GeorgiaDon

Then they can answer that for themselves. They should have no right to impose that answer on anyone else.

During oral arguments regarding the Mississippi abortion law at the SC, Justice Barrett suggested abolishing abortion wouldn't be a big deal because women could take advantage of "safe haven" laws and drop unwanted babies at fire stations, hospitals, etc. I suggest that women drop their babies at the Supreme Court, if possible with a note to have them "delivered" to Barrett. Maybe after the court has to deal with a few hundreds of thousands of babies they will start to realize the mess they have made.

It's worth remembering that the only really consistent Trump policy was to cancel every program, treaty, policy, or law from the Obama administration, and replace it with nothing. He cancelled the CDC's collaboration with the Chinese to monitor for emerging viruses, with the result that we were unaware of the Covid outbreak for months. He ignored the national pandemic response plan that was developed after the H1N1 outbreak, and failed to develop any national plan of his own. He went so far as to tell states they had to order their own PPE, setting up a scenario where states had to bid against each other and drive up the price, then he seized shipments destined for blue states and sent them to states whose governors sucked up to him. It's true he did allow the government to fund fast-tracked vaccine development (though that was a "no-brainer") but then he failed to develop any sort of a plan to distribute the vaccines, and blocked the incoming Biden administration from getting the information they needed to develop their own plan. Apart from Covid, he cancelled the program for dealing with black lung disease, and replaced it with nothing. He withdrew the US from the WHO, leaving us with no mechanism for collaborating with other countries to deal with a world-wide pandemic. He withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and replaced it with nothing, with the result that Iran stopped abiding by the deal and is now closer to a nuclear weapon than the have ever been. I could go on and on and on. Hatred of Obama is not a substitute for a national policy on anything. Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result, and people will be worse off for a long time because of Trump's obsession with erasing Obama from history.

"Interesting" that you ignore fentanyl deaths while Trump was in office: (source) Pop quiz: who was president in 2017-2020? It seems to me that the current fentanyl crisis has a lot to do with the Trump administration failing spectacularly to do anything about it, letting it grow unchecked. Just like they failed to address the Covid crisis. Too busy building useless walls I guess. But no, it must all be Biden's fault. That's the ticket! At least the "base" will buy that, and that's all that really matters to some people.

What is stupid is making health insurance a "perk" offered through the workplace, and sometimes only to management. In the civilized world health insurance is universal. One consequence of that is that businesses are not burdened with having to pay for insurance for any of their work force.

It's not a coincidence I think that the rights Thomas targeted for "correction," are the ones the Catholic church opposes.

I hope that all the states so eager to ban abortion will be every bit as vigorous about compelling the fathers to bear their share of the costs of caring for the kids they generate. No getting out of it by declaring bankruptcy either.

The basic problem here (as I see it) is the in the absence of actual laws, passed by Congress, the SC can interpret the Constitution as it wishes. It can recognize a right one day and take it away the next. Rather than wasting time trying to remove people from the court, which is realistically not going to happen, they should work to codify rights in the law and if necessary in constitutional amendments. That work will certainly be a long term project, but it should be possible if the rights have broad public support.

Selling contraceptives, providing information about contraception, and even discussion about contraception used to be illegal in the US under the Comstock Act, passed in 1873. Although this law was invalidated by Griswold v Connecticut (1965) it will become active again if Thomas gets his way and Griswold is overturned. It will require new legislation specifically removing Comstock, and that will likely be opposed by conservatives. At the federal level new legislation to restore privacy rights will have to overcome the filibuster which may be a challenge. This reflects a more general problem: old laws that are invalidated by SC decisions are generally not removed from the law books, they just become zombie laws that can't be enforced. If the SC ruling is later overturned the zombie law springs back to life. Some states had abortion ban laws before Roe v Wade and these are now in full effect even if the state no longer supports enforcement, which gives an avenue for conservatives to push their agenda even in some blue states.

If religious schools must be publicly funded, I wonder if that means they will also be bound by the state curriculum and employment rules? Will they be required to teach about evolution, and not (or not just) the Book of Genesis? If they accept public funds, can they still teach hatred towards LGBTQ people, or refuse to hire teachers based on their sexual orientation? I foresee further cases making it to the SC. I also expect (given the leaning of this court) that any effort to require schools to teach actual science, or to avoid teaching hate, will be struck down as infringing on "religious liberty". In the eyes of this court "religious liberty" means evangelical Christians are protected from having their feelings hurt, which means everyone else will have to abide by evangelical Christian rules regardless of their own beliefs.

I'd throw the primary system into the mix. That ensures the extremists (in both parties) control who gets to run for election. Combined with gerrymandering, the primary system ensures that its mostly the loonies that get to run the show.

I'd suggest taxing windfall profits to encourage investment in refineries, and to encourage oil companies to invest in green energy alternatives.

When female skydivers are arrested and charged with child endangerment for skydiving while pregnant, will that be enough to get male skydivers concerned about the issue? Once a fetus is legally recognized as a person, all sorts of activities with even a small element of risk will potentially become felonies. Women will be held hostage by their biological status as incubators.

"I could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and [ strikethrough ]shoot somebody[ /strikethrough ] smash my wife's head in with a flower pot, and not lose any voters."

I agree with all this. I remember years ago when same sex marriage was being discussed here in speakers corner, someone pointed out that the Scandanavian countries include marriage under contract law. That seemed like a great approach that highlights the distinction between the legal and the religious aspects of marriage. Unfortunately in the US people seem to be mostly unable to see the distinction, so they interpret same sex marriage as an attack on their religious beliefs.

I believe I said in the first sentence of my post that I expect attacks on same sex marriage to begin as soon as the SC issue their ruling. Why are you responding to my comment on interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia) and contraception (Griswold v Connecticut) by discussing Obergefell, which concerned same-sex marriage?

I fully expect a legislative attack on gay rights, including same-sex marriage, to follow in some especially conservative states. Alito and Thomas have already signaled that they believe those cases were wrongly decided, and all but invited new challenges so they can get another bite at the apple. I doubt that any state legislatures will risk a direct attack on interracial marriage, or on access to contraception. That does not mean those things are in any way safe, though. All it would take would be some conservative entity to file a lawsuit and then (if/when they lose) appeal it all the way to the SC. Having already decided that there is no constitutional right to "privacy" (assuming this draft opinion makes it largely intact into the final ruling) there would be no basis left to rule that people have any right to interracial marriage or contraception. Given that, and the current mood to throw everything back to the states to pass legislation, the SC could very well end up overruling Loving v Virginia and Griswold v Connecticut. We could see sodomy laws and criminalization of gay sex being revived as well. All it would take would be someone willing to initiate a lawsuit. Of course that someone would have to establish standing, but if the SC continues its current path of extending religious freedom to include the freedom to never be offended by other people rejecting your religious preferences then standing might not be an obstacle.

Mob rule? Like the Jan 6 attack on Congress that "Law and Order Mitch" doesn't even consider to be worth investigating? Just a bunch of over-enthusiastic tourists I suppose. But a head's-up regarding a giant step backwards to the 1950s, that's "mob rule"? What mob? Anyone report a mob sacking the Supreme Court? Funny that all the MSM missed that.

People should not assume this will stop with abortion. The conservative movement has long been hostile to the notion of privacy, and to the notion of federal power. Alito and Thomas have both engaged in a "game" of telegraphing their next target when writing dissents, and so they guide conservative activists about where to direct their legal challenges. The court can only act when a case is brought before them. We can expect attacks on same sex marriage and other cases related to LGBTQ rights, possibly interracial marriage, and contraception. Just as concerning in a way, we can expect the court to be quite hostile towards the environment, laws regulating businesses, consumer protections, etc. I was taught that the Constitution functions to limit the power of the federal government. It is not a list of the people's rights. However this court seems to take the opposite view; if a right is not explicitly in the Constitution it doesn't exist. It's terrifying how many rights and freedoms are potentially on the chopping block with this court.

Odd that you're so fearful of an EV bus fire, yet you're almost orgasmic over the dumpster fire Trump had going in the White House.

The high cost of a university education is a direct result of states shrinking their support, which was a consequence of the political lie that you could cut taxes over and over and not cut services. As state support decreased, the shortfall had to be made up in increased tuition. Also tuition is just a piece of the puzzle, as a student you also have to come up with money for books, computers, supplies, rent, food, transportation, etc. None of the costs of just living are suspended while you are in school. Getting an education beyond high school is an investment, but like all investments there is no guarantee of a big profit. Many careers are highly competitive, not everyone who earns a degree turns that degree into a high-paying job. Nevertheless, if you are passionate about making a career in a particular field that requires an advanced education, you cannot even compete unless you have made that investment, which means taking on that debt just to have a shot. The alternative is to give up your passion and not take the risk. Just settle for stocking shelves at Joe's Auto Parts or something. I think that as a society we would be better off if access to careers could be determined by commitment and willingness to work hard, not by the wealth you happen to be born into or your willingness to risk soul-crushing debt. Some countries have a system where university is essentially free, but only the best students can make it through the training. That way the country benefits from having the best people in their professions, and they end up repaying the investment in their training in the form of the taxes they pay on their income.

Absolutely! If you let the proletariat get a taste of money, next thing you know they will be demanding rights!

Don't strain anything while you're doing your happy dance.

Crops are limited by temperature (both high and low), soil moisture, day length, duration of the growing season, etc. For example, the upper limit for wheat is about 35 degrees C. Climate change will impact rainfall patterns as well as temperature, so some areas that are currently suitable for a particular crop will become unsuitable as new areas become suitable. It's not a given that the tradeoff will be balanced. Also even if northern areas warm their day length will not change. No matter how warm it gets, above the arctic circle you'll still have months where the sun doesn't get above the horizon and lots of very short days in the spring/fall resulting in a too-short growing season. I don't really understand the perspective that says that changing our energy economy is too much bother, and we will probably be OK for my lifetime, so we'll just carry on and hope people 100 years from now can work it out. If not, it's not my problem.