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 like guns and free exercise of religion thank you. I do agree that the judicial branch has expanded its own power too far. I think that is an inevitable result of the intractability of the legislative branch. When it comes to judges make no decisions that should have been laws, that have been coming from conservative justices most frequently in recent years (Dobbs, Bruen, and Citizens United to name a few).
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
I like guns and free exercise of religion thank you. I do agree that the judicial branch has expanded its own power too far. I think that is an inevitable result of the intractability of the legislative branch. When it comes to judges make no decisions that should have been laws, that have been coming from conservative justices most frequently in recent years (Dobbs, Bruen, and Citizens United to name a few).
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