bostonbananarama @ bostonbananarama @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

438

Joined

2 yr. ago

It actually hasn't, in large part. Typically generations get more conservative as they age. So far millennials have bucked that trend. Fingers crossed it continues.

If the court was not able to find a factual basis for the requested relief then they would simply deny the application/complaint. The court reviewed the facts and granted the requested relief. Why does a different court need to rule on the facts before this court can act?

Immigration does benefit everyone. But the immigration usually discussed are asylum claims and "illegal" entries across the southern border, because ignorant people find it scary. Those folks typically aren't doctors and lawyers, they're typically poor with few options, and can be/are usually hugely beneficial for the US. People with resources, like doctors or lawyers typically can enter under different visa classifications.

Not defensive at all, simply pointing out that there's nothing wrong with speaking realistically about immigration and economics. There's plenty of dehumanizing language used with regard to immigration but I don't think the commenter used or intended that.

1. Everyone. ---End of List.

The person you replied to is discussing the pragmatic reality that immigrants are necessary for our economy. It's not dehumanizing to point out that from an economic standpoint they're necessary. It seems like you're just looking for offense.

Refreshing change of place? Motherfucker Thomas' opinion said they should "revisit" other cases like Lawrence. Obviously when he says "revisit" he means overturn.

So you have no sense of sarcasm?

Stop trying your manipulative, disingenuous arguments here, they mean the same as the shit fascists like DeSantis say

I'm sorry, you're too stupid to continue this. Nothing I said was manipulative or fascistic, your reading comprehension is abysmal.

And you strike me as an originalist.

Definitely not.

Kavanaugh, Barrett, and even Gorsuch all specifically said they would never vote to overturn the 50 years of precedent

Did you believe them? Never had a doubt they'd vote that way.

I've read every majority, minority, and concurring opinions from Griswold, Roe, Lawrence, Planned Parenthood v Casey, Lawrence, Windsor, Obergefell, and, of course, Dobbs.

Congrats, you and every other 1L.

Clarence Thomas' is especially mortifying.

For a refreshing change of pace?

Roe was terribly reasoned and made for bad law. In the same way Dobbs was the result of starting with a conclusion and then reasoning it, so was Roe.

A better basis for abortion access is bodily autonomy. A constitutional right to say how one's body is used is at the heart of all other rights. That's a much better foundation than privacy.

Lmfao sure bud, keep living in your fairytale world

You strike me as someone with no legal training, who has never read Dobbs, never read Roe, and doesn't have the first clue what they're talking about.

Dobbs proves my point, not yours, they are limiting unenumerated rights and returning an issue of morality and healthcare to the states. They would do the same with this statute. You don't need to agree with them, but it's true.

Are you going to base Congressional authority on a tenuous interplay of the 1st and 14th amendment and an unenumerated right to privacy? Because the court already ruled against that. Interstate Commerce? That's laughable at best.

If you want to make your point you're really going to have to state where Congress gets authority, because I assure you, SCOTUS would ask in oral arguments.

Also, Dobbs shouldn't be overturned, Roe was a terribly written decision that wasn't based on law, but tried to settle the issue by being everything to everyone. The next liberal court should rule on bodily autonomy grounds, not privacy.

Then you're left with the poor people, a bunch of incels and/or white christians fighting over the women that are left.

Did you mean to describe all of the south?

I wish that's advice I had at the time. Live and learn.

I just threw it away, I was done with it. I definitely should have tried to repair it, but my frustration with all things Vizio made that an unappealing option at the time. The others I just moved to less used areas.

They would have had to figure out why it was unconstitutional first.

Because Congress lacks the authority to regulate that issue, and the tenth amendment exists. Issues relating to health or morals are typically left to the states. Arguing something like the interstate commerce clause would have been quite the stretch.

Oftentimes the editor writes the headline and not the author of the article. I heard several journalists irate in the past over sensationalized, misleading headlines added to articles they wrote.

Yes, SCOTUS overturned Roe, but they wouldn't have dared to strike down your abortion statute.

For personal use I buy Visio displays, and have had nothing but success.

I have some smaller, older Vizio TV's that were great, no issues. I recently bought 3 large, expensive Vizio TV's and had problems with all 3. All issues dealing with updates. Had 70" get stuck in an update cycle, no fix, even customer service couldn't help. Other 2 repeatedly will not turn on after an update. Problem persists occasionally, but usually resolves in 5-10 minutes.

Done with Vizio. Sony if I want to spend a lot, Samsung if I want to spend a little less.

A promise to indemnify from an individual who is famous for not paying their bills... awesome!!! /s

Poor baby, so mad.

Awww... someone's mad. 😡

Again, your explanations are as vacant as the space between your ears. You've clearly used multiple words you couldn't even define.