Because a lot of states no longer have power from the people, they’ve gerrymandered and made it hard to vote enough that you need a supermajority to get the will of the people into law.
the federal government has a lot of similar issues, but it also innately has some more checks. For instance, its districts are the states, and you cannot arbitrarily redraw state borders like how states can redraw voting districts.
Except that states have no fucking business telling someone what they can do with their body. “State’s rights” my ass! This is a “personal right”that was stolen.
Because In many state you are beholden to large swaths of Rural land and the representatives they send to the statehouse. Those reps can be swayed (bought). Lucky for Ohio they were able to use their constitution to protect themselves. Ballot initiatives can give the people a voice on pressing matters… As in Ohio, The Reps were trying to take away the voice of the majority of the state voters. They lost and I expect they will brought to heel by the will of the people of Ohio in November. State constitutions are a check against legislative power. No wonder the R’s don’t like that. They want to rule, not represent.
Because several ass-backward states then took advantage of the fact that the right to undergo an abortion was no longer protected under Constitutional law and passed legislation that stripped away reproductive rights from their citizens.
Just because the SC didn’t ban abortion itself, doesn’t mean that it wasn’t the effective result for millions of Americans.
Because the idea of states of the same federation being allowed to decide such fundamental issues on their own feels patently absurd to an outside observer. This isn’t the 1400s any more, do something remotely modern or fully separate and split into 51 countries and do your own shit.
"The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on these questions has not followed a straight line. At times, the Court has stated that the Tenth Amendment lacks substantive constitutional content and does not operate as a limitation upon the powers, express or implied, delegated to the national government. At other times, the Court has found affirmative federalism limitations in the Amendment, invalidating federal statutes not because Congress lacked legislative authority over the subject matter, but because those statutes violated the principles of federalism contained in the Tenth Amendment"
It’s not a state rights issue, it’s a human rights issue and the SCOTUS was protecting the people of the US from the States until the court overturned Roe v Wade
I've seen this argument elsewhere and it seems (pardon me) like patent horseshit.
Why is this a state's right? What makes a uterus in Delaware different than an uterus in Nebraska? I'm a woman and an American citizen. Everyone keeps telling me that I live in a first-world nation. This makes no sense. "Oh sorry. You live in a first world nation, but you picked the neighborhood of Ohio."
And let's be realistic - I can afford to travel to anywhere that local, precious state laws where I live are irrelevant.
The idea of state autonomy made sense in some way in the America that existed before telephones. Emergency decisions might need to be made and horses are slow. But let's be honest for just a moment. The whole idea of federation was a hard sell to the slave states and invested powers. These were a mixture of landowners and merchant classes who had been running things locally in their colonies. They didn't want to give up control, and who could blame them? Meanwhile, the young country needed to have everyone on board for some sort of federation if post-colonial America was going to survive. States rights were a compromise. We've been choking on it for 200+ years.
As a country we should have evolved past this many years ago. But we haven't. The biggest disruption to our American system was the Civil War. States rights again. Yeah, so we have that to look back upon but never really seem to reckon with it. The last time I heard anyone significantly whine about infringement of "states rights" was with regard to chattel slavery.
I understand the frustration, but living on an island means that you are isolated. Help is on the way, I’m sure, but they have to arrive via ship. If I remember right, Oahu is the only island with a proper harbor for ships. I don’t think Maui has any type of airport either.
I understand the frustration, but living on an island means that you are isolated. Help is on the way, I’m sure, but they have to arrive via ship. If I remember right, Oahu is the only island with a proper harbor for ships. I don’t think Maui has any type of airport either.
Like, fuck Musk all the way to Mars and back (actually, not back), but this is as pointless as when bigots burn sneakers or razors or beer because of a "woke" ad, except replacing a car uses so many more resources than replacing some shoes. And that's if anyone will even buy it off them, if not, then it's a whole car in the dump.
Surely making use of the car you spent tens and tens of thousands to buy, and putting an "I hate musk" sticker over the Tesla emblem is a better way to go about this?
Or is there some subscription shit where owning a Tesla means you continuously pay for features or whatever? Though if that's the case I go back to my earlier point - selling it to someone else won't actually end that.
You know, I'm going to say it and maybe no one likes it, but. Just the feel I get is that we're so hopeless in having our politicians actually do shit. Like, we realize, they're not going to do a damn thing to address jack shit. And the world has been turned so rampant consumerism, that the only way it feels like we have left is to do this non-sense of burning sneakers, shooting beer, and selling cars.
Like we're so past the point that actual advocacy is so ineffective and politicians are so past the point of actually serving the public, it's either we rampant play the game they've set before us with mucho-consumerism or we do the teetotal opposite of "we're killing the Applebees" anti-consumerism.
Now there's tons of in the middle, but say there's some perceived social ill, well to solve it you cannot just send a letter to your Congressional Representative or Senator. That's just going straight to the recycle bin. And you cannot just march on whatever to try and make a point, news cycle isn't going to focus on it unless it drives traffic to their site to sell ads. So how does one solve this "ill", fuck it, let's go consumerism in one or the other direction TO THE EXTREME!! Because, that money, that's what they're listening to. So you and your groupies fucking with it or amping its sales through the roof, oh well that they will listen to suddenly. We've got this notion that the things we own OR don't own define our position of morals and ethics. It's kinda fucked up when you think about it, it's like 11:00am here and while typing this I'm starting to reach for my whiskey flask.
I feel like this is how the Boston Tea party got started. The British wouldn't listen to shit, so fuck it, let's go fuck their tea up! You know, I don't know, all of this is just a feeling. But it feels like people we voted in to listen to us won't listen to us and thus we've got to go fuck with people's wallets so that they will listen to us. Do I think it's a good idea? Nah, this is silly shit. We should be able to address social woes in better terms. But that said, it doesn't feel like we've got a lot of tools to actually address shit. Everyone (that's hyperbole, I just mean to say a good amount of folks) has gone greedy as shit. There is fewer and fewer folks who are looking at "what will this do to the future" and just getting into that "dog eat dog" mentality.
Trying to keep from going off in a long crazy ass tangent, long story short, I think the 1% have amassed so much fucking everything and the rest of us are fighting so hard for table scraps, it's difficult to not be slashing at people's throats. Because if you ain't taking from your brother or your sister, you've got rich fuckers taking from you both. Like I said, it's just feels, but damn it feels like when it comes to solving some sort of problem in society we're a small hungry rodent being backed into a corner by some fifty foot cat. We're at a breaking point, we're either going to do something crazy or be a feline's lunch. Is that the proper way to solve anything, odds are likely "no", but damn I can't blame a person for being crazy. We're in some crazy ass times.
So yeah, I agree with you, but I mean I can't really look around this place and blame a person for being batshit crazy. It's kinda the environment that's promoted now a days. Now me and my whiskey flask are going to go have a heart to heart. Shit.
It’s not the same as the idiots who burn sneakers or whatever, because they bought new stuff only to then burn it. This is selling something you already owned. Yes, it’s better for the environment to just keep whatever car you have until it no longer works, but it’s not as bad as buying something new just to burn it. It’s also not as bad as burning something you already own, since someone else gets to use the car.
I genuinely don't believe most of the people burning shit in protest were buying new.
And even if they were, shoes cost tens, maybe hundreds at most, this is tens of thousands of dollars lol (which, being a car, they'll never get anything near that back)
It also doesn't change the fact that getting rid of something that expensive because you've only just realised the guy who owns the company is an asshole (he has been an out and proud asshole before the cars were made, they were just either not paying attention or actively licking boot), is 100% an act of vanity performed by a highly privileged shattered ego.
So maybe even worse than buying sneakers to burn them... 🤔🤔🤔
A judge who orders anyone to attend a class held by the ADF ought to be removed from the bench. They’re as interested in religious liberty as a shark is interested in veganism.
The way I read it is that he was pissed that they didn’t carry out the original order by the court, so he was just shelling out a punishment that would get his point across.
I think you’re on to something with that, it’s just not very judicially appropriate to have a temper tantrum in court and the choice of ADF specifically (since they’re well-known for shenaniganery when it comes to social issues) is suspect. Maybe the judge wasn’t aware of their history and chose them because the name sounded good but in a position where you’re relied upon to use sound and reasonable decision-making skills, it is a problem.
Neither ignorance nor malice are acceptable from the bench and, after reading up on Judge Brantley Starr’s biography, I’m leaning toward this being a case of his personal values being pushed on others.
They’d sell more memberships if they reduced prices. All of these billionaire companies could make a few million less and help folks out. I love the Star Wars stuff, but I’ll pull out because of this crap.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.