Is Planned Parenthood a Terrorist Organization?

[AvalonXQ]

Once again, citing a case that happens to be about terrorism in a legal brief is not a "comparison" at all. It is simply an analogy of a discrete legal issue that's present in the instant case to a decision on an analogous point in a prior case, which is the core of how the common law system works.

^ This precisely.

 

[RandFan]

Once again, citing a case that happens to be about terrorism in a legal brief is not a "comparison" at all. It is simply an analogy...

The brief is not applicable therefore the probative value does not outweigh the prejudicial value. And for the record, "comparison" is a synonym for "analogy". Your argument is semantics.

 

[AvalonXQ]

The brief is not applicable therefore the probative value does not outweigh the prejudicial value.

From the fact that you haven't cited the brief, I assume you haven't read the brief.

So how do you know this to be true?

 

[mumblethrax]

At the end of the day the AG has no evidence of wrong doing. Abortion is legal and PP must abide by laws governing public funds. The brief is not applicable and therefore unnecessarily inflammatory (even if it was innocent which I seriously doubt).

He's not looking for evidence of wrongdoing. He's looking for support in case law for the Texas law that (I guess?) prohibits public funding of anything that promotes abortion, and he's citing that case because it's relevant to the state's argument. He's defending the constitutionality of the law, not charging Planned Parenthood under it. This is just a legal exercise, while the law itself is a vivid reminder of why I don't live in Texas.

 

[JamesDillon]

The AG cited a brief that dealt with terrorists.

No. He didn't cite a "brief," he cited a decision by the United States Supreme Court on a relevant legal issue. That's an enormously important distinction. Briefs are irrelevant and, absent a few unusual circumstances, you'd almost never cite a brief from one case in a brief in another case. Decisions by the Supreme Court, on the other hand, are the single most authoritative source of common law in the United States. Often they're directly binding, even on state courts in federal constitutional or statutory matters, and even when they aren't binding they're enormously influential. And a given decision by the Supreme Court-- HLP being no exception-- deals with discrete legal issues that bear only a tangential relationship to the parties in the case. When the Court's exposition of a legal principle is analogous to an issue raised in a subsequent case, it's both appropriate and common practice to cite the Court's earlier decision. No one cares who the parties in that earlier decision were, and certainly no one interprets a citation to an earlier case to be drawing a moral equivalence between the parties in that case and the current case. That just isn't the way it works.

 

[RandFan]

From the fact that you haven't cited the brief, I assume you haven't read the brief.

So how do you know this to be true?

It's my opinion that it is not applicable. Abortion is legal. There are strict guidelines for using public funds. Planned Parenthood follows those laws. From what I understand, terrorism is an illegal activity. Humanitarian organizations that sponsor or engage in terrorism are engaging in unlawful activities. If the AG believes that PP is engaging in unlawful activities then it should make that case. Otherwise there is no analogy to be made that I can see.

But, I will assume the null hypothesis for sake of argument. How is the brief applicable?

 

[JamesDillon]

The brief is not applicable therefore the probative value does not outweigh the prejudicial value. And for the record, "comparison" is a synonym for "analogy". Your argument is semantics.

Your argument, apparently, is selective quotation. Finish that sentence you omitted and get back to me.

 

[RandFan]

No. He didn't cite a "brief," he cited a decision by the United States Supreme Court on a relevant legal issue. That's an enormously important distinction. Briefs are irrelevant and, absent a few unusual circumstances, you'd almost never cite a brief from one case in a brief in another case. Decisions by the Supreme Court, on the other hand, are the single most authoritative source of common law in the United States. Often they're directly binding, even on state courts in federal constitutional or statutory matters, and even when they aren't binding they're enormously influential. And a given decision by the Supreme Court-- HLP being no exception-- deals with discrete legal issues that bear only a tangential relationship to the parties in the case. When the Court's exposition of a legal principle is analogous to an issue raised in a subsequent case, it's both appropriate and common practice to cite the Court's earlier decision. No one cares who the parties in that earlier decision were, and certainly no one interprets a citation to an earlier case to be drawing a moral equivalence between the parties in that case and the current case. That just isn't the way it works.

I'm sorry, I'm really not interested in your semantic arguments. I make mistakes. Excuse me. Your game of "gotcha" really does not interest me.

 

[JamesDillon]

I'm sorry, I'm really not interested in your semantic arguments. I make mistakes. Excuse me. Your game of "gotcha" really does not interest me.

The distinction between a brief and a Supreme Court decision is an important one, and I explained why at length. I also explained why it isn't the case that citing a Supreme Court decision implies a moral comparison between the parties. That's hardly playing "gotcha," though you conveniently avoided responding to the substance of my post.

 

[RandFan]

Your argument, apparently, is selective quotation. Finish that sentence you omitted and get back to me.

Okay.

Once again, citing a case that happens to be about terrorism in a legal brief is not a "comparison" at all. It is simply an analogy of a discrete legal issue that's present in the instant case to a decision on an analogous point in a prior case, which is the core of how the common law system works.

Yep, still semantics. Since terrorism is unlawful and abortion isn't the "analogy" can only serve to inflame passions.

 

[JamesDillon]

Okay.

Yep, still semantics. Since terrorism is unlawful and abortion isn't the "analogy" can only serve to inflame passions.

No. As I've already said, HLP doesn't base its reasoning on the illegality of terrorism but rather on the simple fact that the United States doesn't like it and doesn't want to facilitate it. Exactly the view Texas takes on abortion. The legality of the two is a legally irrelevant distinction.

 

[RandFan]

The distinction between a brief and a Supreme Court decision is an important one, and I explained why at length. I also explained why it isn't the case that citing a Supreme Court decision implies a moral comparison between the parties. That's hardly playing "gotcha," though you conveniently avoided responding to the substance of my post.

One more time. I misspoke when I said brief. I'm not going to play your gotcha games. This will be the last time I humor you on silly semantics. And no, given that terrorism unlawful there is no "moral comparison". Funny, even you use the word "comparison".

 

[JamesDillon]

One more time. I misspoke when I said brief. I'm not going to play your gotcha games. This will be the last time I humor you on silly semantics. And no, given that terrorism unlawful there is no "moral comparison". Funny, even you use the word "comparison".

What? Yes, I used the word "comparison" in explaining why you're wrong to claim that there is one. Would you care to respond to my main point that lawyers and courts cite prior cases for legal analogies all the time, and that doing so in no way implies, and would not be understood to imply, a comparison between the moral status of the parties in those cases?

 

[RandFan]

No. As I've already said, HLP doesn't base its reasoning on the illegality of terrorism but rather on the simple fact that the United States doesn't like it and doesn't want to facilitate it. Exactly the view Texas takes on abortion. The legality of the two is a legally irrelevant distinction.

Argument by assertion.

In any event.

• There are already laws that govern the use of public funds.
• PP was abiding by those laws.

 

[RandFan]

What? Yes, I used the word "comparison" in explaining why you're wrong to claim that there is one. Would you care to respond to my main point that lawyers and courts cite prior cases for legal analogies all the time, and that doing so in no way implies, and would not be understood to imply, a comparison between the moral status of the parties in those cases?

I said I would not respond to any more of your points on semantics. However, I would be remiss to fail and acknowledge that you are right about your use of the word "comparison". My apologies.

 

[JamesDillon]

Argument by assertion.

Well, go read the case yourself if you want. The illegality of terrorism is not a salient point on which the Court's decision in HLP turns.

In any event.

• There are already laws that govern the use of public funds.
• PP was abiding by those laws.

Both true, both irrelevant. As has been explained. Texas is perfectly free to not want to expend its own funds in a way that could permit PP's legal expansion of its abortion services.

 

[JamesDillon]

I said I would not respond to any more of your points on semantics. However, I would be remiss to fail and acknowledge that you are right about your use of the word "comparison". My apologies.

How is this "semantics"? Your entire argument turns on the claim that citing the HLP decision in the AG's brief somehow implied a moral comparison between PP and a terrorist organization. The fact that no legal professional reading that brief would interpret it as making such a comparison seems highly relevant to that claim.

 

[RandFan]

Well, go read the case yourself if you want.

It's your assertion. It's not my job to prove your claims.

Both true, both irrelevant. As has been explained. Texas is perfectly free to not want to expend its own funds in a way that could permit PP's legal expansion of its abortion services.

Evidence that PP has expanded abortion services because of public funds? That something could happen doesn't mean that it is happening. Until you show that it is the argument is moot.

 

[RandFan]

How is this "semantics"? Your entire argument turns on the claim that citing the HLP decision in the AG's brief somehow implied a moral comparison between PP and a terrorist organization. The fact that no legal professional reading that brief would interpret it as making such a comparison seems highly relevant to that claim.

My argument is that any comparison (analogy or otherwise) to terrorist organizations is likely to inflame.

Now, I'll grant that a Judge is very, very likely to view the citation dispassionately and therefore, from the view point of the court, the prejudicial value is not likely to be greater than any potential probative value. That is the reason I have said over and over that it could very well be innocent.

That said, that the facts of this case could very well inflame public sentiment is of little doubt and therefore I find the citation grossly stupid in light of the fact it doesn't really provide any probative value. It's just a game to disrupt a legal organization performing legal activities.

 

[JamesDillon]

It's your assertion. It's not my job to prove your claims.

My "assertion," if you want to call it that, is about what the Court's decision in HLP says. You can accept my characterization or you can read it yourself. Do you want me to read it to you, or what?

Evidence that PP has expanded abortion services because of public funds? That something could happen doesn't mean that it is happening. Until you show that it is the argument is moot.

I said "could" permit, not "will cause" For the thousandth time, you know perfectly well I'm talking about potential expansion rather than empirically demonstrable expansion, and for reasons I've elaborated at length, time and again, I think that's sufficient justification for Texas's position. Please stop making these straw man arguments.