Roe v. Wade

What part of "it will be because the majority of the people in her jurisdiction voted for her" was unclear?

Right back at you.

I agree, there is a small minority trying to dominate the majority. The only problem is we disagree on what minority we’re talking about.

Which minority are you talking about and what are they pushing on the majority?

Ur mom.

She's the minority or what they're pushing?

She is quite small, and I do want to shove her down a staircase on occasion.

I dunno what's worse, when they say the quiet part out loud, or when they try to stuff the note back in the dog whistle.

My fake internet points say otherwise.

Morton's has been flooded with phone calls and fake reservations after it said Brett Kavanaugh had a 'right' to 'eat dinner' without protestors gathering outside

https://www.businessinsider.com/bre...d-calls-fake-reservations-roe-overturn-2022-7

I didn't realize the right to eat dinner is in the Constitution.

You obviously didn’t take 3rd Amendment Law. I got a Witkin in that one.

There's no right to eat dinner without being disturbed in the Constitution.

Sure there is. It’s right after the bit about the US being a Christian theocracy.

Let's see ... would this be the minority of rural whites whose votes are artificially amplified by our electoral system?

Would it perhaps also be the party that has lost the popular vote in eight out of the last nine presidential elections, yet has a 6-to-3 edge in Supreme Court appointments and thus can basically overturn any law or precedent it doesn't like?

You and I both know that popular vote means Jack shit, Hillary knew that too. She lost the electoral votes, get over it.

Hence the comment about the minority getting to push things on the majority, Captain Comma Splice.

Republicans are now hard at work on drafting the nationwide abortion bans that they'll pass the second they get the chance.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3548140-house-republicans-weigh-national-abortion-restrictions/

Hang on a sec, I thought all they were doing was "returning it to the states where it belongs"?

Funny how the concern over domination by a (real or imagined) minority dominating things changes in direct proportion to the amount of agreement that minority has with FF's positions.

So, let’s quit pandering to minorities and let the population choose - one person, one vote. Period.

Not that FF probably thought about the issue much, but I think it would be a fair thing to see a difference between prosecutors opting not to prosecute certain criminal cases or even certain types of criminal cases and not defending certain laws in court. I don't personally think there is a meaningful distinction, but someone could say that it may make sense given limited resources and the reality of the criminal justice system to not bring (say) podunk drug possession cases that are not going to likely result in a conviction or even if they do are going to be not worth it to get to that point. And at the same time, they could think that defending the duly enacted laws of the state is a more primary job that should have limited discretion as to how it should be executed.

I mean if you’re trying to get the job of attorney general, you probably shouldn’t say you’re not going to actually do your job once elected.

Yes, my favorite things are unelected officials that are accountable to nobody.

She's explaining how she would go about the job. It's up to the voters to decide whether they like her approach or not.

I am pretty sure cannibalism is against the law. I am not sure where it is against the law, but somewhere it is.


Oh, you meant eat dinner, not eat @Dinner

if there is one constant above all in American politics and culture, it's the singular group who has held the bulk of, if not the entirety of, political and cultural power for the entire time - conservative Christians - being absolutely convinced that it is THEY who are the abused, molested, endangered, oppressed, despised and above all innocent victims well beyond the suffering of any other group.

The fear and anger that "they" are out to get "us" is literally the glue that holds the entire structure together.

Laws against eating @Dinner are pointless. You'd die if you swallowed that much bile.

Part of the job is using your best judgment as an attorney, and as a check against legislative overreach as part of a co-equal branch of government. Remember good old checks and balances from civics?

If the legislature passes a law that you believe is against the interest of the state to defend because of any number of reasons, your job is not to blindly say "Oh well, I guess I have my marching orders."

To give an example, suppose the legislature of your state passed a law reinstituting race-based slavery. Do you think it would be the job of an attorney general to defend such a law even though he realizes it is blatantly unconstitutional?

Of course with such an extreme example I wouldn’t want the AG to enforce such a law.