pyronik19

ACA is horrible for the middle class. The only reason it retains any type of popularity is because the media refuses to associated ballooning cost to cost redistribution that it enables. Preexisting conditions? Middle class family picking that up. Subsidy? Middle class family picking that up.

Unfortunately their arrogance isn't false bravado. iPhones brand is extremely strong. Funny aside I know many women who won't date men who's text come up in green bubbles... thats branding.

Like in the UK for spicy social media posts?

We have like 100 years of bad government by people who love government to dispel this nonsense.

Would there be a way for the bluetooth device to rotate its broadcast keys in a predictable way to avoid the iphone notification of "unknown airtag close by" messages? Seems like this could be exploited for surveillance.

And antibiotics, computers, fertilizer, electricity, cars, stem cells, etc

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying throw caution to the wind, but ludditism also isn't the answer.

Yes government bureaucrats got to drag political enemies off planes and kick them out of restaurants on the basis of wrongthink, masquerading dogma as science.

>now this will get trotted out as an example against anything that ties a name to a firearm

As it should be, "I told you so" all day long.

The court isn't in the business of conferring rights, in so far as they were "taken away" it just corrected horrible precedent.

Many people disagree with that interpretation so its not at all obviously correct. It was not interpreted that way at all until FDR threatened to pack the court.

There is a reason the maxim exists "Hard cases make bad case law". Of course slavery is wrong, and in fact rebellion to end slavery is more appropriate that case law to end it. That said abortion isn't slavery and its unclear which is morally superior. It's a question of balancing of rights between one human and another, no easy answer here.

It's clear the original Roe v Wade was an ideological ruling. It was motivated reasoning. It's just being undone.

I support first trimester abortions. Now go pass those laws in the states via the legislative process where it belongs.

Shouldn't the legal analysis of a legal opinion be the norm? Facts don't care about your feelings.

which may not be grounded on any text whatsoever.

Well when your job is to interpret the constitution, it should be grounded on the text. That's why there are textualist who disagree with your interpretation of the role of the court. It is supposed to be the foundation.

From the decision:

"The largely limitless reach of the dissenters’ standard is illustrated by the way they apply it here. First, if the “long sweep of history” imposes any restraint on the recognition of unenumerated rights, then Roe was surely wrong, since abortion was never allowed (except to save the life of the mother) in a majority of States for over 100 years before that decision was handed down. Second, it is impossible to defend Roe based on prior precedent because all of the precedents Roe cited, including Griswold and Eisenstadt, were critically different for a reason that we have explained: None of those cases involved the destruction of what Roe called “potential life.”"

How is that a compromise... a controversial judgement you like is fair the one you don't isn't? That's not a standard.

Common Law interpretation sure, you need to use the logic and decisions of the court to inform future decisions, but those decisions must be grounded on actual text and insofar as bad decisions are made they should be corrected. Should we have left all of the bad decisions on slavery and Jim Crow because of stare decisis?

its fair when you get your way, its unfair when you don't? You think "Roe v Wade" is the appearance of neutrality but Dobbs isn't? What is your standard of fair vs unfair?

When FDR threatened to pack the court when his New Deal legislation kept being struck down since it violated federalism. “the switch in time that saved nine.” https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-franklin-rooseve...

"Most of the federal government’s authority over the economy derived from a clause in the Constitution empowering Congress to regulate interstate commerce, but the court construed the clause so narrowly that in another case that next spring, it ruled that not even so vast an industry as coal mining fell within the commerce power."

The "regulation of interstate commerce" now is a joke of a catchall which basically is modernly interpreted as "government can damn do what it pleases in every avenue of our lives" from its original interpretation which was "you can make sure horses can get from point A to point B".

Well, those of us who believe in a textualist definition of the constitution believe the process for adding constitutional rights is a constitutional amendment and we control the court.

If that is your position, you think that when the came down with Roe V Wade that WAS political independence and legitimacy and when overturn it its not? You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's not "illegitimate" when they don't "legislate" the way YOU want.

To be clear I am very moderate on abortion, I believe in the first trimester. But this is a states right issue and is a made up constitutional right.

"recognizes that there are unwritten rights."

Basically...legislating from the Bench. This has no place in constitutional jurisprudence.

That's what it was when they came down with Roe originally, they are just returning to NOT being a legislative body and returning this decision to where it belongs.... the legislature.

So they arrested and held in prison tons of people from Jan6 and held them in prison for over a year based on cell tracking data. I am sure you were objecting to that.

Will it censor "vaccine misinformation", "election misinformation", "russian disinformation" and all the other mainstream topics that google actively suppresses in favor of the narrative or is your moniker of "open" just mean "open to the ideas we support".

I am mocking the justification that leftist used censorship and deplatforming by using their own bloated phrase.

So I guess next stop is President

You have freedom of speech just not freedom from consequences :)

> I consider it treason to continue to promote lies about election fraud as it attacks democracy.

I consider support for the obvious election fraud treason.. the only lie is we actually have a functioning democracy and legitimate elections.

Right after they used location data to expose election fraud lol... plugging that hole in their fraud.