buddha

i think they wanted to codify what most people actually think the law should be: abortion is ok in the first trimester and then only ok after that in very rare circumstances where the mothers life is in danger or other moral concerns like incest or rape. that's how the opinion reads to me. that's why i think they wanted to "do the right thing." i think most americans would take that as the law today. "viability" has shifted somewhat from roe's time as medicine has gotten better, but if its 22 weeks or 24 weeks instead of 28 weeks, that's ok,i think. the problem is that they are judges and not legislators and what they did has dubious constitutional foundations.

or the people who sent out the addresses for the supreme court justices' homes and told people to go protest in front of them.

then youre calling nonsense on roe and casey too.

this has always been the problem: how to make abortion legal nationally in a country that is evenly split on whether it should be? roe waa an awful way to do that. and as a piece of constitutional law, its very suspect and very easily attacked. the justices had the right idea, but its difficult to put it into practice. the consequences are that roe was bad law and has been sort of a punchline for judges acting as legislators ever since. lots of liberal commentators have felt the same way, including ginsburg (famously). if alito's opinion ends up being the actual opinion (which, again, is far from 100%), then i suspect you'll see an initial rush in many conservative led states to pass onerus and punitive bans on abortions and those who provide them, followed by a backlash and then a general walking back to more tolerable bans (things like what you see in most western countries). that's if this follows the usual patterns. otoh, we may be beyond the point of compromise on such things and perhaps it will get much worse? so is dobbs dred scot II? the decision that hastens the civil war?

of course! the fact that the lincoln memorial still stands is an affront to america.

one of the arguments in roe/casey for finding the right to have an abortion as protected by the 14th amendment is that the right has a long history of being present in the common law/history even if it is not explicitly written into the constitution. roe/casey and the briefs in support of them in dobbs cite this as a reason to find such a right to an abortion. alito, of course, takes issue with this. he goes all the way back to the beginnings of the common law to trace a history of the opposite being true: that abortion has always been different and has never been allowed and almost always been criminalized. he cites to a number of treatises on the english common law (from which american law was based) that talk about the illegality of abortion after "quickening." that's where hale was mentioned. he cites to a number of laws enacted in america in the 19th century criminalizing abortion as well. the argument is a response to the foundation of roe/casey, to contradict its argument that the right to an abortion has always been available in america when the opposite has often been true. he tries to explicitly separate abortion from contraception, sexuality, etc. writing multiple times that abortion is much different because it involves the death of another "unborn person." i'm not saying he's right. but you keep joking about somethint being "deeply rooted in history" so i thought i would at least try to explain why he wrote that. its an argument against the fourteenth amendment argument put forth in roe/casey.

yeah, who needs leaders like abraham lincoln, fdr, or teddy roosevelt. thise guys were just a bunch of christian talibans! you dont elect a "religious leader", but you can and do elect plenty kf good leaders who also happen to be religious.

his second stint in double a.

the evidence is pretty clear now: baez and correa both suck.

joey harrington could throw the ball 50 yards in the air too...

how many games does goff have where he completes 25 passes for 200 yards or so? a bunch. dink dunk dink dunk. checkdown checkdown. now, none of us have the all 22 and none of us know the plays, so we dont know what goff could have done. but i recall plenty of times when guys were open and goff just didnt throw it or didnt see it. look at the denver game. or the chicago game. or the philly game. actually, dont look at the philly game.

i think the older players would have been much better three point shooters if it had been a major part of the game back then. guys like jordan and isiah would have been taking and making more threes if the game was played that way back then instead of being a mid range game.

almost every nfl qb can throw the ball 50 yards in the air. the question is can he do it accurately and on time. is he scared? is it a 50 yard duck floater? does he handle pocket pressure? can he identify the open receiver and hit him in stride? in the first part of the year goff was awful and the answer to almost all those questions was "no." at the very end of the year, he looked better. more comfortable in the pocket. he was still throwing ducks, but he completed a lot more of them. not a big number of downfield shots, but enough. he looked average. competent. but not really good and certainly not like a top qb. the lions have lots of guys who are ok, or decent, or good on their best days. but they could certainly be helped if they improved those players. and a better qb would make the team better too. if they can draft a potentially better qb next year, they should definitely try to do that. or get a better one on the trade market.

im not fighting with you, i just remembered the argument against iuds from before. i dont agree with it.

i think the reasoning being those are devices that "kill" a fertilized egg, which includes iuds. im not sure if that's factually accurate about all iuds, but that's the reasoning. they had the same arguments in those exception to obamacare cases where some religious institutions didnt want to pay for certain types if birth control that acted to destroy a fertilized egg. again, i dont knownif that's true about iuds, but thats the reasoning. theyre not banning condoms.

what types of contraception?

he's already better than stockton. did you ever see stockton play like paul played yesterday? its paul and magic.

so how are you going to hide luka on defense?

chris paul is so good.

how did faedo look? the box score and gamecast makes it sound like he got lucky not to give up more runs.

just a reminder to fuck the leafs.

i think fields was outside their timeline. he needed to rebuild the roster first. get most everything else set then bring in the qb on a rookie deal. let him learn for a year, then make your moves for free agents to finish the build. that's why i think they'll go qb next year if they dont have to sell the farm to do it and there is someone worth taking that high. he sits for 2023 while goff plays on a decent deal, then they get off goff's deal after 2023 for nothing and let the new qb roll. and have oodles of salary cap space to play with if they need a qb or cb or a star player to supplement. if they took fields, they'd be halfway through his rookie deal before he could takeover and they'd be without a building block at a prime position like sewell. that's the plan. lion-dom sometimes gets in the way...

meanwhile, in chicago the hits just keep on coming.

goff's contract will also be up in a couple years. it would be nice to have a ready replacement on a rookie deal rather than having to extend goff for $10-20 millon or give up assets in a trade or take someone else's failed project.

one thing i do like about this team ia that they are building up the lines. i know its passe in the nfl to build through the trenches and now everyone wants to build inside out, but football is still a game dominated by very large men who can do very athletic things. the lions look solid on the oline and now have some young pieces on the dline. i think that's a positive. if i'm looking to next year's draft, the obvious needs to finish off the foundation are qb and cb. even if you like goff, having a young, dynamic qb could take the team's future in a great direction.