1 1
Phil1111

Texas, the GOP, Abortion and the USSC

Recommended Posts

I heard an analysis of this plan last year when I had to go to Texas (during Covid, of course — fortunately we have a small RV, so I could bring my house with me). They were entranced with the brilliance of not leaving it up to the government, and instead outsourcing abortion restrictions to busybody chickenshit motherfuckers. 
It’s designed so that anti-choice have no risk; it’s all assumed by the pro-choice. 
Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I heard an analysis of this plan last year when I had to go to Texas (during Covid, of course — fortunately we have a small RV, so I could bring my house with me). They were entranced with the brilliance of not leaving it up to the government, and instead outsourcing abortion restrictions to busybody chickenshit motherfuckers. 
It’s designed so that anti-choice have no risk; it’s all assumed by the pro-choice. 
Wendy P. 

Used to be that gay marriage and racist police were the most controversial and divisive issues of our time. Turns out that those were the good old days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ryoder said:

It's time to stop talking about stacking the SC, and just fucking do it!

The SC is going to see the backlash from this decision. That may flip a vote or two when the more meaningful ones come about. They don't exist in a vacuum.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The SC is going to see the backlash from this decision. That may flip a vote or two when the more meaningful ones come about. They don't exist in a vacuum.  

You're damn right there will be a backlash. Democrat politicians will be united in deploring the decision. I really won't be surprised if some party leaders get hopping mad. Activists will hand draw cutesy signs and cross their arms and scowl. The Supreme Court will rue this day, for sure.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, ryoder said:

It's time to stop talking about stacking the SC, and just fucking do it!

The problem is that this strategy doesn't work in the long term.

If Biden adds an extra justice now then the next time the Republicans are in office they'll add 3. The democrats will add 5 on their turn and then 9 will get added... The end result is the inevitable utter destruction of the supreme court justice system.

 

Rather than that, supreme court justices should be chosen sort of the way the pope is - by a conclave of professional lawyers (maybe?) through an anonymous selection and voting system, and the terms shouldn't be for life. 

For justice to work the politics has to be removed from the system, and unfortunately we're trending the other way right now.

Edited by yoink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, yoink said:

The problem is that this strategy doesn't work in the long term.

If Biden adds an extra justice now then the next time the Republicans are in office they'll add 3. The democrats will add 5 on their turn and then 9 will get added... The end result is the inevitable utter destruction of the supreme court justice system.

 

Rather than that, supreme court justices should be chosen sort of the way the pope is - by a conclave of professional lawyers (maybe?) through an anonymous selection and voting system, and the terms shouldn't be for life. 

For justice to work the politics has to be removed from the system, and unfortunately we're trending the other way right now.

There are 13 circuit courts. Seems reasonable to me to have 13 Supreme Court Justices to serve those courts. If the pissed off R's want more, fine by me: the solution to pollution is dilution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ryoder said:

A good improvement for SCOTUS is right here. Be sure to read all the way through to the last sentence:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8424

The only part that concerns me is the 2 year election cycle - concevably a two term president could elect 4 justices in that time which seems incredibly powerful if there are 3 same-party presidents back-to-back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering about a possible legal defense: This is a so-called "heartbeat bill," and says a pregnancy cannot be terminated once a fetal heartbeat is detected.  However, what is commonly named "heartbeat" is not actually so, since the embryo does not have a heart.  IMHO, you need to get an expert on the stand that testifies that the movement you can see on an ultrasound is the electrical impulses generated by the growth of cells (I read that in a medical article, so I may have the vernacular incorrect).  Therefore, the pregnancy was not terminated after a heartbeat was detected, since fetuses don't have hearts that beat and pump blood until much later in gestation (20 weeks?).  

Discuss. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TriGirl said:

I'm wondering about a possible legal defense: This is a so-called "heartbeat bill," and says a pregnancy cannot be terminated once a fetal heartbeat is detected.  However, what is commonly named "heartbeat" is not actually so, since the embryo does not have a heart.  IMHO, you need to get an expert on the stand that testifies that the movement you can see on an ultrasound is the electrical impulses generated by the growth of cells (I read that in a medical article, so I may have the vernacular incorrect).  Therefore, the pregnancy was not terminated after a heartbeat was detected, since fetuses don't have hearts that beat and pump blood until much later in gestation (20 weeks?).  

Discuss. 

And in the meantime, apply pressure to professional sports organisations, musicians, film makers etc. to boycott Texas as a venue.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
7 hours ago, yoink said:

The problem is that this strategy doesn't work in the long term....

For justice to work the politics has to be removed from the system, and unfortunately we're trending the other way right now.

You're such an idealist. All justice is political. In the appointments to the bench be it elected or appointed. In the decisions and sentencing that judges make. In the agenda of laws. Think The Sacklers, Who Made Billions From OxyContin, Win Immunity From Opioid Lawsuits  Without derailing this thread they were not completely responsible for 300-400,000 dead Americans who directly died from their Purdue Pharma products. But they had substantial liability. Their products and actions killed a hundred  times as many as the Afghanistan war did. The personal net profit after payment of the settlement is $5.5 billion.

Edited by Phil1111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Apart from the reprehensible impact of this law on women's ability to control their own lives, I am also concerned that it establishes a blueprint for all kinds of trouble.  Imagine the tactic of "deputizing" the general public applied to voting.  As an example, a law could set up the following scenario:

1. Anyone, anywhere, can sue poll workers and anyone supporting polling (people servicing voting machines, people driving poll workers to work etc) if they suspect even a single instance of illegal voting has occurred.  If successful the litigant would be awarded $10,000/illegal vote plus legal costs. If the poll worker wins they get nothing.  Poll workers would be faced with huge costs to defend themselves even if the lawsuit is without merit.  Of course, the litigants could ensure victory by getting just one person to vote illegally, for example by tricking or bribing a convicted felon to vote.  The result would be that no-one would agree to work at a polling station, or service voting machines, etc.  Couple this with:

2. If any precinct is unable to recruit sufficient poll workers, the state legislature will be empowered to assign the votes as they see fit.

This would put "counting" the votes in the hands of state legislatures and strip the public of any meaningful ability to vote.  I would be curious to see what this Supreme Court would do with that.  My guess is that 5 or 6 of them might wring their hands but decide they couldn't do anything because the legal issues are "too complicated".

Don

Edited by GeorgiaDon
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Apart from the reprehensible impact of this law on women's ability to control their own lives, I am also concerned that it establishes a blueprint for all kinds of trouble.  Imagine the tactic of "deputizing" the general public applied to voting.  As an example, a law could set up the following scenario:

1. Anyone, anywhere, can sue poll workers and anyone supporting polling (people servicing voting machines, people driving poll workers to work etc) if they suspect even a single instance of illegal voting has occurred.  If successful the litigant would be awarded $10,000/illegal vote plus legal costs. If the poll worker wins they get nothing.  Poll workers would be faced with huge costs to defend themselves even if the lawsuit is without merit.  Of course, the litigants could ensure victory by getting just one person to vote illegally, for example by tricking or bribing a convicted felon to vote.  The result would be that no-one would agree to work at a polling station, or service voting machines, etc.  Couple this with:

2. If any precinct is unable to recruit sufficient poll workers, the state legislature will be empowered to assign the votes as they see fit.

This would put "counting" the votes in the hands of state legislatures and strip the public of any meaningful ability to vote.  I would be curious to see what this Supreme Court would do with that.  My guess is that 5 or 6 of them might wring their hands but decide they couldn't do anything because the legal issues are "too complicated".

Don

Bingo. I’m concerned. This is realistic in some places. 
Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those on the political right who think all this will only be a problem for "libtards", I can also easily imagine this tactic being directed against anyone who sells firearms.  Imagine what will happen if anyone can, without any penalty or financial risk to themselves, sue any gun store, dealer, or even someone who just posts a for sale ad on Craigslist, alleging that that person or store sold a gun that might possibly be used in some unlawful activity.

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

For those on the political right who think all this will only be a problem for "libtards", I can also easily imagine this tactic being directed against anyone who sells firearms.  Imagine what will happen if anyone can, without any penalty or financial risk to themselves, sue any gun store, dealer, or even someone who just posts a for sale ad on Craigslist, alleging that that person or store sold a gun that might possibly be used in some unlawful activity.

Don

Or - when a republican politician gets sued after their wife miscarrying because "suspicions".
This sort of legislation seems like a good idea to the right until it affects them.

It does seem that Texas has properly jumped the shark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GeorgiaDon said:

For those on the political right who think all this will only be a problem for "libtards", I can also easily imagine this tactic being directed against anyone who sells firearms.  Imagine what will happen if anyone can, without any penalty or financial risk to themselves, sue any gun store, dealer, or even someone who just posts a for sale ad on Craigslist, alleging that that person or store sold a gun that might possibly be used in some unlawful activity.

Don

The thing called 'protection of lawful commerce' or something like that was because of just that.

In the late 90s, after the anti-gun folks got pretty much shut out of legislation (every single legislator, both state and federal learned the lessons of the 96 mid-terms), the gun control/ban folks tried to sue the gun industry out of existence. They filed lawsuits that they knew full well would get thrown out.
But they filed them in the expectation that the costs of defending them would bankrupt the 'gun industry'.

So the NRA used it's political power to pass laws against just those sorts of things.

One can reasonably argue that the law overstepped.
But the arguement above is exactly why it was passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty sad when a major political party makes attacks on democracy, combined with undisguised racism, sexism and xenophobia, a matter of party policy, and so many American self-styled "patriots" cheer them on and a partisan Supreme Court just looks the other way.

 

Trumpism has certainly exposed the holes in the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

It's realistic all over the place. This isn't a Texas thing. This is a Religion thing. They'll love us to death, count on it.

 

15 minutes ago, kallend said:

It's pretty sad when a major political party makes attacks on democracy, combined with undisguised racism, sexism and xenophobia, a matter of party policy, and so many American self-styled "patriots" cheer them on and a partisan Supreme Court just looks the other way.

 

Trumpism has certainly exposed the holes in the Constitution.

All just a part of the Christian right's deal with Lucifer. IMO Ron must be somewhat of a classy guy. No I told you so. No smug stories of how the SC is starting to reward the GOP for what its done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

 

All just a part of the Christian right's deal with Lucifer. IMO Ron must be somewhat of a classy guy. No I told you so. No smug stories of how the SC is starting to reward the GOP for what its done.

That's because for him the worm is only beginning to turn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think somebody got confused about what thread was what:

 

5 hours ago, ryoder said:

GoDaddy wants no part of the BS:

GoDaddy Gives Texas Right to Life 24 Hours to Find New Host for 'Whistleblower' Site

However, GoDaddy's policies said that its registered and hosted websites cannot "collect or harvest" information about people without their consent. Its policies also forbid registered sites from doing anything that "violates the privacy or publicity rights of another User or any other person or entity, or breaches any duty of confidentiality that you owe to another User or any other person or entity."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1