News

Lol. They've only ever used "states rights" like "small gubberment"; as a means to impose their will on the largest scale they currently hold power. As soon as they gain the upper hand and can impose their will via a higher government (or regulator) — such as imposing their will on local governments via state law, or imposing their will on states via federal law (or the EPA) — they don't give it a second thought.

This is how fascists and authoritarians operate. They lie, because words mean nothing to them but a means to achieve authoritarian rule... They don't stop at the national level either.

State's Rights means slavery. That's all it ever meant.

Supreme court: Imaginary babies are still babies

STDs are going to go through the roof. They already are, in part due to deteriorating public infrastructure and shittier sex ed. But this is going to make the quality of life for Americans go down. And increase DOA babies due to congenital syphilis.

To which it isn't authorized to rule because that falls to the FDA. They are religious zealots and not qualified to rule on medicine.

That is because the conservative majority are a bunch of hypocritical lying liars.

Abortion is a woman's god-given right.

Why has no one argued that rules against abortion infringe on religious liberty? The Bible contains directions for a priest to perform an abortion. In any case, someone could simply claim the law stops them from practicing their chosen faith.

Yeah bodily autonomy is non-negotiable. This is the government tyranny that we’re theoretically allowed to have guns to prevent.

Your mistake is thinking that this position is one of ignorance. They hate women, plain and simple. It was never about a tumor that happens to turn into a human if you leave it alone long enough.

THANK YOU. This is the kind of outrage this deserves. WHAT. THE. FUCK.

That would mean Federal Agencies would be beyond Judicial review. You sure that's what you want?

go buy plan b while you can guys

now in fairness, it's because these people who are not at all trained in medicine or experimental design think that the people whose training and careers are exclusively in medicine and experimental design may have done it wrong.

part of the republican strategy for getting their wildly unpopular agenda through nationwide has been making sure that anyone anywhere is allowed to make a legally-enforcable decision IF they agree with it, but ensuring that no amount of expertise or personal stake qualifies you to make the opposite decision. Multiple doctors agree that your pregnancy is non-viable? Doesn't matter, a city councilperson whose highest education is a GED has decided that doesn't qualify you for an exception to their abortion laws. The opinion of several doctors, the patient and the patient's parents is that the patient is trans? Not good enough, a complete stranger who knows neither you or anything that they're talking about said "no". You want books in your kids' school library? Only if they're approved by the Karenest Karen to ever Karen. It's designed to be a ratchet effect. Anyone can turn the dial to the right, no one can turn it back to the left, they call it "freedom" and the absolute monsters they're appealing to love it because the only freedoms they care about are the freedom to do what they want and the freedom to force everyone else to do what they want.

Have you been living under a rock for the last couple of decades? The newest chucklefucks appointed to SCOTUS don't give two shits about appearances and will do whatever they want at any time.

I'm sure you'd like to know, officer. /s

Legislative branch writes the laws. Judicial branch interprets them. Executive branch executes/enforces them.

SCOTUS's power comes from judicial review and precedent. They can't make arbitrary decisions on arbitrary things. Someone has to bring a case through a ton of appeals and different courts, then SCOTUS can rule on their interpretation of the law and write one or more essays explaining why and the nuances of their decisions. Those decisions are then examples/precedents that are followed by lower courts in future cases, until someone goes through the process again and SCOTUS decides to take the case and change the precedent, which is even more difficult and rare.

In this case, it sounds like they're arguing over if the FDA did their legally required due diligence. If not, then their approval is null and void, so the drug is banned.

A bunch of things stop states from ignoring their decisions. In this case, any company making the drug is not going to value it as worth the risk so it probably won't even make it to court again.

Some federal laws are tied to federal funding. For example, the 21 drinking age is tied to funding for roads. States can choose to set the age to 18, but they lose out on funding.

States can decide to just ignore federal law and get away with it, so long as it's not something the federal government is willing to fight for. For example, states legalize Marijuana essentially by deciding to just ignore the federal ban. The federal government doesn't care enough to send in their own anti-weed police or to pass legislation to force states to ban it again.

It even applies at the federal level. The executive branch can decide to just ignore SCOTUS and do their own thing. For example, SCOTUS ruled in favor of Native American's rights but Andrew Jackson ignored it and did the Trail of Tears anyway (he kicked tons of natives off their land with no shortage of human suffering and death along the way). The Legislative branch can fight against the Executive branch by withholding funding, but the Judicial branch doesn't have any such "stick".

It's rare that situations happen where branches fight against each other or states defy the federal government, but it's not unheaed of. It's all part of the checks and balances. In any case, it needs to stay within some realm of reasonableness in order to get buy-in from other government officials and the populace as a whole.

They're not too young to be drug out into the street and executed.