I am all for stricter controls on CO2 emissions. I would love to see laws requiring solar panels on the roofs of every big box store in sunny states. But if we allow regulatory agencies to stray from the authority actually given to them, that's a huge danger to the republic. Imagine what Donald Trump could have done with that wiggle room given another four years and a few more brain cells. Scary.
Scott, not an expert either, but it seems clear to me that the SCOTUS ruling simply means that access to abortion is no longer a *constitutionally* protected right. By itself it does not make abortion access unconstitutional. It also does not make abortions illegal; however, it permits the states to do so.
If Congress were to pass a law specifying that abortions were legal in the United States, then that law would presumably be intended to override state laws; although I can imagine that there would be some challenges by various states asserting "state's rights".
SCOTUS said only that abortion is not a constitutional right, and is subject to legislation. If Congress legislates a right -- as it did in the ADA, for example, then SCOTUS has to uphold that right unless it's contrary to the Constitution.
I didn't know that SCOTUS had addressed due process to the fetus. I'm still too angry to read the decision. However, fetuses don't have due process/full legal rights anywhere else. If SCOTUS declares that, then all of those frozen embryos have rights to inherit, for example, it's a legal quagmire.
Also -- and this is the argument that I think is the most relevant -- no person can demand bodily tissues from another, not even from a corpse, not even if those tissues are required to save the person's life. A man can NEVER be forced to give up bodily tissues, not even blood, not even when he's dead, to save the life of another. But women can be forced to give up bodily tissues for nine months and undergo a painful, permanently damaging, and possibly life-threatening prices to save the life of something we don't all agree is a person.
Let some blue states pass laws mandating blood and marrow donation (if there's a match) and see how quickly we get a precedent establishing bodily autonomy as a right they suddenly found in the Constitution.
For the business I run - when the 25% tariff was put in place on steel from China - the price of the U.S. steel I use went up 25% immediately. That was passed along to my customers. It's both theft and contributing to inflationary pressure.
Great regular order today Jamie! Keep up the goos work.
I am all for stricter controls on CO2 emissions. I would love to see laws requiring solar panels on the roofs of every big box store in sunny states. But if we allow regulatory agencies to stray from the authority actually given to them, that's a huge danger to the republic. Imagine what Donald Trump could have done with that wiggle room given another four years and a few more brain cells. Scary.
I'll admit I'm not a constitutional expert, but if Congress codifies Roe, isn't it still subject to the latest SCOTUS ruling on the subject?
Scott, not an expert either, but it seems clear to me that the SCOTUS ruling simply means that access to abortion is no longer a *constitutionally* protected right. By itself it does not make abortion access unconstitutional. It also does not make abortions illegal; however, it permits the states to do so.
If Congress were to pass a law specifying that abortions were legal in the United States, then that law would presumably be intended to override state laws; although I can imagine that there would be some challenges by various states asserting "state's rights".
SCOTUS said only that abortion is not a constitutional right, and is subject to legislation. If Congress legislates a right -- as it did in the ADA, for example, then SCOTUS has to uphold that right unless it's contrary to the Constitution.
I didn't know that SCOTUS had addressed due process to the fetus. I'm still too angry to read the decision. However, fetuses don't have due process/full legal rights anywhere else. If SCOTUS declares that, then all of those frozen embryos have rights to inherit, for example, it's a legal quagmire.
Also -- and this is the argument that I think is the most relevant -- no person can demand bodily tissues from another, not even from a corpse, not even if those tissues are required to save the person's life. A man can NEVER be forced to give up bodily tissues, not even blood, not even when he's dead, to save the life of another. But women can be forced to give up bodily tissues for nine months and undergo a painful, permanently damaging, and possibly life-threatening prices to save the life of something we don't all agree is a person.
Let some blue states pass laws mandating blood and marrow donation (if there's a match) and see how quickly we get a precedent establishing bodily autonomy as a right they suddenly found in the Constitution.
The only thing I would say about your numbers is that before Trump's tariffs went into effect, the US was pulling in $5 billion a month in tariffs.
For the business I run - when the 25% tariff was put in place on steel from China - the price of the U.S. steel I use went up 25% immediately. That was passed along to my customers. It's both theft and contributing to inflationary pressure.