rchive

I'm not sure which is funnier, the post or the response to it. Lol

Corporations are just the sum of their customers. One customer doesn't have much influence, that's true, but collectively they have a ton.

Climate change is bad, but maybe take a deep breath about it. This isn't the hottest the earth has ever been, life is pretty resilient, and humans are in some ways the most resilient life Earth has yet produced.

I mean, it's not being ignored. There's electric vehicles, charging stations all around, subsidies for solar panels on houses, green branded products, banning of certain harmful things, the list goes on. Maybe you think it's not enough, but it's pretty out there to call that ignoring.

Does Lemmy have post tags or flair or whatever it's called?

Why do they have different standards, anyway? A vehicle is a vehicle, sort of, when it comes to emissions.

The ordinance in this Texas case doesn't make anything criminal, it uses the same civil liability workaround that Texas was using at the state level before Dobbs.

That's also not the strong argument some people might think it is, in the eyes of these Christians.

If SCOTUS were insistent (and consistent) that only the federal government had the power to regulate interstate commerce, yet this Texas jurisdiction is trying to do just that, wouldn't that logically be in violation of the Commerce Clause and SCOTUS would have to strike down?

I was arguing that SCOTUS isn't consistent on this, but pretend they were.

That is not even close to what the Dobbs decision ruled. What are you talking about?

Dobbs just said basically that the Constitution does not imply a fundamental right to an abortion (which is what Roe said). That's it. Congress is still free to pass laws about abortion, and it could try to preempt states prohibiting it.

Not to mention the Commerce Clause reserves the power to regulate interstate commerce to the federal government, which this Texas ordinance doesn't explicitly violate, but comes awfully close and will probably be challenged on those grounds.

People always say this, but it's not as strong of an argument as they think it is. Religious conservative people, especially Christians, give to charity quite a lot, actually. They just hear that argument and think, "this person doesn't know what they're talking about, we obvious do care about the already born, I can comfortably dismiss everything they say now."

It's not a ban, per se, it "just" opens people up to civil liability. The reason they do it that way is to skirt the Constitution.