Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 85 of 85

Thread: Abortion

  1. #61
    I've also yet to come across a single person who wants abortion banned because the government is currently paying for them.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  2. #62
    Fuzzy, what's your opinion on this new Texas law? Particularly the "enforcement" part that allows any individual to sue anyone for "aiding and abetting" a woman's attempt to get an abortion after 6 weeks?

    PS I already know what you think about my personal opinions. I'm asking you to make a statement about the Texas law, and explain SCOTUS's response (or lack thereof). You like to pose as the legal expert who knows more than any layperson here, so please, explain this law and your opinion of it.
    Last edited by GGT; 09-17-2021 at 04:03 AM.

  3. #63
    I think both the law and the SCOTUS majority's response are shenanigans. As for the enforcement part in particular, while novel, it still runs afoul of the principles applied in past jurisprudence, in that it uses government power to materially interfere with the execution of a constitutionally protected right. I think there will be other legal principles it runs afoul of, in assigning civil liability too loosely (something akin to tortious interference) but am less certain on that point. It may be too novel, or it may just be beyond my limited legal background. So the enforcement mechanism might be within a state government's legitimate power (applied in a ridiculous manner nonetheless) more generally even if it violates a constitutional threshold in this particular application.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I am amused by Dread's first comment, in light of recent events. Now, government funding abortion is one of the primary vehicles for establishing standing to sue Texas to get the law forbidding abortion for any reason after six weeks struck down.
    I'm amused that Kavanaugh's recent opinion in TransUnion v. Ramirez is a pretty decent reason the Texas law is unconstitutional.

    Since this discussion in 2011 I've made some charitable donations an organization whose explicit goal is to pay, transport or otherwise provide real logistical/financial support for abortions. Though my org has had some mission creep, I started because it was straightforward "Dreadnaught pays money, someone gets an abortion."

  5. #65
    "Shenanigans" doesn't go far enough to explain what's happening at either the state level or SCOTUS. I don't know if "tortious interference" is too loose when it lets citizens act like vigilantes, or too broad when it gives anyone/anywhere court-standing.

    It's also weird that a doctor had to admit he violated the law (by performing an abortion after 6 weeks) to provoke civil law suits -- in order to test its constitutionality. But maybe the Texas legislature did that on purpose, which sounds to me like an abuse of the court system for political reasons.

    Isn't there some sort of oath, creed, or standard within the legal community that's being manipulated or exploited by these "shenanigans"?

  6. #66
    I can't tell if the people who wrote this law underestimated the chance of a test case or not, or if the point was to make people too scared to be the test case.

  7. #67
    Mostly virtue-signaling, some of the latter in trying to intimidate people out of being the test case (remember how the legislation contains a provision explicitly declaring test cases non-justiciable and how they'd still be liable?), and also a hearty helping of "well, it won't last but in the meantime it will save SOME "babies" because there will be people who will no longer be able to get an abortion by the time it is struck down." Note how the big anti-abortion groups were deliberately NOT taking the step of suing the doctor who said he had performed an abortion. That's because they want to delay the inevitable challenge to the law, to preserve the intimidation factor and scare people away from aborting/performing an abortion for as long as possible. Even if no one ever got sued (or if the courts always found in favor of the defendant) and the legislation proved to be a paper tiger, it would STILL probably deter some abortions and so be worthwhile to those groups and advocates. You can be sure there are plenty who are saying/thinking that if even one "baby" is saved as a result of them passing this law, then it was worth it.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Is religious belief a proper metric to use regarding abortion services?
    When the word "Christians" is mentioned, people say "no".
    But with Islam the same people say "islamophobia".

    In Islam, life is sacred and highly valued, and for this reason, it must be honoured and promoted. The preservation of life is one of the basic necessities and purposes (Maqasid) in the Islamic law. Therefore, abortion is considered unlawful and a major sin (HARAM) in Islam regardless of the stage of pregnancy. Try to make muslims to abide to abortion and you will see the dark side.

    What amazes me is the double standard. Treating Christians and muslims differently.

    The politically correct position has no position. In the Qran women are worth half a man, and LGBT has no place. Just take what LGBT say about "Jesus is..." and make the muslim equivalent of "The prophet is..." and you will see muslim community hunting you down internationally. And yet political correctness calls for islamophobia and homophobia and sexism, all at once. Political correctness is just a way to point fingers and exert control on others. They know that people are not consistent in their values and this is why they do that.

    Abortion guarantees that activists will not survive another generation, this is why they need to indoctrinate other people's kids.
    Last edited by ar81; 10-04-2021 at 04:40 PM.
    Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.

  9. #69
    What load of bollocks.
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
    What load of bollocks.
    How dare you question the holy word of Battletech

    Quote Originally Posted by ar81 View Post
    When the word "Christians" is mentioned, people say "no".
    But with Islam the same people say "islamophobia".

    In Islam, life is sacred and highly valued, and for this reason, it must be honoured and promoted. The preservation of life is one of the basic necessities and purposes (Maqasid) in the Islamic law. Therefore, abortion is considered unlawful and a major sin (HARAM) in Islam regardless of the stage of pregnancy. Try to make muslims to abide to abortion and you will see the dark side.

    What amazes me is the double standard. Treating Christians and muslims differently.

    The politically correct position has no position. In the Qran women are worth half a man, and LGBT has no place. Just take what LGBT say about "Jesus is..." and make the muslim equivalent of "The prophet is..." and you will see muslim community hunting you down internationally. And yet political correctness calls for islamophobia and homophobia and sexism, all at once. Political correctness is just a way to point fingers and exert control on others. They know that people are not consistent in their values and this is why they do that.

    Abortion guarantees that activists will not survive another generation, this is why they need to indoctrinate other people's kids.
    If you're gonna write a post about how an entire religion views abortion, the very least you can do is to read, I dunno, the wikipedia article first.

    In practice, access to abortion varies greatly between Muslim-majority countries. In countries like Turkey and Tunisia, abortions are unconditionally legal on request. On the other hand, in 18 out of 47 Muslim-majority countries, including Iraq, Egypt and Indonesia, abortion is only legally permitted if the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy while 10 countries provide it on request. No Muslim-majority country bans abortion in the case of the mother's life being at risk.[4] Other reasons that are permitted by certain[citation needed] Muslim-majority countries include preserving a woman's physical or mental health, foetal impairment, cases of incest or rape, and social or economic reasons. There is great variation within Muslim-majority countries as to which are legally accepted reasons for abortion.

    Among Muslims, the permissibility of abortion depends on factors such as time and extenuating circumstances. The four Sunni schools of thought have differing perspectives in which parts of gestation where abortion is permissible. It is important to note that Malikites do not permit abortion in any of the stages of gestation.

    Before four months of gestation
    Sayyid al-Sabiq, author of Fiqh al-Sunnah, has summarized the views of the classical jurists in this regard in the following words:

    Abortion is not allowed after four months have passed since conception because at that time it is akin to taking a life, an act that entails penalty in this world and in the Hereafter. As regards the matter of abortion before this period elapses, it is considered allowed if necessary. However, in the absence of a reasonable excuse it is detestable. The author of ‘Subul-ul-Maram’ writes: "A woman’s treatment for aborting a pregnancy before the spirit has been blown into it is a matter upon which scholars differed on account of difference of opinion on the matter of ‘Azal (i.e. measures to hinder conception). Those who allow ‘Azal consider abortion as allowable and vice versa." The same ruling should be applicable for women deciding on sterilization. Imam Ghazzali opines: "Induced abortion is a sin after conception". He further says: "The sin incurred thus can be of degrees. When the sperm enters the ovaries, mixes with the ovum and acquires potential of life, its removal would be a sin. Aborting it after it grows into a germ or a leech would be a graver sin and the graveness of the sin increases very much if one does so after the stage when the spirit is blown into the fetus and it acquires human form and faculties."[8]

    Stage 1 Nutfa (Sperm)[9]

    This is the stage from conception to 40 days since the semen has fertilized the ovum. In this stage, Hanafites permit abortions, the majority of Shafites permit abortions, some Hanbalites permit it, but Malikites do not.

    Among contemporary Sunni scholars, Yasir Qadhi states that abortion may be performed within the first 40 days of pregnancy "for a very legitimate reason", but is prohibited after that period, at which point ensoulment occurs.[10]

    Stage 2 Alaqa (Blood Clot)

    This is the stage 40-80 days after conception when the fertilized egg has become blood clot-like. In this stage, Hanafites permit abortions, while only some Shafites and Hanbalites permit it.

    Stage 3 Mudgha (Embryo)

    This is the stage 80-120 days after conception where the blood clot has now formed into flesh. In this stage, Hanafites permit abortions, only some Shafites and Hanbalites permit it.

    Threat to the woman's life
    On the issue of the life of the woman, Muslims universally agree that her life takes precedence over the life of the fetus. This is because the woman is considered the "original source of life," while the fetus is only "potential" life.[11] Muslim jurists agree that abortion is allowed based on the principle that "the greater evil [the woman's death] should be warded off by the lesser evil [abortion]." In these cases the physician is considered a better judge than the scholar.[12]
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Note how the big anti-abortion groups were deliberately NOT taking the step of suing the doctor who said he had performed an abortion. That's because they want to delay the inevitable challenge to the law, to preserve the intimidation factor and scare people away from aborting/performing an abortion for as long as possible.
    Yerp

  12. #72
    Republican legislatures passing forced-birth laws, while calling that "pro-life", is just pushing another Big Lie. The truth is they don't care about *poor* women's access to reproductive health services, family planning, or birth control. They fought hard to exclude subsidies in the ACA, and defund Planned Parenthood...besides, everyone knows that women with means can easily go to another state, or fly to Europe to get an abortion, and maybe even time it during their paid-vacation.

    Fuzzy, I was hoping you'd give your legal pov for what's happening at the state level (beyond politicking and virtue-signaling) and what's going on with the SCOTUS? Because it seems like they're sitting on their hands while Texas openly defies the Roe v Wade precedent, but promising to honor that precedent was a big part of their confirmation process.

  13. #73
    You're asking for my legal pov about things which you point out are not actually legal issues. Don't know what to tell you, GGT. You already know what's going on at the state level, and that a majority on SCOTUS decided to sit on their hands for now. Since the way they chose to do so did not include offering a majority opinion, I don't have anything to analyze for you, besides a surface read on the judges themselves.

    Roberts' already made his position clear when he sides with the three "liberals" and dissented from the refusal to grant an injunction. It's also clear that he, at least, would adhere to stare decisis and strike down the six-week limit at a bare minimum as a major overreach by Texas. He joined the majority in striking down a Louisiana law which made abortion access more difficult, even though he'd dissented in a very similar prior case, because he felt upholding the established precedent was more important.

    Clarence Thomas would be in favor of overturning Roe and leave it to the various states to decide for themselves (he's joined dissents saying as much), but he's always been the weakest justice wrt legal theory-crafting and I think he'd still rely on there being another better qualified justice to write the opinion for him to join.

    I've never had a very firm grasp on Alito's jurisprudence and all three of Trump's appointees are relative ciphers to me but both Gorusch and Kavanaugh joined Alito and Thomas in dissenting when the Court struck down that Louisiana law.

    Kavanaugh has praised Rehnquist's original dissent in Roe v Wade but unlike Gorusch and Alito he's not a real constitutional scholar. He's a sycophant and an influence peddler. I feel confident he would join Thomas, but am not sure whether he'd feel up to writing such a groundbreaking and fraught opinion himself any more than Thomas ever has.

    Barrett is just plain inexperienced which also means she doesn't have much of a record to draw on for analysis.

    My guess is that Gorusch or Alito would have to lead the way.
    Alito had a chance to join Scalia and Thomas in a concurring opinion pushing to overturn Roe (and Casey) but declined to do so. Maybe that means he's not willing to push back against precedent to the extent upholding Texas would require, maybe it doesn't. He's certainly willing to rehear and potentially overturn precedent, he's done so in the past in both majority and dissenting opinions.
    Gorusch is also willing to rehear and potentially overturn precedent and like Thomas and Alito, is a fan of both originalism (which would strike down Roe because the founders were fine criminalizing abortion) and its contradicting theory textualism which simultaneously denies that the legislative context has any relevance or consideration, insisting the only the literal meaning of the text matters.

    There IS a reason the majority of the Court could have declined to get involved in the Texas case immediately besides a majority being prepared to overturn Roe though. The SCOTUS bench for the most part does not like making original rulings, tests, and other such jurisprudence. They get constantly nibbled on by the lower courts when they do it, as those lesser bodies try and figure out just how it's all supposed to work. For many decades, the way things really work is the district courts make decisions guided by the rules settled on by SCOTUS, the appellate courts do the heavy lifting in figuring out various solutions to the novel circumstances and applications that crop up, and SCOTUS chooses what seems like the best option from the bunch to declare an approach for everyone to follow. The Texas law comes with a novel implementation and one could argue that SCOTUS is waiting for a real case to wind its way properly through the appeals process to see if they can come up with a solution for SCOTUS to approve or criticize, rather than making their own and then hearing criticisms and questions about it for years from all thirteen Circuit Courts.
    Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 10-16-2021 at 07:20 PM.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  14. #74
    Thanks, Fuzzy. I'm trying to understand how these concepts work together despite the competing (contrary?) rules and processes:

    1) "The SCOTUS bench for the most part does not like making original rulings, tests, and other such jurisprudence. They get constantly nibbled on by the lower courts when they do it, as those lesser bodies try and figure out just how it's all supposed to work."

    2) "For many decades, the way things really work is the district courts make decisions guided by the rules settled on by SCOTUS, the appellate courts do the heavy lifting in figuring out various solutions to the novel circumstances and applications that crop up, and SCOTUS chooses what seems like the best option from the bunch to declare an approach for everyone to follow."

    3) "The Texas law comes with a novel implementation and one could argue that SCOTUS is waiting for a real case to wind its way properly through the appeals process to see if they can come up with a solution for SCOTUS to approve or criticize, rather than making their own and then hearing criticisms and questions about it for years from all thirteen Circuit Courts."

    It seems to me the "novel implementation" that Texas wrote into their law is what's unconstitutional. Because it bypasses the state's ability to enforce a law they created, and gives vigilantism more power . So were the legal challenges aimed at the wrong concept -- and nothing to do with abortion per se -- and is that why SCOTUS is seemingly stuck in procedural limbo?

  15. #75
    No one is really SURE if the "novel implementation" Texas came up with is unconstitutional. The legal theorists are in the process of working that out as a practical matter I mentioned in post #63 that it may be the case that it doesn't run afoul of any constitutional barriers as a general process. It would still be unconstitutional HERE because there is nonetheless a branch of government involved in enforcing it (the courts) and so general prohibitions against state action should still apply even if that particular branch isn't normally one that runs afoul of the prohibitions. Anyone's guess whether THIS court will actually uphold that claim the way it ought to though. Even if it did choose to, the fact that SCOTUS has a novel application to consider might mean they'd want to wait until the appellate theorists come up with a workable approach to the general process.

    Texas does not need to enforce any law they create. All states have "dead laws" they aren't enforcing (usually they did enforce them at one point but not necessarily). Texas is free to pass a law where they say that as far as the Great State of Texas is concerned life starts at conception and abortion-providers are a bunch of no-goodnik baby-kiillers. The government and its organs are not particularly constrained in their speech anymore than we are. It is their ACTIONS which are constrained. They can't use state power to prohibit, compel, or force without a rational basis. If the state truly was not enforcing this law, there'd be no effective challenge. But the state IS involved in its enforcement. It just put enforcement in the court's hands arbitrating private litigation. The current Court may seize on that to make new jurisprudence effectively removing the courts from the constraints of other branches operating under the Constitution, at least wrt abortion. They shouldn't but as I said, there's conceivably a majority for overturning Roe entirely so who knows. But there is no vigilantism here. The courts are passing judgement and all matters are being done with due recourse to the law.

    The Court isn't STUCK in procedural limbo and I personally think the novel process isn't why they're delaying. I think they're delaying because they needed more time to come up with rulings that a majority can sign off on. They definitely don't want whatever decision they make here to be another Furmam v Georgia, riddled with separate opinions, partial concurrences and dissents, etc. If a refusal to make original laws and testing to deal with the novel process were involved, though, you are misunderstanding the issues.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    No one is really SURE if the "novel implementation" Texas came up with is unconstitutional. The legal theorists are in the process of working that out as a practical matter I mentioned in post #63 that it may be the case that it doesn't run afoul of any constitutional barriers as a general process. It would still be unconstitutional HERE because there is nonetheless a branch of government involved in enforcing it (the courts) and so general prohibitions against state action should still apply even if that particular branch isn't normally one that runs afoul of the prohibitions. Anyone's guess whether THIS court will actually uphold that claim the way it ought to though. Even if it did choose to, the fact that SCOTUS has a novel application to consider might mean they'd want to wait until the appellate theorists come up with a workable approach to the general process.

    Texas does not need to enforce any law they create. All states have "dead laws" they aren't enforcing (usually they did enforce them at one point but not necessarily). Texas is free to pass a law where they say that as far as the Great State of Texas is concerned life starts at conception and abortion-providers are a bunch of no-goodnik baby-kiillers. The government and its organs are not particularly constrained in their speech anymore than we are. It is their ACTIONS which are constrained. They can't use state power to prohibit, compel, or force without a rational basis. If the state truly was not enforcing this law, there'd be no effective challenge. But the state IS involved in its enforcement. It just put enforcement in the court's hands arbitrating private litigation. The current Court may seize on that to make new jurisprudence effectively removing the courts from the constraints of other branches operating under the Constitution, at least wrt abortion. They shouldn't but as I said, there's conceivably a majority for overturning Roe entirely so who knows. But there is no vigilantism here. The courts are passing judgement and all matters are being done with due recourse to the law.

    The Court isn't STUCK in procedural limbo and I personally think the novel process isn't why they're delaying. I think they're delaying because they needed more time to come up with rulings that a majority can sign off on. They definitely don't want whatever decision they make here to be another Furmam v Georgia, riddled with separate opinions, partial concurrences and dissents, etc. If a refusal to make original laws and testing to deal with the novel process were involved, though, you are misunderstanding the issues.
    Gah, I'm not understanding the legal mumbo gumbo.

    Of course there's vigilantism at play when only individual citizens have court standing, and can "enforce" the law. Am I wrong about that?

    SCOTUS wouldn't be making an "original law" if they just relied on precedents. But they're reluctant to do so. If it's not because of Rules and Process arguments, then it's political. Despite the Roberts court trying to convince The People that SCOTUS is a non-political/apolitical body....their actions say otherwise.

    I appreciate your legal analysis, Fuzzy, but you're right....it's not really about what's legal, or even constitutional, but that the SCOTUS has changed over time, mostly for political reasons. Am I wrong about that, too?

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Gah, I'm not understanding the legal mumbo gumbo.

    Of course there's vigilantism at play when only individual citizens have court standing, and can "enforce" the law. Am I wrong about that?
    If you're bogged down in process issues, I don't blame you for not understanding. You're getting some basic concepts mixed in with process issues though. Like this. First of all, vigilantism is taking law enforcement into private hands without legal authority. So if the law authorizes it, it can't be vigilantism. Just like lawful killing isn't murder because murder is defined as unlawful killing. Second, this law doesn't have them taking it into their own hands. They'd have to be taking the money directly out of the defendants bank accounts themselves, stealing, for it to be some kind of vigilantism. They're not. They're making recourse to the courts. They're following due process. This can no more be vigilantism than suing some manufacturer or employer for wrongful death of a loved one. In fact, while it's not actually the same thing it might be useful for you to conceptualize the law as Texas legislating that those providing or enabling in the abortion of a child with a detectable heartbeat as being civilly liable for the wrongful death of that child. With a minimum punitive award in the amount of $10,000. There are already wrongful death laws (and homicide) applying to fetus' (albeit typically with a rather higher degree of development required to establish it was alive first) in quite a number of states, after all.

    SCOTUS wouldn't be making an "original law" if they just relied on precedents.
    There aren't any direct precedents on this matter. There are indirect precedents but you have to create and follow a logic chain and line of reasoning to try and apply them. The Court CANNOT rely on precedents in this case. It is original enough that they're required to engage in some original thinking or to borrow original thinking from a lower court that has already considered and ruled on this law.

    I appreciate your legal analysis, Fuzzy, but you're right....it's not really about what's legal, or even constitutional, but that the SCOTUS has changed over time, mostly for political reasons. Am I wrong about that, too?
    Kinda? SCOTUS has changed over time, absolutely, but in the way you're talking about, not as much as you mean unless you just refer to its drift from the Left to the Right since the heydays of the Warren Court which would just be an issue of which politics its expressing, not whether it is expressing politics at all. In fact, it got increasingly technical and less political as a reaction to the 30s, 40s, and 50s (and 60s? Not sure on the exact timeline). It may be starting to swing back a bit now, with the Bush, Obama, and Trump picks. It's a bit early to say. But while the Court has been viewed as conservative and increasingly so, since it became the Rehnquist Court, for just about the entirety of that time it was also VERY legal-analytical and not political in its jurisprudence. Though some would argue that various justices (Kennedy chief among them) became less legal-analytical and more political as they got older. Me, I think figures like Stevens and Kennedy just got more muddled in their thinking in general, starting to age past their ability to fully and competently serve.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    If you're bogged down in process issues, I don't blame you for not understanding. You're getting some basic concepts mixed in with process issues though. Like this. First of all, vigilantism is taking law enforcement into private hands without legal authority. So if the law authorizes it, it can't be vigilantism. Just like lawful killing isn't murder because murder is defined as unlawful killing. Second, this law doesn't have them taking it into their own hands. They'd have to be taking the money directly out of the defendants bank accounts themselves, stealing, for it to be some kind of vigilantism. They're not. They're making recourse to the courts. They're following due process. This can no more be vigilantism than suing some manufacturer or employer for wrongful death of a loved one. In fact, while it's not actually the same thing it might be useful for you to conceptualize the law as Texas legislating that those providing or enabling in the abortion of a child with a detectable heartbeat as being civilly liable for the wrongful death of that child. With a minimum punitive award in the amount of $10,000. There are already wrongful death laws (and homicide) applying to fetus' (albeit typically with a rather higher degree of development required to establish it was alive first) in quite a number of states, after all.
    I can't think of any other issue where vigilantism is acceptable, just because the legislature says so, and considers that "due process". Substitute state regulations for "abortion" with similar state regulations for "guns" and you know what I mean.

    Conservatives wouldn't regulate a uterus if it was shooting bullets

    There aren't any direct precedents on this matter. There are indirect precedents but you have to create and follow a logic chain and line of reasoning to try and apply them. The Court CANNOT rely on precedents in this case. It is original enough that they're required to engage in some original thinking or to borrow original thinking from a lower court that has already considered and ruled on this law.
    Sounds like SCOTUS is undermining their own validity and 'supremacy' in the legal field, and/or exposing their political leanings. But that's probably what Texas had in mind in the first place. Yay for lawyers exploiting the law for political ideology, it's the American Way!

    USA #1!

    Last edited by GGT; 10-28-2021 at 02:59 AM.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I can't think of any other issue where vigilantism is acceptable,
    It's not acceptable here either. This isn't vigilantism. It's courts, via either jury or judge, rendering a verdict. The distinction is important. The fact that the courts are so necessarily entwined in the matter is key to why the law should be struck down for still involving state action against abortion.

    just because the legislature says so, and considers that "due process".
    It is due process. A taking from a court-rendered verdict is practically the definition of proper and valid due process.

    Substitute state regulations for "abortion" with similar state regulations for "guns" and you know what I mean.
    Stop deliberately confusing the issues so you can express moral outrage and engage in virtue-signalling.

    Sounds like SCOTUS is undermining their own validity and 'supremacy' in the legal field, and/or exposing their political leanings. But that's probably what Texas had in mind in the first place. Yay for lawyers exploiting the law for political ideology, it's the American Way!
    And you've gone off into quoting me while actually responding to your unvoiced stream of consciousness again. We're done here.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  20. #80
    Well excuuuse me for expressing a layperson's confusion. I should have known better than to engage you in a discussion, Fuzzy. My bad, sorry to have bothered you.

  21. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Well excuuuse me for expressing a layperson's confusion. I should have known better than to engage you in a discussion, Fuzzy. My bad, sorry to have bothered you.
    You're not engaging me in a discussion. You're engaging yourself in a discussion. You may quote my words but eventually your replies have stopped having anything to do with my words which you're ostensibly replying to. It's you replying to yourself. No room for me in a discussion like that.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  22. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    You're not engaging me in a discussion. You're engaging yourself in a discussion. You may quote my words but eventually your replies have stopped having anything to do with my words which you're ostensibly replying to. It's you replying to yourself. No room for me in a discussion like that.
    Of course there's "room" for you in this discussion! We get into the weeds when you cite judicial review and legal precedents, but that doesn't preclude you from having your own personal opinions about how things should be, under the law, or why.

    I don't remember what you said when CA passed Prop 8 in 2008 (to ban same sex marriage), even tho you had a personal reason to disagree with it. But that's not why it was eventually overturned. So yeah, discussions matter, especially within the context of personal rights and civil liberties and constitutional rights.

    This is not a discussion I'm having with myself. This is a discussion for our whole country.

  23. #83
    This right here? I wouldn't wish this on someone I hated, much less the whole country. You reply to me but your "understanding" of what I've written is wildly at odds with my actual words and makes sense only if it's got nothing to do with what I've said. Any extended discussion with you can have only one endpoint. The realization that it's not actually a discussion but you making a one-sided soliloquy with pauses for someone else to enter filler. Just go write a blog or webjournal
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  24. #84
    This right here? I wouldn't wish this on someone I hated, much less the whole country.
    I'm sorry you feel that way, Fuzzy. And it's unfortunate that our national political discourse has taken that personal attack route, too.

    You reply to me but your "understanding" of what I've written is wildly at odds with my actual words and makes sense only if it's got nothing to do with what I've said. Any extended discussion with you can have only one endpoint. The realization that it's not actually a discussion but you making a one-sided soliloquy with pauses for someone else to enter filler. Just go write a blog or webjournal
    I can understand what you say but still disagree with it. Don't patronize me just because I don't frame it in the legaleze you want, or expect. And don't get caught up in the pedantic terminology (throwing out the baby with the bathwater) in your attempt to be right.

    I'm trying to be serious about serious issues, without making personal insults.

    What are you doing?

  25. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I'm sorry you feel that way, Fuzzy. And it's unfortunate that our national political discourse has taken that personal attack route, too.



    I can understand what you say but still disagree with it. Don't patronize me just because I don't frame it in the legaleze you want, or expect.
    How about you just frame it as you not being convinced, rather than what you normally do which is claim that I'm the one advancing the position you're extolling? Stop putting your words in my mouth.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •