Jump to content

Featured Replies

2 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

So is the notion that the longer SCOTUS goes without issuing a stay, the more likely in becomes that they let the law stand.

No, there is no relationship at all between the time period and the outcome. The SCOTUS schedule is very structured, as is the appeals process. I'm not sure where this case stands, but assuming they filed writ and the SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case, they will hear it during their next session. The timing of when they hear cases really never changes.

I find it difficult to envision Gorsuch and Roberts ignoring well established precedent on this (specially with the 6th week restriction.) Sure, Thomas, Alito, and ACB are probably locks to overturn, maybe Kavanaugh too, but I think that's where support ultimately fizzles out.

6 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

No, there is no relationship at all between the time period and the outcome. The SCOTUS schedule is very structured, as is the appeals process. I'm not sure where this case stands, but assuming they filed writ and the SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case, they will hear it during their next session. The timing of when they hear cases really never changes.

This is what I could find...

 

16 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I find it difficult to envision Gorsuch and Roberts ignoring well established precedent on this (specially with the 6th week restriction.) Sure, Thomas, Alito, and ACB are probably locks to overturn, maybe Kavanaugh too, but I think that's where support ultimately fizzles out.

At this point I don't care anymore if they overturn Roe.   Let those states that ban abortion deal with the unwanted babies and poverty/single mothers that such policies will help maintain.   You reap what you sow.   At this point, I'm surprised they don't allow abortion on demand in those bible belt states, to stop the births of potentially more democratic voters.   

1 hour ago, toolg said:

No, not really. LINK  The new Texas law skirts around state prosecution. It allows private citizens to file civil suit for $10,000 against anyone involved in any abortion procedure - doctors, clinic workers, somebody giving a ride to woman going to a clinic, etc. You don't have to show any relation to anybody involved to file suit against them. Any nosy Nancy can file lawsuits.

 

Are you saying the law doesn’t require ultrasounds?

10 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Are you saying the law doesn’t require ultrasounds?

The ultrasounds don't matter. A woman could get both ultrasounds, have the procedure, then get sued for $10,000 by anybody. The law makes it a civil matter, not a criminal one.

3 minutes ago, toolg said:

The ultrasounds don't matter. A woman could get both ultrasounds, have the procedure, then get sued for $10,000 by anybody. The law makes it a civil matter, not a criminal one.

I'm not sure how they get around legal standing?  What business is it of some total stranger if someone provides an abortion?   It will be interesting to see what happens when one of these lawsuits is filed (and there will be some I'm sure).

20 minutes ago, toolg said:

The ultrasounds don't matter. A woman could get both ultrasounds, have the procedure, then get sued for $10,000 by anybody. The law makes it a civil matter, not a criminal one.

Just out of curiosity how do these people find out who has gotten an abortion? Is it published somewhere?

20 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Just out of curiosity how do these people find out who has gotten an abortion? Is it published somewhere?

That's what the bounty hunting is for.

4 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

That's what the bounty hunting is for.

Texas is in a dark place. You gotta get out of there man.  Lol

1 hour ago, Dave Moss said:

Texas is in a dark place. You gotta get out of there man.  Lol

You abandoned the state and it has gone to sheet.  I sure hope you're making up for it by sorting out NC.

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

You abandoned the state and it has gone to sheet.  I sure hope you're making up for it by sorting out NC.

Yeah, Texas was perfect while I was there

Just now, Dave Moss said:

Yeah, Texas was perfect while I was there

Well now let's not get carried away

1 hour ago, Dave Moss said:

Texas is in a dark place. You gotta get out of there man.  Lol

We have two kids in college down here. We see them so infrequently now that it's hard to justify moving away from them.

9 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

We have two kids in college down here. We see them so infrequently now that it's hard to justify moving away from them.

Plus I’m guessing you get in-state tuition if they go to public universities.

 

Hmmmmm

 

I thought for sure there'd have been one of those countless  6-3 votes I was warned about.

Subject matter at mind......

This is what happens when the ball swings from one extreme to the other. There are compromises to be had here.

16 hours ago, mayanh8 said:

We have two kids in college down here. We see them so infrequently now that it's hard to justify moving away from them.

I assume if one of them gets pregnant, they can just fly to another state.  Phew!

7 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

 

This is what happens when you put all those strict Catholics on the court.  Yeah, but they only rule based on the "law" -- their extreme version of catholic-ness has nothing to do with it.   Yeah - right.   I'm looking at you Barrett (I'm just a nice girl); and Gorsuch, I wasn't raised Catholic.   And Kavanaugh -- hah, I punked everyone with my catholic high school shenanigans.    Catholics are about 22% of the US population, yet more than 50% of the Supreme Court.  WTF?    Catholicism is almost another form of fundamentalism.      Catholics want to control civil law with their version of how society should be. 

Why can't religions just stay out of civil law?  Go to your mosque ; go to your church all you want.    Don't have an abortion if you don't want -- but why oh why do you care so much about making everyone else live under those same rules?   

I know -- it is called insecurity.  Cause if the religion was so great and true and proper,  it would stand on its on regardless of the laws of the general society around it, and not be "undermined" by civil society.  

Well, this is exactly what moderate GOP politicians said would never happen. They campaigned on it in 2020. Now they're going to have to defend it in 2022 and beyond. Taking away a woman's right to choose is an extremely difficult position to defend when 81% of women support the right to choose.

And to be crystal clear, because I know some will try and present it as "middle ground", the TX law is not a compromise. Most women who aren't trying to get pregnant don't even know they're pregnant before the first 6 weeks. I know that first hand.

This has a chance to be a uniting issue for the left. Tearing down Roe v. Wade used to be a boogyman issue that some on the left never really took seriously. Now it has happened. 2022 is going to be wild. 

Texas, where you can rape your step-daughter and the law forces her to carry the child to term.

7 hours ago, lynched1 said:

I thought for sure there'd have been one of those countless  6-3 votes I was warned about.

Subject matter at mind......

This is what happens when the ball swings from one extreme to the other. There are compromises to be had here.

I was told the court is not political.

9 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

Texas, where you can rape your step-daughter and the law forces her to carry the child to term.

Only if you are poor.  Otherwise you fly her to LA.

Create an account or sign in to comment