What an utter shithole of a state:
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
US fails to evacuate Americans from totalitarian theocracy as extremists take over
What an utter shithole of a state:
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates
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?
Hope is the denial of reality
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.Originally Posted by Being
“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates
Listen rude man, I disagree with the minorities dissent and statements toward that.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/jo...9Xl?li=BBnb7Kz"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."
Last edited by Being; 09-03-2021 at 02:09 AM.
.
You all can settle down now, SCOTUS has an actual case to rule on. I expect they will do the right thing.
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.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
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.
“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates
I wasn't aware all new laws imposed a lifetime burden and $300,000 on the affected person per incident
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
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.
Hope is the denial of reality
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.
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.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
lmao obvious troll bait is obvious
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!
Florida's shape is often ridiculed as the flacid penis of the US. Texas just decided to be the US' moral arsehole.
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
This could be a problem.
.
Conservative men are so sociopathic that it's easy to forget they're also just so fucking stupid:
Twitter Link
“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates
“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates
Thank you, Being, for that sweeping miss on what scrutiny refers to and why your useage doesn't apply here.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
So you know better than the Justices on the Court...
.
Actually, every single one of them would be agreeing with what I just told you.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I would like to hear your reasoning behind that statement.
.
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.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
You try being dense but are in fact dense.
.
This is what I was saying all along...
.
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)
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
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?
“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote