you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 137 points 1 year ago (32 children)

To wit: there’s a NY state law that makes it illegal for state officials to help shit-ass states like Texas follow through on legal threats like this within the context of the NY legal system. This is that law working as intended.

Or more succinctly: lick my taint, Ken Paxton, you fucking imbecilic psychopath.

  • source
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    it's only a matter of time before the supreme court forces new york to comply; i hope that the doctor is prepared for this and finds another way to help with protecting themself.

    when slavery was a thing, the shitty laws from shitty states to reclaim escaped slaves took primacy over laws from abolitionist states that would have protected them due to the supreme court and it took a war to overcome it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    The US Supreme Court can't currently do what you say without a law change at the federal level.

    Also, the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery (mostly) was passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865 after the end of the US Civil War.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Regarding your second paragraph:

    Uh, yeah, that doesn't contradict what they said. They were referring to free states which had abolished slavery at the state level, which were forced by federal law to help southern states reclaim slaves that escaped north. It has nothing to do with the 13th Amendment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    And the Supreme Court of the United States rules based on federal law which, prior to the 13th, meant that under federal law slavery was not illegal and slaves were still considered property.

    It's why the civil war was fought and then the amendment was passed. The victor makes the rules and since the United States beat the Confederate States, they made the rules.

    It's not even an equal comparison, particularly because of the precedent set in Dobbs by SCOTUS establishing abortion protections as a state issue.

    the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision upholding Mississippi’s law and overturning Roe v. Wade. With that ruling, the Court returned lawmaking decisions about abortion to the states.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    That's… not how laws in the US work. I take it you're not familiar with the maxim "everything which is not forbidden is allowed". Abortion was never legalized by federal law in the US either yet they were still being performed.

    The federal law protects states rights until the federal law directly overwrites it

    Not exactly. State laws can be as, or more restrictive, than federal laws but they cannot be less. This means that if the federal government doesn't restrict it then states can be as restrictive as they want, as long as those restrictions aren't in opposition to existing federal laws.

    Slavery wasn't federally legalized

    Well…

    Slavery was legally practiced across America (the United States ) until its federal abolition in 1865.

    Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 prohibited Congress from banning the importation of slaves for twenty years, effectively allowing the international slave trade to continue until 1808

    In 1807, Congress passed the Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves, taking effect on January 1, 1808. This intended to end transatlantic slave trade, but it didn't abolish slavery or domestic sale of enslaved people within the US.

    The Fugitive Slave Act or Fugitive Slave Law was a law passed by the 31st United States Congress on September 18, 1850, as part of the Compromise of 1850 between Southern interests in slavery and Northern Free-Soilers.

    This is all in any decent history about slavery in the US. In fact, slavery is still not completely illegal in the US. Remember the 13th amendment? It formally abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in the US, except as a punishment for a crime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Roe v. Wade was a landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, based on the right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment

    the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision upholding Mississippi’s law and overturning Roe v. Wade. With that ruling, the Court returned lawmaking decisions about abortion to the states.

    The Roe decision folded abortion into the 14th Amendment until it was overturned in Dobbs returning legislation over it to the states.

    That other stuff is fair, I’m simply saying that you should have started with that. Fair?

    If you don't know what you are talking about then maybe you should not chime in and research the issue instead. This is all basic American history. Honestly, spoon feeding you things you could learn yourself to correct your wrongly made statements is exhausting. It's time for me to block you and move on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    First of all: if you don't want to correct people, then maybe you shouldn't start comment threads off trying to correct people.

    You said slavery wasn't federally legal. That was wrong.

    You said the 13th amendment had nothing to do with it. That was wrong.

    You don't seem to understand how laws work at all.

    You kept bringing up the 13th amendment and the federal outlawing of slavery, which was irrelevant to the conversation.

    Really?

    Every response from you has been classic Dunning-Kruger.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Do you think the actual law matters to the Supreme Court? They act more like priests now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I didn't think about what matters to SCOTUS at all.

    The law still matters to people and that's what's important. Only after we, abandon the rule of law will there be a complete breakdown of society and a descent into chaos and anarchy.

    I know from all the doom posting I see on Lemmy that many don't, but I still have hope.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    You'd think a world-class corporate news organiztion like Associated Press would be able to shoehorn that into the title somehow. And yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    It's literally the second paragraph of the article. You'd think a literate person with time to write inane comments would be able to read the article. And yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    FYI, it seems like you are marked as a bot. You might want to change that (assuming you aren’t a bot)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    We’re gonna do this again?

    Hey! THE HEADLINE and THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE are two different things. Can you grasp the concept?? Does your inanity know no bounds?! Have you, at long last, no sense of decency, sir?!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Hey! THE HEADLINE and THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE are part of the same body of work. If you want all the context, read all of the work.

    If they put all the context in the title, the title would just be the article and would need its own summary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Indeed. The Title of the book and the Entirety of the Book are part of the same work! If you want to comment on the title of the book you MUST read the entirety of the book!

    The trailer for the movie and the entire movie are part of the same body of work. If you want to comment on the trailer for the movie you must see the entire movie first.

    The appetizer and the dinner are part of the same body of work if you want to comment on the appetizer you must eat the entire dinner first.

    Etc, Etc.

    If they put all the context in the title, the title would just be the article and would need its own summary.

    The title HAS a context without anything else being done. That is the point. The title (while being part of the same body of work) is alone. And here's the thing: most people don't see the whole movie before taking something away from the trailer. (Super-seekrit PRO TIP: The people who create the trailers know this and use it to their advantage.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Comparing a movie that takes an hour+ to watch to an article that it would take you 5 minutes to read tops to get enough context to not make dumb comments. Yeah, totally comparable.

    People like you are why I have to send multiple work emails after I've already mentioned all the relevant details in the first message, all because I didn't put the whole gods damned message in the subject line.

    Take a hooked on phonics course if reading is that hard for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    FFS I’m not talking about the article for a reason. How (or why) you refuse to understand that is beyond me.

    Yeah yeah hooked on phonics, ace repartee. Anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    If you’re not going to read the article or have any interest in it, why bother interacting on the subject at all? The fuck are you even talking about then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think you are ignoring point they are making. If the headline and article tell two different stories, those who just read the headline can come away with a different impression of what's happening. You can argue people that just read the headline shouldn't exist, but they do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    That's a lot of information the shoe horn into the title when it seems perfectly reasonable just put it in the article itself. That's what articles are for after all, the context.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    "as per NY law" ?

    four words? none longer than three letters? That's a lot? Really?

    No.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Man I don't think you understand what the point of a title is. It's not to give you all the information you need. That's what the article is for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Does a title affect people? Just reading one sentence about something "newsworthy"? Do you think titles alone can have an effect on the political nature of a country, or a social group?

    I don't think you understand what the point of a title is. Or what I'm talking about. Despite it being painfully obvious.

  • source
  • parent