Well, there’s this thing called the filibuster we could start with.
Uh, they solve this problem with genocide.
With regard to the legal issues, my understanding is that the Fifth Circuit hasn’t yet decided one way to another to stay the law. However, given how radical the Fifth Circuit is, I expect them not to stay the law.
https://twitter.com/TimInHonolulu/status/1433209011873083398?s=20
have you been living in a fucking cave for the last 10 years? The fact that demographics are working against them in the long term is ALREADY FACTORED INTO THEIR PLAN. You think the fact that they can only do this for another election or two is some sort of reassurance, but it’s not - that’s all they need.
I mean, more broadly, I just read a history of WWII. The thesis, which is fairly common, is that the allies were going to win the war because of greater resources, population, and production. Sure, there were 50 million killed, and various battles could have gone one way or another, and it was a terrible time for all involved, but there was a certain inevitability to the enterprise. Similar arguments can be made about the Civil War.
I see something like that with abortion and right wing populism in general, so I try not to get too worked up about setbacks. Yes, it sucks, but it reeks of desperation on their part. The only real worry I have is the extended hangover due to life tenure of federal judges.
very cool, it’s no biggie that millions of people are going to have their human rights violated for DECADES to come because eventually in the 22nd century it’s inevitable that we’ll grind them down demographically.
thanks bro very cool
1 Like
What’s the alternative? Don’t factor in demographics and assume that this is the price we pay for living in a democratic society populated by morons?
Imagine how many lives could have been saved if the Allies could have dropped some nuclear bombs a year earlier.
What’s the political equivalent for now?
I owe an apology to all the chuds who say liberalism is a mental disorder. Apparently you were correct!
Double jeopardy doesn’t apply no? It’s a civil suit, not a criminal one. Aren’t civil suits usually limited by having to prove injury? But this doesn’t have one.
As the legal journalists Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern wrote in Slate, “Typically, when a state restricts abortion, providers file a lawsuit in federal court against the state officials responsible for enforcing the new law. Here, however, there are no such officials: The law is enforced by individual anti-abortion activists.” It is, they wrote, “an Escher staircase for litigators.”
Isn’t wholly because of the legal fiction we’ve created? Like abortion activists aren’t literally the ones enforcing it, it’s the state who gave private parties a cause of action to allow the state to act on their behalf.
It’s not like if a state passed a law allowing its citizens to sue people for merely being rich judges would throw up their hands and be like, well nothing we can do.
They really just need to have someone get an abortion and have another person sue so they can get a court case into the system ASAP that can lead to a challenge.
There was a restriction that someone doesn’t have to pay out more than once for a single given abortion, but I don’t see why they can’t have multiple suits filed against them prior to one being resolved, or after one goes against the plaintiff.
Well, I’m about 300 pages in to https://www.amazon.com/Making-Atomic-Bomb-Richard-Rhodes/dp/1451677618 and I doubt it could have gone much faster. It’s pretty amazing how quickly events were developing along with the basic science. Fission was only discovered in Jan. 1939 and few scientists were convinced a chain reaction was possible until 1941.
In general I’ve been reading a lot of history lately and shit’s always been so terrible that bad things now only seems kinda bad in comparison to like everything over the last few hundred years, to say nothing of the prior 10k years.
1 Like
If fission was discovered a few years earlier and nuclear weapons were available in 1943, does the war change and, if so, are fewer lives lost in the long run?
This is already happening. Gen Z is already flooding the reporting website with everything from goatse to GOP operatives.
2 Likes
Assuming it were solely owned by the allies, I think nuking Berlin would have ended the war earlier and led to far less loss of life, though most of the loss of life was Russian and in 1941-1942 (though Kursk was Summer 1943). I’m not deep on WW2 history, but if Hitler were killed and Berlin wiped out I think Germany would have surrender in 1943 (300k Germans surrendered at Stalingrad in Jan 1943). Things were already not going well after the initial summar 1941 successes of Barbarossa (invasion of Russia).
If the Germans had nukes in 1943 and the allies didn’t and used them on England or the USA, that would have been crazy and someone with more expertise would have to opine. I think this scenario is related to the plot of the Man in the High Castle, but I haven’t seen it. I suspect the US could have weathered a few nukes, and I’m not sure the Germans could have dropped them reliably on the US.
In general, I have the sense that Hitler was winging it with most things and was like a bully or LAG who no one really commits to fighting back hard against. After it was obvious he was an existential threat to Russia and no effort would be spared in fighting him things started to go badly for the Germans.
$10,000 won’t get you very far in a lawsuit. I assume the statute makes the victor eligible for attorney’s fees?
It does, and it’s unilateral. Defendant is not eligible.
That’s so fucking evil.
Actually, seems like a bunch of people could file lawsuits against Republican lawmakers alleging they have assisted in abortions.