gehringer_2

I hear a lot of denial, I don't see much evidence that would refute Chasf scenario. Most women getting abortions are poor (and the poor are disproportionate of color, so that inference doesn't need explicit statement even if the report avoids it) single, already have children they are trying to take care of and have become overmatched by their circumstances. You wouldn't have abortions to ban if these women had had the options they needed to gain better control over their lives. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/14/upshot/who-gets-abortions-in-america.html

a LOT of drum banging about Putin declaring war or try to go to a general mobilization. I have to wonder how much of this is Western Psyops aimed into Russia and how much is serious intel analysis. I guess we find out in ~6 days.

No there won't, there will be an adjustment and people will work longer so that the ratio of worker to retirees stabilizes. It's already happening in the US and we don't even have nearly the demo dislocation of other places. There will be no crises and no massive tax increases. The idea that you can be retired for 30 yrs after working for 30 will certainly go away for sure, but that was an unsustainable transient anomaly created by the oddity of the baby boom the first place. The truth is that any species that can't survive at stable population numbers can't survive at all, so at some point Homo Sapiens might as well get with the program the Universe has set for it because the Universe has a talent for snuffing out any organism that doesn't learn to play by the rules.

actually a good chunk if it is true. Who do you think it's going to be who is denied abortions? It's going to be poor girls, mostly of color, who are exactly going to have limited life prospects grow even more limited - will be cast onto a welfare system that those same white men who denied her an abortion are trying to throw her off of. What world are you seeing if you don't see this as the result?

the very model of the modern GOP - just pull something out of your asz, throw it out there, have the MAGA slurp it up.

I’m perfectly serious. It bullshit. Germany and Japan illustrate well that a nation can cope with declining as well as expanding population. China may have thrown themselves into a tougher adjustment problem than others but they will cope. The whole thing is based on a fallacy that fails to parse the difference between gross GDP and per capita GDP. The later is actually all that matters to social well being and it need not/will not fall even with contracting population.

Sounds like the Great Eastern pincer campaign is already bogging down.

the world does not have too few humans anywhere or under any economic conditions. "Baby Shortages" are nationalistic pearl clutching fantasies. There is no place on this planet that wouldn't be better off with a lower titer of Homo-Sapiens.

there are a lot of ways to spin this. If the hard core right guys thought they had the win and then Roberts and Kavanaugh or Barrett started acting like they were going to peel away, maybe you leak this to try to force them back, or so that even if it does goes against them in the end, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch can plead their purity and argue the perfidy the conservative turncoats. That would be big for GOP fundraising. It's probably also a way over optimistic reading of the possible outcome, but the point being that there can be a lot of angles to this particular leak. Getting a jump start on the 2022 fundraising effort for the Dems is still the more straightforward take.

Have to know what Goff looked like this season first....🤔

IDK, I think it comes down to whether you can show the state has any rational basis for being interested in a particular behavior beyond arguing that it "contributes to immorality" by some religious sects definition of same. Gay Marriage and sexual activity between consenting adults fail that test, Predatory sexual behavior toward children does not. Reproductive choices by a woman does. That is the basis for my launching point. There are always questions at the margins and we have courts and legislature to help define those to acceptable civic agreement - when they work. But I don't think it's that hard to figure out - the 1st big clue is when the argument is that it's the tenets of someone's religion that have to be protected. The second is when some business cries they have some information interest they must protect. I'm pretty confident those simple criteria can get you to the right answer on most privacy issues. Or, if you can't make the argument without invoking God or money, i'm gonna be real sceptical.

What proportion do you suppose have to end up in prison before those economics come out negative?

I have more the impression that the charge by Collins and Murkowski is that representations were made in their private interviews that were lies.

It is deeply rooted in history...

yeah - I thought going in that 2016 was a trap election for whichever side won it. But who really knows, Hillary might have surprised us all and been good. Look at Zelensky. ....nah...

HaHa - "I know it when I see it"

Wow, and that and 5 bucks will get you a Vente at Starbucks.

sure, in the sense that where it is being dealt with today is surely a highly undemocratic one where the action of the court speaking for the whole nation is clearly not a reflection of where the whole nation is on the issue. The question of how much granularity we can have in the law on a state to state basis and when the voice of the national majority needs to trump state prerogative and at what level what rights are defined are much more fair questions to argue differences over IMV. I have linked concerns in that area. I am a very big believer that the logical sense of the Constitution, not to mention the overwhelming view of the current American population, is strongly supportive of the kind of privacy rights embodied in Griswold. The state has no business telling me who I have what kind of relationship with etc. In that sense I worry more about the conservative Court's antipathy to Griswalrd et al in general as the mechanism for rejecting Roe. No-one with their eyes open can deny that the agenda doesn't end with abortion, it goes to gay rights and civil rights and the continuing expansion of corporate rights in their stead in general. That leads a lot of us to feel the need to play defense across the board.

sure, anything is possible, but I would have wanted to have done what was needed to facilitate my colleagues being able to conference in person, and to me it's pretty fishy that they couldn't. The talk around an event is the least meaningful thing that comes out of Washington.

But here is exactly where we cut to the chase "Many people believe this to be true" and the converse is that many do not. "Murder" is murder because virtually everyone agrees what it is in an ordinary situation where one adult human being takes the life of another willfully. Whatever belief system you come from really doesn't matter in that case because the common view of the matter is so nearly universal. If we are to live together in a pluralistic society, law - the sanction of the state to deprive people of life and liberty, pretty much has to keep to premises that are universally accepted to be true. If you are going to live in a pluralistic society and be a member of a non-majority belief system you must be willing to accept that there are aspects to your morality you have be willing to live in personally without imposing on the rest of society and that those issues can only be addressed in some kind of political compromise process. If you fail that test of citizenship, if your religion admits to no due to Caesar, we fall right back into the chaos exemplified currently in the MiddleEast where Shia are unwilling to live under Sharia defined by Sunni and vice versa, which has kept them in pretty continual warfare and oppression and counter oppression for 1400 years.

Right, the justices are all so hot for zoom all ONE of them used it. Back in the day on MLive Romad had a short cut notation for this kind of thing "MRD", after Mandy Rice Davies. Or: "Of course he would say that." Look at what happened 1)they did not meet together. 2) the reason leaked out or was leaked 3)Sotomayor has to deny or she looks like a petulant child, she got what she wanted from the published report 3) The Chief has to deny it because he is interested in credibility and confirmation that he has a kindergarten class is not on the to do list. So you have an inconvenient set of actions that really occurred and several convenient statements following. I will go with the probability that the action tells us far more about reality than the convenient statements.

did they meet together? Would 9 people who had some measure of comity have found a way to meet together?

well, Cohen can say that, but you are basically now creating a state citizenship that transcends the rights and privileges of your national one. I don't see how that can stand in a unitary state short of total chaos. But then again, I don't see how money can be speech or corporations can be people, or.......

look they can all deny anything they want, but when a group nine people can't accommodate each other to the point they can meet together to do their work, that is a problem by any definition, whether they or any one will accept that definition or not. That is the one objective fact of the case.

dream on. Regardless of what the intent was and which side leaked it, the one overwhelming practical result is that it just added a couple of months to the Dems prime fund raising calendar.