358
US support for abortion rights up four points to 60% since fall of Roe v Wade
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
358 points (98.9% liked)
News
23310 readers
3698 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It would have to get passed by the Florida Supreme Court.
Does that really sound like a big hurdle? Or more like... Stepping over a small twig?
Edit: to be clear here, they are selected by a commission that the governor creates, which makes a recommendation list to the governor to select from. Of the 7 justices, 5 of them became justices during Desantis' time as governor.
They’re the ones that left it up to an election by determining it should be a decision of the people. Walking back on that is now tougher than changing court decided legislation.
So not tough at all, considering recent complete 180's on precedence based on whether it suits their agenda.
Sounds about right.
It's hard to believe the Fl supreme Court has any ethics. Considering what they've pushed through with education, diversity training, etc., etc.
The 5 that came in through DeSantis are all heavily conservative. One of whom is married to a representative who wrote the bill for the 6 week ban, and refused to recuse himself. Not to mention having put forth his own anti-choice bans (mostly nonsensical partial birth abortion bans, which isn't a thing) in the 90's.
Another one has a husband elected to the oversight board for Disney.
I really think you're overestimating their ethics and underestimating the lengths they will go.
Edit: autocorrect typo, refuse/recuse.
What is the penalty of a Supreme Court directly overruling precedent?
Answer: there isn't one