Texas bans abortion.

[marplots]

Maybe you should rethink that. Just have the baby, and you will have bypassed the "terrible twos" already. Baby should be able to walk out of the womb all by itself.

In Texas they don't come out so easy. You gotta get in there and rope 'em.

 

[Sherman Bay]

Good thing Kennedy isn't an ideological drone on this issue and saw the trap laws for what there were.

And if he hadn't, the court would have been tied, and the challenge lost. We were that close to the opposite decision.

FYI: Here's the complete SCOTUS decision. I find it disturbing to read Thomas' dissent, in which he states, "I remain fundamentally opposed to the court's abortion jurisprudence." (page 53) So Thomas was going to rule against women no matter what.

And Alito's major dissenting point, with Roberts concurring, which he ranted on for pages, was that since the plaintiffs had lost a previous case on a similar point, they couldn't bring it up again, even if there was new, pertinent evidence (res judicata). The court rejected that argument.

 

[Crossbow]

Good. **** those scum in Texas trying to pretend the law was intended to help safeguard the women's safety. Never heard a more obvious lie in my life.

Quite true!

And all too unfortunately it is just another in a long line of sad examples that one has come to expect from the stupid, idiotic, lying Republicans.

 

[SOdhner]

I find it disturbing to read Thomas' dissent, in which he states, "I remain fundamentally opposed to the court's abortion jurisprudence." (page 53) So Thomas was going to rule against women no matter what.

I read a good chunk of it on my lunch break, and it's awful. He spends a lot of time making it clear that he doesn't feel they should be worrying about this because he thinks it was invalid for the supreme court to allow abortions in the first place, as well as for other reasons that really feel like he's just bitter.

The most amazing part is where he complains about how they evaluated for "undue burden" - his objections are completely absurd.

 

[fuelair]

Good. **** those scum in Texas trying to pretend the law was intended to help safeguard the women's safety. Never heard a more obvious lie in my life.

I have, but I am older than you are and have longer experience with republickers!!!!!

 

[quadraginta]

Quite true!

And all too unfortunately it is just another in a long line of sad examples that one has come to expect from the stupid, idiotic, lying Republicans.

They're Lying For Jesus.

That means it's okay.

(They're being stupid and idiotic for Jesus too, I guess.)

 

[fuelair]

******** for Jesus comes trippingly off the tongue

 

[thaiboxerken]

Quite true!

And all too unfortunately it is just another in a long line of sad examples that one has come to expect from the stupid, idiotic, lying Republicans.

Yep, just like VoterID laws. They lie about the true intentions of the laws, even though everyone knows the true intentions of the laws.

 

[Mister Earl]

They're Lying For Jesus.

That means it's okay.

(They're being stupid and idiotic for Jesus too, I guess.)

It's a bloody shame, but somehow the more zealot-like a religious person gets, the more willing they are to bear false witness against their neighbors.

 

[Tony Stark]

It's a bloody shame, but somehow the more zealot-like a religious person gets, the more willing they are to bear false witness against their neighbors.

What's even more crazy to me is how obvious their lies are. Did they really think that people wouldn't understand that the purpose of these laws was to shut down abortion clinics? Or maybe they just don't care if people know that they are lying scumbags?

 

[Mister Earl]

What's even more crazy to me is how obvious their lies are. Did they really think that people wouldn't understand that the purpose of these laws was to shut down abortion clinics? Or maybe they just don't care if people know that they are lying scumbags?

I think it's a "bold-faced lie, over and over again, until everyone takes it as truth" thing. I had fairly fundamentalist religious grandparents. My grandmother insisted that "ashes to ashes, dust to dust" was in the bible somewhere. I said it wasn't. She insisted it was. I asked her to show me where. She refused. But she wouldn't change her mind. Probably wouldn't have at gunpoint, either. I'll never understand it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

What's even more crazy to me is how obvious their lies are. Did they really think that people wouldn't understand that the purpose of these laws was to shut down abortion clinics? Or maybe they just don't care if people know that they are lying scumbags?

It is because they have no shame.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It is because they have no shame.

They don't need shame; they have God.

 

[marplots]

They're Lying For Jesus.

That means it's okay.

******** for Jesus comes trippingly off the tongue

It's a bloody shame, but somehow the more zealot-like a religious person gets, the more willing they are to bear false witness against their neighbors.

It's for the greater good.

 

[Vermonter]

I find it disturbing to read Thomas' dissent, in which he states, "I remain fundamentally opposed to the court's abortion jurisprudence." (page 53) So Thomas was going to rule against women no matter what.

Not to derail; here's something I noticed from another case decided yesterday.

Thomas has made a number of strange dissents lately. He dissented in the decision of Voisine vs United States on the bizarre interpretation of the meaning of "use".

In this case, petitioners were convicted under §922(g)(9) because they possessed firearms and had prior convictions for assault under Maine’s statute prohibiting “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury or offensive physical contact to another person.” Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17–A, §207(1)(A) (2006). The question presented is whether a prior conviction under §207 has, as an element, the “use of physical force,” such that the conviction can strip someone of his right to possess a firearm. In my view, §207 does not qualify as such an offense, and the
majority errs in holding otherwise.

Last I checked, on Planet Earth causing bodily injury requires the use of force.

/derail.

 

[Tony Stark]

Maybe after Trump loses the election and Scalia's seat is taken by a liberal, Clarence Thomas will retire in disgust, not being able to deal with a liberal dominated court.

 

[catsmate]

What's even more crazy to me is how obvious their lies are. Did they really think that people wouldn't understand that the purpose of these laws was to shut down abortion clinics? Or maybe they just don't care if people know that they are lying scumbags?

Exactly. If they really cared why aren't childbirth services held to the same standards?

 

[AdamSK]

Last I checked, on Planet Earth causing bodily injury requires the use of force.

Thomas' point is that reckless use of force does not necessarily imply the intent to cause harm. And he gives a good example - under the law, texting while driving can result in an assault conviction for recklessness, but nobody argues that the texting driver intended to cause injury.

 

[quadraginta]

Thomas' point is that reckless use of force does not necessarily imply the intent to cause harm. And he gives a good example - under the law, texting while driving can result in an assault conviction for recklessness, but nobody argues that the texting driver intended to cause injury.

What about the "intentionally" and "knowingly" in the statute which was cited? Just skip over those parts?

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

Exactly. If they really cared why aren't childbirth services held to the same standards?

Or colonoscopies or liposuction?