Does this mean that we the People of the USA cannot overcome lobbying of the Corporate world, and no longer make changes to our Constitution to allow such regulation of business?
Just think about it from an energy use standpoint. The average citizen has very little energy they dedicate to community and social system support. This includes education, voting, lobbying etc…
This is a basic requirement for an electorate to self govern, everyone has to give input and that input should align with their well considered interests. The amount of work that takes is relatively immense for the amount of impact that people feel they have as a result.
On the other hand you have in effect every for profit entity putting as much possible energy into rent seek and increase margins for the majority owners by offloading any possible externalities of inequitable ownership or resource hoarding.
Corporate lobbies have perfectly captured the political process to the extent that nobody even questions it anymore. Including legislators.
And we all know Congress is broken. It cannot possibly make the decisions currently delegated to agencies.
It would have been overturned at any point that the reps had both the legislature and the executive. 2002-2006, and 2016-2018.
All that they care about is that they've been protected from their state governments one morning, and not protected the next.
You'll quickly discover that your state also has some hard limits on that right, they are just drawn at different points than the states that you mistakenly think don't have a right to 'self-defense'. You can defend yourself anywhere, you just can't always kill people in 'self-defense' when you have other options available to you.
(Related question: Does your state have a right to body autonomy, or is it in blatant violation of the fourth amendment?)
100% correct.
> backwards religious superstition that anything growing where a baby would is assumed to be a human baby
This is absolute bullshit. I'm an Orthodox Christian, extremely conservative, particularly on abortion, and a priest's wife I know had an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy, because it was non-viable and would have killed her. It's simply a matter of believing that the unborn are human and then acting rationally based on this belief. I wish more people could get this—rather reasonable—viewpoint through their thick skulls.
Additionally, even a fetus that seemingly will be eventually viable isn't actually viable for the first few months. From a libertarian perspective, while arguments exist that the mother has consented to this responsibility for some cases, in other cases she has not (eg rape).
(Also FWIW your example of an ectopic pregnancy example doesn't actually meet the criteria of "growing where a baby would")
Because then would-be abortants would simply find a doctor who would sign the correct paperwork. Duh.
> whether the fetus even has the right number of chromosomes.
So you support eugenics?
> From a libertarian perspective, while arguments exist that the mother has consented to this responsibility for some cases, in other cases she has not (eg rape).
Abortion, if the fetus is human, violates the non-aggression principle. From a humanist perspective, it wasn't the kid's fault.
That hypothetical doctor would be breaking the law by falsifying paperwork, and could be prosecuted for that. It seems you're arguing that it's necessary for the law to overbearingly criminalize related just behavior (and in this case medically prudent behavior), because of the possibility that law breaking could be fraudulently hidden. I don't buy that sort of argument.
> So you support eugenics?
Do you have a larger point here, or is equating the acknowledgement of chromosomal abnormalities that are ultimately incompatible with life as "eugenics" just meant to be a rhetorical cheap shot?
> Abortion, if the fetus is human, violates the non-aggression principle
By the usual framing of the non-aggression principle, I don't see how. Would you say a landlord evicting a tenant violates the non-aggression principle?
Doctor/patient privacy is really really strong.
> equating the acknowledgement of chromosomal abnormalities that are ultimately incompatible with life ... a rhetorical cheap shot.
Depends if you're talking about Down's and related disorders or not.
> Would you say a landlord evicting a tenant violates the non-aggression principle?
Of course not, eviction is a possible outcome of the contract between the two parties.
HIPAA already includes exceptions for law enforcement, and the new law itself could certainly mandate some new monitoring and compliance checks. This argument just feels like doubling down on the previous unsupported rationale.
> Depends if you're talking about Down's and related disorders or not.
Since you're defending blanket bans, then it's sufficient to make my point on the most extreme least compatible with life conditions. Like say from a quick look, trisomy 8. "Warkany syndrome (trisomy 8) is a common cause of miscarriage and, for newborns who survive, death usually occurs within the first months". Or trisomy 16. "Full trisomy 16 is incompatible with life. While most fetuses are spontaneously aborted by the 12th week of pregnancy, a few have survived into the second trimester". But in general I don't think knowingly bringing a child with Down's syndrome into the world is kind, compassionate, or worthwhile either.
> Of course not, eviction is a possible outcome of the contract between the two parties.
That only works for tenants over 18 who've signed the lease contract, and not for say their minor children or subletees. But sure, getting the contract out of the picture entirely - would you say that a landlord evicting a squatter violates the non-aggression principle?
Can I move over to your state, and just take a blood transfusion, or an organ from you? I will die without a kidney, and surely you can spare one... My body autonomy is more important than yours, after all, I should be able to make such an imposition on you. My life for a minor inconvenience for you.
If a zygote can make this imposition on a woman, why should you have any right to refuse me on this?
There's probably an argument to be made from a natural rights framing that the right to self defense is still applicable to unjustifiable but duly authorized state violence, like say the war on drug users. Though I don't know how this could be applied practically. Perhaps limiting the number of cops that can carry out any arrest, such that there's an actual balance of power?
Do these verdicts also happen for the least sympathetic cases, like an actual criminal defending themselves against an unknowable no-knock "warrant" ? Because if you're the basic upstanding sympathetic right-looking type, it's actually most places you will not be charged for defending yourself in your home against non-police.
And has this all happened regularly enough to form a predictable pattern such that the police have actually curtailed such attacks? Affecting repeated interactions such that one doesn't need to continually dwell on the basic dynamic is the hallmark of an intact right.
Because I haven't heard of any states that are shining examples of police accountability, especially states that people tend to market as promoting the right to self defense. But I'd love to be wrong!
Nonsense and worse words. They aren't originalists, they don't care about the executive/legislative distinction. It's embarrassing farce to pretend that there is constitutional principle behind achieving their desired political goals. Roe would've been gutted were it law and the general incoherence of Alito and Thomas would have led the way.
The real problem is that a lot of people want there to be a right to abortion in the constitution but they don't have enough votes to actually put it there, and they also don't want to read the constitution's general constraints on government power to be restrictive enough to limit this using coherent logic because that would also limit the government from doing many other things they want it to do.
Also, the current court absolutely has an originalist majority, even if you happen to disagree with the originals. The Constitution is a very restrictive document for the Federal Government.
The student debt case: perfectly clear law passed by Congress and overturned by SCOTUS in very tenuous grounds with a plaintiff that never even had proper standing.
There is a law. It authorized the education dept to “waive or modify” loan provisions. But somehow the court ruled that that means only minor changes are permitted. Obviously this isn’t what Congress intended - waiving entire provisions could of course result in major changes.
The entire “major questions” doctrine is a farce. It’s not in a law. It’s not in the Constitution. It’s an invention of the court.
And again: the case never should have been heard. The litigant had no standing.
The motivation here is SCOTUS striking down a policy they don’t like.
Conservatives don't really like the federal Department of Education, but there is no question that Congress passed a law creating it. Why do you think they would strike down this but not that?
> There is a law. It authorized the education dept to “waive or modify” loan provisions. But somehow the court ruled that that means only minor changes are permitted. Obviously this isn’t what Congress intended - waiving entire provisions could of course result in major changes.
Under that reading they could waive the entire law and forgive everybody's loans, making any other provisions moot. If that's what Congress wanted then why would they pass a law allowing them to "waive or modify" loan provisions, implying that they contemplated the continued existence of loans, rather than just passing a loan forgiveness bill to begin with?
> The entire “major questions” doctrine is a farce. It’s not in a law. It’s not in the Constitution. It’s an invention of the court.
The Court interprets the law. The "major questions" doctrine announces how they intend to interpret the laws Congress passes. It was already a thing when the bill in question was passed. Congress therefore knew that if they intended the law to grant the power to do something like that, they would have to spell it out explicitly, and then they didn't, implying that wasn't what they intended.
Also, just think about it. If that bill had the words "including the power to forgive all student loans" appended to the bottom, do you think it would have passed? If not, it's because those words would have changed the expected consequence of the law, right?
At the risk of a cliché, Biden's student debt forgiveness strategy was dangerous to democracy.
If you are concerned about the rule of law you should be upset that the Supreme Court even heard a case so obviously lacking standing. Nobody was harmed by this policy so conservative groups had to invent a fictional harm just to get the case heard.
If nobody is harmed then why do you suppose anyone wanted to prevent it? Why don't we just continuously forgive all debts of any kind?
The party allegedly harmed, MOHELA, didn’t think they were harmed and didn’t want to participate in the case. The court let the state of Missouri stand in for them even though it’s even harder to see how they have standing.
You tell me: who is harmed by students owing less is student loans?
All of the union's money comes from the workers. If they wanted to they could form a PAC regardless of whether they form a union. Which might even do them more good because then the PAC would be directly representing the workers instead of having an indirect layer of union leadership with potentially different incentives.
Until we figure something out, the current structure is better than zero protections for workers.
Email? Text messages? However they want. How does anybody communicate about anything?
> Would a less educated blue collar worker ever fund a PAC?
They would do it if they thought it was a good idea.
> How do you convince them it’s for their own benefit?
How do you convince them that paying union dues is for their own benefit?
> Will you do it again for a different agenda?
People can do whatever they want.
> Until we figure something out, the current structure is better than zero protections for workers.
Most workers aren't in a union. You're proposing a change one way or another.