The tyranny of the judiciary

drummerboy said:

is there even a separation of church and state any more?

So much for "originalism".

Just kidding, they only bring that one out if they can use it.


totally sophomoric writing by Alito. Who's too stupid, apparently, to be embarrassed by it.


Not that it matters to anyone in the greater scheme of things, but yeah-nah. That does it. I’m not going to visit you, dear friends, until the NRA officially declares its autocracy then wipes itself out.


and I’m buying a new iPad. This screen is driving me crazy.


drummerboy said:

totally sophomoric writing by Alito. Who's too stupid, apparently, to be embarrassed by it.

Alito's insight is one that he must have arrived that via extensive research on Fox News and OANN.


I’m actually wondering about rape in marriage laws - will they overturn those, too??

And cancer treatments based on male or female hormones, or on stem cells - since they want to stop those? (follows logically from what they wrote about medical treatments [derived from dead/donated embryonic cells or from once-living tissues] and often thought to be used for trans treatments etc as well as inducing terminations, controlling fertility etc) And what of the anti-aging cosmetic industry, with miracle collagens and other wondrous anti-wrinkle treatments??? Gasp - is Botox still going to be allowed??? (Actually, many chronic pain sufferers will have issues with that)

Idiots.


joanne said:

I’m actually wondering about rape in marriage laws - will they overturn those, too??

One thing that may be confusing about this from afar, joanne, is that the ruling doesn’t overturn laws. It removes a federal constitutional guarantee of a right. What that right was, states can still provide through their laws if they choose.


DaveSchmidt said:

One thing that may be confusing about this from afar, joanne, is that the ruling doesn’t overturn laws. It removes a federal constitutional guarantee of a right. What that right was, states can still provide through their laws if they choose.

For now.  I am quite confident that the six "justices" who supported the holding in Dobbs would find no difficultly in sustaining a federal law banning certain types of healthcare nationwide.


Every Republican running for national office will now face pressure to come out in favor of a nationwide abortion ban -- either a law for those running for Congress, or an executive action for those running for president.


next week, maybe on Monday, will be the biggest decision attempting to dismantle the regulatory state.


Dave, I understand the difference, and thank you for your explanation. However just about everything I’m reading from all around the world including the US is using ‘overturned’.  cheese

DaveSchmidt said:

One thing that may be confusing about this from afar, joanne, is that the ruling doesn’t overturn laws. It removes a federal constitutional guarantee of a right. What that right was, states can still provide through their laws if they choose.


joanne said:

Dave, I understand the difference, and thank you for your explanation. However just about everything I’m reading from all around the world including the US is using ‘overturned’.  
cheese

DaveSchmidt said:

One thing that may be confusing about this from afar, joanne, is that the ruling doesn’t overturn laws. It removes a federal constitutional guarantee of a right. What that right was, states can still provide through their laws if they choose.

Yeah, but doesn't it say what was overturned? What was overturned was the SCOTUS decision regarding Roe v Wade. And the effect of that is to give the states the power to ban abortion. Or not.


joanne said:

Dave, I understand the difference, and thank you for your explanation. However just about everything I’m reading from all around the world including the US is using ‘overturned’.

I appreciate your typically generous forbearance in the face of a comment that in retrospect sounds condescending. I’m sorry about that.

At the risk of digging the same hole, maybe I can shed some light on the use of “overturned”: They’re referring to the Roe precedent, which codified the constitutional guarantee of a right to abortion. The Dobbs ruling doesn’t overturn any state laws.

ETA: Cross-posted with drummerboy.


Ahh! Appreciate that! 
what’s happening is my poor mental working power is focusing on the verb not the ‘object’ it’s specifically working with; just spreading it over everything. (36-yr old brain injury).


Dave, not condescending at all, please don’t worry. Plus yesterday I wasn’t well AND was very emotional about this. 


I’m posting here rather than in the Roe and shooting threads, because I’m thinking of the greater implications of the recent rulings. 
Because the ruling affecting Roe is about terminating a pregnancy and extends to medical not just surgical treatment, this means that any woman requiring what used to be called a D & C will find it hard to get treatment, and support team be suspect. Yes, I know we use laser scalpels these days and it’s different - but it’s gynae care, not just obstetrics. I needed one to menopause going. I know many women who’ve needed ‘the pill’ to control their cycles for endo and PCOS. 
I was so incredibly lucky with breast cancer, very aggressive but not triple negative. Yet I’m still on a daily female hormone blocker for another 6 years. There’s a breathtaking new treatment for triple-negative breast cancer, that’s safe for even pregnant women:

https://www.garvan.org.au/news-events/news/clinical-trial-to-test-potential-new-combination-therapy-for-aggressive-breast-cancer Yep, male hormones. But the SC has foreshadowed removing rights to hormone treatments (partly because of where the experimental cells originate [stem cells] and partly because of a blanket LBGTQI+ presumption) 

Modern immunotherapy for almost anything means using cell therapy, which means hormones and other bio-chemicals are being used. This is highly effective, ethical, and a better use of resources. 


good piece on our radical outlaw court:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/roe-overturned-supreme-court-samuel-alito-opinion/661386/?scrolla=5eb6d68b7fedc32c19ef33b4

The Constitution Is Whatever the Right Wing Says It Is

The Supreme Court majority’s undead constitutionalism is transforming right-wing media tropes into law.

By Adam Serwer


joanne said:

I’m posting here rather than in the Roe and shooting threads, because I’m thinking of the greater implications of the recent rulings. 
Because the ruling affecting Roe is about terminating a pregnancy and extends to medical not just surgical treatment, this means that any woman requiring what used to be called a D & C will find it hard to get treatment, and support team be suspect. Yes, I know we use laser scalpels these days and it’s different - but it’s gynae care, not just obstetrics. I needed one to menopause going. I know many women who’ve needed ‘the pill’ to control their cycles for endo and PCOS. 
I was so incredibly lucky with breast cancer, very aggressive but not triple negative. Yet I’m still on a daily female hormone blocker for another 6 years. There’s a breathtaking new treatment for triple-negative breast cancer, that’s safe for even pregnant women:

https://www.garvan.org.au/news-events/news/clinical-trial-to-test-potential-new-combination-therapy-for-aggressive-breast-cancer Yep, male hormones. But the SC has foreshadowed removing rights to hormone treatments (partly because of where the experimental cells originate [stem cells] and partly because of a blanket LBGTQI+ presumption) 

Modern immunotherapy for almost anything means using cell therapy, which means hormones and other bio-chemicals are being used. This is highly effective, ethical, and a better use of resources. 

It's going to be a mess. Basically, one more way we'll see health outcomes increasingly diverge in the country. In some ways, it's almost like we're going back to the dynamic before the New Deal era, when rural parts of the county (especially the south) were dramatically poorer and sicker. There was a general convergence happening throughout the 20th century but this century we've been diverging instead.

We've already been seeing that dynamic playing out with the ACA and medicaid expansion, and again more recently with COVID, and now we'll see it also in areas like maternal deaths and other issues you raise above.

I'm curious if there's a similar dynamic in Australia? From what I understand there is in the England (eg London/the southeast vs the rest of the country -- not sure what it's like in Scotland/Wales/N. Ireland).


https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/27/explainer-abortion-laws-australia-is-it-legal-illegal-rights


We have universal health care here that even covers non-Aussie workers and visitors, depending on the medical issue. Also, depending where you are, ambulance/paramedic services are free (covered in car insurance, or vehicle rego etc). 
Mostly my cancer treatment has been free, including the operations and hospital stays, chemo, radiation, etc. I pay $6.80 for my hormone blockers. I pay $6.80 as well for a month’s worth of methotrexate injections for Crohn’s. 
In the last 6 weeks I’ve called the ambos 3 times, gone to ED each time. No cost. I’ve had 2 after-hours doctors visit me at home, no cost for them or their meds.  I also see my family doctor when I need to, no cost, usually with an appointment within a week of my phone call. (We have telehealth too)

Most vax here are free or low-cost - a lot of people can claim back from their workplaces or health insurance. And here, your medical insurance isn’t tied to your employer: it’s yours, or your family’s; your trade Union or professional association or sports club or house/vehicle insurance might help you get a great deal and you can pre-tax some pay into it if you wish. (A lot of workplaces insist on annual flu shots, Hep B etc)

Dentistry is another $$issue altogether: the last few years we’ve seen people foregoing dental visits and suffering poor health as a result. The fed govt wants to bring adult dentistry into Medicare. 

In terms of citizens’ rights, ours aren’t codified like yours. They follow, more, the UK convention with 200-odd years of Australian colonial precedent added. I remember one high school teacher explaining very firmly ‘once these things are written down, someone will always be trying to do the opposite. Men always think they’re so clever!’ (Yes, I went to an all-girls school) (Men meaning people. And this teacher thought we should all know the Magna Carta)   Pretty much, here if I require a medical procedure it’s between me and my doctors, and whatever health service I’m visiting. Not all States allow terminations in all circumstances, but then again a lot of health services don’t like male circumcision either. There’s room to discuss.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/27/devastating-australian-politicians-respond-to-us-supreme-courts-decision-on-abortion-rights


and our Christian theocracy takes another step


drummerboy said:

and our Christian theocracy takes another step

You’ve opined before on the quality of conservative analogies. What appealed to you about Spiers’?


He didn't make others pray with him.  It was after a game.  No big deal IMO.  But will this send a signal to other religious type issues - time will tell.


jamie said:

He didn't make others pray with him.  It was after a game.  No big deal IMO.  But will this send a signal to other religious type issues - time will tell.

The football team was pretty much forced to pray with him. It is a big deal.


DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

and our Christian theocracy takes another step

You’ve opined before on the quality of conservative analogies. What appealed to you about Spiers’?

say what now?

do you think her analogy is faulty?


drummerboy said:

say what now?

do you think her analogy is faulty?

Sorry, it was intended to be a simple question. What appealed to you about the analogy of leading a classroom in prayer?


DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

say what now?

do you think her analogy is faulty?

Sorry, it was intended to be a simple question. What appealed to you about the analogy of leading a classroom in prayer?


hmm, interesting.

I think DB's point was - where do you draw the line.  What's the difference between the school's football field and a classroom?


nohero said:

If the Spiers analogy seemed apt to you, too, I’d prefer to see the reasons expressed in written form. The gathering in the photo leaves distinctions with a teacher conducting a classroom that the photo does not on the face of it explain.


jamie said:

hmm, interesting.

I think DB's point was - where do you draw the line. What's the difference between the school's football field and a classroom?

The analogy (like analogies are supposed to do) implies there is no line, which is why I asked for elaboration.


Is that it - the difference between a classroom and a football field?

No difference - both part of the school. As a matter of fact, doesn't this decision now make it OK for teacher's to lead prayer in classrooms? Can't see how it doesn't. Or did the decision limit it to football fields?


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Advertise here!

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Rentals