ChiGoose

The suspected shooter has been apprehended.

Except that it doesn’t happen in our peer countries nearly as often as it happens here. Are you saying that Americans are just more angry and violent than people in other countries? We are inherently flawed and inferior to people like Canadians or the British?

We definitely have cultural issues around guns here, but other countries consume our pop culture and don’t have these problems, so I’m not sure how much of a driver it is. I would love to put tighter regulations around firearm marketing though. A lot of the material I’ve seen almost fetishizes guns. Groups like the NRA spend more time talking up the pseudo-military and 2A language than responsible gun ownership and safety.

I would start with treating firearms the way we do cars: license and registration with competency tests. Requirements can be on a sliding scale based on actual lethality: strict on handguns, less strict on hunting long guns. Improved tracing for prosecuting straw gun purchases. Nationwide red flag laws. Requirements for safe storage. Repeal PLCAA. Raise the minimum age to 21. Magazine capacity limits. Only in America though? Is your argument that Americans are more inherently problematic than our peers in other countries?

I would love to find a way to make this better. We are the only developed country in the world where this happens with this frequency. And yet, so many people claim it’s not the guns. Either Americans are inherently drastically more inclined to violent mental illness, or it’s the prevalence of guns. Any discussion that doesn’t center on limiting the access to guns is a distraction.

I don’t know much about the gun laws in Highland Park, but about 20 miles away in Chicago, most guns used in crimes come from outside the state. So the gun laws are reducing the guns purchased in the city from being used in crimes, but the lax laws in neighboring Indiana are flooding the streets with firearms. If you’re conclusion then, is that the gun laws in one city are not as effective unless similar laws are enacted in neighboring areas, then I’m glad we agree. If Indiana (and Wisconsin) tighten their gun laws, this area of the country would see a reduction in gun violence.

Yes, under ISL, the states would supersede the federal government and their actions could not be ruled on by state courts. I am not predicting that SCOTUS will rule in favor of ISL, but I am concerned they might. Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have indicated they might support some parts of ISL. The fact that this iteration of the Court granted cert to this case does not give me optimism that they will end up rejecting ISL.

A lot of mass shootings seem to also be suicides. So while it is odd that this guy got away, I’m not sure how much a deterrent public execution would be to those who plan to die as part of their actions anyway.

6 Dead, 24 Wounded in Shooting at Highland Park Fourth of July Parade. Shooter at Large.

Right, because we currently don’t live under the Independent State Legislature doctrine. So we have these checks available. If SCOTUS changes that by adopting the ISL, then that will dramatically change the landscape.

The committee has stated it will release the transcripts at the end of the investigation, which they expect to be September. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect them to release them sooner, but if they do not release them when they are done with the probe, they should be rightfully criticized and it would taint everything they have been working on.

…That’s not what the independent state legislature doctrine is about. The Constitution states that the states can set the time, place, and manner of federal elections but that the Congress may change the rules through law. So to your point, states could pass laws saying that senators were selected by state legislatures, not through a direct vote of the people. That could be changed through Congressional action or a constitutional amendment (or the state legislature could change it themselves). The US Congress can also set laws that create guardrails for elections and courts could review state laws to ensure they are constitutional. Under the Independent State Legislature (ISL) Doctrine, states get to set the rules and those rules are not reviewable by the courts. Also, when state law and federal law conflict, it should always be resolved in favor of the state (essentially endorsing nullification). This would allow states to do everything within their power to rig elections in favor of a particular party. The gerrymandered map that the Dems in NY tried to pass was thrown out by the courts. That can’t happen under ISL. In fact, the Dems would be incentivized to see if they could eliminate every GOP district. With no way for courts to challenge redistricting maps for things like compactness, they could draw a map that grabs a heavily blue area in NYC and connects that population to the Southern Tier. The natural endgame for ISL is to create single party states where only the most extreme candidates can win. It would further fracture the country and erode the voice of the people. It also has little to no basis in our history and is antithetical to the ideals of our Founding. Any jurist who actually believes in Originalism would reject ISL out of hand.

I do not seem to recall George W. Bush conspiring with a small group of aides to take actions they knew were illegal in order to delay or prevent the certification of the election. In fact, contrary to your statement, I have a hard time recalling any president who wanted to prevent the certification of the election, was told that doing so was illegal, and still pushed his people to try to make it happen.

Not if you read the article. While many articles we see today are following the laws to their logical conclusions, the article I posted included a doctor talking about the problems they are already seeing.

Minnesota lawmakers vote to legalize edibles. Some did so accidentally.

That would be a tremendous shock to the founders and the authors of the 9th amendment.

A lot of people here seem to want a committee to release all of their evidence and testimony while still investigating, allowing parties to coordinate their testimony with what was already provided and obscure or outright hide the truth. Which is not how an investigative body would ever work.

Pharmacy denies woman medicine for miscarriage. Thankfully, she was able to get the medicine at another pharmacy.

I imagine you might be able to find a way to reach a common ground on the woman’s interest to privacy and autonomy, and the state’s interest in the baby’s life. Maybe in the first trimester, the woman can get an abortion; in the second trimester, it can be restricted based on criteria like health and viability; and in the third she could only get an abortion if the fetus was not viable or the woman’s life was in jeopardy. And you could use very clear language to differentiate out treatment for miscarriages or for other conditions that use some of the same medicines.

The article is quoting a rheumatologist saying they are already seeing this.

But there’s no way this Originalist SCOTUS would go for this since it has no basis on the history of the US, has only existed for like 20 years, and is antithetical to the vision of the founders. Unless, of course, Originalism is just bunk and a way of picking the conclusion you want and making up a reason after…

Rheumatologists seeing problems with getting patients methotrexate.

Oh, they definitely can. I just don’t think they will.

10 year old forced to travel out of state for abortion.

I think that this is a good point that highlights some of the nuance that seems to be getting missed. So far, we have seen testimony and audio of *reports* of AR-15s. While there is testimony that some weapons and body armor was confiscated, I haven’t seen confirmation that there were actually AR-15s present.