It could well be his downfall.
However, it is a bit more complicated than that. Starmer didn't determine Labour's (awful) Brexit policy at the relevant time. Conference determined the policy, and the leadership (including Corbyn of course) agreed to it. It's Starmer's misfortune that he was landed with the Shadow Brexit Secretary job at the time. I'm not saying that Starmer disagreed with the policy. I'm merely pointing out that it was not, as many commenters on here say, "his" policy. It was the Labour Party's. Collective responsibility and all that.
The thing is: a close economic relationship with the EU *was* a credible Labour policy.
They could simply have argued consistently for EEA-EFTA with a customs union, and said they'd negotiate for an emergency brake on free movement too, and just ignored/rebutted those wanting a 2nd referendum saying it had to be implemented.
But, they chose not to lead.
I mean, they didn't have to lead. They could simply have quietly allowed de Piero et al to vote with the Government instead of leaning on them not to do so.
Surely the biggest political miscalculation of modern times. Arguably since Suez.
Bigger than Suez IMHO.
Suez is overrated as a political crisis to judge other crises by. At the election after Suez the government that oversaw the crisis increased its majority, winning a landslide 100 seat majority.
Suez as a crisis may be overrated, but as a miscalculation specifically I think it is a good example.
Suez just brought home the reality of the limitations of British power about 14 years late.
We were playing a junior role to the USA from 1942 onwards, and arguably 1940 since that's when we started to go to them with a begging bowl.
Largely, but not completely. After all, Churchill persuaded the US to allow the French back into Vietnam as colonial occupiers after the war (with predictably disastrous results), so empires were still (just) up for grabs for a few post-war years.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
There are two arguments against Roe v Wade
1. It is badly argued as a matter of law. 2. This is something which should be decided democratically.
On 2 this is how we do things here. But the US is different. So the Supreme Court is entitled to rule. On 1 I'm aware of these arguments. It is the same as happened with equal rights for black people - the change from Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education.
I do not know enough about the legal arguments to comment on whether Roe v Wade is good law or whether it should have been made on a different basis. But the problem now is that Texas has passed a law which makes abortion unobtainable, which does so in a way which is hugely intrusive and horrible (see the Unherd article posted earlier) and which they have sought to make proof against any sort of challenge or review. Regardless of your views on abortion, this last point is very worrying indeed and has implications far beyond Texas.
It was made democratically, by a pro life Republican governor and a pro life Republican legislature.
How can you call yourself "pro-life" when the "God" you believe in and, presumably, worship is the biggest single practitioner of abortion on the planet?
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
The point here though, is those who opposed it are not willing to admit they got it wrong by gambling on getting a second referendum, at the expense of a harder Brexit, rather than accepting the formality of a Leave win meaning the PMs deal with the EU being nodded through.
May's brexit deal was still Brexit. No point arguing over the texture of a turd.
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
The point here though, is those who opposed it are not willing to admit they got it wrong by gambling on getting a second referendum, at the expense of a harder Brexit, rather than accepting the formality of a Leave win meaning the PMs deal with the EU being nodded through.
May's brexit deal was still Brexit. No point arguing over the texture of a turd.
Brexit was the result voted for in the 2016 referendum.
If its not worth arguing over then why not just pass the deal and find things that are worth arguing over?
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
Yet there is a clearly defined right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' It is thus impossible for the SC to interpret that to remove the right to bear arms short of the President, Congress and 2/3 of the states voting to repeal it and replace it with another amendment.
The 14th amendment due process clause however 'nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law' does not clearly give a right to abort the lives of the unborn, the SC in Roe v Wade merely interpreted it to give a right to privacy to enable a woman to have an abortion.
If a different more conservative SC interprets it differently and that it at least does not give a constitutional right to an abortion beyond the first 6 weeks of pregnancy that is its right to do so
The 2nd amendment could perfectly well be interpreted to mean that the right to bear arms is linked to the need for a militia. It does not have to mean the right to carry guns about one's person.
What you are missing is that the whole point about the Texas law is that it is designed to prevent the Supreme Court having a say. That is why it is so objectionable as a matter or law, regardless of the subject matter. It undermines the existence of the Constitution. And if Texas does this for abortion then other states can do it for the right to bear arms, regardless of what the Constitution says. If you prevent challenge then you prevent challenge and any Constitutional rights can be nullified by a simple state law. That's what Texas lawmakers have done. And it will apply to rights under the 14th amendment just as much as to Wade v Roe.
The right may cheer them on now. But they will find that such a development will affect them just as well. It will serve them right. In the meanwhile women will suffer.
I wonder what State will be the first to pick up on the fact and use the Texas approach to ban everyone except the police from carrying a gun? California or somewhere on the East coast.
They can't without repealing and replacing the 2nd amendment
Yes they can. They simply pass a law allowing citizens to sue anyone involved in the sale and manufacture of guns with a bounty if they succeed and no costs awarded against them if they lose. Exactly the same as Texas has done. Since the law is not enforced by state officials it too is not open to challenge. And the SC has just decided that it does not need to follow its own precedents.
The 2nd amendment ' the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' means they cannot unless it is repealed and replaced
They won't be infringing the right to keep and bear Arms, only making it illegal to sell them. Technically it doesn't say the right to sell them is a right in the second amendment.
Now you may say that you believe its inferred from the second. Just as abortion is from the 14th.
If some States in the North East and West coast do and a more liberal future SC upholds that fair enough, there are plenty of coastal Americans who want stricter gun laws just as there are now plenty of southern Americans who want stricter abortion laws.
It would mean the US would become looser and more respecting of states' rights
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
There are two arguments against Roe v Wade
1. It is badly argued as a matter of law. 2. This is something which should be decided democratically.
On 2 this is how we do things here. But the US is different. So the Supreme Court is entitled to rule. On 1 I'm aware of these arguments. It is the same as happened with equal rights for black people - the change from Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education.
I do not know enough about the legal arguments to comment on whether Roe v Wade is good law or whether it should have been made on a different basis. But the problem now is that Texas has passed a law which makes abortion unobtainable, which does so in a way which is hugely intrusive and horrible (see the Unherd article posted earlier) and which they have sought to make proof against any sort of challenge or review. Regardless of your views on abortion, this last point is very worrying indeed and has implications far beyond Texas.
It was made democratically, by a pro life Republican governor and a pro life Republican legislature.
How can you call yourself "pro-life" when the "God" you believe in and, presumably, worship is the biggest single practitioner of abortion on the planet?
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
The point here though, is those who opposed it are not willing to admit they got it wrong by gambling on getting a second referendum, at the expense of a harder Brexit, rather than accepting the formality of a Leave win meaning the PMs deal with the EU being nodded through.
May's brexit deal was still Brexit. No point arguing over the texture of a turd.
The difference between May's minimal Brexit and the current situation is enormous.
The problem is that that those who opposed Brexit were not willing to admit that they really opposed Brexit and wanted a second referendum. Instead they wanted to vote down *everything* and hope that something would turn up. Despite there being no realistic prospect of "something".
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
There are two arguments against Roe v Wade
1. It is badly argued as a matter of law. 2. This is something which should be decided democratically.
On 2 this is how we do things here. But the US is different. So the Supreme Court is entitled to rule. On 1 I'm aware of these arguments. It is the same as happened with equal rights for black people - the change from Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education.
I do not know enough about the legal arguments to comment on whether Roe v Wade is good law or whether it should have been made on a different basis. But the problem now is that Texas has passed a law which makes abortion unobtainable, which does so in a way which is hugely intrusive and horrible (see the Unherd article posted earlier) and which they have sought to make proof against any sort of challenge or review. Regardless of your views on abortion, this last point is very worrying indeed and has implications far beyond Texas.
It was made democratically, by a pro life Republican governor and a pro life Republican legislature.
How can you call yourself "pro-life" when the "God" you believe in and, presumably, worship is the biggest single practitioner of abortion on the planet?
Just that "He" refers to it as "miscarriage"...
An inconvenient truth for the more dogmatic pro-lifers.
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
The point here though, is those who opposed it are not willing to admit they got it wrong by gambling on getting a second referendum, at the expense of a harder Brexit, rather than accepting the formality of a Leave win meaning the PMs deal with the EU being nodded through.
May's brexit deal was still Brexit. No point arguing over the texture of a turd.
The difference between May's minimal Brexit and the current situation is enormous.
The problem is that that those who opposed Brexit were not willing to admit that they really opposed Brexit and wanted a second referendum. Instead they wanted to vote down *everything* and hope that something would turn up. Despite there being no realistic prospect of "something".
.. and they were elected in 2017 on pledges to "respect the referendum vote" - hence, in my opinion, the close run GE. But when it came to it, they were only interested in filibustering until they got another crack at it, hence the one sided GE that followed
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
The point here though, is those who opposed it are not willing to admit they got it wrong by gambling on getting a second referendum, at the expense of a harder Brexit, rather than accepting the formality of a Leave win meaning the PMs deal with the EU being nodded through.
May's brexit deal was still Brexit. No point arguing over the texture of a turd.
The difference between May's minimal Brexit and the current situation is enormous.
The problem is that that those who opposed Brexit were not willing to admit that they really opposed Brexit and wanted a second referendum...
Many of those who opposed Brexit voted for various compromises on several occasions, though.
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
The point here though, is those who opposed it are not willing to admit they got it wrong by gambling on getting a second referendum, at the expense of a harder Brexit, rather than accepting the formality of a Leave win meaning the PMs deal with the EU being nodded through.
May's brexit deal was still Brexit. No point arguing over the texture of a turd.
The difference between May's minimal Brexit and the current situation is enormous.
The problem is that that those who opposed Brexit were not willing to admit that they really opposed Brexit and wanted a second referendum. Instead they wanted to vote down *everything* and hope that something would turn up. Despite there being no realistic prospect of "something".
Parliament voted on softer alternatives to May's deal that were still Brexit but they were voted down by Tory MPs. There are few material differences between what May offered and the current deal. To pretend that the only reason Remainers refused May's deal was because they wanted a 2nd referendum is a fanciful rewriting of history. We were all there and remember what happened!
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
There are two arguments against Roe v Wade
1. It is badly argued as a matter of law. 2. This is something which should be decided democratically.
On 2 this is how we do things here. But the US is different. So the Supreme Court is entitled to rule. On 1 I'm aware of these arguments. It is the same as happened with equal rights for black people - the change from Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education.
I do not know enough about the legal arguments to comment on whether Roe v Wade is good law or whether it should have been made on a different basis. But the problem now is that Texas has passed a law which makes abortion unobtainable, which does so in a way which is hugely intrusive and horrible (see the Unherd article posted earlier) and which they have sought to make proof against any sort of challenge or review. Regardless of your views on abortion, this last point is very worrying indeed and has implications far beyond Texas.
It was made democratically, by a pro life Republican governor and a pro life Republican legislature.
How can you call yourself "pro-life" when the "God" you believe in and, presumably, worship is the biggest single practitioner of abortion on the planet?
Just that "He" refers to it as "miscarriage"...
That logic makes God the murderer of everyone who dies, doesn't it?
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
There are two arguments against Roe v Wade
1. It is badly argued as a matter of law. 2. This is something which should be decided democratically.
On 2 this is how we do things here. But the US is different. So the Supreme Court is entitled to rule. On 1 I'm aware of these arguments. It is the same as happened with equal rights for black people - the change from Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education.
I do not know enough about the legal arguments to comment on whether Roe v Wade is good law or whether it should have been made on a different basis. But the problem now is that Texas has passed a law which makes abortion unobtainable, which does so in a way which is hugely intrusive and horrible (see the Unherd article posted earlier) and which they have sought to make proof against any sort of challenge or review. Regardless of your views on abortion, this last point is very worrying indeed and has implications far beyond Texas.
It was made democratically, by a pro life Republican governor and a pro life Republican legislature.
How can you call yourself "pro-life" when the "God" you believe in and, presumably, worship is the biggest single practitioner of abortion on the planet?
Just that "He" refers to it as "miscarriage"...
Miscarriage is not the intentional ending of life by another human being and not all pro lifers are religious (though of course if you are you believe a miscarried baby would enter eternal life with the Lord anyway but only God has the power to decide when human life ends).
There are also people who are religious but pro choice eg Betty Ford was Episcopalian but also pro choice
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
The point here though, is those who opposed it are not willing to admit they got it wrong by gambling on getting a second referendum, at the expense of a harder Brexit, rather than accepting the formality of a Leave win meaning the PMs deal with the EU being nodded through.
May's brexit deal was still Brexit. No point arguing over the texture of a turd.
Brexit was the result voted for in the 2016 referendum.
If its not worth arguing over then why not just pass the deal and find things that are worth arguing over?
There weren't any leavers around to propose a deal. They bottled the consequences and it was left to May and Hammond to try and cobble something together.
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
The point here though, is those who opposed it are not willing to admit they got it wrong by gambling on getting a second referendum, at the expense of a harder Brexit, rather than accepting the formality of a Leave win meaning the PMs deal with the EU being nodded through.
May's brexit deal was still Brexit. No point arguing over the texture of a turd.
The difference between May's minimal Brexit and the current situation is enormous.
The problem is that that those who opposed Brexit were not willing to admit that they really opposed Brexit and wanted a second referendum. Instead they wanted to vote down *everything* and hope that something would turn up. Despite there being no realistic prospect of "something".
Parliament voted on softer alternatives to May's deal that were still Brexit but they were voted down by Tory MPs. There are few material differences between what May offered and the current deal. To pretend that the only reason Remainers refused May's deal was because they wanted a 2nd referendum is a fanciful rewriting of history. We were all there and remember what happened!
Yes we were, but some of us remember it differently to you
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
One of the bits of gallows humour in science is that duff theories only die out when their proponents do. And that's in science- not perfect, but consciously set up to remind practitioners that knowledge is imperfect and provisional, that we should never take anyone's word for it.
Brexiteers will die off first, so die later remainers will get to write the history.
Remainers will become Remain out-ers as they grow up.
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
The point here though, is those who opposed it are not willing to admit they got it wrong by gambling on getting a second referendum, at the expense of a harder Brexit, rather than accepting the formality of a Leave win meaning the PMs deal with the EU being nodded through.
May's brexit deal was still Brexit. No point arguing over the texture of a turd.
The difference between May's minimal Brexit and the current situation is enormous.
The problem is that that those who opposed Brexit were not willing to admit that they really opposed Brexit and wanted a second referendum. Instead they wanted to vote down *everything* and hope that something would turn up. Despite there being no realistic prospect of "something".
Parliament voted on softer alternatives to May's deal that were still Brexit but they were voted down by Tory MPs. There are few material differences between what May offered and the current deal. To pretend that the only reason Remainers refused May's deal was because they wanted a 2nd referendum is a fanciful rewriting of history. We were all there and remember what happened!
Few material differences? Are you shitting me?
If we were in May's deal then due to the backstop we would be in the Single Market and Customs Union right now.
How is that not a material difference? There were fewer material differences between May's deal and Remaining in the EU.
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
The point here though, is those who opposed it are not willing to admit they got it wrong by gambling on getting a second referendum, at the expense of a harder Brexit, rather than accepting the formality of a Leave win meaning the PMs deal with the EU being nodded through.
May's brexit deal was still Brexit. No point arguing over the texture of a turd.
The difference between May's minimal Brexit and the current situation is enormous.
The problem is that that those who opposed Brexit were not willing to admit that they really opposed Brexit and wanted a second referendum. Instead they wanted to vote down *everything* and hope that something would turn up. Despite there being no realistic prospect of "something".
Parliament voted on softer alternatives to May's deal that were still Brexit but they were voted down by Tory MPs. There are few material differences between what May offered and the current deal. To pretend that the only reason Remainers refused May's deal was because they wanted a 2nd referendum is a fanciful rewriting of history. We were all there and remember what happened!
Yes we were, but some of us remember it differently to you
And apparently Leavers think they remember better the internal motivations of Remainers than Remainers do...
I know the Supreme Court judges will not always be shills to their parties, but even within the american system I struggle to see the benefit to not at the least time limiting justices. You appoint your hack judge and if you get lucky several more as well, but they are on the bench for decades so in 20 years your party may have altered and regret that the hack judge is not compliant enough to the new thinking. So even on a partisan basis getting to appoint new ones regularly would be benificial.
Obviously I'd argue appointing so partisanly in the first place, and that you can usually (albeit not universally) predict where they will fall based on political preference, is a bigger issue, but that seems unlikely to change.
Of course. But the constitution provides explicitly for lifetime tenure, so changing that would be extremely difficult.
There are ways around that.
The most likely way to do it would be to a "senior" status for SCOTUS justices (SCOTii?) akin to that available for federal circuit judges. Circuit judges can opt to take this status once they're 65. They are deemed to have vacated their bench seat, but they still get a salary (which should satisfy the lifetime tenure part) and can perform various duties if they want. Apparently this is technically the way the SCOTUS justices take retirement, so the idea would be to simply (ha!) make it compulsory after say twenty years on the bench.
The other that's been most floated is that the Constitution does not specifically say that SCOTUS gets to rule on the constitutionality of legislation or executive action. The Constitution says:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
So Congress certainly has the power to make regulations that says SCOTUS doesn't get to rule on constitutionality, and create a wholly new constitutional court to do so.
Of course with a razor-thin 50+VP/50 majority in the Senate, and the likes of Simena and Manchin never countenancing such reforms, both options are moot.
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
One of the bits of gallows humour in science is that duff theories only die out when their proponents do. And that's in science- not perfect, but consciously set up to remind practitioners that knowledge is imperfect and provisional, that we should never take anyone's word for it.
Brexiteers will die off first, so die later remainers will get to write the history.
Remainers will become Remain out-ers as they grow up.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on whether this whole thing works or not.
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
The point here though, is those who opposed it are not willing to admit they got it wrong by gambling on getting a second referendum, at the expense of a harder Brexit, rather than accepting the formality of a Leave win meaning the PMs deal with the EU being nodded through.
May's brexit deal was still Brexit. No point arguing over the texture of a turd.
The difference between May's minimal Brexit and the current situation is enormous.
The problem is that that those who opposed Brexit were not willing to admit that they really opposed Brexit and wanted a second referendum. Instead they wanted to vote down *everything* and hope that something would turn up. Despite there being no realistic prospect of "something".
Parliament voted on softer alternatives to May's deal that were still Brexit but they were voted down by Tory MPs. There are few material differences between what May offered and the current deal. To pretend that the only reason Remainers refused May's deal was because they wanted a 2nd referendum is a fanciful rewriting of history. We were all there and remember what happened!
Yes we were, but some of us remember it differently to you
And apparently Leavers think they remember better the internal motivations of Remainers than Remainers do...
WelI I remember saying at the time they were voting down everything in order to try and get a second referendum, and they did!
Off Topic but have been watching a new Netflix series called “Turning Point: 9/11 and the War on Terror” and reached episode 4 which is very appropriate re the clusterfuck of Afghanistan, withdrawal plans from Obama onwards and Biden as VP falling out with the military who wanted a surge, he wanted all out so Obama split the difference to keep both sides happy.
Anyway along with the multiple nuggets of examples of idiotic spending such as the Italian cashmere goats was that they gave the head of the afghan army the choice over the camouflage uniforms for some reason and he liked and chose a forest green uniform - not only was only 4% of Afghanistan anything like that colour but the US military didn’t own the rights to that pattern so were having to pay 35% extra for each uniform.
Absolutely mental. The series is excellent though it takes you from the chilling memories of 9/11 to fury over the bullshit of invading Iraq and then incredulity at Afghanistan.....
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
The point here though, is those who opposed it are not willing to admit they got it wrong by gambling on getting a second referendum, at the expense of a harder Brexit, rather than accepting the formality of a Leave win meaning the PMs deal with the EU being nodded through.
May's brexit deal was still Brexit. No point arguing over the texture of a turd.
The difference between May's minimal Brexit and the current situation is enormous.
The problem is that that those who opposed Brexit were not willing to admit that they really opposed Brexit and wanted a second referendum. Instead they wanted to vote down *everything* and hope that something would turn up. Despite there being no realistic prospect of "something".
Parliament voted on softer alternatives to May's deal that were still Brexit but they were voted down by Tory MPs. There are few material differences between what May offered and the current deal. To pretend that the only reason Remainers refused May's deal was because they wanted a 2nd referendum is a fanciful rewriting of history. We were all there and remember what happened!
Yes we were, but some of us remember it differently to you
And apparently Leavers think they remember better the internal motivations of Remainers than Remainers do...
WelI I remember saying at the time they were voting down everything in order to try and get a second referendum, and they did!
Remainers voted for several softer Brexit options, it was Leavers who voted those down. Consistency isn't a virtue if you are consistently wrong.
Off Topic but have been watching a new Netflix series called “Turning Point: 9/11 and the War on Terror” and reached episode 4 which is very appropriate re the clusterfuck of Afghanistan, withdrawal plans from Obama onwards and Biden as VP falling out with the military who wanted a surge, he wanted all out so Obama split the difference to keep both sides happy.
Anyway along with the multiple nuggets of examples of idiotic spending such as the Italian cashmere goats was that they gave the head of the afghan army the choice over the camouflage uniforms for some reason and he liked and chose a forest green uniform - not only was only 4% of Afghanistan anything like that colour but the US military didn’t own the rights to that pattern so were having to pay 35% extra for each uniform.
Absolutely mental. The series is excellent though it takes you from the chilling memories of 9/11 to fury over the bullshit of invading Iraq and then incredulity at Afghanistan.....
I have been watching Series 2 of "Victoria"... and they are debating the wisdom of sending troops to Kabul to be outfoxed by cunning Afghans!
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
The point here though, is those who opposed it are not willing to admit they got it wrong by gambling on getting a second referendum, at the expense of a harder Brexit, rather than accepting the formality of a Leave win meaning the PMs deal with the EU being nodded through.
May's brexit deal was still Brexit. No point arguing over the texture of a turd.
The difference between May's minimal Brexit and the current situation is enormous.
The problem is that that those who opposed Brexit were not willing to admit that they really opposed Brexit and wanted a second referendum. Instead they wanted to vote down *everything* and hope that something would turn up. Despite there being no realistic prospect of "something".
Parliament voted on softer alternatives to May's deal that were still Brexit but they were voted down by Tory MPs. There are few material differences between what May offered and the current deal. To pretend that the only reason Remainers refused May's deal was because they wanted a 2nd referendum is a fanciful rewriting of history. We were all there and remember what happened!
Yes we were, but some of us remember it differently to you
And apparently Leavers think they remember better the internal motivations of Remainers than Remainers do...
WelI I remember saying at the time they were voting down everything in order to try and get a second referendum, and they did!
Remainers voted for several softer Brexit options, it was Leavers who voted those down. Consistency isn't a virtue if you are consistently wrong.
Off Topic but have been watching a new Netflix series called “Turning Point: 9/11 and the War on Terror” and reached episode 4 which is very appropriate re the clusterfuck of Afghanistan, withdrawal plans from Obama onwards and Biden as VP falling out with the military who wanted a surge, he wanted all out so Obama split the difference to keep both sides happy.
Anyway along with the multiple nuggets of examples of idiotic spending such as the Italian cashmere goats was that they gave the head of the afghan army the choice over the camouflage uniforms for some reason and he liked and chose a forest green uniform - not only was only 4% of Afghanistan anything like that colour but the US military didn’t own the rights to that pattern so were having to pay 35% extra for each uniform.
Absolutely mental. The series is excellent though it takes you from the chilling memories of 9/11 to fury over the bullshit of invading Iraq and then incredulity at Afghanistan.....
There is no doubt Trump was more isolationist than Bush and Biden more isolationist than Obama, both parties have shifted from nominating interventionist candidates abroad to nominating isolationists for now
Interesting paper which relates to boosters (published yesterday).
Reactogenicity and immunogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in the UK: a substudy of two randomised controlled trials https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01699-8/fulltext ...An extended interval before the second dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 leads to increased antibody titres. A third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induces antibodies to a level that correlates with high efficacy after second dose and boosts T-cell responses....
I think what we're learning slowly is that vaccination may actually require three doses with a long gap between doses two and three. It means that the world now needs to manufacture 18bn vaccine doses rather than 12bn. We're up to 4bn at last count so quite a long way to go.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
There are two arguments against Roe v Wade
1. It is badly argued as a matter of law. 2. This is something which should be decided democratically.
On 2 this is how we do things here. But the US is different. So the Supreme Court is entitled to rule. On 1 I'm aware of these arguments. It is the same as happened with equal rights for black people - the change from Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education.
I do not know enough about the legal arguments to comment on whether Roe v Wade is good law or whether it should have been made on a different basis. But the problem now is that Texas has passed a law which makes abortion unobtainable, which does so in a way which is hugely intrusive and horrible (see the Unherd article posted earlier) and which they have sought to make proof against any sort of challenge or review. Regardless of your views on abortion, this last point is very worrying indeed and has implications far beyond Texas.
It was made democratically, by a pro life Republican governor and a pro life Republican legislature.
How can you call yourself "pro-life" when the "God" you believe in and, presumably, worship is the biggest single practitioner of abortion on the planet?
Just that "He" refers to it as "miscarriage"...
That logic makes God the murderer of everyone who dies, doesn't it?
See @HYUFD below. "Only God has the power to decide when human life ends." So. Yes. Very much so.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
There are two arguments against Roe v Wade
1. It is badly argued as a matter of law. 2. This is something which should be decided democratically.
On 2 this is how we do things here. But the US is different. So the Supreme Court is entitled to rule. On 1 I'm aware of these arguments. It is the same as happened with equal rights for black people - the change from Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education.
I do not know enough about the legal arguments to comment on whether Roe v Wade is good law or whether it should have been made on a different basis. But the problem now is that Texas has passed a law which makes abortion unobtainable, which does so in a way which is hugely intrusive and horrible (see the Unherd article posted earlier) and which they have sought to make proof against any sort of challenge or review. Regardless of your views on abortion, this last point is very worrying indeed and has implications far beyond Texas.
It was made democratically, by a pro life Republican governor and a pro life Republican legislature.
How can you call yourself "pro-life" when the "God" you believe in and, presumably, worship is the biggest single practitioner of abortion on the planet?
Just that "He" refers to it as "miscarriage"...
Miscarriage is not the intentional ending of life by another human being and not all pro lifers are religious (though of course if you are you believe a miscarried baby would enter eternal life with the Lord anyway but only God has the power to decide when human life ends).
There are also people who are religious but pro choice eg Betty Ford was Episcopalian but also pro choice
Indeed Gerald Ford wanted a constitutional amendment so each state's governor and legislature would make up its own mind on abortion, a sensible compromise
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
The point here though, is those who opposed it are not willing to admit they got it wrong by gambling on getting a second referendum, at the expense of a harder Brexit, rather than accepting the formality of a Leave win meaning the PMs deal with the EU being nodded through.
May's brexit deal was still Brexit. No point arguing over the texture of a turd.
The difference between May's minimal Brexit and the current situation is enormous.
The problem is that that those who opposed Brexit were not willing to admit that they really opposed Brexit and wanted a second referendum. Instead they wanted to vote down *everything* and hope that something would turn up. Despite there being no realistic prospect of "something".
Parliament voted on softer alternatives to May's deal that were still Brexit but they were voted down by Tory MPs. There are few material differences between what May offered and the current deal. To pretend that the only reason Remainers refused May's deal was because they wanted a 2nd referendum is a fanciful rewriting of history. We were all there and remember what happened!
They couldn't decide what they wanted. They opposed BREXIT, but couldn't come up with anything other than.. eventual BREXIT.
If they had actually tried something, they would've earned more respect in the country at large, and maybe even swung thing their way.
The May deal was substantially different to the current circumstances.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
There are two arguments against Roe v Wade
1. It is badly argued as a matter of law. 2. This is something which should be decided democratically.
On 2 this is how we do things here. But the US is different. So the Supreme Court is entitled to rule. On 1 I'm aware of these arguments. It is the same as happened with equal rights for black people - the change from Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education.
I do not know enough about the legal arguments to comment on whether Roe v Wade is good law or whether it should have been made on a different basis. But the problem now is that Texas has passed a law which makes abortion unobtainable, which does so in a way which is hugely intrusive and horrible (see the Unherd article posted earlier) and which they have sought to make proof against any sort of challenge or review. Regardless of your views on abortion, this last point is very worrying indeed and has implications far beyond Texas.
It was made democratically, by a pro life Republican governor and a pro life Republican legislature.
How can you call yourself "pro-life" when the "God" you believe in and, presumably, worship is the biggest single practitioner of abortion on the planet?
Just that "He" refers to it as "miscarriage"...
That logic makes God the murderer of everyone who dies, doesn't it?
See @HYUFD below. "Only God has the power to decide when human life ends." So. Yes. Very much so.
Yes but God also offers us all eternal life with him too which more than makes up for it
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
The point here though, is those who opposed it are not willing to admit they got it wrong by gambling on getting a second referendum, at the expense of a harder Brexit, rather than accepting the formality of a Leave win meaning the PMs deal with the EU being nodded through.
May's brexit deal was still Brexit. No point arguing over the texture of a turd.
The difference between May's minimal Brexit and the current situation is enormous.
The problem is that that those who opposed Brexit were not willing to admit that they really opposed Brexit and wanted a second referendum. Instead they wanted to vote down *everything* and hope that something would turn up. Despite there being no realistic prospect of "something".
Parliament voted on softer alternatives to May's deal that were still Brexit but they were voted down by Tory MPs. There are few material differences between what May offered and the current deal. To pretend that the only reason Remainers refused May's deal was because they wanted a 2nd referendum is a fanciful rewriting of history. We were all there and remember what happened!
Few material differences? Are you shitting me?
If we were in May's deal then due to the backstop we would be in the Single Market and Customs Union right now.
How is that not a material difference? There were fewer material differences between May's deal and Remaining in the EU.
Customs Union, maybe partially, depending on how NI worked out. Single Market, no. If we were still in the Single Market under May's deal there would have been freedom of movement still. As you will recall that was May's major red line. Johnson's deal is essentially May's deal with NI kept in the single market and much better PR.
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
The point here though, is those who opposed it are not willing to admit they got it wrong by gambling on getting a second referendum, at the expense of a harder Brexit, rather than accepting the formality of a Leave win meaning the PMs deal with the EU being nodded through.
May's brexit deal was still Brexit. No point arguing over the texture of a turd.
The difference between May's minimal Brexit and the current situation is enormous.
The problem is that that those who opposed Brexit were not willing to admit that they really opposed Brexit and wanted a second referendum. Instead they wanted to vote down *everything* and hope that something would turn up. Despite there being no realistic prospect of "something".
Parliament voted on softer alternatives to May's deal that were still Brexit but they were voted down by Tory MPs. There are few material differences between what May offered and the current deal. To pretend that the only reason Remainers refused May's deal was because they wanted a 2nd referendum is a fanciful rewriting of history. We were all there and remember what happened!
They couldn't decide what they wanted. They opposed BREXIT, but couldn't come up with anything other than.. eventual BREXIT.
If they had actually tried something, they would've earned more respect in the country at large, and maybe even swung thing their way.
The May deal was substantially different to the current circumstances.
They put forward several alternatives all of which were voted down thanks to the Tory party. We're you on holiday when that happened, or smoking crack or something?
So, I don't know about you lot, but I've emailed WIlliam Hill to ask them to add Merkel to the list. I reckon there's a good chance that she might actually be the first G20 leader to leave her post, and I didn't want them to forget her.
So, I don't know about you lot, but I've emailed WIlliam Hill to ask them to add Merkel to the list. I reckon there's a good chance that she might actually be the first G20 leader to leave her post, and I didn't want them to forget her.
She would lengthen the odd on Trudeau as well making it a good value bet IMO.
""In 2004 Labour had made a seminal decision that would both contribute towards it losing its heartlands and propel the UK out of the EU. When ten eastern European countries (the “A10”) joined the EU that year, the government chose not to impose seven years of “transitional controls” on the free movement of labour, despite every other major European economy doing so.
“We didn’t because we thought the numbers were going to be tiny,” says Ed Balls, Gordon Brown’s lead adviser in the Treasury at the time. “Migration is really good for our economy and our society,” he adds. “I think most people support it, as long as it’s managed and run in a fair way. We didn’t help people prepare for it.” Blair and the Foreign Office saw a diplomatic benefit in backing open borders, while the Home Office predicted between 5,000 and 13,000 arrivals per year in the decade after accession. That estimate was off by an order of magnitude: five years later, more than 800,000 A10 workers had emigrated to Britain.""
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
The point here though, is those who opposed it are not willing to admit they got it wrong by gambling on getting a second referendum, at the expense of a harder Brexit, rather than accepting the formality of a Leave win meaning the PMs deal with the EU being nodded through.
May's brexit deal was still Brexit. No point arguing over the texture of a turd.
The difference between May's minimal Brexit and the current situation is enormous.
The problem is that that those who opposed Brexit were not willing to admit that they really opposed Brexit and wanted a second referendum. Instead they wanted to vote down *everything* and hope that something would turn up. Despite there being no realistic prospect of "something".
Parliament voted on softer alternatives to May's deal that were still Brexit but they were voted down by Tory MPs. There are few material differences between what May offered and the current deal. To pretend that the only reason Remainers refused May's deal was because they wanted a 2nd referendum is a fanciful rewriting of history. We were all there and remember what happened!
They couldn't decide what they wanted. They opposed BREXIT, but couldn't come up with anything other than.. eventual BREXIT.
If they had actually tried something, they would've earned more respect in the country at large, and maybe even swung thing their way.
The May deal was substantially different to the current circumstances.
They put forward several alternatives all of which were voted down thanks to the Tory party. We're you on holiday when that happened, or smoking crack or something?
The alternatives that were presented were (seemingly) designed to be voted down. Dribbling a ball at Viv Richards is not really bowling to win.....
The problem was that instead of simply opposing BREXIT, the remain mps (from all parties) were trying all kinds of clever manoeuvres.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
There are two arguments against Roe v Wade
1. It is badly argued as a matter of law. 2. This is something which should be decided democratically.
On 2 this is how we do things here. But the US is different. So the Supreme Court is entitled to rule. On 1 I'm aware of these arguments. It is the same as happened with equal rights for black people - the change from Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education.
I do not know enough about the legal arguments to comment on whether Roe v Wade is good law or whether it should have been made on a different basis. But the problem now is that Texas has passed a law which makes abortion unobtainable, which does so in a way which is hugely intrusive and horrible (see the Unherd article posted earlier) and which they have sought to make proof against any sort of challenge or review. Regardless of your views on abortion, this last point is very worrying indeed and has implications far beyond Texas.
It was made democratically, by a pro life Republican governor and a pro life Republican legislature.
How can you call yourself "pro-life" when the "God" you believe in and, presumably, worship is the biggest single practitioner of abortion on the planet?
Just that "He" refers to it as "miscarriage"...
That logic makes God the murderer of everyone who dies, doesn't it?
See @HYUFD below. "Only God has the power to decide when human life ends." So. Yes. Very much so.
Yes but God also offers us all eternal life with him too which more than makes up for it
""In 2004 Labour had made a seminal decision that would both contribute towards it losing its heartlands and propel the UK out of the EU. When ten eastern European countries (the “A10”) joined the EU that year, the government chose not to impose seven years of “transitional controls” on the free movement of labour, despite every other major European economy doing so.
“We didn’t because we thought the numbers were going to be tiny,” says Ed Balls, Gordon Brown’s lead adviser in the Treasury at the time. “Migration is really good for our economy and our society,” he adds. “I think most people support it, as long as it’s managed and run in a fair way. We didn’t help people prepare for it.” Blair and the Foreign Office saw a diplomatic benefit in backing open borders, while the Home Office predicted between 5,000 and 13,000 arrivals per year in the decade after accession. That estimate was off by an order of magnitude: five years later, more than 800,000 A10 workers had emigrated to Britain.""
And that 800k was almost certainly a substantial under estimate as shown by the 6m applications for leave to remain. The truth is we simply had no idea, mainly because governments of the day, of any stripe, simply did not want to know.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
There are two arguments against Roe v Wade
1. It is badly argued as a matter of law. 2. This is something which should be decided democratically.
On 2 this is how we do things here. But the US is different. So the Supreme Court is entitled to rule. On 1 I'm aware of these arguments. It is the same as happened with equal rights for black people - the change from Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education.
I do not know enough about the legal arguments to comment on whether Roe v Wade is good law or whether it should have been made on a different basis. But the problem now is that Texas has passed a law which makes abortion unobtainable, which does so in a way which is hugely intrusive and horrible (see the Unherd article posted earlier) and which they have sought to make proof against any sort of challenge or review. Regardless of your views on abortion, this last point is very worrying indeed and has implications far beyond Texas.
It was made democratically, by a pro life Republican governor and a pro life Republican legislature.
How can you call yourself "pro-life" when the "God" you believe in and, presumably, worship is the biggest single practitioner of abortion on the planet?
Just that "He" refers to it as "miscarriage"...
Miscarriage is not the intentional ending of life by another human being and not all pro lifers are religious (though of course if you are you believe a miscarried baby would enter eternal life with the Lord anyway but only God has the power to decide when human life ends).
There are also people who are religious but pro choice eg Betty Ford was Episcopalian but also pro choice
It does make a nonsense of the belief that life begins at conception.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
There are two arguments against Roe v Wade
1. It is badly argued as a matter of law. 2. This is something which should be decided democratically.
On 2 this is how we do things here. But the US is different. So the Supreme Court is entitled to rule. On 1 I'm aware of these arguments. It is the same as happened with equal rights for black people - the change from Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education.
I do not know enough about the legal arguments to comment on whether Roe v Wade is good law or whether it should have been made on a different basis. But the problem now is that Texas has passed a law which makes abortion unobtainable, which does so in a way which is hugely intrusive and horrible (see the Unherd article posted earlier) and which they have sought to make proof against any sort of challenge or review. Regardless of your views on abortion, this last point is very worrying indeed and has implications far beyond Texas.
It was made democratically, by a pro life Republican governor and a pro life Republican legislature.
How can you call yourself "pro-life" when the "God" you believe in and, presumably, worship is the biggest single practitioner of abortion on the planet?
Just that "He" refers to it as "miscarriage"...
That logic makes God the murderer of everyone who dies, doesn't it?
Quite amusing watching people apparently struck by the force of such a flimsy (and I presume not intended seriously) argument
Interesting paper which relates to boosters (published yesterday).
Reactogenicity and immunogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in the UK: a substudy of two randomised controlled trials https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01699-8/fulltext ...An extended interval before the second dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 leads to increased antibody titres. A third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induces antibodies to a level that correlates with high efficacy after second dose and boosts T-cell responses....
I think what we're learning slowly is that vaccination may actually require three doses with a long gap between doses two and three. It means that the world now needs to manufacture 18bn vaccine doses rather than 12bn. We're up to 4bn at last count so quite a long way to go.
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
One of the bits of gallows humour in science is that duff theories only die out when their proponents do. And that's in science- not perfect, but consciously set up to remind practitioners that knowledge is imperfect and provisional, that we should never take anyone's word for it.
Brexiteers will die off first, so die later remainers will get to write the history.
Remainers will become Remain out-ers as they grow up.
We still get that tired old argument - it explains why the Tories never recovered after the Repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846...oh...wait.. they did!
So, I don't know about you lot, but I've emailed WIlliam Hill to ask them to add Merkel to the list. I reckon there's a good chance that she might actually be the first G20 leader to leave her post, and I didn't want them to forget her.
She would lengthen the odd on Trudeau as well making it a good value bet IMO.
Isn't Canada 6 days before Germany? Results will be slower than usual due to pandemic postal voting. But they pretty much run to our schedule. By the next morning we know who has won or not. Either Trudeau has most seats and stays, or doesn't and goes. We ought to know that by September 21st. To run past the 26th you would need a very, very close result, likely, and multiple recounts/litigation. Very unlikely.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
There are two arguments against Roe v Wade
1. It is badly argued as a matter of law. 2. This is something which should be decided democratically.
On 2 this is how we do things here. But the US is different. So the Supreme Court is entitled to rule. On 1 I'm aware of these arguments. It is the same as happened with equal rights for black people - the change from Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education.
I do not know enough about the legal arguments to comment on whether Roe v Wade is good law or whether it should have been made on a different basis. But the problem now is that Texas has passed a law which makes abortion unobtainable, which does so in a way which is hugely intrusive and horrible (see the Unherd article posted earlier) and which they have sought to make proof against any sort of challenge or review. Regardless of your views on abortion, this last point is very worrying indeed and has implications far beyond Texas.
It was made democratically, by a pro life Republican governor and a pro life Republican legislature.
How can you call yourself "pro-life" when the "God" you believe in and, presumably, worship is the biggest single practitioner of abortion on the planet?
Just that "He" refers to it as "miscarriage"...
That logic makes God the murderer of everyone who dies, doesn't it?
See @HYUFD below. "Only God has the power to decide when human life ends." So. Yes. Very much so.
Yes but God also offers us all eternal life with him too which more than makes up for it
The sweeties later theory; children being murdered in death camps is ok because they will have ponies and stuff in heaven, (unless they don't get in because they are Jewish). Psychopathic.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
There are two arguments against Roe v Wade
1. It is badly argued as a matter of law. 2. This is something which should be decided democratically.
On 2 this is how we do things here. But the US is different. So the Supreme Court is entitled to rule. On 1 I'm aware of these arguments. It is the same as happened with equal rights for black people - the change from Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education.
I do not know enough about the legal arguments to comment on whether Roe v Wade is good law or whether it should have been made on a different basis. But the problem now is that Texas has passed a law which makes abortion unobtainable, which does so in a way which is hugely intrusive and horrible (see the Unherd article posted earlier) and which they have sought to make proof against any sort of challenge or review. Regardless of your views on abortion, this last point is very worrying indeed and has implications far beyond Texas.
It was made democratically, by a pro life Republican governor and a pro life Republican legislature.
How can you call yourself "pro-life" when the "God" you believe in and, presumably, worship is the biggest single practitioner of abortion on the planet?
Just that "He" refers to it as "miscarriage"...
That logic makes God the murderer of everyone who dies, doesn't it?
See @HYUFD below. "Only God has the power to decide when human life ends." So. Yes. Very much so.
Yes but God also offers us all eternal life with him too which more than makes up for it
The sweeties later theory; children being murdered in death camps is ok because they will have ponies and stuff in heaven, (unless they don't get in because they are Jewish). Psychopathic.
No, humans have responsibility for their own lives and how they live them and have done since the Fall. They get judged on how they live them at the Day of Judgement.
So in that case the Nazis would end up in hell (certainly until they repented and accepted God) the murdered children would end up in heaven
So, I don't know about you lot, but I've emailed WIlliam Hill to ask them to add Merkel to the list. I reckon there's a good chance that she might actually be the first G20 leader to leave her post, and I didn't want them to forget her.
She would lengthen the odd on Trudeau as well making it a good value bet IMO.
Isn't Canada 6 days before Germany? Results will be slower than usual due to pandemic postal voting. But they pretty much run to our schedule. By the next morning we know who has won or not. Either Trudeau has most seats and stays, or doesn't and goes. We ought to know that by September 21st. To run past the 26th you would need a very, very close result, likely, and multiple recounts/litigation. Very unlikely.
The latest seat estimate has less than 10 seats in it, by contrast in 2019 the Liberals won 36 more seats than the Conservatives despite the Conservatives winning the popular vote.
It is forecast to be the closest Canadian election since 1972 when Pierre Trudeau's Liberals won just 2 more seats than Robert Stanfield's Progressive Conservatives, 109 to 107
Interesting paper which relates to boosters (published yesterday).
Reactogenicity and immunogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in the UK: a substudy of two randomised controlled trials https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01699-8/fulltext ...An extended interval before the second dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 leads to increased antibody titres. A third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induces antibodies to a level that correlates with high efficacy after second dose and boosts T-cell responses....
I think what we're learning slowly is that vaccination may actually require three doses with a long gap between doses two and three. It means that the world now needs to manufacture 18bn vaccine doses rather than 12bn. We're up to 4bn at last count so quite a long way to go.
The last predicted number for production of approved vaccines by the end of 2021 was 16 billion.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
There are two arguments against Roe v Wade
1. It is badly argued as a matter of law. 2. This is something which should be decided democratically.
On 2 this is how we do things here. But the US is different. So the Supreme Court is entitled to rule. On 1 I'm aware of these arguments. It is the same as happened with equal rights for black people - the change from Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education.
I do not know enough about the legal arguments to comment on whether Roe v Wade is good law or whether it should have been made on a different basis. But the problem now is that Texas has passed a law which makes abortion unobtainable, which does so in a way which is hugely intrusive and horrible (see the Unherd article posted earlier) and which they have sought to make proof against any sort of challenge or review. Regardless of your views on abortion, this last point is very worrying indeed and has implications far beyond Texas.
It was made democratically, by a pro life Republican governor and a pro life Republican legislature.
How can you call yourself "pro-life" when the "God" you believe in and, presumably, worship is the biggest single practitioner of abortion on the planet?
Just that "He" refers to it as "miscarriage"...
That logic makes God the murderer of everyone who dies, doesn't it?
You catch on well, my friend!
As Vin Diesel so eloquently put it in "Pitch Black".
"You got it all wrong, Holy Man. I absolutely believe in God. And I absolutely hate the f*cker!"
Comments
What you are missing is that the whole point about the Texas law is that it is designed to prevent the Supreme Court having a say. That is why it is so objectionable as a matter or law, regardless of the subject matter. It undermines the existence of the Constitution. And if Texas does this for abortion then other states can do it for the right to bear arms, regardless of what the Constitution says. If you prevent challenge then you prevent challenge and any Constitutional rights can be nullified by a simple state law. That's what Texas lawmakers have done. And it will apply to rights under the 14th amendment just as much as to Wade v Roe.
The right may cheer them on now. But they will find that such a development will affect them just as well. It will serve them right. In the meanwhile women will suffer.
I doubt it?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
https://twitter.com/asfarasdelgados/status/1390557137571663872?s=21
1. It is badly argued as a matter of law.
2. This is something which should be decided democratically.
On 2 this is how we do things here. But the US is different. So the Supreme Court is entitled to rule.
On 1 I'm aware of these arguments. It is the same as happened with equal rights for black people - the change from Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education.
I do not know enough about the legal arguments to comment on whether Roe v Wade is good law or whether it should have been made on a different basis. But the problem now is that Texas has passed a law which makes abortion unobtainable, which does so in a way which is hugely intrusive and horrible (see the Unherd article posted earlier) and which they have sought to make proof against any sort of challenge or review. Regardless of your views on abortion, this last point is very worrying indeed and has implications far beyond Texas.
O'Toole's Conservatives will win most seats across Canada excluding Quebec.
It would be the first time French Canada has made the difference in a Canadian election since Trudeau's father Pierre's narrow Liberal victory over Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives in 1980
Mr Raab being readied for the barbecue?
'Wallace also contrasted the Ministry of Defence’s handling of the evacuation crisis with the FCDO. Over the weekend, it emerged that officials from Dominic Raab’s department had failed to read thousands of emails from MPs and charities detailing urgent cases of Afghans trying to escape from Kabul.
But the defence secretary argued the MoD was on top of its own cases, largely a well-defined group of Afghan interpreters and their families, about 1,000 of whom remain trapped in the country after the RAF airlift ended over the weekend.
“All of us have big email inboxes, we have already analysed ours, we’ve sent defence intelligence analysts around Whitehall to help deal with that,” Wallace said.'
At the risk of throwing in the proverbial hand grenade, does the right to abortion have the same moral force as equal rights for black people? Arguably, no. The latter was always difficult to defend logically even by its most fervent defenders because it went against one of the core principles of the Judeo-Christian principles which underpin the US, namely all people are equal under God. Abortion is more tricky because there is no defined point at which "life" is deemed to start.
I think it is pushing it very hard trying to define Gordon Brown as a model of financial rectitude.
They completely forget to mention the £70bn (?) or so Brown under PFI borrowed from future generations of taxpayers and future budgets, which was I think off-balance-sheet, at a cost of around £300bn to be paid over terms of up to 60 years.
I bet a "New York gun control (bounty)" law would be stayed by the SCOTUS PDQ, since the SC has just decided that it does not need to follow its own precedents.
We were playing a junior role to the USA from 1942 onwards, and arguably 1940 since that's when we started to go to them with a begging bowl.
As I posted earlier 52% of voters in the US South (which includes Texas) want abortion to be made illegal even if 54% of US adults overall want to keep abortion legal.
The SC has just upheld the right of elected Texan lawmakers to restrict abortion in their state
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/nbc-news-poll-shows-nation-s-demographic-divides-abortion-n1278210
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/g-xatw#2900647a
*insular, imperious, idle, irascible and ignorant
Now you may say that you believe its inferred from the second. Just as abortion is from the 14th.
Kohli out for 50.
Brilliant bowling.
But it would make very clear how the majority of the court is now operating, maybe even to those like HYUFD with their fingers in their ears.
- "Dinosaurs eat man... Woman inherits the earth.”
His latest piece in UnHerd.
https://unherd.com/2021/09/life-is-one-big-status-game
After all, Churchill persuaded the US to allow the French back into Vietnam as colonial occupiers after the war (with predictably disastrous results), so empires were still (just) up for grabs for a few post-war years.
Just that "He" refers to it as "miscarriage"...
https://www.propublica.org/article/heeding-steve-bannons-call-election-deniers-organize-to-seize-control-of-the-gop-and-reshape-americas-elections
If its not worth arguing over then why not just pass the deal and find things that are worth arguing over?
It would mean the US would become looser and more respecting of states' rights
The problem is that that those who opposed Brexit were not willing to admit that they really opposed Brexit and wanted a second referendum. Instead they wanted to vote down *everything* and hope that something would turn up. Despite there being no realistic prospect of "something".
A much better idea would be to put him in as replacement Foreign Sec for the useless Raab.
There are also people who are religious but pro choice eg Betty Ford was Episcopalian but also pro choice
If we were in May's deal then due to the backstop we would be in the Single Market and Customs Union right now.
How is that not a material difference? There were fewer material differences between May's deal and Remaining in the EU.
The most likely way to do it would be to a "senior" status for SCOTUS justices (SCOTii?) akin to that available for federal circuit judges. Circuit judges can opt to take this status once they're 65. They are deemed to have vacated their bench seat, but they still get a salary (which should satisfy the lifetime tenure part) and can perform various duties if they want. Apparently this is technically the way the SCOTUS justices take retirement, so the idea would be to simply (ha!) make it compulsory after say twenty years on the bench.
The other that's been most floated is that the Constitution does not specifically say that SCOTUS gets to rule on the constitutionality of legislation or executive action. The Constitution says: So Congress certainly has the power to make regulations that says SCOTUS doesn't get to rule on constitutionality, and create a wholly new constitutional court to do so.
Of course with a razor-thin 50+VP/50 majority in the Senate, and the likes of Simena and Manchin never countenancing such reforms, both options are moot.
The entire US Constitution badly needs an update.
Anyway along with the multiple nuggets of examples of idiotic spending such as the Italian cashmere goats was that they gave the head of the afghan army the choice over the camouflage uniforms for some reason and he liked and chose a forest green uniform - not only was only 4% of Afghanistan anything like that colour but the US military didn’t own the rights to that pattern so were having to pay 35% extra for each uniform.
Absolutely mental. The series is excellent though it takes you from the chilling memories of 9/11 to fury over the bullshit of invading Iraq and then incredulity at Afghanistan.....
Consistency isn't a virtue if you are consistently wrong.
So. Yes. Very much so.
If they had actually tried something, they would've earned more respect in the country at large, and maybe even swung thing their way.
The May deal was substantially different to the current circumstances.
Johnson's deal is essentially May's deal with NI kept in the single market and much better PR.
""In 2004 Labour had made a seminal decision that would both contribute towards it losing its heartlands and propel the UK out of the EU. When ten eastern European countries (the “A10”) joined the EU that year, the government chose not to impose seven years of “transitional controls” on the free movement of labour, despite every other major European economy doing so.
“We didn’t because we thought the numbers were going to be tiny,” says Ed Balls, Gordon Brown’s lead adviser in the Treasury at the time. “Migration is really good for our economy and our society,” he adds. “I think most people support it, as long as it’s managed and run in a fair way. We didn’t help people prepare for it.” Blair and the Foreign Office saw a diplomatic benefit in backing open borders, while the Home Office predicted between 5,000 and 13,000 arrivals per year in the decade after accession. That estimate was off by an order of magnitude: five years later, more than 800,000 A10 workers had emigrated to Britain.""
The problem was that instead of simply opposing BREXIT, the remain mps (from all parties) were trying all kinds of clever manoeuvres.
Either Trudeau has most seats and stays, or doesn't and goes. We ought to know that by September 21st.
To run past the 26th you would need a very, very close result, likely, and multiple recounts/litigation. Very unlikely.
So in that case the Nazis would end up in hell (certainly until they repented and accepted God) the murdered children would end up in heaven
It is forecast to be the closest Canadian election since 1972 when Pierre Trudeau's Liberals won just 2 more seats than Robert Stanfield's Progressive Conservatives, 109 to 107
https://globalcommissionforpostpandemicpolicy.org/covid-19-vaccine-production-to-july-31st-2021/
As Vin Diesel so eloquently put it in "Pitch Black".
"You got it all wrong, Holy Man. I absolutely believe in God. And I absolutely hate the f*cker!"