A judge in Nevada rejected a proposed 2024 ballot initiative that sought to enshrine reproductive rights, including abortion, in the state’s constitution. Siding with a newly established PAC — the …
I think one should criticize the influence of the courts rather than simply blaming ‘the conservatives’. The court system has become quite the monster over the past 100 years. They can have free reign over policy decisions that ought to be handled by the legislature. Because of judicial review, the Judicial branch of the federal government can effectively make law where there was none before which used to be the domain of the Legislatures and the populace.
Did you know that around a hundred years ago, the Legislative branch controlled the docket for the Supreme Court?
I know that’s not the point that you’re trying to make, as blaming your woes on the conservatives is much easier for the brain. I’m sure that if the average .world user had dictatorial power for a day, one of the first acts would be to disenfranchise the Christians because they are problem voters, and shortly after repealing the second amendment in its entirety.
I like guns and free exercise of religion thank you. I do agree that the judicial branch has expanded its own power too far. I think that is an inevitable result of the intractability of the legislative branch. When it comes to judges make no decisions that should have been laws, that have been coming from conservative justices most frequently in recent years (Dobbs, Bruen, and Citizens United to name a few).
I mostly agree, though I’d like to point out that the Dobbs decision was overturning this trend. Roe v. Wade was a case very much creating legislation where there was none. It didn’t have very good justification, but now with Dobbs, we have the opportunity to codify what we actually want in our law today. That was written in the Dobbs opinion IIRC. Nevada seems safe for those wishing to preserve abortion at the moment, but the Judge here is making things much more complicated than they ought to be.
(I really hate the citizens united case. The conservatives may have passed it, but the only thing it conserves are the elites)
What’s illegal is different from what’s reasonable. I’m going to have to find the judge’s opinion, but the article doesn’t really give any reasons why it’s illegal.
Congress passes all sorts of these big bundles of law all the time
You seriously see no problem with just putting massive bundles of issues on a purely binary yes/no vote with no room for anything to be changed or removed?
At the same time it could be said that Roe was preventing the creation of legislation where there should be none. While rights like privacy and bodily autonomy are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, they are woven throughout the Constitution and firmly established in the Federalist papers and other foundational documents.
Lmao tell me you’re just posting outrage without reading the article without telling me.
If you had been bothered to read before making a retarded quip, you’d notice that the rejection by judge was because the ballot measure was not specific enough, and was just meant to tack a bunch of stuff on such that it could get passed simply by being attached to a different issue.
If you don’t see why that’s not how things should run, I only assume you’re the one person on earth who isn’t a corrupt politician that just absolutely salivates over every god awful omnibus bill with hundreds of riders for random garbage
No. It’s quite telling that you refuse to address the actual reason, and are just trying to pin it off on anything else. Perhaps there’s a reason you’re so incredibly pissy that these issues can’t just all be slammed into one omnibus package, but rather have to be individually voted on?
It’s pretty dishonest to call it an omnibus package. It all comes down to whether or not you think the government should have the power to regulate a person’s fertility and childbearing. That is hardly the limited type of government conservatives say they support.
It covers a whole lot of things. If you could be bothered to read, which i know is a struggle for you, you’d see it covers a lot of stuff and isn’t one concise policy.
OK, and? Democracy isn’t some god to worship. If democracy can’t achieve good results, is it not reasonable to view alternative systems as a next choice?
Well, that would leave oligarchic and authoritarian systems. If we assume that every politician is primarily looking out for itself, then the people should go with a democratic system. A dictator is after all, only beholden to itself, and will aim to extract wealth from the people it rules to secure its own position and lifestyle. If the US where to switch from a democracy to a dictatorship, most citizens would see their taxes go up, and their economic and political freedoms decline. And for the USA, this would spit in the face of conservative values.
Nobody says we must maintain some “pure” system. For an already existing example, passing a constitutional amendment is far, far more difficult than regular legislation. Is that undemocratic? By the most “pure” definition, yes. It’s far from just letting everything be decided by 50+1 popular vote. Or hell, even the fact that we have representatives we elect instead of using direct democracy for everything.
Limiting democracy doesn’t mean just installing a dictator or something. It can be as simple as placing some issues beyond the reach of majoritatian whims. I never see any of the people crying about democracy upset that their free speech isn’t under question of majoritatian will.
If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.
I think one should criticize the influence of the courts rather than simply blaming ‘the conservatives’. The court system has become quite the monster over the past 100 years. They can have free reign over policy decisions that ought to be handled by the legislature. Because of judicial review, the Judicial branch of the federal government can effectively make law where there was none before which used to be the domain of the Legislatures and the populace.
Did you know that around a hundred years ago, the Legislative branch controlled the docket for the Supreme Court?
I know that’s not the point that you’re trying to make, as blaming your woes on the conservatives is much easier for the brain. I’m sure that if the average .world user had dictatorial power for a day, one of the first acts would be to disenfranchise the Christians because they are problem voters, and shortly after repealing the second amendment in its entirety.
I like guns and free exercise of religion thank you. I do agree that the judicial branch has expanded its own power too far. I think that is an inevitable result of the intractability of the legislative branch. When it comes to judges make no decisions that should have been laws, that have been coming from conservative justices most frequently in recent years (Dobbs, Bruen, and Citizens United to name a few).
I mostly agree, though I’d like to point out that the Dobbs decision was overturning this trend. Roe v. Wade was a case very much creating legislation where there was none. It didn’t have very good justification, but now with Dobbs, we have the opportunity to codify what we actually want in our law today. That was written in the Dobbs opinion IIRC. Nevada seems safe for those wishing to preserve abortion at the moment, but the Judge here is making things much more complicated than they ought to be.
(I really hate the citizens united case. The conservatives may have passed it, but the only thing it conserves are the elites)
How so? Is it not reasonable to enforce that ballot measures must be specific and not just a ton of stuff all bundled into a big all-or-nothing vote?
What’s illegal is different from what’s reasonable. I’m going to have to find the judge’s opinion, but the article doesn’t really give any reasons why it’s illegal.
Congress passes all sorts of these big bundles of law all the time
You seriously see no problem with just putting massive bundles of issues on a purely binary yes/no vote with no room for anything to be changed or removed?
Then vote it down
Actually, now that I read the damn article again, it seems like there’s a single subject rule in Nevada. That’s the crux of the issue.
Yes. That was the entire point. What have you been talking about this whole time
At the same time it could be said that Roe was preventing the creation of legislation where there should be none. While rights like privacy and bodily autonomy are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, they are woven throughout the Constitution and firmly established in the Federalist papers and other foundational documents.
Lmao tell me you’re just posting outrage without reading the article without telling me.
If you had been bothered to read before making a retarded quip, you’d notice that the rejection by judge was because the ballot measure was not specific enough, and was just meant to tack a bunch of stuff on such that it could get passed simply by being attached to a different issue.
If you don’t see why that’s not how things should run, I only assume you’re the one person on earth who isn’t a corrupt politician that just absolutely salivates over every god awful omnibus bill with hundreds of riders for random garbage
So your argument is the public is too stupid to decide ballot measures by themselves?
No. It’s quite telling that you refuse to address the actual reason, and are just trying to pin it off on anything else. Perhaps there’s a reason you’re so incredibly pissy that these issues can’t just all be slammed into one omnibus package, but rather have to be individually voted on?
It’s pretty dishonest to call it an omnibus package. It all comes down to whether or not you think the government should have the power to regulate a person’s fertility and childbearing. That is hardly the limited type of government conservatives say they support.
It covers a whole lot of things. If you could be bothered to read, which i know is a struggle for you, you’d see it covers a lot of stuff and isn’t one concise policy.
All that stuff relates to fertility and child bearing like I said.
Denser than a fucking brick, you are
Tell me where I am wrong. I didn’t see anything saying otherwise in the article
deleted by creator
OK, and? Democracy isn’t some god to worship. If democracy can’t achieve good results, is it not reasonable to view alternative systems as a next choice?
Well, that would leave oligarchic and authoritarian systems. If we assume that every politician is primarily looking out for itself, then the people should go with a democratic system. A dictator is after all, only beholden to itself, and will aim to extract wealth from the people it rules to secure its own position and lifestyle. If the US where to switch from a democracy to a dictatorship, most citizens would see their taxes go up, and their economic and political freedoms decline. And for the USA, this would spit in the face of conservative values.
That’s certainly what Republicans want but there are alternatives. Our current system is pretty authoritarian anyway, TBH.
Well, yeah, American democracy is rather flawed.
Nobody says we must maintain some “pure” system. For an already existing example, passing a constitutional amendment is far, far more difficult than regular legislation. Is that undemocratic? By the most “pure” definition, yes. It’s far from just letting everything be decided by 50+1 popular vote. Or hell, even the fact that we have representatives we elect instead of using direct democracy for everything.
Limiting democracy doesn’t mean just installing a dictator or something. It can be as simple as placing some issues beyond the reach of majoritatian whims. I never see any of the people crying about democracy upset that their free speech isn’t under question of majoritatian will.
Have you even read the comment I’m replying to?
Removed by mod
Not even in the slightest