bostonbananarama @ bostonbananarama @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

385

Joined

2 yr. ago

They've done studies on this using an FMRI. They ask people what God thinks about things and the part of the brain that lights up is the same as when they're asked what they think themselves. A different area lights up when they're asked about what other people think.

You're not wrong. No one wants to hear it, but Roe was reasoned terribly. They attempted to appease everyone by protecting abortion but setting limits.

While laws are a better avenue, I do not believe Congress has the authority to regulate abortion. From where does the authority arise, interstate commerce?

The Supreme Court could have ruled that the most basic and fundamental right, which is woven throughout the constitution, is a right to bodily autonomy. The idea of controlling one's own body is supported by a host of amendments. Incorporate the right with the 14th and abortion is protected everywhere.

I assume it's a reference to Harvard being the richest university in the world, sitting on a roughly $51 billion dollar endowment.

Can you, and everyone else, please stop with this ridiculous argument? It honestly might be one of the stupidest things said about abortion, and that's saying something.

First, Republicans weren't passing this, so you need Democratic control of the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and the presidency. So you're down to about 70 days in the past 40 years when this could have happened.

Second, where does Congress get the authority to regulate abortion? Interstate Commerce? How are you circumventing the 10th amendment?

Lastly, why wouldn't SCOTUS strike down this law when they overturned Roe? So they are willing to strike 50 years of judicial precedent, but not an act of Congress?

Your argument doesn't make sense and you're blaming the wrong people.

Set intermediate and long term goals. Have the absolutely best, most amazing time you can have while not sacrificing those goals.

This was filed as a class action, with the class being all Floridians that purchased these. If you're at all familiar with class action lawsuits, they hugely benefit the lawyers, minimally benefit the named plaintiff, and barely provide anything to the class at large.

So an attorney may take it, assuming the believe they can get the class certified. I don't do that type of work, so I don't know too much about it.

Also, contingency cases are possible against large companies based on nuisance value, essentially it's cheaper to pay you $15k to go away then to litigate for a large company.

Cons: It will never work in practice because human nature is a thing.

This exact reason is why capitalism will never work. Human nature will look to exploit.

My favorite Wayfair story is when I ordered an entertainment cabinet. The majority was brown, but the doors were white. One box comes in, packed tightly, it's obvious that nothing is missing from the box, but I have no white pieces. Missing the doors plus all the hardware to put it together.

Contact customer service explain the problem, that I think there's supposed to be a second box. OK, we'll send another. Same thing, one box, packed tightly, same pieces missing. Call again, explain again, they send out the same thing a third time. Finally I just cancelled my order and threw all three "Box A's" into the dumpster.

There's a process, and the DC circuit is the next stop. Why didn't the liberal justices dissent? This is fairly standard.

But there isn't a time imperative here.

While I don't disagree that SCOTUS might very well get around to giving Trump a get out of jail free card, they haven't acted inappropriately yet. It isn't the normal flow for this appeal to immediately go to SCOTUS; the expected result for such an attempt is denial.

It actually hasn't, in large part. Typically generations get more conservative as they age. So far millennials have bucked that trend. Fingers crossed it continues.

If the court was not able to find a factual basis for the requested relief then they would simply deny the application/complaint. The court reviewed the facts and granted the requested relief. Why does a different court need to rule on the facts before this court can act?

Refreshing change of place? Motherfucker Thomas' opinion said they should "revisit" other cases like Lawrence. Obviously when he says "revisit" he means overturn.

So you have no sense of sarcasm?

Stop trying your manipulative, disingenuous arguments here, they mean the same as the shit fascists like DeSantis say

I'm sorry, you're too stupid to continue this. Nothing I said was manipulative or fascistic, your reading comprehension is abysmal.

And you strike me as an originalist.

Definitely not.

Kavanaugh, Barrett, and even Gorsuch all specifically said they would never vote to overturn the 50 years of precedent

Did you believe them? Never had a doubt they'd vote that way.

I've read every majority, minority, and concurring opinions from Griswold, Roe, Lawrence, Planned Parenthood v Casey, Lawrence, Windsor, Obergefell, and, of course, Dobbs.

Congrats, you and every other 1L.

Clarence Thomas' is especially mortifying.

For a refreshing change of pace?

Roe was terribly reasoned and made for bad law. In the same way Dobbs was the result of starting with a conclusion and then reasoning it, so was Roe.

A better basis for abortion access is bodily autonomy. A constitutional right to say how one's body is used is at the heart of all other rights. That's a much better foundation than privacy.

Lmfao sure bud, keep living in your fairytale world

You strike me as someone with no legal training, who has never read Dobbs, never read Roe, and doesn't have the first clue what they're talking about.

Dobbs proves my point, not yours, they are limiting unenumerated rights and returning an issue of morality and healthcare to the states. They would do the same with this statute. You don't need to agree with them, but it's true.

Are you going to base Congressional authority on a tenuous interplay of the 1st and 14th amendment and an unenumerated right to privacy? Because the court already ruled against that. Interstate Commerce? That's laughable at best.

If you want to make your point you're really going to have to state where Congress gets authority, because I assure you, SCOTUS would ask in oral arguments.

Also, Dobbs shouldn't be overturned, Roe was a terribly written decision that wasn't based on law, but tried to settle the issue by being everything to everyone. The next liberal court should rule on bodily autonomy grounds, not privacy.

Then you're left with the poor people, a bunch of incels and/or white christians fighting over the women that are left.

Did you mean to describe all of the south?

I wish that's advice I had at the time. Live and learn.

I just threw it away, I was done with it. I definitely should have tried to repair it, but my frustration with all things Vizio made that an unappealing option at the time. The others I just moved to less used areas.