Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2d ago
As far as I know, the law in US federal states and Western European countries is usually that a husband may not have a paternity test done on the child or children unless the wife agrees to it in writing and the family court permits it (in case of a divorce).
I think this is less broadly true. I'm not familiar with Europe but based on my research on the United States there are only 15 or so states that seem to have any regulation of genetic testing of another person. To the extent this conduct is prohibited there, it's prohibited under general genetic testing/privacy/medical decision laws (requiring consent of both parents) rather than some kind of specific anti-paternity-testing law.
More broadly, I think the law recognizes an obvious distinction between legal parentage and genetic parentage. There's an (often rebuttable) presumption that the two are the same but they don't have to be.
Imagine a couple adopt an infant. They remain together for several more years and then divorce. Can a court order the non-custodial parent pay child support to the non-custodial parent? Should the biological parents (if they are even identifiable) be on the hook for the child support? There's no question here that the parents are not the biological parents of the child but I think courts would still happily order one to pay child support. There's an obvious analogy to a situation where a man signs a birth certificate. Acts as a child's father for some years. Only for it to come to light they are not genetically related.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
10d ago
The reasoning in the original preliminary injunction is that the President doesn't have statutory authority to make these kinds of alterations. I don't really see how these events bear on that reasoning. "The president was attacked at a private location while attending a private event as an invited guest, therefore he does have the statutory authority to build the ballroom!" Like, what?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
10d ago
Courts are the entities that our system designated to resolve legal ambiguities. Largely for reasons of expediency. Court interpretations of statutes or the constitution can be overridden by the legislature or by amendment but, in the moment, we need someone to decide.
These questions come up in the context of pending cases. Take the example of Wickard below. Whether he was in violation of federal law and must pay a penalty turned on whether his growing wheat was "interstate commerce." If judges are not empowered to answer this question, what does this case look like? Is it put on hold until Congress passes a law? The constitution is amended? Can anyone get their federal prosecution deferred by finding an ambiguity (according to who?) that would require a statutory or constitutional amendment to clarify?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
17d ago
On the narrow question in Rucho, I don't see why allegations that districts were drawn for partisan advantage is nonjusticiable while other questions of district drawing (ex, racial discrimination) are. If the court wanted to declare that any question of why districts were drawn particular ways were nonjusticiable that would be consistent. But they haven't done that and I am skeptical they will so I don't see why a partisan motivation, specifically, is nonjusticiable.
On the broader question I don't think it would be unreasonable to read substantive requirements for district drawing into the equal protection clause. Ideally these requirements wouldn't reference partisnaship as such but I think the natural effect of such requirements would be to reduce the possibility for partisan gerrymandering. I think when people complain about a lack of representation when discussing districts like Virginia's new 11, 7, 1, and 8 they are getting at something real and constitutionally cognizable. Compare also the TN 2020 map with the 2024 map. Am I to believe the interests of the people of Nashville are equally well represented when they are all together in the 5th district as when they are split between the 5th, 6th, and 7th district? And the constitution has nothing to say about this effective denial of the ability of a political community to have a representative represent them?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
17d ago
The obvious solution is for Congress to just pass a law ending the practice for everyone. The Redistricting Reform Act has been introduced in ~every Congress since 2006 but has never gone anywhere. The most recent version has 55 cosponsors in the House. All Democrats, of course. Frankly, I think the best outcome would have been Rucho v. Common Cause coming out the other way. Since any legislative solution operates to the disadvantage of some fraction of the people who would have to endorse that solution. Something only a half dozen or so legislative bodies in the United States have managed to do.
I clicked through and read the article and the perspective therein was so foreign I feel like I'm being trolled. I don't even know where to begin.
Yes restaurant critics review the entire experience of going to a restaurant. They do not obsessively focus on establishing which one has the better tasting food. Am I the crazy one? Is the taste of the food the only thing normal people care about at a restaurant? I am pretty confident people who are into, like, fine dining care a lot about atmosphere and presentation and ambiance and so on. Going to a restaurant can be an Experience!
The analogy with taking medicine feels so insane. The vast majority of people taking medicine are not doing so for pleasure, they are doing so for purely functional reasons. That is not, to my mind, how people engage with entertainment or art. People can be, and often are, induced into engaging in pleasurable activities by a good story about a thing or a sense of novelty. I cannot tell you how many books I've been induced to read because they had a cool design on the cover rather than by my expectation they would be good (often wrong!)
And, like, the context outside an artistic work can obviously inform one's enjoyment of that work. Has Scott really never had the experience of enjoying something more due to knowledge not contained in the work itself? Has he ever had an in-joke?
More options
Context Copy link