• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Again it's a flex. She knows goddamn how absurd it sounds. Our shocked "Nobody could be that oblivious to their own hypocrisy!" reaction is the point.

When someone who's not even wearing no pants walks up to you and starts berating you because your fly is down (and it's not even down) they are not just aware that you will immediatly notice the blatant double standard, they are counting on it.

Yes a member of the Supreme Court literally just went "Lookit me being so hypocritical it's almost comical. Dare you to do something it."
 
JoeMorgue said:
Again it's a flex. She knows goddamn how absurd it sounds. Our shocked "Nobody could be that oblivious to their own hypocrisy!" reaction is the point.

When someone who's not even wearing no pants walks up to you and starts berating you because your fly is down (and it's not even down) they are not just aware that you will immediatly notice the blatant double standard, they are counting on it.

Yes a member of the Supreme Court literally just went "Lookit me being so hypocritical it's almost comical. Dare you to do something it."
Click to expand...

Maybe

Until recently, this is the kind of empty statement that many would have accepted at face value. The absurdity of the Texas anti-abortion law and the willingness of the conservative SCOTUS to pretend it's not plainly unconstitutional has made it harder to accept such platitudes.

Obstructionist democrats like Sinema or Manchin have frequently payed lip service to such notions as the impartial court, bipartisanship, norms, blah blah blah for explaining why they oppose the party agenda. Not sure they're susceptible to shaming, but the recent brazenness of the court makes such claims even less credible.

The first step to fixing any problem is acknowledging it exists. It's probably a good thing that more and more people are seeing the court as what it is, partisan politicians wielding power, rather than some erudite, impartial fact-finding exercise.
 
Last edited:
It's not a question of whether or not SCOTUS historically was ideologically neutral. There were forces; social pressure, political pressure, shame, the base idea that nobody had pushed the enveloped far enough, all of the above, none of the above, whatever, that kept more functionally neutral then the Presidency or Congress, or at least partisan along different lines. I'm tempted to say that SCOTUS stayed Conservative/Liberal while the President and Congress went Democrat/Republican and I still remember a time where that distinction mattered because Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats weren't just a contradiction in terms but things that actually existed.

Regardless, and aggressively ignoring your attempt to take the stage in yet another rant about evil centrist Democrats holding the glorious Progressive revolution back, there has been an undeniable shift on a functional level of how politics influences the Supreme Court.
 
JoeMorgue said:
It's not a question of whether or not SCOTUS historically was ideologically neutral. There were forces; social pressure, political pressure, shame, the base idea that nobody had pushed the enveloped far enough, all of the above, none of the above, whatever, that kept more functionally neutral then the Presidency or Congress, or at least partisan along different lines. I'm tempted to say that SCOTUS stayed Conservative/Liberal while the President and Congress went Democrat/Republican and I still remember a time where that distinction mattered because Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats weren't just a contradiction in terms but things that actually existed.

Regardless, and aggressively ignoring your attempt to take the stage in yet another rant about evil centrist Democrats holding the glorious Progressive revolution back, there has been an undeniable shift on a functional level of how politics influences the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

I don't think Sinema or Manchin are "evil centrists", they are straight-up rogue party members.

Even on issues where the centrists (which make up the majority of the Dems) and the progressives are in alignment, the handful of conservative obstructionists stand to grind things to a halt because of the razor thin Senate majority.

At this point, Manchin and Sinema's intransigence aren't just roadblocking progressive pipedreams, but are blocking basic party goals as advanced by President Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer.

For example, with the recent abortion news, there's been more murmuring about ending the filibuster so that an abortion rights law can be passed through congress, subverting this disastrous court decision.

As far as the courts, this decision comes as a result of a long term partisan effort by the conservatives to pull the courts hard to the right. Democrats may have only recently woken up to this, but it's hardly new. The Federalist society has existed for decades explicitly for cultivating these kinds of partisan judges as a foil to the generally more liberal mainstream of the legal profession.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
I don't think Sinema or Manchin are "evil centrists", they are straight-up rogue party members.

Even on issues where the centrists (which make up the majority of the Dems) and the progressives are in alignment, the handful of conservative obstructionists stand to grind things to a halt because of the razor thin Senate majority.

At this point, Manchin and Sinema's intransigence aren't just roadblocking progressive pipedreams, but are blocking basic party goals as advanced by President Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer.

For example, with the recent abortion news, there's been more murmuring about ending the filibuster so that an abortion rights law can be passed through congress, subverting this disastrous court decision.
Click to expand...

Whats even weirder is Sinema was a member of the Green party until 2004. And the demographics of AZ are steadily moving left.

Manchin I get though, he's a dem Senator from one of the most GOP states in the country. Its a miracle he kept his seat.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Whats even weirder is Sinema was a member of the Green party until 2004. And the demographics of AZ are steadily moving left.

Manchin I get though, he's a dem Senator from one of the most GOP states in the country. Its a miracle he kept his seat.
Click to expand...

Sinema is a real head scratcher. She's increasingly out of step even with her other Democratic Senator from her state. She seems to be taking pleasure in spitting in the faces of her constituents that elected her and is likely to be primaried out of office.

It's hard to find an explanation for this behavior other than she's ambitious for some role other than remaining as an AZ senator, and plans to cash-in after.
 
The "Contrarian for the sake of being Contrary, being wrong is better than agreeing with everybody" disease has infected every square inch of the GOP, but it's likely the Democrats have one or two minor outbreaks of it.

I'm comfortable just lumping Sinema in as yet another "People are telling me I'm wrong, ergo I have to be right because at least I'm thinking for myself" types.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The "Contrarian for the sake of being Contrary, being wrong is better than agreeing with everybody" disease has infected every square inch of the GOP, but it's likely the Democrats have one or two minor outbreaks of it.

I'm comfortable just lumping Sinema in as yet another "People are telling me I'm wrong, ergo I have to be right because at least I'm thinking for myself" types.
Click to expand...

I don't think it can be chalked up simply to personality issues, I suspect she has some plan for what she wants to do after she's bounced out in a primary challenge.

Wouldn't be surprised if she turns out be some lobbyist soon making big bucks.
 
ahhell said:
What plague said. Joe is either making **** up or listening to people who are making **** up. The SCOTUS in the majority opinion, clearly said, they weren't saying this law was ok. The law was crafted to avoid a preemptive lawsuit of this sort, it worked.
Click to expand...

God...I do hate to agree with ahhell...but in this case, I do.

"In reaching this conclusion, we stress that we do not purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants' lawsuit," the decision said. "In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas's law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts."
Click to expand...

The Texas bill, however, was structured to insulate the law from being tested quickly in court.
Click to expand...

Chief Justice Roberts, in dissent, said he would have temporarily blocked the law from going into effect in order to give the lower courts adequate time to hear and decide "whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws" by "essentially delegat[ing] enforcement to...the populace at large."
Click to expand...
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/02/1033048958/supreme-court-upholds-new-texas-abortion-law-for-now

You can assign any underhanded or nefarious reasoning that you like to their refusal to block the law from going into effect that your bias prefers but it doesn't necessarily make it true.

And before anyone jumps all over me, remember that I think the TX law is most certainly unconstitutional and it is being challenged by the DOJ. It will go before the SC and then we'll see what happens.
 
Stacyhs said:
You can assign any underhanded or nefarious reasoning that you like to their refusal to block the law from going into effect that your bias prefers but it doesn't necessarily make it true.

And before anyone jumps all over me, remember that I think the TX law is most certainly unconstitutional and it is being challenged by the DOJ. It will go before the SC and then we'll see what happens.
Click to expand...

Which is why I was saying, someone like PP or a hospital\company of equal size will have to take this to SCOTUS. There has to be a lawsuit, and I guaran ******* tee that when one is brought against anyone (uber driver, hospital, etc) if they can't afford a lawyer, someone will do it pro bono.

That's just what's going to have to happen. There needs to be a case before this will get overturned but it will definitely be overturned for all the reasons I've stated previously.
 
A few, maybe off the wall questions.

Could a person advising, assisting or arranging for a woman wanting her pregnancy terminated, to have the procedure done at a clinic in say, New Mexico for example (where abortion is legal at all stages of pregnancy) be sued under this law?

What if the woman contacted a New Mexico abortion clinic herself? Could any Texas resident assisting her, say, by giving advice, or driving her be sued?

What if every person involved were residents of New Mexico? Could a New Mexico resident coming into Texas to pick her up and take her back across the state line be sued?
 
smartcooky said:
A few, maybe off the wall questions.

Could a person advising, assisting or arranging for a woman wanting her pregnancy terminated, to have the procedure done at a clinic in say, New Mexico for example (where abortion is legal at all stages of pregnancy) be sued under this law?

What if the woman contacted a New Mexico abortion clinic herself? Could any Texas resident assisting her, say, by giving advice, or driving her be sued?

What if every person involved were residents of New Mexico? Could a New Mexico resident coming into Texas to pick her up and take her back across the state line be sued?
Click to expand...
The various legal experts I've heard mostly answered those sorts of things as "Maybe?".
 
Stacyhs said:
God...I do hate to agree with ahhell...but in this case, I do.

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/02/1033048958/supreme-court-upholds-new-texas-abortion-law-for-now

You can assign any underhanded or nefarious reasoning that you like to their refusal to block the law from going into effect that your bias prefers but it doesn't necessarily make it true.

And before anyone jumps all over me, remember that I think the TX law is most certainly unconstitutional and it is being challenged by the DOJ. It will go before the SC and then we'll see what happens.
Click to expand...

For what ever its worth, I agree with Roberts. I also think this law is terrible for all sorts of reasons.
 
ahhell said:
The various legal experts I've heard mostly answered those sorts of things as "Maybe?".
Click to expand...

Not all opinions from legal experts matter. These are the sorts of things that legal experts who happen to be working as judges in certain courts get to decide.
 
smartcooky said:
A few, maybe off the wall questions.

Could a person advising, assisting or arranging for a woman wanting her pregnancy terminated, to have the procedure done at a clinic in say, New Mexico for example (where abortion is legal at all stages of pregnancy) be sued under this law?

What if the woman contacted a New Mexico abortion clinic herself? Could any Texas resident assisting her, say, by giving advice, or driving her be sued?

What if every person involved were residents of New Mexico? Could a New Mexico resident coming into Texas to pick her up and take her back across the state line be sued?
Click to expand...

Probably not. The law allowing suit for aiding and abetting is for "if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter" That subchapter is Texas law and only applies to Texas. It would be equally problematic to sue a doctor residing in another state for performing such an abortion.

It is possible someone could try. Maybe sue a insurance company in Texas for paying for "prohibited" abortions in other states. I doubt it would stand.

I doubt anybody will try that. The law is carefully crafted to resist any interference by the courts and make as difficult as possible to challenge the law. Trying to sue for an out of state action would open the door to court scrutiny, which is exactly what they are trying to avoid.
 
Kind of eye opening, when one thinks about it. Here we have lawmakers making law they don't want to invite scrutiny of by the courts. What kind of 'law' is that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom