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
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
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
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
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
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
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
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."
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.
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 obvious
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.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Conservative men are so sociopathic that it's easy to forget they're also just so fucking stupid:
Twitter Link
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
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.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
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.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
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.
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.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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?"
Let's remember how Roe Vs Wade made its way to SCOTUS.
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.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
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...
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
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?"
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"
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Enlighten me.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
I would like to hear your reasoning behind that statement.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote