GeorgiaDon

I agree with all this. I remember years ago when same sex marriage was being discussed here in speakers corner, someone pointed out that the Scandanavian countries include marriage under contract law. That seemed like a great approach that highlights the distinction between the legal and the religious aspects of marriage. Unfortunately in the US people seem to be mostly unable to see the distinction, so they interpret same sex marriage as an attack on their religious beliefs.

I believe I said in the first sentence of my post that I expect attacks on same sex marriage to begin as soon as the SC issue their ruling. Why are you responding to my comment on interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia) and contraception (Griswold v Connecticut) by discussing Obergefell, which concerned same-sex marriage?

I fully expect a legislative attack on gay rights, including same-sex marriage, to follow in some especially conservative states. Alito and Thomas have already signaled that they believe those cases were wrongly decided, and all but invited new challenges so they can get another bite at the apple. I doubt that any state legislatures will risk a direct attack on interracial marriage, or on access to contraception. That does not mean those things are in any way safe, though. All it would take would be some conservative entity to file a lawsuit and then (if/when they lose) appeal it all the way to the SC. Having already decided that there is no constitutional right to "privacy" (assuming this draft opinion makes it largely intact into the final ruling) there would be no basis left to rule that people have any right to interracial marriage or contraception. Given that, and the current mood to throw everything back to the states to pass legislation, the SC could very well end up overruling Loving v Virginia and Griswold v Connecticut. We could see sodomy laws and criminalization of gay sex being revived as well. All it would take would be someone willing to initiate a lawsuit. Of course that someone would have to establish standing, but if the SC continues its current path of extending religious freedom to include the freedom to never be offended by other people rejecting your religious preferences then standing might not be an obstacle.

Mob rule? Like the Jan 6 attack on Congress that "Law and Order Mitch" doesn't even consider to be worth investigating? Just a bunch of over-enthusiastic tourists I suppose. But a head's-up regarding a giant step backwards to the 1950s, that's "mob rule"? What mob? Anyone report a mob sacking the Supreme Court? Funny that all the MSM missed that.

People should not assume this will stop with abortion. The conservative movement has long been hostile to the notion of privacy, and to the notion of federal power. Alito and Thomas have both engaged in a "game" of telegraphing their next target when writing dissents, and so they guide conservative activists about where to direct their legal challenges. The court can only act when a case is brought before them. We can expect attacks on same sex marriage and other cases related to LGBTQ rights, possibly interracial marriage, and contraception. Just as concerning in a way, we can expect the court to be quite hostile towards the environment, laws regulating businesses, consumer protections, etc. I was taught that the Constitution functions to limit the power of the federal government. It is not a list of the people's rights. However this court seems to take the opposite view; if a right is not explicitly in the Constitution it doesn't exist. It's terrifying how many rights and freedoms are potentially on the chopping block with this court.

Odd that you're so fearful of an EV bus fire, yet you're almost orgasmic over the dumpster fire Trump had going in the White House.

The high cost of a university education is a direct result of states shrinking their support, which was a consequence of the political lie that you could cut taxes over and over and not cut services. As state support decreased, the shortfall had to be made up in increased tuition. Also tuition is just a piece of the puzzle, as a student you also have to come up with money for books, computers, supplies, rent, food, transportation, etc. None of the costs of just living are suspended while you are in school. Getting an education beyond high school is an investment, but like all investments there is no guarantee of a big profit. Many careers are highly competitive, not everyone who earns a degree turns that degree into a high-paying job. Nevertheless, if you are passionate about making a career in a particular field that requires an advanced education, you cannot even compete unless you have made that investment, which means taking on that debt just to have a shot. The alternative is to give up your passion and not take the risk. Just settle for stocking shelves at Joe's Auto Parts or something. I think that as a society we would be better off if access to careers could be determined by commitment and willingness to work hard, not by the wealth you happen to be born into or your willingness to risk soul-crushing debt. Some countries have a system where university is essentially free, but only the best students can make it through the training. That way the country benefits from having the best people in their professions, and they end up repaying the investment in their training in the form of the taxes they pay on their income.

Absolutely! If you let the proletariat get a taste of money, next thing you know they will be demanding rights!

Don't strain anything while you're doing your happy dance.

Crops are limited by temperature (both high and low), soil moisture, day length, duration of the growing season, etc. For example, the upper limit for wheat is about 35 degrees C. Climate change will impact rainfall patterns as well as temperature, so some areas that are currently suitable for a particular crop will become unsuitable as new areas become suitable. It's not a given that the tradeoff will be balanced. Also even if northern areas warm their day length will not change. No matter how warm it gets, above the arctic circle you'll still have months where the sun doesn't get above the horizon and lots of very short days in the spring/fall resulting in a too-short growing season. I don't really understand the perspective that says that changing our energy economy is too much bother, and we will probably be OK for my lifetime, so we'll just carry on and hope people 100 years from now can work it out. If not, it's not my problem.

I'll also point out that extra deaths is the most extreme and least sensitive measure of climate change impact. Having your house destroyed by flooding from 100-year storms every 5 years is also an impact that will mess up your life, but only a relatively small number of people will die. Same for having your house burn down in drought-fueled fires. Many areas are now subject to extended and more severe fire seasons that rarely burned in the past. I don't expect that a lot of people will drown due to rising sea level, because people will move, but certainly millions will be displaced and a lot of economic/social/political upheaval will result from that. Also anyone who is familiar with the Canadian Shield will know that there is a limit to how far north agriculture will be able to shift with a warming climate. You can't grow a crop on bare rock and lakes.

Your position is much like saying an unconscious skydiver with no AAD, in freefall and 100 feet above the ground, is just fine because they are breathing and their heart is beating, and perhaps you could throw in that birds are singing somewhere. More objective people, taking a more inclusive view of the situation, may have a different opinion.

I always thought it was the Bureau of Land Management.

By your metrics the Mafia was #winning for a long time. Was that a good thing?

As opposed to caving to fascist politicians?

Perhaps a silly question, but how do you stop those damn "suggested posts" on FB? I must have clicked on some actual history thread one time, and now I get tons of these Confederate-loving threads full of crap about how great all those rebel soldiers and generals were. Complete racist drivel, but it just keeps coming.

It is a shame, as it is a transparent effort to avoid legal liability. Hopefully the court will tell him to shove his bankruptcy up his ass.

Absolutely! However bad things are, trying to do anything about it will only make it worse. Best to give up and just suck up all that smoggy air. Maybe we'll get lucky and died of lead in the water before the ozone burns away our lungs. Ha! Ha!

Hey Ron, haven't "seen" you in ages. I hope you and your wife are well and happy this Good Friday & Easter, and after that too. Don

Hmm. Brent's posts, or 2 1/2 million pounds of horse shit per day? It's a tough choice, considering they are pretty much the same thing.

Curiously though, there were issues that made the replacement of the horse more urgent in some places. For example, in the 1880s there were over 100,000 horses in New York City, and these horses dumped ~2 1/2 million pounds of poop and 25,000 gallons of urine on the streets every day. It was impossible to remove that much waste every day, and no place to send it (farmers already had all the manure they needed from their own livestock). Needless to say the waste and the resulting flies were a big health hazard. That particular problem was solved by the widespread adoption of automobiles. At the beginning of the 20th century there were more electric cars than gas powered cars on the road in the US. Electric cars were more reliable (fewer moving parts), much easier to start (no hand cranking), did not require changing gears, and they were much quieter and less smelly (no exhaust). However they also couldn't go very fast and their lead-acid batteries required access to electricity (pretty much only available in cities) and took a long time to charge. Gas cars became dominant thanks to Henry Ford's decision to mass produce gas powered cars, their faster speeds and much longer range, quick refueling as gas became more widely available, and their utility outside of cities. There is an interesting article about the history of steam vs electric vs gas powered vehicles here.

Yes, and no. This thread is also about the gotcha question that was an attempt to get Justice Jackson to "commit" to a narrow definition that would support the Republican goal of dehumanizing everyone who doesn't fit into their antiquated evangelical Christian square boxes.

The same can be said if you are transgender, or anywhere on the LGBTQ spectrum.

You seem to remember much of it, which puts you ahead of a lot of people. At least you weren't screaming and flailing, you didn't pee your pants, or you didn't go fetal. Are you going to go again? If so, and seeing as how you survived, you passed the most important part. BTW don't wait too long for the next jump. The butterflies are reduced, but the longer you wait the more they come back.

Virtually every item on that list could just as well apply to "why automobiles will never replace horses" if written in the early 1800s. "You would have to drill hundreds of thousands of oil wells, and build hundreds of refineries, plus we don't even know how to process oil into gasoline, and there's no way to get the gas to where it can be accessed by automobiles, and besides that all the roads are just mud so automobiles just get stuck. Right now we already have plenty of pastures and hay fields, plus horses don't get stuck in muddy roads, and anyway horses are beautiful and automobiles are noisy, smelly, hard to crank-start, and they are always breaking down. Only an idiot would think automobiles will ever replace horses."