Trump 2nd term prediction thread

Obviously roe

Then you don't understand why roe was reversed nor anything else about the topic

Prices rises around the world because all the world vastly print money ….
It has nothing to do with pre Covid.

Let me repeat again !
Any ****** president printing trillions of dollars while the economy isn’t in a recession will create inflation .
Which trump did !

But hey you know so much ,
Biden makes deficit it (less then trump) It creates inflation .
Trump create bigger deficit it doesn’t create inflation right ?

Please just stop …

All college experiences aren't created equal. The coursework some people do in a competitive STEM program for example can definitely be kind of rigorous (just getting accepted to them takes some work in grade and high school really). At the other extreme there are programs you can graduate with a modest amount of effort. Fair to point out that there are excellent students who work their ass off found in all disciplines and schools too.

But if we're keeping the answer simple, graduating college can be extremely easy and the barriers to entry are low in the US. If a given person wanted to just do the absolute minimum needed to end up with a diploma, it wouldn't take much.

If you think back to high school and compare the standout students who took all the AP classes and excelled, to the worst lazy POSs that actually still graduated, it's just like that.

huh?

Hundreds of billions of dollars was sent to Ukraine. Who sent it, Trump?

/
au revoir

I don't know what this means. Privacy in the context of these cases was understood to include control over private medical decisions.

I don't even understand the argument you are trying to make here. Why is a decision inconsistent with principles of judicial review simply because there are similar laws on the books in multiple states?

Using contraceptives isn't a medical decision (!!!!!).

A decision declaring that something that is considered normal nationwide for 100 years with no constitutional objection is magically found to be unconstitutional without the constitution having changed, implies that the totality of courts for a century derelicted in their duties and failed to recognize a purported "obvious" right which was being violated.

That can't happen in a democracy so it implies the USA pre roe weren't a legitimate democracy as so on.

Republicans and democrats.

Republicans especially, as it had to originate in the House, which the republicans controlled in the recent past.

If the speaker of the house, duly elected by his republican fellows, didn't want it to happen, it wouldn't have happened.

Can't get much more republican than that.

You might disagree with the choice but it was a republican choice.

And democrats clearly agreed, but couldn't do it without the speaker of the house, third in the chain of command of the USA, a republican.

Even RGB who was as pro choice as anyone found Roe to be a ridiculous stretch and urged for laws to protect it before it would eventually be overturned

It's weird because RBG actually believed a right to abortion existed in the federal constitution, but she thought it was to be found in gender equality provisions, not on privacy.

I haven't analyzed her take enough in detail but on a gut level it's possible that her take was more defensible.

But that's why she wanted federal laws to be passed. She thought they were constitutional (albeit under a different reading of the constitution than that that gave birth to Roe)

If you think those judges that trump put out there has no bias about it and all it’s relation about it then shrug .
Then it’s going to be contraception and marriages etc …. You ll see .

I don’t know RGB’s particular views, I just know that people claim there is no right to privacy in the constitution (which Roe was predicated on) and they are wrong. Even the conservative legal scholars seem to recognize an implied right to privacy they just disagree that it applies to this thing in particular.

We are talking about 8 trillions u talk about couple
Billions ?
those dollar are sent to Ukraine , how the f do that translate in consumption into U.S. ?

Yes … bye !

There are 2 topics.

1) is privacy a right in the american federal constitution, implied by various articles and so on? -broadly/vaguely yes, in the sense that more than one provision relates to what we call privacy

1a) is that right generalizable to privacy in all settings or we should keep it to the specific areas the constitution covers? Here textualists/originalists would tell you to stay within the explicit boundaries, but I can see a rationale in other judicial philosophies to generalize it

2) is a generalized right to privacy as found through 1a) related to abortion rights? Lol no, not at all, it's silly even to opine that.

RBG agreed with 2) btw

You will see that there is no right to contraception in the american constitution which doesn't mean they will ban it.

They will remove the option not to ban it, but no states will ban it

Debateable, but we can use the words "control over reproduction" if you prefer.

I think you missed a trick there, bro. "Control over production"...

This is more than a little hyperbolic. She wasn't signing on to dissents by Clarence Thomas urging that Roe be overturned.

You’re missing the language of the 9th amendment which refers to the idea of other rights not explicitly called out in the constitution and that the lack of call out doesn’t indicate the right doesn’t exist. It’s a very basic reading of the bill of rights.

Nobody says it’s generalizable to all settings. Not even the explicit rights are generalizable to all settings. For instance the first amendment doesn’t mean you can go inside a federal building and start disrupting official proceedings by praying.

The question is given there is a right to privacy, how far does that extend?

You guys keep saying that, where did she express this?

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/2024...

This BBC article indicates that instead she didn’t support it pragmatically because she believed that it actually halted progress that was ongoing. Or that she didn’t think it goes far enough because it was too easy to overturn and it mobilized support against abortion.

The argument is that there is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution and you have a bunch of clowns that believe in strict construction.

The penumbra of a right to privacy reasoning is on shaky grounds after Dobbs.

Yep. Luckily if this happens I live in a non-insane state, and people will probably be coming here in droves once they realize that the CA constitution is much preferable to the Texas constitution.

What’s going to be scary is when they remove the interstate commerce interpretation of the civil rights act. Segregation will be fully back on the menu.

Good ole Mets. Can always count on you to never stop Metsing.

How was that NLCS btw?

A super narrow construction of the Commerce Clause would affect damn near everything (including what you mentioned).

Thats for the courts to decide!

Ah, ****.