Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The beginning of the end for Roe v Wade?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by RedChimera View Post
    Is this even enforceable - most social Media companies are out of state - if not in another country.

    Texas passes social media 'de-platforming' law - BBC News
    Of course they aren't banned from social media for their political views per se, it's just that their political views are often regarded as hate speech or offensive, and thus get banned.

    Comment


    • #62
      Just ties back to why 'conservative' voices are hard to get here...

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Skyth View Post
        Just ties back to why 'conservative' voices are hard to get here...
        I'm not convinced that's necessarily the case.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Hordini View Post

          I'm not convinced that's necessarily the case.
          When a large chunk of the vocal members take pride in being offensive to other people, that reduces the amount of people of that persuasion that would be suitable to join a place dedicated to discussing things in a civil, fact-based manner.

          Comment


          • Hordini
            Hordini commented
            Editing a comment
            Lord0fHats I don’t read r/conservatives and I suspect I’m not the only one. What enlightening catch-22 hypocrisies are you referring to?

          • Lord0fHats
            Lord0fHats commented
            Editing a comment
            A typical thread on the sub consists of complaining about other subs being echo chambers, followed by the mods banning an unflaired user who points out r/conservative is an echo chamber. The only way to get a flair is to sit with the mods and prove you're a real conservative (and even then they'll ban someone who is too critical of major conservative figures). And when it's not that, it's just constant low key racism and not even trying to hide it sexism.

            It's a sub made of unaware hypocrites who have created the exact thing the propose to despise. There are no other subs that operate this way, it's supposed to be against Reddit rules but reddit only enforces their own rules when they get negative press. Yet, they'll still complain that they're the real victims.

          • Wolfblade
            Wolfblade commented
            Editing a comment
            r/republican is the same. Both are "safe spaces" for verified right-wing posters who post thinly veiled hate (or not veiled at all), ban all left-leaning posters, or anyone who criticizes a republican. Literally, r/republican's rules contain the following: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." (Reagan's 11th Commandment). (Their rules also include "no fake news!" which is HILARIOUS given the election fraud narrative republicans have been pushing about every single election.)

        • #65
          Legal Eagle has put up a video on the Supreme Court's decision over the Texas abortion bill.

          Comment


          • #66
            Unsurprising. Republicans have heavily packed SCOTUS. This is why the republican party is what's killing the U.S. They don't care about liberties or freedoms, they don't care about improving anyone's life, they care about keeping poor people poor and making a buck. This case was not decided on its merits or constitutionality, it was decided by 5 very partisan judges who were handpicked to push their agenda.

            I suspect we'll see similar laws being passed in the (mod edit) red states soon enough if they haven't already.

            Comment


            • Bunnies
              Bunnies commented
              Editing a comment
              If that's your only take away from this, not "I shouldn't use wildly inflammatory language", then you might need a break mate

            • Wolfblade
              Wolfblade commented
              Editing a comment
              Bunnies no, that is not the only takeaway obviously, but it's a critique of your collective moderation. If you don't want inflammatory language or insults, your moderation needs to reflect that in not publically repeating it and making it SUPER obvious what the context of the insult is.

              This isn't a crazy high-level moderation practice or idea, which is my point.

            • nfe
              nfe commented
              Editing a comment
              I do see that flagging particular language and repeating it attracts attention to it, but on the other hand I think it is useful for users to see clearly what was deemed unacceptable. I don't agree that doing so necessarily generates extra conversation around it. I'd hope users can draw a line under things that have seen moderation. If not, we can address folks dragging things out.

          • #67
            The fundamental issue that SCOTUS faced was that the case held no controversy.

            The lawsuit in front of SCOTUS was about seeking an injunction by targeting some government officials and literally one pro-lifer who didn't even use the new Texas law for anything. The government officials in the lawsuit were already expressly forbidding from using their office to enforce this new law.

            Courts are not supposed to take a case where's there is no controversy and having standing issues.

            I think SCOTUS made the right call here. And I say that as someone who's not only pro-life, but objects to how this Texas law is written. This is vigilante lawfare that everyone, and I mean every ought to object.

            Once the case is ripe, I hope the federal courts would strike down this Texas law.

            Comment


            • #68
              The problem is that the law does incalculable harm by needing to be used first.

              Comment


              • #69
                If a law is unconstitutional (as it appears to be), why does it need to be controversial to be looked at?

                Comment


                • Herzlos2
                  Herzlos2 commented
                  Editing a comment
                  I think it needs to be challenged in order to be withdrawn, but I assume (maybe incorrectly) that you can just do that by suing the state.

                • Disciple of Fate
                  Disciple of Fate commented
                  Editing a comment
                  But SCOTUS could have picked it up then and there, but declined for reasons unknown.

              • #70
                I can't find it now but I've seen a claim that any anti-abortion law is unconstitutional, because it violates the right to freedom/body autonomy.

                A woman can't be forced to undergo any medical procedure even if it saves the life of someone else - donating blood, marrow, whatever. So by the same standard a woman can't be forced to carry a baby in order to save it's life (assuming the fallacy that it's a life at conception).

                I've no idea if it's been tried anywhere, though.

                Comment


                • #71
                  Originally posted by Disciple of Fate View Post
                  If a law is unconstitutional (as it appears to be), why does it need to be controversial to be looked at?
                  This is a good place to start:
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_o...roversy_Clause
                  The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) as embodying two distinct limitations on exercise of judicial review: a bar on the issuance of advisory opinions, and a requirement that parties must have standing.[1]

                  First, the Court has held that the clause identifies the scope of matters which a federal court can and cannot consider as a case (i.e., it distinguishes between lawsuits within and beyond the institutional competence of the federal judiciary), and limits federal judicial power only to such lawsuits as the court is competent to hear.

                  For example, the Court has determined that this clause prohibits the issuance of advisory opinions (in which no actual issue exists but an opinion is sought), and claims where the appellant stands to gain only in a generalized sense (i.e. no more or less than people at large), and allows only the adjudication of claims where (1) the plaintiff has actually and personally suffered injury or harm "in fact", (2) the injury or harm suffered by the plaintiff is fairly traceable to the defendant's actions and (3) the injury or harm would be capable of redress by the court.

                  As with all parts of the law, there are exceptions. One of the most significant deals with free speech and free expression cases involving the First Amendment where a party suing over a restriction on freedom of speech issues can argue the unconstitutionality of a statute restricting certain types of speech or expression, even where the restriction might not directly affect them, such as a bookseller or video game dealer may argue that a restriction on some media restricts their customer's ability to choose various works and the restrictions could have a "chilling effect" on some publishers who might not release some works that would be affected by the law. Other than this, generally, there are usually no exceptions to the standing issue at the Federal level.

                  Secondly, the Court has interpreted the clause as limiting Congress' ability to confer jurisdiction on federal courts. It does so by establishing an outer limit of the types of matters within which Congress may constitutionally confer jurisdiction. Historically, the Court has not interpreted this Clause to limit Congressional power to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

                  The delicate phrasing of the Clause and the ambiguity of the terms therein has inspired frequent academic debate. Though the Supreme Court has given much attention to the legal issues arising from this provision of the Constitution, many problematic issues remain unresolved. Critics argue that the standing requirements imposed by this Clause enable judges to avoid difficult issues, decide the merits of a case before the parties have had a fair opportunity to litigate, and avoid the necessity of applying law the judge finds distasteful.

                  Comment


                  • #72
                    Allowing the law to go into effect, especially with how it is written (Legal Eagle goes into this), caused immeasurable harm already. There is something fundamentally broken with the legal system and something like this (Trying to intentionally end-run around being able to be challenged pre-emotively) is quite frankly, bullshit and a court worth it's salt would see this as it's authority being challenged and overturn it.

                    Comment


                    • #73
                      Originally posted by Herzlos2 View Post
                      I can't find it now but I've seen a claim that any anti-abortion law is unconstitutional, because it violates the right to freedom/body autonomy.

                      A woman can't be forced to undergo any medical procedure even if it saves the life of someone else - donating blood, marrow, whatever. So by the same standard a woman can't be forced to carry a baby in order to save it's life (assuming the fallacy that it's a life at conception).

                      I've no idea if it's been tried anywhere, though.
                      That would be an incorrect claim. A conjoined twin, for example, can not unilaterally decide to be separated from his twin, regardless of how much or how little one twin requires the other for survival.

                      Comment


                      • feeder
                        feeder commented
                        Editing a comment
                        One twin can not unilaterally choose to be separated, but the other can unilaterally decide to remain conjoined? Someone's right to bodily autonomy is being violated. That's why the abortion issue is sticky and (debates about "when is a person a person aside) anyone who claims their side is the only right side and the other side has no merit is an ass. Choice, anti or pro, will fundamentally violate either the pregnant person or the potential person's rights. I choose to side with the pregnant person's right over the potential person, but I can see how someone might choose the other way.

                    • #74
                      I think its a roughly correct claim based on Roe v Wade though, until it is reinterpreted. Abortion not being the same as already born conjoined twins, its a hard comparison to make.

                      Comment


                      • #75
                        Originally posted by SilverbackWookie View Post
                        Given that there are organizations and professionals working in the provision of abortion, which have basically lost their line of work overnight, points 1 to 3 should quite easily apply. Not to mention the imminent harm for women who have had their abortions cancelled due to the new law. A temporarily halt to the implementation until a proper review could prevent his harm. Because by the time it reaches the SC the long way around, a lot of harm will have possibly been done.

                        That is just the abortion side, not even unpacking the lawsuits galore idea.

                        Comment


                        • SilverbackWookie
                          SilverbackWookie commented
                          Editing a comment
                          #1 didn't apply at all. Again, read the lawsuit.

                          It's the defendant v. the plaintiff. Not the law itself.

                          There wasn't a "ripe" controversy for the courts to adjudicate.

                          The court isn't there to rule on the law itself absence of any personal injury or harm "in fact".

                          The court isn't there to prevent want MIGHT happen in the future. That's really for the legislature to determine.

                        • Disciple of Fate
                          Disciple of Fate commented
                          Editing a comment
                          I have read the lawsuit and fundamentally disagree on #1 not applying. It entirely depends on your interpretation of personal injury, given the livelyhoods involved.
                      Working...
                      X