Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
This is like a system protected by the nihilists you hate. The law was clearly crafted as a workaround the law, which means people like me will line up to defend it even if they are putatively pro-choice.

Meanwhile, you will be pointing out that an effort to violate the spirit of the law is itself a judgement against it, not a feature.


ETA: it is the creationist in school on meth.
Click to expand...

Good lord, how can you stand your own mind.
 
Justice Sonia Sotomayor's blistering dissent on the SC refusal to block the TX law:
The Court’s order is stunning. Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.

Last night [Tuesday], the Court silently acquiesced in a State’s enactment of a law that flouts nearly 50 years of federal precedents.

Today [just before midnight on Wednesday], the Court belatedly explains that it declined to grant relief because of procedural complexities of the State’s own invention....

Because the Court’s failure to act rewards tactics designed to avoid judicial review and inflicts significant harm on the applicants and on women seeking abortions in Texas, I dissent.”
Click to expand...

The five justices who declined to act on aclearly unconstitutional law are not just 'burying their heads in the sand': they are deliberately giving their tacit approval to it.

Once more we see how McConnell's disgusting hypocritical pushing through of Coney Barrett after blocking Obama's right to nominate Garland is affecting the country. He disgusts me as much as Trump does, only Trump has somewhat of an excuse: he can't help being a sociopath. McConnell is just plain evil. Yes, I will dance on his grave when he finally cops it. And it can't come too soon.
 
BobTheCoward said:
What? JoeMorgue has talked a lot about these nihilist, nothing matters, defenders of terrible things ruin stuff these days. If I'm misstating his position I'm sorry.
Click to expand...

That's not what I mean. I mean your bizarre, multi-layered, back and forth moral system. You know exactly what I mean.

"Women are being affected by this right now in a way I find morally abhorrent, but I'm obligated to support the law anyway because my utilitarian blah-dee-blah says so." I find it exceedingly pretentious. It was a little interesting when applied to philosophical abstractions, but you're ******** up a thread about The Handmaid's Tale becoming reality, and it makes me irrationally aggravated.

This just isn't the thread for it, IMO, but it's not my board.
 
Last edited:
John Doe v. Greg Abbott

Governor Greg Abbott of Texas is accused of approving funding for the construction and maintenance of roads used by women to illegally travel to abortion clinics, facilitating their crimes.
 
The point was just made by the lead attorney of the Center for Reproductive Rights that the SC conservative justices just allowed a state to make a law that deliberately circumvented the SC's own findings on the right to abortion. What's next? This is setting a horrible precedent.
 
Stacyhs said:
The point was just made by the lead attorney of the Center for Reproductive Rights that the SC conservative justices just allowed a state to make a law that deliberately circumvented the SC's own findings on the right to abortion. What's next? This is setting a horrible precedent.
Click to expand...

No it's exactly the point. They precedent they want to set is "Now that the court is conservative, it shouldn't be held to the precedents those limp wristed librul cucks made."

"We should be able to do whatever we want while we are in power, and also when we aren't in power, oh and we were are in some of the power" has been 100% clear as their message.
 
Armitage72 said:
John Doe v. Greg Abbott

Governor Greg Abbott of Texas is accused of approving funding for the construction and maintenance of roads used by women to illegally travel to abortion clinics, facilitating their crimes.
Click to expand...

John Doe vs the Ford Corporation

Ford is accused of providing the car that allowed a woman to drive to her illegal abortion procedure, facilitating her crime. The tire company that provided the tires for the car is also being sued in John Doe vs Goodyear.

Sounds crazy but so is this ridiculous law.
 
JoeMorgue said:
No it's exactly the point. They precedent they want to set is "Now that the court is conservative, it shouldn't be held to the precedents those limp wristed librul cucks made."

"We should be able to do whatever we want while we are in power, and also when we aren't in power, oh and we were are in some of the power" has been 100% clear as their message.
Click to expand...

That was always true, but hopefully overt actions like this make liberal preening about "norms" less palatable. The court is going mask off showing that it is, first and foremost, a political body and not some enlightened, dispassionate truth-teller reading the law.

The question now shouldn't "if" Biden should pack the court, but "how" and "how soon" he can do so. Time to start turning the screws on conservative dems like Manchin and Sinema. And if they don't play ball, start running the next senate election on the explicit goal to reach a position to make it happen.

ETA: It may take time, but one thing the conservative movement in this country has shown is that consistent pressure can make steady progress. It was unthinkable a decade or so ago that such an outcome would ever be possible, but here we are. The most extreme elements of the conservative movement kept the pressure up and it paid off, they finally got what they wanted.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
No it's exactly the point. They precedent they want to set is "Now that the court is conservative, it shouldn't be held to the precedents those limp wristed librul cucks made."

"We should be able to do whatever we want while we are in power, and also when we aren't in power, oh and we were are in some of the power" has been 100% clear as their message.
Click to expand...

It may be the precedent they wanted to set but it's still a horrible one for anyone who believes the Constitution is the basis for our rule of law.
 
Stacyhs said:
It may be the precedent they wanted to set but it's still a horrible one for anyone who believes the Constitution is the basis for our rule of law.
Click to expand...

Yes it's horrible. I'm sure how horrible it is is just... devastating to them.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Yes it's horrible. I'm sure how horrible it is is just... devastating to them.
Click to expand...

They'll be the first to start screaming "Unconstitutional!" when something they don't like is passed into law using the precedent they were instrumental in setting.
 
Stacyhs said:
They'll be the first to start screaming "Unconstitutional!" when something they don't like is passed into law using the precedent they were instrumental in setting.
Click to expand...

Yes. Yes the will be. This fact will also not bother them in the least.
 
JoeMorgue said:
No it's exactly the point. They precedent they want to set is "Now that the court is conservative, it shouldn't be held to the precedents those limp wristed librul cucks made."

"We should be able to do whatever we want while we are in power, and also when we aren't in power, oh and we were are in some of the power" has been 100% clear as their message.
Click to expand...

I find it amusing that when a major political party gets this attitude and a we must stay in power at all costs; armed conflict is almost inevitible.
Sorry, guy, but your fantasy about thngs going back to the way they used be is over. It's now us or them.
 
dudalb said:
I find it amusing that when a major political party gets this attitude and a we must stay in power at all costs; armed conflict is almost inevitible.
Sorry, guy, but your fantasy about thngs going back to the way they used be is over. It's now us or them.
Click to expand...

So, you think there might be a another civil war coming? :D
 
Stacyhs said:
They'll be the first to start screaming "Unconstitutional!" when something they don't like is passed into law using the precedent they were instrumental in setting.
Click to expand...



JoeMorgue said:
Yes. Yes the will be. This fact will also not bother them in the least.
Click to expand...

The constitution is just paper, laws aren't real. Power is the only thing that matters. Texas did this because they had the power to do so, and nobody who wanted to stop them had the power to do so. The people without power will suffer because of it.

The sooner people opposed to the right realize that norms, laws, the constitution, morals, or anything but power don't matter, the sooner they can effectively respond.

Does the Democratic party have the power to stop the right from doing these bad things? If yes, do it and all other considerations be damned. If not, they should find a way to get that power.

This isn't fisticuffs anymore, it's a street fight. There are no rules but to win.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
The constitution is just paper. laws aren't real. Power is the only thing that matters. Texas did this because they had the power to do so, and nobody who wanted to stop them had the power to do so. The people without power will suffer because of it.

The sooner people opposed to the right realize that norms, laws, the constitution, morals, or anything but power don't matter, the sooner they can effectively respond.

Does the Democratic party have the power to stop the right from doing these bad things? If yes, do it and all other considerations be damned. If not, they should find a way to get that power.

This isn't fisticuffs anymore, it's a street fight. There are no rules but to win.
Click to expand...

The second part of the highlighted sentence is the most crucial. The SC had the power to stop them but 5 conservative justices (3 Trump choices) didn't want to. And that's the sad part because their personal opinion on abortion should never have come into what is clearly a violation of Constitutional law...and it most certainly did.
 
Well that and up until a few years ago there's a limit in how stupid people were willing to get before they felt shame or guilt or at least some social pressure.

Now "Nobody can be that stupid" is taken as a challenge from the "I'd rather be an idiot who thinks for himself that some sheeple who agrees with everyone else just because they are correct" brigade.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom