The mifepristone war begins

This dipshit with resting domestic abuser face has ordered a stay on the FDA's approval of mifepristone:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FtJb2MCX...jpg&name=small

Another judge has ordered the FDA to not alter the status quo wrt its approval of mifepristone.

And so the dumbest country in the west prepares to once again go to war over issues the rest of the world sorted out many years ago. The conflicting orders are expected to end up before SCOTUS.

Summary here: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/07/h...ing-texas.html

Countless clowns in the judiciary is probably going to be the biggest consequence of the Trump presidency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Countless clowns in the judiciary is probably going to be the biggest consequence of the Trump presidency.

---

And our only protection from them is a corrupt and illegitimate supreme court.

I'm including at least one of his SCOTUS appointments on that list.

I would like to volunteer everyone who perjured themselves in their confirmation hearings for that list. I think that gets us up to 4?

I suspect in the end anti-abortion activistists are going to rue finally overturning Roe. For decades they've been pursuing a "states rights" jurisprudential path to limit abortion access locally and as soon as they managed to get it overturned they've abandoned that for trying to impose centralized federal prohibitions aimed toward its eventual total prohibition. They'll lose many of the inching restrictions they've managed to put in place in the states they control to a federal standard that allows abortion with a few more of those inched restrictions than more liberal states would like. They appear to have forgotten that the US is still ultimately a democracy in basic structure/nature, despite its many flaws (actually, many of those flaws stem FROM that democratic nature) and they don't have the popular majority on this. They have a territorial majority instead which is why their former "states rights" approach worked and why trying to federalize the issue is going to ultimately cost them.

That's not enough, I want their buttholes to itch for all eternity.

In all seriousness, many more people will be hurt and have their lives destroyed by GOP extremists' medical vandalism before you reach that future equilibrium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

That's not enough, I want their buttholes to itch for all eternity.

In all seriousness, many more people will be hurt and have their lives destroyed by GOP extremists' medical vandalism before you reach that future equilibrium.

---

Probably. Will it be more or less than how many people would have been hurt and had their lives destroyed if they'd kept on with their less expansive (and IMO more sustainable) local "states rights" approach?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

I suspect in the end anti-abortion activistists are going to rue finally overturning Roe. For decades they've been pursuing a "states rights" jurisprudential path to limit abortion access locally and as soon as they managed to get it overturned they've abandoned that for trying to impose centralized federal prohibitions aimed toward its eventual total prohibition. They'll lose many of the inching restrictions they've managed to put in place in the states they control to a federal standard that allows abortion with a few more of those inched restrictions than more liberal states would like. They appear to have forgotten that the US is still ultimately a democracy in basic structure/nature, despite its many flaws (actually, many of those flaws stem FROM that democratic nature) and they don't have the popular majority on this. They have a territorial majority instead which is why their former "states rights" approach worked and why trying to federalize the issue is going to ultimately cost them.

---

Look at the Senate map for 2024. It would take a miracle for Democrats to be in a position to pass any pro-choice legislation regardless of the size of popular majorities on their side. Also, see gun control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Probably. Will it be more or less than how many people would have been hurt and had their lives destroyed if they'd kept on with their less expansive (and IMO more sustainable) local "states rights" approach?

---

Can only speculate about that counterfactual. I'm inclined to think the current situation is worse because it represents actual realized harm now or in the near future rather than hypothetical harm in the far future, but I haven't exactly gamed it out. As it was with Trump, I don't think a defeat will lead to a collapse of Republican fundamentalism. It's difficult to retake the territory that's been lost to these cretins.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ryk-law-review

Quote:

---

As a lawyer for a conservative legal group, Matthew Kacsmaryk in early 2017 submitted an article to a Texas law review criticizing Obama-era protections for transgender people and those seeking abortions.

[...]

But a few months after the piece arrived, an editor at the law journal who had been working with Kacsmaryk received an unusual email: Citing “reasons I may discuss at a later date,” Kacsmaryk, who had originally been listed as the article’s sole author, said he would be removing his name and replacing it with those of two colleagues at his legal group, First Liberty Institute, according to emails and early drafts obtained by The Washington Post.

What Kacsmaryk did not say in the email was that he had already been interviewed for a judgeship by his state’s two senators and was awaiting an interview at the White House.

As part of that process, he was required to list all of his published work on a questionnaire submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, including “books, articles, reports, letters to the editor, editorial pieces, or other published material you have written or edited.”

The article, titled “The Jurisprudence of the Body,” was published in September 2017 by the Texas Review of Law and Politics, a right-leaning journal that Kacsmaryk had led as a law student at the University of Texas. But Kacsmaryk’s role in the article was not disclosed, nor did he list the article on the paperwork he submitted to the Senate in advance of confirmation hearings in which Kacsmaryk’s past statements on LGBT issues became a point of contention.

[...]

Kacsmaryk did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesman for First Liberty, Hiram Sasser, said that Kacsmaryk’s name had been a “placeholder” on the article and that Kacsmaryk had not provided a “substantive contribution.” Aaron Reitz, who was the journal’s editor in chief at the time and is now a deputy to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), said Kacsmaryk had been “our chief point of contact during much of the editing” and “was the placeholder until final authors were named by First Liberty.”

But one former review editor familiar with the events said there was no indication that Kacsmaryk had been a “placeholder,” adding that this was the only time during their tenure at the law review that they ever saw author names swapped. The former editor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisal, provided emails and several drafts of the article.

---

All these mfers just comically shady

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ryk-law-review



All these mfers just comically shady

---

How the hell these plaintiffs got standing? Aside from the matter at hand this case not being thrown out endangers the entire legal system in the USA. It swipes away the idea that after a certain amount of time actors can count on government actions being based in law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

How the hell these plaintiffs got standing? Aside from the matter at hand this case not being thrown out endangers the entire legal system in the USA. It swipes away the idea that after a certain amount of time actors can count on government actions being based in law.

---

It's theoretically possible that a woman going through a medical abortion might bleed in a way that emotionally injures one of these doctors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

It's theoretically possible that a woman going through a medical abortion might bleed in a way that emotionally injures one of these doctors

---

I read that, but it doesn't constitute standing. Or let me put it this way; it ends any ability to trust in the law if it did. If the FDA was acting unlawful in admitting the abortion pill, what does that make of any action by any person or entity acting on the premise that the FDA was acting lawfully?

You could basically make everything people do illegal on the basis that in case an event happens that particular behavior could emotionally affect someone not directly involved in the behavior itself. The list would be as ridiculous as it would be long.

This type of ruling one expects in a country where judges are merely mouthpieces for the local autocrat. The type of country where the law means something different every single day.