every time the courts rule in a way that establishes a new right?
The courts don’t routinely invent entirely new rights whole cloth. It’s much, much more common to make rulings on exactly how already established rights apply in new or untested scenarios. Roe is one of those exceptions. Roe was weak legally, even if it was good from a policy standpoint.
They never did anything because roe was rock fucking solid!!!
No, it wasn’t. It was always just one bad decision away from crumbling, one that was always imminent because while it might be good policy, it was a bad decision from a legal standpoint. Any decision built on implied rights drawn from the shadows cast by other legal rights is inherently going to be on shaky ground, because determining what exactly those implied rights are is like reading tea leaves.
It doesn’t help that a lot of the arguments, positions and implied rights surrounding abortion seem to only apply in that context.
Their intent was clear as some states even had trigger laws that would enact the moment Roe fell.
And some, like mine, just never repealed the old law against it. No need to pass a trigger law when the old unenforceable abortion ban that’s literally older than the state can suddenly become enforceable.
EDIT: Surprised no one commented on the “literally older than the state” part. I’m in WV, our old abortion ban was carried over when we more or less imported Virginia’s criminal code wholesale when we broke off from Virginia to stay with the Union in the Civil War.
There is a common misconception that long term effects will manifest long after the injection. All vaccines with longterm effects manifested their effect shortly after the injection. It makes little sense that you will have adverse reactions months or years later because the compounds are long gone from your system.
There are lots of things that do damage that isn’t necessarily obvious in the short term, especially if you don’t know exactly what that damage might look like. There’s a reason I said we probably made a good bet with mRNA vaccines for COVID, the odds that they’ve done some kind of damage that isn’t immediately apparent and we’ll see an uptick in some problem or another a few years down the line in vaccinated people is very low but not zero. If the risk of this vaccine damaging patients in some fashion that wasn’t apparent within the duration of trials was zero, rather than merely low there would be no reason to make the manufacturers immune to liability from damages caused as a consequence.
On the upside, we conveniently have a large population who have decided to be the control group for mRNA COVID vaccines out of political spite so we have a large sample to compare long term outcomes between.
I’m going to preface this by saying I had the moderna series and all boosters. Also had COVID once, ironically the weekend before Id scheduled a booster. I entirely believe that the vaccine is effective at reducing infection rates and severity.
have been referring to the mRNA covid vaccines as ‘the cancer vaccines’
Ironic, because they literally started as “cancer vaccines”, literally a niche cancer treatment. When they were first approved in 2008.
based on disinformation that they would ‘interact with your genes’ and ‘give you cancer in 2 years’
We really don’t know the long term consequences of mRNA vaccines. The COVID vaccine is the first application of them at large scale, and the first application of them where we’d normally expect most recipients to still be alive and mostly healthy ten years down the road (again, because they were originally created as a cancer treatment).
Check in in 2030 and we’ll know whether or not we made a good bet on that one. We probably did, but there’s a reason the manufacturers were given immunity from liability for anything that comes of the COVID vaccines.
The risk is what the GOP is threatening to do in Colorado. If Trump isn’t allowed on the public voting infrastructure, they’ll just caucus instead.
They have every right to. Again, because a primary isn’t an election for office, it’s a private entity (in this case the GOP) being allowed to borrow public infrastructure to help them decide who they want to back for the actual election.
Same reason super delegates for the Dems weren’t illegal, even if they were in bad faith.
- Must not be an insurrectionist. ❌
The entire legal fight over this is going to be about who decides if that condition and what standard they have to follow to do so.
Going to get down voted for this, but I honestly think Minnesota has the right of it. The GOP is a private entity and can run whoever they want in their primaries.
14A has nothing to say about how parties select their candidates, and if they want to select someone who isn’t qualified that’s their problem.
Also, if Trump fails to win the GOP nomination, someone really needs to seed the idea that they should all do write in votes for Trump instead of whoever the GOP would nominate instead. Show the GOP they shouldn’t back down and show the Dems they can’t stop the Trump Train. Also, you know, splitting the GOP vote to make an easier Dem win, but sshhh about that last part.
What if someone operates a drone, flies the drone from NJ to NY and has the drone shoot someone in the middle of 5th avenue? That’s a lot closer to what Texas is reaching for with this - they think this hospital in WA is doing things illegal in TX via telemedicine. Hence asking for things like patients at this WA hospital who did their labs in TX.
That’s actually an interesting question. Reading further about this case it sounds like they’re looking for evidence that the hospital was providing care not permitted in TX to patients in TX via telemedicine. Hence why they are asking for things like patients who had their labs done in TX - you don’t generally have your labs done 2000 miles away from your doctor in cases other than telemedicine.
I have no idea whether that means TX or WA law applies.
I’m reading between the lines a bit, but I think the idea is that Texas thinks SCH is providing care that violated Texas law via telemedicine. That’s why they’re asking about stuff like patients of SCH who had their labs done in Texas.
So, companies will create Threads accounts and use them to post ads as regular Threads posts, then? Because that’s what the block button is for.
There’s also nothing that stops any company from doing exactly this in any instance that currently exists, including spinning up their own instance.
If we’re talking ads that Threads will be inserting into the feeds on their site, what does it matter? Either they are a user making a regular post treated like any other user or they are something that Threads can only push on their own site.
but it will be a sanitised corporate safe space for advertisers
Posts on threads might be, but they can’t force their standards onto posts or users on other servers. That’s kinda the point of federation.
So, posts from Threads users will have to meet Threads “safe space” rules (because they are Threads users and Threads can require whatever it wants of them), but this means nothing for your posts on any other server. Worst case, Threads blocks you from visibility on Threads.
and ads sprinkled throughout.
Threads has no power to push their ads onto any federated server. They can show whatever ads they want on Threads, but those ads don’t appear to anyone else and likewise they couldn’t do anything to artificially make their content show up higher on any other server.
Alright, fair enough, but why would anyone allow meta even an inch of space into a ‘free’ platform?
It’s an open protocol, they can join if they want. That’s kinda the point of being an open protocol, anyone willing to implement it just can.
I imagine that if tomorrow Meta decides to run a free email service ala Hotmail or Gmail you’d be demanding that they will destroy email everywhere if they aren’t put on every black hole list immediately?
threatening to harvest our conversations without our fucking permission,
Public posts on social media are well public. There’s literally nothing that stops them from reading your posts without federation, and federation does very little to change that in a meaningful way.
or using Microsoft’s tactic of “embrace and extend” to destroy the competition
By what, adding features to Threads that make users prefer it over other ActivityPub implementations? The worst case here is that Meta federates, then does something that breaks federation and their users don’t jump ship to another instance but stick with the Meta product?
Anyone can implement ActivityPub. We have no problem with that.
So long as they aren’t a giant corp you personally see as especially evil, then if they implement ActivityPub they need to be blocked as globally as possible?
I find it bizarre you think the mere possibility of users from a big corporate service being able to communicate with the fediverse is akin to wolves attacking sheep.
If you really need your echo chamber to be free of people who use Meta servers, you could just block them as a user without mandating everyone else do so too.
That’s a terrible analogy. That’s like saying that Google running an email service ruined your email and the only solution is for everyone to block all emails from accounts hosted by Google.
Threads federation doesn’t change anything about the rest of Lemmy or Mastodon.
The absolute worst case is that it brings a ton more users into the fold, eternal September style.
Plot twist: that large district is actually Delaware, which still has only one district, somehow)
Because of the method used to calculate apportionment. It’s mathematically designed to assign each representative in a way that minimizes the average difference in population/representative.
It’s actually very good at doing that, it’s just that a few states are very small and still get the minimum one House Rep and two Senators and four are so big they blow the curve on the other end.
Frankly, we’d be better off in general if we merged some of the states that get one or two House Reps. We really only need one Dakota, for example.
For example, Rebecca Sugar faced a struggle just to continue Steven Universe, one of their more successful titles, but eventually she was forced to wrap it up and leave. Twice.
A big part of this was Garnet and international markets. What with being an open lesbian relationship it had to be…edited for some markets. Which was a cause of struggle and tension. The wedding episode supposedly is what killed it.
Just another example of why we need district lines to be assigned by an explicit mathematical process rather than politicians deciding what will best let them retain power.
Least split line is an example of an attempt at that (basically if you have an even number of districts to split into, draw the shortest line across the region that splits the population into an even number of people on each side and put half the districts on each side. If odd, then do almost the same, except instead of an even split, one side gets the extra “share” of people and the extra district to split into. Repeat the process for each piece until you have one district on each side of the line.
For example, if a state has 5 seats, then draw the shortest line that puts 60% of the population on one side and 40% on the other (a 3:2 ratio). Then for the 40% side, draw the shortest line across it that splits the population in half. For the 60% side, you draw the shortest line that produces a 2:1 split, then the shortest line across the 2 side that splits the population evenly. Each district now contains 20% of the population, all drawn without regard to or consideration of political affiliations or identity groups, and all generally pretty compact. Inconvenient if you want to ensure your party’s continued power or create “majority minority” districts, but then those aren’t the goals (and are actually antithetical to the goal of preventing gerrymandering).