2022 SCOTUS rulings

[houndawg]

These people are bat shit crazy (with apologies to bats.) Did Barrett’s husband testify in the nominee hearings? He clearly should have.

I think they are whackos. But I don't see where her husband needs to testify in hearings. I don't recall her ever saying in her testimony that she would have to ask her husband how to rule in cases that came before her, you know, the job she was going through the hearings for. Your idea of having him testify sounds perilously close to a religious litmus test idea. Even for the whacky religions, I don't see that as a good idea. Why are you against religious freedom?

True, but she's a known liar and probably would have lied about that too.

[houndawg]

Thank you. Sometimes I forget or I’m distracted.

By all means, read the rest of the article.

kalm, could you explain to me why so many of your fellow illiberals are appalled by the way that conservative Christian sects treat women but deflect and defend conservative Islamic sects that treat women just as poorly if not worse? I don't understand the logic that makes that seem reasonable.

Could provide us with an example? I've not yet heard anyone speaking as you describe. But I have heard a lot of conservatives speak poorly of Islam, although not for being too liberal..

[kalm]

This seems rather important from a state’s rights and free market view. Also Texas text books.

In a Supreme Court case scheduled for oral argument on October 11, pro-business justices could curb the power of liberal states to pass regulations with economic consequences for large industries across the country. Meat lobbyists in National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) v. Ross argue that California’s new agribusiness regulations force them to overhaul pork production practices nationwide. They say that the Golden State cannot lift standards for its own consumers if those changes affect the whole sector—an argument which, if upheld, could have far-reaching impact on state regulation of issues like energy policy, public health, and worker pay.

“As America’s most populous state, California has long used regulation to raise standards in industries with impacts on public health and the environment. Its vehicle emission standards have jump-started the national market for electric cars. Now, the pork industry is casting California as obnoxiously imposing its “philosophical preferences” on all Americans. It argues that the Court should resist “allowing a State to export its social experiments extraterritorially.”

https://prospect.org/justice/supreme-co ... ry-powers/

[UNI88]

kalm, could you explain to me why so many of your fellow illiberals are appalled by the way that conservative Christian sects treat women but deflect and defend conservative Islamic sects that treat women just as poorly if not worse? I don't understand the logic that makes that seem reasonable.

Could provide us with an example? I've not yet heard anyone speaking as you describe. But I have heard a lot of conservatives speak poorly of Islam, although not for being too liberal..

They need to up your meds.

[kalm]

Could provide us with an example? I've not yet heard anyone speaking as you describe. But I have heard a lot of conservatives speak poorly of Islam, although not for being too liberal..

They need to up your meds.

I have not heard a single lefty who supports what the Iranian government is doing right now. I think you might be confused.

[UNI88]

They need to up your meds.

I have not heard a single lefty who supports what the Iranian government is doing right now. I think you might be confused.

I think you might be deflecting. Women are second class citizens in a lot more Islamic countries than Iran. Where is the outrage? Illiberals bitch about conservative Christian sects but want to be culturally sensitive to Muslims.

[Skjellyfetti]

So, you can't provide an example of a liberal defending the treatment of women in fundamentalist Islamic countries?

[kalm]

I have not heard a single lefty who supports what the Iranian government is doing right now. I think you might be confused.

I think you might be deflecting. Women are second class citizens in a lot more Islamic countries than Iran. Where is the outrage? Illiberals bitch about conservative Christian sects but want to be culturally sensitive to Muslims.

I don’t know any liberals who support Muslim extremism in any country. The outrage might have to do with proximity.

[UNI88]

I think you might be deflecting. Women are second class citizens in a lot more Islamic countries than Iran. Where is the outrage? Illiberals bitch about conservative Christian sects but want to be culturally sensitive to Muslims.

I don’t know any liberals who support Muslim extremism in any country. The outrage might have to do with proximity.

You're trying to narrow the discussion by focusing on Muslim extremism. It isn't just Muslim extremists that mistreat and devalue women by modern standards.

I would bet that Coney Barrett and women in her circle are more respected and treated better than the average women in a country with Islamic laws.

[GannonFan]

This seems rather important from a state’s rights and free market view. Also Texas text books.

In a Supreme Court case scheduled for oral argument on October 11, pro-business justices could curb the power of liberal states to pass regulations with economic consequences for large industries across the country. Meat lobbyists in National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) v. Ross argue that California’s new agribusiness regulations force them to overhaul pork production practices nationwide. They say that the Golden State cannot lift standards for its own consumers if those changes affect the whole sector—an argument which, if upheld, could have far-reaching impact on state regulation of issues like energy policy, public health, and worker pay.

“As America’s most populous state, California has long used regulation to raise standards in industries with impacts on public health and the environment. Its vehicle emission standards have jump-started the national market for electric cars. Now, the pork industry is casting California as obnoxiously imposing its “philosophical preferences” on all Americans. It argues that the Court should resist “allowing a State to export its social experiments extraterritorially.”

https://prospect.org/justice/supreme-co ... ry-powers/

I think you're thinking this far past the specific implications in this case. CA has something like 0.01% of the pork farms in America. So they're passing something that specifically regulates, across state lines, commerce they have little to no direct control over. SCOTUS could decide this on a very limited basis and likely will. The Commerce Clause isn't used often anymore, but when a state like CA does something as brazen as they're doing here, even the Gorsuch's of the world will strike it down. What's more interesting is how the liberal wing will treat this one. There's certainly well established precedence to strike this one down - but precedence seems to matter when it does and it doesn't when it doesn't. I think reading their opinions will make for far more interesting reading.

[kalm]

This seems rather important from a state’s rights and free market view. Also Texas text books.

In a Supreme Court case scheduled for oral argument on October 11, pro-business justices could curb the power of liberal states to pass regulations with economic consequences for large industries across the country. Meat lobbyists in National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) v. Ross argue that California’s new agribusiness regulations force them to overhaul pork production practices nationwide. They say that the Golden State cannot lift standards for its own consumers if those changes affect the whole sector—an argument which, if upheld, could have far-reaching impact on state regulation of issues like energy policy, public health, and worker pay.

“As America’s most populous state, California has long used regulation to raise standards in industries with impacts on public health and the environment. Its vehicle emission standards have jump-started the national market for electric cars. Now, the pork industry is casting California as obnoxiously imposing its “philosophical preferences” on all Americans. It argues that the Court should resist “allowing a State to export its social experiments extraterritorially.”

https://prospect.org/justice/supreme-co ... ry-powers/

I think you're thinking this far past the specific implications in this case. CA has something like 0.01% of the pork farms in America. So they're passing something that specifically regulates, across state lines, commerce they have little to no direct control over. SCOTUS could decide this on a very limited basis and likely will. The Commerce Clause isn't used often anymore, but when a state like CA does something as brazen as they're doing here, even the Gorsuch's of the world will strike it down. What's more interesting is how the liberal wing will treat this one. There's certainly well established precedence to strike this one down - but precedence seems to matter when it does and it doesn't when it doesn't. I think reading their opinions will make for far more interesting reading.

It only affects 4% of production according Tyson and they will comply with it. State’s rights are why I brought up Texas. Just pointing out a little potential hypocrisy.

Aside from that Cali’s efforts are the right thing to do. Factory farming is a bit gross. But I also don’t eat pork so it’s easy for me to judge.

[kalm]

I don’t know any liberals who support Muslim extremism in any country. The outrage might have to do with proximity.

You're trying to narrow the discussion by focusing on Muslim extremism. It isn't just Muslim extremists that mistreat and devalue women by modern standards.

I would bet that Coney Barrett and women in her circle are more respected and treated better than the average women in a country with Islamic laws.

I’m not even sure what you’re carrying on about then.

[UNI88]

You're trying to narrow the discussion by focusing on Muslim extremism. It isn't just Muslim extremists that mistreat and devalue women by modern standards.

I would bet that Coney Barrett and women in her circle are more respected and treated better than the average women in a country with Islamic laws.

I’m not even sure what you’re carrying on about then.

I'm just asking illiberals (and MAGAts for that matter) to give a little effort toward being consistent. It's a contest of integrity that neither side seems to be interested in winning.

These people are bat shit crazy (with apologies to bats.) Did Barrett’s husband testify in the nominee hearings? He clearly should have.

I'd agree with you that they're crazy.

[kalm]

I’m not even sure what you’re carrying on about then.

I'm just asking illiberals (and MAGAts for that matter) to give a little effort toward being consistent. It's a contest of integrity that neither side seems to be interested in winning.

These people are bat shit crazy (with apologies to bats.) Did Barrett’s husband testify in the nominee hearings? He clearly should have.

I'd agree with you that they're crazy.

Muslims are bat shit crazy too.

[houndawg]

I have not heard a single lefty who supports what the Iranian government is doing right now. I think you might be confused.

I think you might be deflecting. Women are second class citizens in a lot more Islamic countries than Iran. Where is the outrage? Illiberals bitch about conservative Christian sects but want to be culturally sensitive to Muslims.

False dichotomy.

[houndawg]

Well…at least he’s honest.

At least he won't be replicating

[UNI88]

I think you might be deflecting. Women are second class citizens in a lot more Islamic countries than Iran. Where is the outrage? Illiberals bitch about conservative Christian sects but want to be culturally sensitive to Muslims.

I got nothing

FYP

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

I think they are whackos. But I don't see where her husband needs to testify in hearings. I don't recall her ever saying in her testimony that she would have to ask her husband how to rule in cases that came before her, you know, the job she was going through the hearings for. Your idea of having him testify sounds perilously close to a religious litmus test idea. Even for the whacky religions, I don't see that as a good idea. Why are you against religious freedom?

True, but she's a known liar and probably would have lied about that too.

How is she a known liar?

[GannonFan]

I think you're thinking this far past the specific implications in this case. CA has something like 0.01% of the pork farms in America. So they're passing something that specifically regulates, across state lines, commerce they have little to no direct control over. SCOTUS could decide this on a very limited basis and likely will. The Commerce Clause isn't used often anymore, but when a state like CA does something as brazen as they're doing here, even the Gorsuch's of the world will strike it down. What's more interesting is how the liberal wing will treat this one. There's certainly well established precedence to strike this one down - but precedence seems to matter when it does and it doesn't when it doesn't. I think reading their opinions will make for far more interesting reading.

It only affects 4% of production according Tyson and they will comply with it. State’s rights are why I brought up Texas. Just pointing out a little potential hypocrisy.

Aside from that Cali’s efforts are the right thing to do. Factory farming is a bit gross. But I also don’t eat pork so it’s easy for me to judge.

I read it was 15%. Just because industry adapts and complies with it (i.e. factors it into the cost of doing business) does not answer the question from a Constitutional ground.

[kalm]

It only affects 4% of production according Tyson and they will comply with it. State’s rights are why I brought up Texas. Just pointing out a little potential hypocrisy.

Aside from that Cali’s efforts are the right thing to do. Factory farming is a bit gross. But I also don’t eat pork so it’s easy for me to judge.

I read it was 15%. Just because industry adapts and complies with it (i.e. factors it into the cost of doing business) does not answer the question from a Constitutional ground.

Oh I see the commerce clause implications. I just struggle with the idea with a company’s ability to circumvent the democratically decided regulations of a state. Where’s the business’s constitutional right to unfettered production? They can still sell their products and raise prices if they want into the California market. It’s a right to conduct business any way you see fit versus the people’s right to prevent food borne illness and health living. And of course the morality issue in light of covid, abortion, gender rights etc is another can of worms.

[GannonFan]

I read it was 15%. Just because industry adapts and complies with it (i.e. factors it into the cost of doing business) does not answer the question from a Constitutional ground.

Oh I see the commerce clause implications. I just struggle with the idea with a company’s ability to circumvent the democratically decided regulations of a state. Where’s the business’s constitutional right to unfettered production? They can still sell their products and raise prices if they want into the California market. It’s a right to conduct business any way you see fit versus the people’s right to prevent food borne illness and health living. And of course the morality issue in light of covid, abortion, gender rights etc is another can of worms.

That's why we also have a federal government to be the arbiter of commerce between the states. The problem here is that this law doesn't serve a local purpose - there's no pork production to speak of in California so this law doesn't regulate something inside their own borders. Californian voters have instead voted to democratically regulate other states, and oddly have resulted in voters in those states not having a voice on matters in their own state. The Commerce Clause has always been messy, and not always evenly utilized in decisions, but this one is a bit easier when the regulation being imposed has no tangible outlet in the jurisdiction where it's being voted on and applied. This is a pretty clear example where the dormant Commerce Clause will be brought back to life. If allowed, this tit for tat imposition of regulations on others would be akin to what the Framers wanted to avoid when they ditched the Articles of Confederation. It's at the heart of why we have a Constitution in the first place, no matter how principled the voters of California think they are.

[kalm]

Oh I see the commerce clause implications. I just struggle with the idea with a company’s ability to circumvent the democratically decided regulations of a state. Where’s the business’s constitutional right to unfettered production? They can still sell their products and raise prices if they want into the California market. It’s a right to conduct business any way you see fit versus the people’s right to prevent food borne illness and health living. And of course the morality issue in light of covid, abortion, gender rights etc is another can of worms.

That's why we also have a federal government to be the arbiter of commerce between the states. The problem here is that this law doesn't serve a local purpose - there's no pork production to speak of in California so this law doesn't regulate something inside their own borders. Californian voters have instead voted to democratically regulate other states, and oddly have resulted in voters in those states not having a voice on matters in their own state. The Commerce Clause has always been messy, and not always evenly utilized in decisions, but this one is a bit easier when the regulation being imposed has no tangible outlet in the jurisdiction where it's being voted on and applied. This is a pretty clear example where the dormant Commerce Clause will be brought back to life. If allowed, this tit for tat imposition of regulations on others would be akin to what the Framers wanted to avoid when they ditched the Articles of Confederation. It's at the heart of why we have a Constitution in the first place, no matter how principled the voters of California think they are.

I get it. So can California weed growers make a similar claim in selling their product in Texas?

[GannonFan]

That's why we also have a federal government to be the arbiter of commerce between the states. The problem here is that this law doesn't serve a local purpose - there's no pork production to speak of in California so this law doesn't regulate something inside their own borders. Californian voters have instead voted to democratically regulate other states, and oddly have resulted in voters in those states not having a voice on matters in their own state. The Commerce Clause has always been messy, and not always evenly utilized in decisions, but this one is a bit easier when the regulation being imposed has no tangible outlet in the jurisdiction where it's being voted on and applied. This is a pretty clear example where the dormant Commerce Clause will be brought back to life. If allowed, this tit for tat imposition of regulations on others would be akin to what the Framers wanted to avoid when they ditched the Articles of Confederation. It's at the heart of why we have a Constitution in the first place, no matter how principled the voters of California think they are.

I get it. So can California weed growers make a similar claim in selling their product in Texas?

Doesn't the Federal government still ban weed? That would mean there's no real interstate commerce anyway. When the ban goes away, then we can deal with how individual state laws impact others.

[kalm]

Yeah…this ain’t right.

The Austin couple, both 35 and working for tech companies, had gone through a year and a half of fertility treatments. Then in late August, 18 weeks into the pregnancy, Amanda Zurawski was diagnosed with an incompetent cervix – meaning the base of her uterus was opening prematurely, so the fetus would soon come out or an infection could take hold. The condition is responsible for more than 20% of miscarriages in the second trimester.

Still, at the time of the diagnosis, the fetus had a faint heartbeat, and Zurawski’s life was not yet in danger. Under Texas law, doctors cannot terminate a pregnancy with a fetal heartbeat unless the patient is having “a medical emergency.

In practice, that means waiting until the mother’s condition gets worse.

It means playing chicken with the woman’s life.

After waiting three days for the inevitable miscarriage, Amanda Zurawski suddenly deteriorated: Raging fever. Dangerously low blood pressure. Rapidly spreading bacterial infection, sending her body into sepsis.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/co ... 577810007/

[GannonFan]

Yeah…this isn’t ain’t right.

The Austin couple, both 35 and working for tech companies, had gone through a year and a half of fertility treatments. Then in late August, 18 weeks into the pregnancy, Amanda Zurawski was diagnosed with an incompetent cervix – meaning the base of her uterus was opening prematurely, so the fetus would soon come out or an infection could take hold. The condition is responsible for more than 20% of miscarriages in the second trimester.

Still, at the time of the diagnosis, the fetus had a faint heartbeat, and Zurawski’s life was not yet in danger. Under Texas law, doctors cannot terminate a pregnancy with a fetal heartbeat unless the patient is having “a medical emergency.

In practice, that means waiting until the mother’s condition gets worse.

It means playing chicken with the woman’s life.

After waiting three days for the inevitable miscarriage, Amanda Zurawski suddenly deteriorated: Raging fever. Dangerously low blood pressure. Rapidly spreading bacterial infection, sending her body into sepsis.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/co ... 577810007/

The whole abortion debate is always at the highest, most superficial level, that we never have people talk intelligently about the details that go into banning or not banning. That's of course par for the course for our political class, as they're never really accused of ever being intelligent. But there are many details that should be discussed and debated and settled on when it comes to legislation regarding the abortion procedure and when it should be allowed and when it shouldn't.

As for kalmie's example, I thought they could test for the incompetent cervix early and I thought there were things that could be done, surgically, to account for that? Why didn't they do that in this case? I thought they could basically reinforce the cervix (aka sew it up) so that it doesn't run the risk of miscarriage. Is there some other crazy Texas law that keeps the cervix sacred and doctors aren't allowed to toy with that?