Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
An article
from Slate about Edward Snowden and why he has found it so hard to find asylum. Slate links are hated by the forum, so if it isn't working, c'n'p this (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/07/edward_snowden_and_asylum_he_is_a_terrible_candidate.html)
into the search bar.
TL;DR: He's a terrible candidate for it, being:
- A: not on the territory of the nations he's seeking asylum from (this is a legal device used to keep the numbers of asylum seekers each country has to deal with down).
- B: he's not being persecuted on account of their race, ethnicity, religion, or membership in a social or political group, crucially, he would likely be regarded as a criminal had he been a national of the countries he's applied to for asylum,
- C: he's now a busted flush from an intel perspective, having revealed nearly everything he's planning to in such a way that potential hosts have benefitted from his disclosures without having to do anything for him in return,
- and D: he's more trouble than he's worth, as a fugitive from the law - cf Assange in Ecuador's London embassy.
Thus, his options are now highly limited, mainly to seeking shelter in hybrid or authoritarian regimes such as Bolivia, Nicaragua, Russia, or Cuba, in the process giving up some of his beloved civil liberties, or returning to America and trusting in his popular support. Neither option is appealing, given the circumstances.
Schild und Schwert der ParteiAnd he has to Trust that any of the regimes won't eventually pass him onto the Americans.
Keep Rolling OnFrench minister slams US 'espionage' at Fourth of July event
Here is some commentary on the importance of downballot elections: how a close Attorney General race in California may have affected the Supreme Court decision on Proposition 8
.
TL;DR: SCOTUS dismissed the appeal on the basis of lack of standing, but that's because the plaintiff wasn't the state itself; the state AG didn't defend prop 8. Had the state AG chosen to do so, standing would not have been in question. In 2010, current AG Kamala Harris (who chose not to defend Prop 8) defeated opponent Steve Cooley (who said he would defend Prop 8) by 13796 votes in the statewide race for attorney general.
edited 4th Jul '13 3:48:21 PM by GlennMagusHarvey
occono: Wait, what? Seriously?! I thought this was 2013, not 1953. Can we not?
There is thought that Kennedy may ultimately vote to overturn Roe or weaken it heavily if a direct challenge is brought to it. Assuming Roberts and Alito would also vote to (Scalia and Thomas definitely would) then some have speculated that states are passing anti-abortion laws so they'll be challenged and appealed to SCOTUS.
If Roe were to be overturned, several states have passed "trigger laws" since Roe that would immediately prohibit abortion, and some would go back to their old statutes banning it. Many states have passed laws that ensure abortion would remain legal if Roe were overturned too.
Hmm, I think in that situation SCOTUS maybe wouldn't have taken the case, so it would still mean just California would get marriage. It's be a big precedent in the 9th circuit though, even if narrow by itself.
It does really seem like they took it out of interest in the standing question.
edited 4th Jul '13 4:24:42 PM by occono
DumboWhat would be the basis for overturning Roe v. Wade? If it's a human rights issue then I'd think the rights of the woman would supercede those of the child. By saying a woman can't abort the baby you'd be saying she has less right to her body than a corpse does.
edited 4th Jul '13 4:24:50 PM by Kostya
Or the woman's rights and the child's rights are of equal importance, and neither has the right to kill the other and take full possession of the body. Conjoined twins also share (parts of) the same body; that doesn't make it legal for one twin to kill the other.
My opinion on abortion is that I'd prefer we have it as an option, even if I personally feel iffy about it. Making it illegal isn't going to stop people with vaginas from having abortions. It's just going to make a lot more difficult for them to do so safely. I don't want people permanently damaging their reproductive organs or dying for a procedure that seems rather simple. (Simple from a purely medical standpoint.)
Sadly, I don't think this holds any constitutional water? So I doubt the SCOTUS would use this to go one way or the other.
![]()
Not to get into that debate but the original Roe vs Wade case was decided on the principle of bodily autonomy, which trumps a lot in U.S. law.
Ginsburg says she isn't going anywhere
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Unfortunately, what good for Justice Ginsburg is not good for liberal in America. if Ginsburg retire during Republican presidency, it would follow O'Connor example as liberal judge replaced by conservative judge. it O'Connor retirement that give us Citizens United, with conservative majority a lot of law will be changed.
Fireworks industry: Free us from the feds

The state laws in Mississippi that closed down all but one of their clinics are being challenged on a federal level though, aren't they? Maybe that'll happen with this.
That possibly the plan behind all these state laws. To bring them back up to SCOTUS and challenge Roe.
Dumbo