Forum menu
I don’t think that’s fair at all. Their values are perfectly intelligible. There is no contradiction between a right to life vs a right to health care. A right to life is the prerequisite of liberty whereby one is free to get health insurance or not according to one’s own preference. This is the individualism that’s baked into the constitution.
But what about people who cannot get insurance? Because clearly there are exploited workers who simply cannot afford it. This is not their preference - and arguably they're most likely in that situation because of the actions of a government that aims to hoard wealth among the elite few.
Speaking of 'baked into' the constitution, it says nothing on abortion. And loads on individual liberty. Except there are loads of things you're not free to do. Like walk across a road without being arrested. I digress.
Speaking of ‘baked into’ the constitution, it says nothing on abortion. And loads on individual liberty. Except there are loads of things you’re not free to do
Funnily enough I was reading some FB shite today about Americans who have moved to Europe, and so many of them are shocked how much more freedom they have having left the land of the free....
They just keep coming- Moore v Harper is, in a nutshell, whether or not state legislators are bound by their own state courts and constitutions or not when it comes to making federal election rules. If it comes down no- and there's 4 judges on record as believing that's how it should be- then it means the currently elected legislators become the only people with any say over how the next election is run.
The trigger case Moore v Harper is entirely about extreme gerrymandering and Rucho already states that the federal system also has no jurisdiction over such matters. It also hits mail-in voting, deadlines, voting station availability, ID requirements, fraud oversight, the mechanisms for striking down votes cast
So hands up everyone that thinks the currently elected state legislatures are the best people to be making all of the decisions on how future elections are to be run?
Well, this is encouraging:
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1554658316105797639
Looks like the Republicans may have significantly overestimated the support for anti-choice even in solid red states. And if this is an indicator, it's not exactly going to help them in the midterms.
'The dog who caught the car'.
It's a great result (still only projected of course) but shows how out of touch the Supreme Court was with public opinion.
The Democrats need to be banging this drum in the midterms
Kansas was +15 points for trump in election; 62% in favour of retaining right to abortion.
Yes, to repeat what many people have said about the Republican Party, they are the dog that caught the car. Their base voters are rabid nutters and their politicians are too scared of losing a primary to tell them that their policies are just plain idiotic.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1554793321922527232
From that Twitter thread:
The way to do that is to make a firm pledge that if Democrats hold the House and add two Senate seats they will make Roe into federal law in January 2023.
It's the obvious thing for Democrats to do as soon as the primaries are over, which means they'll probably bollox it up.