A judge in Nevada rejected a proposed 2024 ballot initiative that sought to enshrine reproductive rights, including abortion, in the state’s constitution. Siding with a newly established PAC — the …
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)
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
You seriously see no problem with just putting massive bundles of issues on a purely binary yes/no vote with no room for anything to be changed or removed?
At the same time it could be said that Roe was preventing the creation of legislation where there should be none. While rights like privacy and bodily autonomy are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, they are woven throughout the Constitution and firmly established in the Federalist papers and other foundational documents.
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)
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?
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
You seriously see no problem with just putting massive bundles of issues on a purely binary yes/no vote with no room for anything to be changed or removed?
Then vote it down
Actually, now that I read the damn article again, it seems like there’s a single subject rule in Nevada. That’s the crux of the issue.
Yes. That was the entire point. What have you been talking about this whole time
At the same time it could be said that Roe was preventing the creation of legislation where there should be none. While rights like privacy and bodily autonomy are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, they are woven throughout the Constitution and firmly established in the Federalist papers and other foundational documents.