>Very much so, to the point that while I will no longer vote blue, I also won't vote red.
I understand. I voted some of each and some third party. (And I'm the one who wrote in "A yellow dog who opposed mandates" for town council.)
>[DeSantis] and Trump have had a bit of a falling out since the whole election-denial business.
Your linked article doesn't say so, but if that is true, it's a shame. I'm also not a fan of your question-begging way of referencing the situation, especially since AFAIK every related court case was dismissed on a technicality rather than being y'know actually heard. I understand that legal eagles felt insulted by the Trump crowd's failure to assimilate legal cultural forms, so felt happy to dismiss them on technicalities (striking a blow for professionalism!)...but, well, that's the problem.
Abraham Lincoln became a lawyer by reading the law on his own time and then taking the bar exam. You used to be able to do that. Now you can't. If you bring that up with a modern lawyer, they like to laugh at the idea of anyone ever trying such a thing. They like to emphasize the value of law school and the work lawyers put in to get through it and how lawyers are a profession and their professional knowledge is valuable.
Of course, the knowledge you can demonstrate on the bar exam always has been knowledge. In Lincoln's time too.
So it's not *that* kind of knowledge. Then what is it? It's cultural knowledge. It's knowledge of the counterintuitive cultural traditions that have grown up within legal professions since then.
Again, I understand why someone would want their investment of time and money into law school to be respected and valued. But I do not think the point of making laws was to create an arena that is counterintuitive to the point that the only way to succeed there is to pay big bucks to a professional. That it has evolved into such a situation is, again, actually the problem.
This accretion of complex unwritten rules which modern professional lawyers are (understandably, they're difficult) so proud of having mastered...strikes me as an example of the sort of added societal complexity that our host has said is unsustainable.
And thanks for the article! It does seem good.
>Florida also used the end of Roe to pass a compromise 15-week abortion ban, bucking the trend of states moving to opposite extreme positions on the issue.
Aha.
I noticed they also included an exception for fatal fetal abnormalities. Very important especially to the kind of purple-voting moms who might be at higher risk for such problems (starting later, having a caboose, etc).
Through loss support groups I know a lot of moms who have encountered prenatal diagnoses of problems. Some do choose to carry the baby to term and then watch him/her die, but many would rather spare the baby and themselves that pain.
BTW. You can diagnose increased risk for some such problems around 10 weeks (NIPT), but you can't be sure the diagnosis is correct without an amniocentesis at 15-20 weeks (and results take a while to come back). (CVS, which can be done at 10-15 weeks, is not as accurate as amnio.) So 15-week abortion bans have the risk that people will terminate healthy, wanted pregnancies because of "high-risk" NIPT results; an exception for fatal fetal abnormalities reduces that likelihood.
Re: angry and scared about election results
I understand. I voted some of each and some third party. (And I'm the one who wrote in "A yellow dog who opposed mandates" for town council.)
>[DeSantis] and Trump have had a bit of a falling out since the whole election-denial business.
Your linked article doesn't say so, but if that is true, it's a shame. I'm also not a fan of your question-begging way of referencing the situation, especially since AFAIK every related court case was dismissed on a technicality rather than being y'know actually heard. I understand that legal eagles felt insulted by the Trump crowd's failure to assimilate legal cultural forms, so felt happy to dismiss them on technicalities (striking a blow for professionalism!)...but, well, that's the problem.
Abraham Lincoln became a lawyer by reading the law on his own time and then taking the bar exam. You used to be able to do that. Now you can't. If you bring that up with a modern lawyer, they like to laugh at the idea of anyone ever trying such a thing. They like to emphasize the value of law school and the work lawyers put in to get through it and how lawyers are a profession and their professional knowledge is valuable.
Of course, the knowledge you can demonstrate on the bar exam always has been knowledge. In Lincoln's time too.
So it's not *that* kind of knowledge. Then what is it? It's cultural knowledge. It's knowledge of the counterintuitive cultural traditions that have grown up within legal professions since then.
Again, I understand why someone would want their investment of time and money into law school to be respected and valued. But I do not think the point of making laws was to create an arena that is counterintuitive to the point that the only way to succeed there is to pay big bucks to a professional. That it has evolved into such a situation is, again, actually the problem.
This accretion of complex unwritten rules which modern professional lawyers are (understandably, they're difficult) so proud of having mastered...strikes me as an example of the sort of added societal complexity that our host has said is unsustainable.
And thanks for the article! It does seem good.
>Florida also used the end of Roe to pass a compromise 15-week abortion ban, bucking the trend of states moving to opposite extreme positions on the issue.
Aha.
I noticed they also included an exception for fatal fetal abnormalities. Very important especially to the kind of purple-voting moms who might be at higher risk for such problems (starting later, having a caboose, etc).
Through loss support groups I know a lot of moms who have encountered prenatal diagnoses of problems. Some do choose to carry the baby to term and then watch him/her die, but many would rather spare the baby and themselves that pain.
BTW. You can diagnose increased risk for some such problems around 10 weeks (NIPT), but you can't be sure the diagnosis is correct without an amniocentesis at 15-20 weeks (and results take a while to come back). (CVS, which can be done at 10-15 weeks, is not as accurate as amnio.) So 15-week abortion bans have the risk that people will terminate healthy, wanted pregnancies because of "high-risk" NIPT results; an exception for fatal fetal abnormalities reduces that likelihood.