|
Post by volleyguy on Feb 6, 2024 10:54:46 GMT -5
It's probably the one issue which unites the Republican House and Senate caucuses more than anything else. The problem is not the House and Senate caucuses, but the actual basis of the Supreme Court decision.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 6, 2024 10:57:11 GMT -5
It's probably the one issue which unites the Republican House and Senate caucuses more than anything else. The problem is not the House and Senate caucuses, but the actual basis of the Supreme Court decision. Explain, please.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Feb 6, 2024 11:05:29 GMT -5
The problem is not the House and Senate caucuses, but the actual basis of the Supreme Court decision. Explain, please. Under the existing SCOTUS decision, it is as difficult for Congress to pass a nationwide ban on abortion as it is to pass a ban on guns. Of course, SCOTUS can change its position (and probably wants to), but that's why the states moved to push for their own state constitutional amendments in the wake of the decision (murder/homicide, for example, is usually a state charge). I'm not suggesting that there's no risk--there certainly is--but the victory was not as clear as it seemed initially.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 6, 2024 11:14:56 GMT -5
Under the existing SCOTUS decision, it is as difficult for Congress to pass a nationwide ban on abortion as it is to pass a ban on guns. Of course, SCOTUS can change its position (and probably wants to), but that's why the states moved to push for their own state constitutional amendments in the wake of the decision (murder/homicide, for example, is usually a state charge). I'm not suggesting that there's no risk--there certainly is--but the victory was not as clear as it seemed initially. Congress has the power to regulate abortion. Insofar as SCOTUS is concerned, they're far more likely uphold a theoretical nationwide ban than a federal codifying of Roe because the former fits their politics and the latter doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Feb 6, 2024 11:17:01 GMT -5
Under the existing SCOTUS decision, it is as difficult for Congress to pass a nationwide ban on abortion as it is to pass a ban on guns. Of course, SCOTUS can change its position (and probably wants to), but that's why the states moved to push for their own state constitutional amendments in the wake of the decision (murder/homicide, for example, is usually a state charge). I'm not suggesting that there's no risk--there certainly is--but the victory was not as clear as it seemed initially. Congress has the power to regulate abortion. Insofar as SCOTUS is concerned, they're far more likely uphold a theoretical nationwide ban than a federal codifying of Roe because the former fits their politics and the latter doesn't. Congress has the ability to regulate healthcare funding that it provides (which is significant), but regulating abortion is different from banning it.
|
|
|
Post by blue-footedbooby on Feb 6, 2024 11:18:15 GMT -5
Personally, I like wording from both the House and Senates bill's (heaven forbid we implement any immigration policy or standards that other countries implement)
For asylum seekers House bill states:
"‘‘and has arrived in the United States at a port of entry" and if "‘‘(xiv) the alien was firmly resettled in 20 another country prior to arriving in the 21 United States; or 22 ‘‘(xv) there are reasonable grounds for 23 concluding the alien could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the 25 alien’s country of nationality or, in the "
Proof of persecution seems to be common amongst both bills.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 6, 2024 11:18:52 GMT -5
Congress has the power to regulate abortion. Insofar as SCOTUS is concerned, they're far more likely uphold a theoretical nationwide ban than a federal codifying of Roe because the former fits their politics and the latter doesn't. Congress has the ability to regulate healthcare funding that it provides (which is significant), but regulating abortion is different from banning it. Making obtaining or performing an abortion a federal crime would do the trick.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Feb 6, 2024 11:23:58 GMT -5
Personally, I like wording from both the House and Senates bill's (heaven forbid we implement any immigration policy or standards that other countries implement) For asylum seekers House bill states: "‘‘and has arrived in the United States at a port of entry" and if "‘‘(xiv) the alien was firmly resettled in 20 another country prior to arriving in the 21 United States; or 22 ‘‘(xv) there are reasonable grounds for 23 concluding the alien could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the 25 alien’s country of nationality or, in the " Proof of persecution seems to be common amongst both bills. let's start by not calling people aliens.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Feb 6, 2024 11:25:48 GMT -5
Congress has the ability to regulate healthcare funding that it provides (which is significant), but regulating abortion is different from banning it. Making obtaining or performing an abortion a federal crime would do the trick. lol
|
|
|
Post by blue-footedbooby on Feb 6, 2024 11:26:23 GMT -5
Personally, I like wording from both the House and Senates bill's (heaven forbid we implement any immigration policy or standards that other countries implement) For asylum seekers House bill states: "‘‘and has arrived in the United States at a port of entry" and if "‘‘(xiv) the alien was firmly resettled in 20 another country prior to arriving in the 21 United States; or 22 ‘‘(xv) there are reasonable grounds for 23 concluding the alien could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the 25 alien’s country of nationality or, in the " Proof of persecution seems to be common amongst both bills. let's start by not calling people aliens. good luck with that. It pretty much permeates our entire justice system. www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/illegal-aliens-federal-state-and-local-criminal-justice-systemsJust because the likes of Trump dehumanized the term doesn't mean it's so.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Feb 6, 2024 11:30:26 GMT -5
referring to people as aliens is dehumanizing.
|
|
|
Post by blue-footedbooby on Feb 6, 2024 11:35:45 GMT -5
referring to people as aliens is dehumanizing. What is the meaning of Alienis? Definitions: foreigner. outsider. person of another house. stranger to the family. Sounds usable to me.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Feb 6, 2024 11:39:22 GMT -5
referring to people as aliens is dehumanizing. What is the meaning of Alienis? Definitions: foreigner. outsider. person of another house. stranger to the family. Sounds usable to me. good on you. I believe it to be dehumanizing.
|
|
|
Post by blue-footedbooby on Feb 6, 2024 11:44:12 GMT -5
What is the meaning of Alienis? Definitions: foreigner. outsider. person of another house. stranger to the family. Sounds usable to me. good on you. I believe it to be dehumanizing. Like I said, some have used it in a dehumanizing nature and shame on them. That doesn't mean it inherently is.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Feb 6, 2024 11:49:13 GMT -5
good on you. I believe it to be dehumanizing. Like I said, some have used it in a dehumanizing nature and shame on them. That doesn't mean it inherently is. OK
|
|