Re:Court rules climate change “duty of care” to future gener...
by anigbrowl on Friday May 28, 2021 @08:48PM
(#27322169)
That's the constitutional order that prevails in the US and most republics/parliamentary democracies have something pretty similar. I'd be fascinated to hear about alternative proposals, but if you're just going to go on and on about 'dipshits' then you're probably not here for an actual discussion.
Re:Court rules climate change “duty of care” to future gener...
by teachingassist on Saturday May 29, 2021 @07:09AM
(#27324465)
> I don’t like that Roe v. Wade was decided for the US by nine dipshits
It wasn't, not really. And this is exactly my point:
Most countries have successfully legislated abortion law. The USA's federal legislature failed to do so directly and left it to their supreme court to decide something from their ambiguity: as is their job.
This decision can still today be written clearly into law, in either direction, by representatives. So, it's an ongoing failure of the legislature.
Re:Court rules climate change “duty of care” to future gener...
by jimbob45 on Sunday May 30, 2021 @05:06PM
(#27336766)
I disagree that they failed to do so. It was left up to the states, as it should have been.
Re:Court rules climate change “duty of care” to future gener...
by GavinMcG on Friday May 28, 2021 @07:45PM
(#27321833)
Not indirectly elected? Many, many U.S. conservatives voted for Republican senatorial and presidential candidates specifically having in mind that they would shape a Supreme Court willing to strike down Roe. Trump promised to only appoint justices who would do so.
Why do you consider my argument well-poisoning?