Lurker123

I feel like you’re arguing against somebody else here. I made no statements about counterfactual timelines or lord dunmore’s proclamation.

The “it” in question here is the British Empire’s abolishment of slavery (in certain territories) 60 years after the revolution. The fact that the British, in fact, abolished slavery at this point is irrelevant to the revolutionaries’ belief that they needed to rebel to preserve slavery, since they cannot see the future. If you want to argue that the revolutionaries were rebelling to preserve slavery and want to point to Lord Dunmore’s proclamation and general abolitionist sentiment among the British at the time, sure you can have that discussion, but it seems like it was meant for somebody else, since that’s not at all what I was talking about.

You’re right that the last sentence of the first paragraph makes that claim (or rather a claim about it being abolished sooner rather than not at all). But I think that’s a bit of a non-sequitur. What’s relevant for the first two sentences (and the poster’s overall point) is the motivation of the revolutionaries, I.e. whether they perceived (irrespective of whether this perception was accurate or justified) slavery would be soon abolished such that a revolt was necessary to maintain slavery. The fact that Britain abolished slavery (in certain parts of its empire) so 60 years later is not super relevant to the underlying claim.

That is canonically what happens, with the earth and fire benders coming together and reorienting the class structure such that benders are superior to nonbenders. This is further explored in LoK before being handwaved away at the end of the first season (which is generally how each season goes, there is an interesting premise which is explored before being completely abandoned with some plot convenience that doesn’t actually address the underlying issue or premise and doesn’t make sense as a resolution if you think about it)

Bro I tried this. Hell, I tried to leave Skyrim all together to avoid the first dragon, but I was caught trying to cross the border.

You wouldn’t download a plane.

Ye if the point is that he failed to try and that’s why you don’t like him, fair enough, I definitely agree there. I was reading the OP as blaming him for the result, rather than the failure to try, which is what I was responding to.

If you think that this Supreme Court actually rules on principles and that it would apply it equally (rather than in a brutally partisan manner) to Biden and Trump, then I have a bridge to sell you.

If we’re talking about strictly legal methods, Biden’s only option would be to pack the court to overrule Dobbs and reinstate Roe/Casey (or, ideally a stronger version). This would be done via a new federal law, and given that the dems only held 50 senate seats (which included people such and Manchin and Sinema), this was not something that could actually happen.

I think Biden should have tried this, used the bully pulpit of the presidency to argue for it, and campaigned against the senators that stood in the way of this. That’s what I would expect a president who actually cared about this issue to do. But it would not have stopped SCOTUS’s rollback of the law.

Biden could of course have instead triggered a constitutional crisis by directly threatening SCOTUS and forcing them to rule with a (potentially actual) gun to their head. But I’m not sure that’s what you had in mind?

The law of the land for in state tuition is vlandis, which is an older case and doesn’t go into as much detail to positively prescribe what limits are acceptable (rather, it states an irrebuttable presumption against residency is forbidden).

The more recent Saenz (concerning welfare benefits) and less recent Memorial Hospital (regarding healthcare) are probably more on this point here. In these cases, the court noted that welfare and emergency health services were critical to the life and wellbeing of an individual, and thus the residency restrictions in those cases infringed on the constitutional right of the claimants to free movement between the states. And thus, the states would need a compelling state interest to put on these statutes, and their reasons of avoiding fraud, safeguarding taxpayer money, etc. were insufficient.

So there’s a higher standard set by the law with respect to state’s residency restrictions on welfare/access to emergency health as opposed to tuition (where the standard is just there cannot be an irrebuttable presumption)

For which purpose were you trying to establish residency? There are various federal cases about different purposes (welfare, in state tuition, healthcare benefits, voting), and the requirements are not the same.

I would think the ruling of Memorial hospital (and more recently Saenz) rather than Vlandis would apply to this sort of benefit. But it’s a good point that it could always be tested, and who knows how a court would rule (although memorial hospital and Saenz do seem very on point)

Well, it wouldn’t really be moving. It would be an extremely temporary relocation for a procedure (which is increasingly common in the US as our costs get absurd. Except here it would be to CA for free care instead of Mexico or Thailand or Turkey for cheaper care). Under Saenz vs Roe, it would be quite difficult for a state to stop this.

Edit: though I suppose for something longer term, like cancer treatment, it could be properly characterized as moving.