The conservative corner of the other main board I hang out on says something like 100 Seals are going to resign rather then get vaccinated. The main reference I find is on Fucker’s page. Reading between the lines, it sounds like the Seals are being treated exactly like every other member of the military - so that actually seems like the right thing to do.
Texas Congressman says the Border patrol agents caught whipping immigrants were doing God’s work.
Funny that the manager says he’s tired of being told what to do, yet he seems to have no problem telling other people what to do. Sounds like a Republican to me!
How much do you want to bet that that restaurant fails its next health department inspection?
“Well of course I’m putting rat droppings in the stew! They told me not to, so I had no choice!”
Tennessee now mandates that if a vaccinated person gets a break-through case of COVID, they CANNOT be treated with monoclonal antibodies. That treatment is reserved for the unvaccinated.
The irresponsible, we will care for! But those taking personal responsibility for themselves…they’re on their own!
PRIORITIES!
eta: apologies, not yet a law–just policy.
A Republican candidate for Nevada Lieutenant Governor was literally thrown out of the Clark County Commission meeting for interrupting their vote to declare covid misinformation a public health crisis.
Texas is suing the federal government to allow trans workers to be misgendered at work.
Loser Donald is suing the New York Times (and his niece) for “no less than One Hundred Million Dollars”.
Explain this to me please? What basis in common do Roe v Wade and these other cases have, such that dumping RvW also dumps the other rulings you mention? What other rulings as well might be affected? (Is it explained in the link you posted? I haven’t looked there yet.)
ETA: Okay, I read that article now. It’s still not clear that dumping RvW means dumping those other rulings too. Only that this jackass says so.
Because apparently he’s not spending enough on lawyers these days.
One hopes they’re all getting paid in advance.
My stepdaughter has run into something similar where she works. If you are vaccinated, you cannot use paid time off if you need to take time off of work due to you or a family member testing positive for COVID - it comes out of your vacation. Only unvaccinated people can use PTO for COVID related absences. So yeah, they’re basically encouraging people to not get vaccinated.
The rights for gay sex and gay marriage were predicated on the 14th (I think) Amendment (unless it was the 4th?), using the same reasoning as was used for Roe. I’ve heard a number of lawyers state that the reasoning was weak for Roe to be decided on that basis and that Congress needs to find a spine and do this legislatively because it should never have been left to the courts to decide.
The right to gay sex is enshrined in the right for people not to be unreasonably seized and their places not to be unreasonably searched?
I kid, obviously - the decision on Obergefell v. Hodges was based on the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I thought the right to privacy, which is sort of implied in the 4th, but it’s been a while since I looked at the reasoning.
Wow. My company, headquartered in a red state, actually just changed their policy that unvaccinated no longer get paid out of the “Emergency Health Code” and have to use sick or vacation.
The gist of the argument is that the SCOTUS opinion overturning Roe could be written in such a way as to not just deny the right to make your own medical decisions (i/e abortion), but to deny any right that is not enumerated specifically in the Constitution. The argument (long made on this board by conservative posters) is that the Supreme Court has no role in protecting or defining rights that aren’t listed in the Bill of Rights. If the majority of this Court agrees with that assessment, then a whole host of previously protected rights could no longer be protected. Same sex activity. Same sex marriage. Heck, if they took it far enough, the right to travel, the right to vote, the right to make medical decisions, etc. could be much more easily infringed upon by conservative majorities.
Much more likely, however, is that the majority will simply decide to overrule Roe and its progeny and find the right to an abortion is no longer a “fundamental” right, and thus the state can much more easily restrict it. The next obvious step after that is for the Court to go through those rights that the conservative justices don’t like and declare those too as no longer “fundamental”. Then same sex marriage, sodomy, and other rights that SCOTUS once protected disappear. It won’t be all done in one case, but they could all fall in a short amount of time with an activist conservative Court.
That’s the concern. And it’s not just “this jackass” who recognizes it.
What happens is that states start making laws that would have been overturned on the same basis as RvW, and testing the court’s opinion on those.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that two adults of the same gender can live together, so if a state makes a law forbidding such a practice, would an anti-RvW court uphold that law?
Could this be used to overturn Brown v Topeka Board of Education as well? I’m not disagreeing with you, @Hamlet, but it seems to me that this argument would need a new definition of slippery slope.
For as much criticism as conservatives levy against the more liberal justices for making up rights out of thin air, the conservative justices are willing to do so for rights they want to enjoy, for example self-defense or some medical decisions. Unless this Court goes full-Clarence and rejects all rights not enumerated, they may find a right to cohabitation. But, as they are wont to do, they will define said right in such a way as to protect them, but not others. Therefore, there is a fundamental right for opposite sex members to cohabitate, but not one for same sex ones. That’s how they get around the definition of a right, by defining it by who has traditionally been allowed to enjoy it rather than the right itself.
They may also simply decide that, since cohabitation is not an enumerated right, the federal judiciary has no power to protect it. So it then is a state by state issue, with no federal oversight. So if the State enacts it and the state judiciary upholds it, it’s the law. There may be room for an Equal Protection argument (who can cohabitate and whon can’t), but that would depend on the law. As long as it is aimed at an unprotected group (like homosexuals or transgendered, or whomever the right wing decides to hate next), it will stand. This, I think, would be the most likely outcome.
IANAL (I just work for one) but doesn’t that contradict the Ninth Amendment?