gehringer_2

we need those magic video filters they always come up with on CSI that when applied to grainy surveillance footage suddenly make everything appear perfectly clear.

there you go. People need to get a grip. Many states, probably states representing more than half the population of the country, will end up as jurisdictions where various levels of abortion will be legal. All of this craziness being tossed around in the end goes away and the practical question is how to set up systems to get women who need abortion to where it is legal.

if a shooting occurs in the national forest, the county or state police have full authority to use all their police powers to apprehend, and prosecute that crime. They don't share it with the FBI. The limitation is not on the police powers of the locals, it's on what they enforce. Rules and regs that are a matter of specific relevance to the operation of the forest - who can take out timber, who can be in the forest campground and when, are enforced by the rangers - but those are not matters of local law, so the locals would have nothing to do with enforcement of those those things. That is the sense in which jurisdiction is shared. I will stand by my statement that the locals have full police powers in the nat forest to enforce local/state statutes. Abortion is now clearly a matter of state law and the State police would have full authority to enforce a State's abortion law in the national forest.

you assume that because Trump could get away with it, Biden can. But you know the rules are different. You won't get abortion as an emergency past a Federal judge and if you did this SCOTUS would overrule them quickly anyway. Progressives have their hair on fire and are throwing everything they can think of against the wall, hoping to find something that might stick. This one has a much better chance if they try it inside military bases, or even inside national parks, where Federal law is already the controlling criminal code than in an area like the national forest, where it isn't, which was MB's original and still valid point and thus the reference about Isle Royale national park, even if it was only mentioned by name by me after he had alluded to it by geographical reference.

if you call putting some facts and reference to a US forest service manual about police powers on the table a sale, you'll have to accept that it's being done at no charge.

Have you looked at attendance figures in the Pac 12 for recent years? I think most of these teams are bring more liabilities than assets.

no, not an uninhabited island in Lake Superior, a US National Park in Lake Superior. The only full federal jurisdiction piece of land in the State of Mi. I gave you the link to start to educate yourself, I'm not selling anything. You can either read and learn or not. No skin off my nose. Have nice evening.

AFAIK, CO2 is not in EPA's purview. Maybe they changed the law but when I worked in the chemical and energy industry, the materials - the priority pollutants that EPA had mandate over, were spelled out in the enabling legislation and CO2 was never there. The best analog to CO2 in terms of EPA's mandate would be SO2, which like CO2 is also a material that is not an immediate toxin or ground or water pollutant but is an agent that acts in a more diffuse way on the environment like CO2, but this exactly here the legal precedent works against regulating CO2 because SO2 regulation is specifically mandated in EPA's enabling legislation. I'm not saying the world would not be a better place if the EPA had CO2 regs, or that it isn't a horrible thing that the US Congress is dysfunctional, but putting agency administrators in charge of what they are allowed to regulate is a move that has just as much potential for abuse as legislatures overturning elections.

the only way you get legal abortion in a national park would be for the Federal Gov to pass a federal abortion statute that superseded state law even in a proprietary jurisdiction and I'm not even clear that would work because you'd still have to argue that law has something to do with the Federal purpose in owning the property as a forest reserve, but then you are right back to the need to get a bill through the Senate anyway, and if you can do that you can pass a national law for everywhere - you don't need federal land. As for an emergency declaration, if COVID didn't pass muster with the courts as an emergency, abortions sure won't. Look I will grant you till the cows come home Warren said exactly what you said she said, I'm just saying she's flat wrong *if* she took 'federal land' to mean 'forests' and not just 'parks' and other federal reservations with total federal jurisdiction. Pres couldn't do it.

perfect

Slava UkrainI!

the fact the Warren didn't make the distinction does not mean it is not a real one. To the degree she didn't make the distinction she was simply incorrect. See the link below for a primer. National forests are 'propreitary' jurisdictions. The fed only enforces federal statutes there that pertain directly to the forest service mission - like resource use, park rules etc. All state criminal laws are in full force in 'proprietary' jurisdictions. https://www.fletc.gov/territorial-jurisdiction-federal-property-mp3

A primer on 'Christian' theology is a hard thing because there are lots of contradictory versions. The singular 'personal' savior declaration emphasis is fairly unique to US evangelicalism. By contrast in Roman Catholicism there is much heavier emphasis on the need to follow the rules and maintaining righteousness as you go - a requirement to be constantly absolved of the sins you commit by doing confession and penance 'as you go' to keep up your 'standing'. The more subtle concept in non-evangelical protestantism is 'faith.' Faith is generally seen as a general 'trust' in God. The relationship between 'living in faith' and sin is harder to pin down exactly. A person living in faith should not be prone to sin, that should be the mark of their faith, but should they fail, their 'faith' offers them the route to forgiveness. Or as St. Paul might put it, a person living in faith is no longer under the jurisdiction of 'law'. Maybe a simple but approximate way (untold words have already been written on the topic!) to put a Pauline theology would be to say that to be in faith removes you from the jurisdiction of any simple rule based morality and places you into one ruled under love for God and your fellow man.

you guys lost me on the Warren argument. To say "Federal Lands" is not actually a legal designation - there are various kinds of 'Federal Lands' with varying types of legal jurisdiction. It's seem unproductive to have an argument over some incompletely specified statement by a pol (a pol speaking loosely!? the Horror!), but that's just me....

I don't any way around this, but there will be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth in places like the MAC to get there.

I heard he (well his wife actually) has started a "Gofundme" for them to buy a new house. I figured you'd want to know in case you might wanted to make a contribution. 🤣

I've been there and back again. Voted for McGovern in my 1st election. Had to vote for Gerald Ford though so that was an 'R'. Voted for Carter the 1st time but while he may well be some kind of modern day saint, he was an incompetent President so I did vote for Reagan. Of course would like to have that one back, but we didn't know then what we know now about what GOP economics would do, we only knew what we were doing wasn't working. If Reagan/Volker had not stopped the 80's inflation, we would have been in a real mess short term, that sort of trumped whatever long term concerns anyone had about the rest of the GOP ideology at the time. Still proud to have voted for GHWB. Clinton? I actually don't remember. But pretty sure I voted against his re-election and I still don't regret that. Terrible precedent was set by the Dems with Clinton and we are paying for it now.

I think that is also likely. Once Buddha's super-conferences get organized they will jettison themselves from the NCAA. I think in the end you have to separate revenue and amateur collegiate sports anyway. It makes zero sense to try to manage the fencing team and the football under the same org. Pro's on one side, amateurs on the other.

could be, though I thought I laughed more at the idea of merger because too many of the other Pac-12 teams were already too weak. The question is how/when will the BigTen jettison their weak sisters? IIRC the bylaws make it a lot easier to get in than to be put out. BTW - Have you looked at UM's '23 early recruiting results? Don't.

Lot of wheels turning. Hard to see this as anything but an indication that there isn't enough money, both member and NIL wise, available to PAC12 schools outside ScoCal for the conference to be where USC/UCLA want to keep playing.

FDR says "Hi". Oz may be jerk, but not every poll with money is. That's a little too broad a brush.

because Warnock/Walker is a choice. I don't think comparing JA polling of a public in a sour mood to an actual voting choice is necessarily informative. The 'other guy' is always a better concept than the real person it turns out to be. OTOH, Walker is .....just Walker so that's not much of a measure either. Abrams/Kemp is probably the real marker in GA.

that might be a bit weird for the '2nd' guy. You'd usually want more than horizontal move to make it worth your while.

this a case where good policy is bad law and vice versa. It is up to Congress to legislate restrictions on the use of carbon as CO2 is not a 'pollutant' under any definition already under the EPA's jurisdiction. So as terrible a climate policy decision as this ruling is, taken as a purely legal decision, I think it is more correct than incorrect. It's is a bad precedent to let regulatory agencies decide on their own what they are going to regulate, despite the fact that it in this case EPA is trying to step up and do something that somebody must do. The somewhat sliver lining in this is that utilities don't need the encouragement of the law to move away from coal, they are doing it now by choice because renewables cost less. Ironic that in this case it's the market which is on the right side of change.

Not easy for sure. I would think the key is the level of political 'hope'. When generations of people don't see change, they give up politically and then you get a self re-enforcing feedback loop. Obama instilled that kind of hope and got that kind of turnout but that was because of who he was. The typical congressional election doesn't. But in general, campaigning on the kind of actions that would give hope to minorities makes is pretty hard to get the votes of majority because they don't need what's on offer and only see the bill. If anyone had figured out how to square that circle we probably wouldn't be where we are.