Presumably the issue must be too many children? If that is reduced then deaths by gunfire in children will reduce? I’m not sure what sane person would deduce any other conclusion.
Oh, just thought of another, if kids were allowed guns that would presumably also reduce deaths?
That’s it. Not enough guns. More kids need more guns. That way they can defend themselves against people who dont have guns
Gun use needs to be taught before kids start school so some students aren’t falling behind on gun use skills which they will need in the new US economy. Neonatal classes should involve mandatory training on how to teach your newborn to use and reload a handgun (primary school assumed knowledge) and semiautomatic (middle school assumed knowledge). An aid scheme could be run to ensure disadvantaged students still have a basic daily ammo allowance and teachers encouraged to retain a stock of old weapons for any students who lose/forget their piece.
Only white students though. Black and other minority kids (defined at the discretion of the school) will not be allowed them, and no explanation for this rule, or on the specific decisions, will be provided because that would be CRT.
I’d have thought that a good exposure to Arnie’s film Commando, the A-team and a few other similar education pieces while in the womb is also a good idea.
The fact that Sinema has been accused of using her cleavage to distract men in the GOP comes just one week after Angela Rayner was accused of using her legs to distract Boris Johnson is surely not a coincedence.
Those assurances that Kavanagh , Coney Barrett and Gorsuch gave Senators at their confirmation hearings were lies then.
Whoever would have imagined such a thing ?
Biden should appoint another 15 supreme Court justices with Warren style leanings. The Republicans have politicised and cheated the court appointment process to such an extent that doing something ‘outrageous’ like this is the only way to bring the judicial arm of government back towards being functional. Democrats need to realise they are fighting an existential threat to democracy if they don’t change things.
He couldn’t though even if he wanted to. Manchin and Sinema will make sure of that.
The one advantage of the UK right is that it isn’t owned by the church. This is really bad for society. I thought the DOI specifically said that the church should keep out of politics? Separation of church and state and all that.
Supreme Court has no interest in law, only in their own religious beliefs.
Turned the clock back 50 years with the flick of a pen.
I think this gets the cause and effect wrong and treats the current religious opposition to abortion as if it was a historical constant. The reality is Roe vs Wade was a remarkably uncontroversial ruling the majority of the country supported and was a position the politically important parts of the church were already ahead of. In terms of religion it was really only the catholic church that opposed it, but they are never what is meant when talking about “the church” in this country.
Abortion only became an issue the “church” opposed, when the american right needed an issue they could use to rally the church’s support to their cause. Previously, the religious vote had been a reliable Republican vote on the grounds of supporting school segregation. By the late 70s the GOP realized that was a losing fight and needed to drop it, and so lost that vote to Carter in 76. They felt finding an issue to get them back on side was the key to taking back the country and so went searching for a new moral crusade they could use to justify demanding the religious vote stayed with them. This is where the anti-abortion movement came from and it literally created an issue out of thin air, turning a group around on an issue on a dime. You ended up with guys like Regan using abortion as a pillar of his Moral Majority platform despite only very recently prior enacting one of the most liberal abortion rights laws in the country as governor of CA.
It might sound ridiculous to think a person, or a group can be turned on a dime on an issue to go from being completely ok with it to making it the prime issue for a voter, but we see evidence of this on Fox everyday. One day they are free speech absolutist, the very next day they are calling for prosecution of whomever leaked this document.
They’re coming for contraception next.
Just listening to the Opening Arguments podcast. They make the argument that using the logic of this decison you can easily reapply it to things like inter-racial marriage.
Basically the decision said that if it is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights then it is not a right.
Noel Feldman did a good series a year or so on the Federalist Society on his Deep Background Podcast. Despite him very unambiguously positioning their foundational myth as a lie (academia is biased against conservative legal thought) he really tried to give them a fair shake, letting key leaders in the movement tell their story in their own words. But even with that fair of a treatment it was clear how incoherent the legal theories (judicial philosophy?) is. There is an inherent contradiction in apply both originalism (what it says) and contextualism (what you can infer they thought they were writing at the time) which allows them to rule whatever way they want and hold their hands up and claim it is just the result of non-biased application of judicial philosophy. I dont think there is a more clear example of this that that part of Alito’s opinion.
If the Supreme Court rules against abortion it won’t eradicate it. It will just kick it to the individual states. The situation will then be states will divide, red and blue, and abortion will likely be outlawed in red states, while in blue states it will be legal.
The challenge for someone with an unwanted pregnancy will be getting to a provider across state lines, and obviously the challenge will be more difficult if they are poor. In many ways, it is not dissimilar to the existing challenge, where access to abortion is increasingly difficult in red states.
If this all happens, I expect a political fuss, possibly a Democrat backlash - but they are stymied by their own Senators and don’t have a true majority there, but when the dust begins to settle I expect that ultimately the ‘market’ will decide (that’s probably the wrong term) but by that, I am saying where there is a will, there will be a way.
We are one Senate seat away from a nationwide ban on abortion.
A federal nation wide ban, not a states ban.
My contention is when this is done, there will be red states where you can’t get an abortion, and blue states where you can.
If you are in Florida you would have to get to either West Virginia or New mexico before you could find a state that would legally perform your abortion (including the states with 6/8 week bans as being defacto bans), and with some of the newer laws you might still find yourself being prosecuted for going through a state en route to getting an abortion.
The whole “this doesn’t outlaw it” argument is the present day “they’re both as bad as each other”.
Alternately, if the power is devolved from the federal level to the State, Florida could decide to keep abortion itself, if enough people in the state wanted it and voted for it.