What an utter shithole of a state:
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
What an utter shithole of a state:
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
If the woman doesn't get in trouble for the abortion, what's going to stop gangs from using vulnerable women to get good samaritans to help with an abortion just so they can collect the $10k+ bounty?
I think it is evident and prudent that SCOTUS majority wants an actual case to rule against as apposed to intent. Should SCOTUS rule on intent?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supr...ry?id=79781676
I think it's evident that that argument is bullshit and that the prudent thing to do would've been to not allow the law to come into effect. I also think you should maybe read the article you linked to in its entirety.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Listen rude man, I disagree with the minorities dissent and statements toward that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/jo...9Xl?li=BBnb7KzQuote:
"In reaching this conclusion," the majority wrote, "we stress that we do not purport to resolve definitely any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants' lawsuit. In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas's law."
Yeah but pointing that out doesn't gin up any outrage. The hyperbolic nonsense of the idea of rideshare drivers being sued is really really dumb
The law allows it. Strange that your concern for a slippery slope doesn't apply here. After all, what could go wrong with the state getting around constitutionally protected behaviors by outsourcing enforcement to private citizens.
Reddit already has subreddits popping up with dudes trying to figure out how to report women that they have slept with in hopes of claiming the bounty.
Lewk loves vigilante "justice". Shooting homeless people stealing toothpaste, etc. He likes to pose as a Law & Order "conservative", but he's really just a fascist trying to paint his ideology as Freeeedom! like Bannon does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The US has also failed to protect women's reproductive rights, as Christian extremists take over..... so we don't really care about human lives or equal rights; we just like to pretend that American Democracy and Exceptionalism is still a real thing, and not a myth.
I feel really sorry for the Afghan refugees who bought into the false promise of American Freeeedom. And now they don't know if we'll help them emigrate, let alone where to settle, because so many communities have said they're not welcomed, and refuse to accept them, they're fucked.
USA #1! :(
lmao obvious troll bait is obviousQuote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Florida's shape is often ridiculed as the flacid penis of the US. Texas just decided to be the US' moral arsehole.
This could be a problem. :eek:
Conservative men are so sociopathic that it's easy to forget they're also just so fucking stupid:
Twitter Link
You all can settle down now, SCOTUS has an actual case to rule on. I expect they will do the right thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireSt...n-ban-80135279
Now being handled as prescribed by law rather than emotion...
https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-issu...ry?id=80446761
If every new law went directly through SCOTUS, as you all seemed to want, the docket would be generations behind.
Literally no one here has taken this stance, but there needs to be repercussions, beyond expecting the brainwashed voters to hold them accountable, for wasting tax payers money on obviously settled and unconstitutional laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
This would be an incredibly relevant comment if every new law violated constitutionally guaranteed rights; as that is not the case, the comment is not relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
The constitutionality of this law has yet to be ruled on by any court. You don't start the process at the highest court in the system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
There are reasonable grounds for believing the law is unconstitutional, and there is an imperative to prevent the application of a self-evidently—or even likely—unconstitutional law that violates individuals' constitutionally guaranteed rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Blocking the application of the law, at this stage, on an emergency basis, was entirely within the remit of SCOTUS—and turning to SCOTUS was one of the available options; as such, it's silly to portray this as a violation of "the process". It's especially silly because "the process" did, in fact, begin in lower courts—with WWH only turning to SCOTUS for emergency relief after the 5th circuit court of appeals decided to obstruct the process by canceling the planned preliminary injunction hearing on short notice just days before the law went into effect. They didn't start with SCOTUS—SCOTUS was the third court.
Even apart from this, your implicit view of "the process" is honestly a little infantile; the process for determining the constitutionality of a law never begins in court—it begins before the drafting stage. Proposals that are self-evidently unconstitutional should never even make it to the drafting stage. If your personal process for determining the constitutionality of a law begins in court, then maybe that's an intellectual limitation you can work on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
I wasn't aware all new laws imposed a lifetime burden and $300,000 on the affected person per incident
Let's remember how Roe Vs Wade made its way to SCOTUS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee filed a lawsuit on behalf of their client in U.S. federal court against their client's local district attorney, Henry Wade, alleging that Texas's abortion laws were unconstitutional. A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas heard the case and ruled in her favor. Texas then appealed this ruling directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. SCOTUS ruled abortion legal and tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy.
20 years later...
The Supreme Court abandoned Roe's trimester framework in favor of a standard based on fetal viability and overruled Roe's requirement that government regulations on abortion be reviewed under the strict scrutiny standard.
Not that it matters since this new law does not involve government scrutiny at all. Which is why a new case must work through the system to determine the constitutionality.
Thank you, Being, for that sweeping miss on what scrutiny refers to and why your useage doesn't apply here.
So you know better than the Justices on the Court...Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Actually, every single one of them would be agreeing with what I just told you.
While I acknowledge that you have indeed used the words "court", "Texas", "abortion", "laws", "unconstitutional", "case", "ruling" and "SCOTUS", I feel obligated to point out that your post doesn't seem to have any real relevance to the broader discussion—or, indeed, to your own tangent about "the process" :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Enlighten me.
I would like to hear your reasoning behind that statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Neither of the scrutiny standards nor their rational basis alternative have the slightest thing to do with the degree of the government's involvement in enforcing or administering a law, and their use or lack of it doesn't have a thing to do with "new cases working through the system." And this isn't high-level legal material. This is high school government/civics material.
You try being dense but are in fact dense.
This is what I was saying all along...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
The fact that there is a legal theory rationale does not prove or even imply that it's actually the case. Except for Barret, all of the majority justices had previously been against stays even in cases where there was no such issue. In fact, the Louisiana case I specifically cited has them all dissenting from the decision to grant a stay even though there was already a relatively recent case already clearly decided on that issue*. The main purpose of such stays is to prevent irreparable injuries to the parties that might occur by adherence to a ruling before the appeal is resolved. The interpretation of these justices on when to grant a stay seems to be about preventing irreparable harm to the fetuses rather than either legal party. The ONLY reason I mention it is because, again, Barrett just doesn't have much appellate background and I can't be 100% about lumping her in with the other four even if other parts of her background suggest it.
*makeup of the court had changed in the meantime so the clearly unconstitutional law was passed to test if the court was ready to overturn. Not entirely dissimilar to what's going on here except in that case, Roberts voted to uphold the precedent, disapproving of such tactics and their disruptive effect on the legal system (not to mention the court's constantly increasing docket)
International observers increasingly concerned about backward North American nation's ongoing attacks on women's and children's rights as well as on democracy. With a growing number of legislators implicated in various criminal conspiracies to derail the normal functioning of democratic government, the world is left wondering—why do these "Republicans" hate women and democracy so much, and why are they so keen on safeguarding sickos' ability to marry children? Does anyone know?
Just because you think abortion and free cake are fundamental rights doesn't mean everyone agrees. There's reasonable debates about this stuff.
There's nothing reasonable about the recent spate of anti-abortion legislation, except from the perspective of religious extremists. You know this as well as I do, yet you insist on noshing down steaming piles of shit like it's chocolate cake because you have no ethical algorithm beyond being anti-anti.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I agree there is nothing reasonable about them, except for the fact that they are the products of a democratic process. A democratic process likely would have removed fuel from the fire of said alleged extremists. Instead, our Supreme Court gave them a rallying cry right as the issue became controversial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
This is the same democratic process being used to prevent people from voting. It's majoritarianism, not democracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
A democratic process would have done nothing of the sort. It would have just led us here earlier, as some states legalized abortion and others tried to find ways to punish "abortion-tourists" as murderers. Which would end up requiring SCOTUS rulings as those kinds of interstate conflicts are most fundamental reason for existence in the first place and hey, we're right back here.