I’m fine with courts not overstepping their jurisdiction. But as I said, if the order is at a national level, then suits against it should immediately go to that level, instead of starting off lower and having to climb their way up. Just start at the appropriate place.
“I don’t have an issue with this. I have to show ID to buy alcohol, why shouldn’t it be required to _____”
Is this a game you want to play?
Go for it 
For one thing, there are certain logistical issues with attempting to impose state laws on out-of-state / out-of-country services/businesses.
For another thing, despite SCOTUS claims to the contrary, a right to privacy exists.
Showing ID at the store is different than storing a copy of your ID. Also, when you show your ID, there is a visual match. Are they taking images of the user each time they present ID?
I generally agree (and I’ll be interested in reading through the ruling when I have time / when I track it down), but the ruling does highlight an imperfection in the Constitution – if the Executive Branch wants to ignore the Constitution, and a majority of the Legislative Branch is in cahoots…there isn’t really an effective way to address that situation.
Absolutely agree. The checks and balances only work when the different areas want to keep to the rules.
I think I remember reading recently that France has finally gotten tired of kids having access to pr0n. If memory serves, they are requiring ID, BUT they have set up a third-party mechanism:
- Individual A proves to Organization B that they are of legal age, and in return receives a token.
- Individual A wants to access adult-only content on Website C.
- Individual A provides the token to Website C.
- Website C validates the token with Organization B, and doesn’t store the contents of the token.
- Individual A gains access to the content.
Website C doesn’t have records identifying who’s accessing what content. I’m not certain what, if anything, is done to avoid Organization B recording that Individual A has sought access to Website C’s content.
“Laws are for people who follow the law.”
– (I cannot recall what show or movie I was watching.)
Opinions are here: Opinions of the Court - 2024
(Trump vs CASA Inc).
Very little on the opinion that actually deals with the citizenship issued. Opinion seems very much directed at large increase in nationwide injunctions anytime there is new legislation.
Only real piece dealing with the executive order is that nationwide is too broad, but might be larger than states due to state argument that people move, have kids out of state so they send that back lower courts to provide more specific relief.
Thomas/Gorsuch concurring opinion seemed to not like states being able to sue as 3rd parties.
Kavanaugh had a pretty good concurring opinion pretty much laying out that on new legislation district courts relief needs to be more specific to plaintiffs until it’s appealed to SCOTUS and they make a ruling.
Haven’t read dissenting opinions yet. Seems like things getting a little spicy between Jackson and ACB given ACBs comments on her dissent in the majority opinion.
1 Like
ABC?
You mean Amy Coney Barrett? Hate all the acronyms btw
Yeah, her.
“A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill,”
I’m sure I know parents who think that teaching evolution or any scientific topic that suggests the earth is more than 6,000 years old “undermines the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill”.
I expect that the school board in my small district in a red county in Iowa would probably accommodate a parent on that request already. But, a lot of others wouldn’t.
“Them’s just theeeriies.”
More seriously, you teach the theory, they are supposed to know the theory. They don’t have to believe the theory.
Now, if someone wants "Creation Theory to be taught. Sure, teach the theory, they should know the theory. The difference will be that those preaching this be taught want BELIEF. OR ELSE. And they do not want any evidence (dinosaur bones, Simple or General Relativity, etc.) presented in opposition to it.
1 Like
Aye, that’s the nub of it. For true believers, their motivation is to protect your immortal soul. That’s a really big deal. And that aim isn’t evil.
And there is no way to dissuade them with reasoning. The nature of Faith.
My high school biology teacher held such beliefs.
Our unit on evolution consisted of her saying, “I’m a Southern Baptist and I believe in the Bible. I can’t teach that chapter. You should probably read it because your colleges will expect you to be familiar with it.”
And that’s the sum total of my formal education on the subject.
1 Like
I don’t know how you teach the theory without providing evidence for the theory.
We think the rocks are millions of years old. Okay, why do with think that? Well, there is this radioactive dating thing …
We think hominids have walked the earth for hundreds of thousands of years. Why do with think that? Well, we find these fossils in layers of dirt/rock that are dated using that radioactive thing above.
LALALALALALA!!! CAN’T HEAR YOU!!! LALALALALALA!!!
Well, in a science class everything should be up for discussion and for debate and for bringing evidence. That is why Creation Theory doesn’t belong. There is no evidence beyond assuming there is an omnipotent being who told people to write a book and thus it must be true. The end.
The parents at my school growing up would have made a huge ruckus about that. She would have been told to shape up or ship out.
I am still a a bit surprised this type of thing was even allowed to go on in the US.
I grew up in Tennessee, the buckle of the Bible Belt.
While I’m not so old as to have been around while the Butler act was in force, our teachers and parents were, and it was controversial that Inherit the Wind was on one English teacher’s reading list.