Vance at this point is only a net negative for trump. And I’m loving it
ldsupport on
People really don’t understand how legislation works.
Banning IVF is a ridiculous hypothetical, as there is no state where there is the level of support needed to do so.
So just like when people say “you dont need a law to stop non citizens from voting” you equally dont need a law to codify IVF access into law.
This is the same reason why there is no risk of either a national abortion ban, or codifying some abortion access into law. There isnt the requisite number of votes needed to pass the law, much less the level of support to change the constitution to make that law standing a judicial review possible.
People do this, they create stray men legislation that has no functional purpose.
edit: in response to personahorrible
I dont know who “they” is, but the argument that legal opinions are not a replacement for law is so old it farts fucking dust.
only the most moronic partisan idiot would imagine that you could build a house on courts opinion. otherwise, why would we need law.
and as far as opinions go, RvW was uniquely weak. it build its foundational argument on imaginary constitutional thinking, and then extended that into more magical thinking about what this allowed for. you MUST codify a legal opinion with law, less you want a later legal opinion to overturn it. there are few if any true super precedents and even those are generally narrow in scope. you dont even have to take them on directly.
El_Polaquito on
He is such a gormless ghul….
Sinister_Plots on
If you don’t even know the bills you’re voting on, where are we to derive the confidence in you as a representative of the people?
Responsible-Baby-551 on
That’s the exact same thing they said about states banning abortion 10-15 years ago
5 Comments
Vance at this point is only a net negative for trump. And I’m loving it
People really don’t understand how legislation works.
Banning IVF is a ridiculous hypothetical, as there is no state where there is the level of support needed to do so.
So just like when people say “you dont need a law to stop non citizens from voting” you equally dont need a law to codify IVF access into law.
This is the same reason why there is no risk of either a national abortion ban, or codifying some abortion access into law. There isnt the requisite number of votes needed to pass the law, much less the level of support to change the constitution to make that law standing a judicial review possible.
People do this, they create stray men legislation that has no functional purpose.
edit: in response to personahorrible
I dont know who “they” is, but the argument that legal opinions are not a replacement for law is so old it farts fucking dust.
only the most moronic partisan idiot would imagine that you could build a house on courts opinion. otherwise, why would we need law.
and as far as opinions go, RvW was uniquely weak. it build its foundational argument on imaginary constitutional thinking, and then extended that into more magical thinking about what this allowed for. you MUST codify a legal opinion with law, less you want a later legal opinion to overturn it. there are few if any true super precedents and even those are generally narrow in scope. you dont even have to take them on directly.
He is such a gormless ghul….
If you don’t even know the bills you’re voting on, where are we to derive the confidence in you as a representative of the people?
That’s the exact same thing they said about states banning abortion 10-15 years ago