gehringer_2

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.

I wonder why he would do that when he wouldn't even admit there was a masking issue last yr?

JD Newontz. Running in Ohio.

did anyone still doubt these guys are fascist? They're not even a full step away from arguing Blut and Boden next.

Buddha can chime in but my guess is that ultimately even a conservative SCOTUS is going to be forced to rule that one state cannot bind conduct in another in that way. It's a foundational precedent that states must recognize each others sovereignty and jurisdiction. To undercut that would basically be to dissolve the Union.

never ascribe to ignorance what is more plainly simple duplicitousness. ( with my apologies to Hanlon.....)

to finish the thought though - what I will be most offended by is the hypocrisy, because you and I both know that any number of the very people who used their money, power, preaching and political connections in those states to pass those bans, will turn out to be more than happy to avail themselves of an off-shore pharmacy or ticket to Illinois when a pregnancy in their own private sphere is judged untenable.

We'll see. If states adopt rigorous abortion bans in the wake of a repeal, it will deeply offend my sense of fairness, but not my sense of political process.

kindly define the exact biological parameters if you could? Dolly was the product of an unfertilized egg. So could a human be. (and probably has been in Asia)

not necessarily. There are million of in vitros walking around out there as living breathing human. And you still have no idea what a 'life' is. Look I'm not arguing these are not hard questions - I'm really arguing that for we *really* know, all our lines are going to be arbitrary and they should be reached by a consensus based on a truly democratic process process because NO ONE, especially a minority, should have the right to demand laws for others based on their religious holdings. If your religion tells you abortion is a sin, don't get one. That's how a free democratic society has to function.

the thing is Saber, is that you are doing a lot of metaphysical hand waving here. No-one other than someone claiming religious revelation really knows what human consciousness really even is, where it comes from or where it goes. If I put a 3 week old dog embryo and 3 week old human embryo on slides in front of you, there is no way you could even tell them apart without sophisticated technology. Heck, we know know that every cell in your body actually contains a potentiality to generate a human life, how many have you murdered popping a zit? The deeper you delve into biology the more all of our neat sociological constructs fade into grey.

Seriously? What can you say, it's a lot cheaper to produce than 'the Crown'

I'm old. Most things I enjoy are bad for my health!