• Estiar@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I mostly agree, though I’d like to point out that the Dobbs decision was overturning this trend. Roe v. Wade was a case very much creating legislation where there was none. It didn’t have very good justification, but now with Dobbs, we have the opportunity to codify what we actually want in our law today. That was written in the Dobbs opinion IIRC. Nevada seems safe for those wishing to preserve abortion at the moment, but the Judge here is making things much more complicated than they ought to be.

    (I really hate the citizens united case. The conservatives may have passed it, but the only thing it conserves are the elites)

    • BottomTierJannie@sh.itjust.worksM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      but the Judge here is making things much more complicated than they ought to be.

      How so? Is it not reasonable to enforce that ballot measures must be specific and not just a ton of stuff all bundled into a big all-or-nothing vote?

      • Estiar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        What’s illegal is different from what’s reasonable. I’m going to have to find the judge’s opinion, but the article doesn’t really give any reasons why it’s illegal.

        Congress passes all sorts of these big bundles of law all the time