• 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.
So, trying to back away from the claim that "most men" would have sexual relations with sheep then? I mean I can understand it, but it might be a little late.
 
Warp12 said:
I don't think you realize what impression your statement gives off.
Click to expand...

The impression I get is of a decent and normal man who doesn't call women by derogatory names and then claims women like it.

Sure, there are a few examples of amazing purity, such as yourself, but everyone knows the general sexual behavior of men. They may not lean towards animals, generally, but otherwise anything goes.
Click to expand...

Wow.:yikes: If you think not being sexually attracted to animals is an example of 'amazing purity" and that 'anything goes' with most men, then you need to change your friends.

Of course, we only bring that sort of thing up when we are trying to explain how it isn't solely a woman's fault that she got pregnant.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense whatsoever. :shocked:
 
MarkCorrigan said:
One of my best friends is, to put it mildly, one of the biggest man-whores I know. He's bisexual and has a enormous sexual appetite. He's visited sex workers, dated men and women, and has gone looking for hookups on fetish sites. He doesn't cheat, but outside of a relationship if he wants sex, he'll get sex in some way.

He has never expressed any kind of desire to sleep with a non human. He's also never expressed a desire to sleep with anything that doesn't move.

I can think of no one I know who would ever consider sleeping with another species. I know I wouldn't.

I think that you might be admitting things that you really don't need to be admitting here Warp12.
Click to expand...

Give someone enough rope....
 
MarkCorrigan said:
So, trying to back away from the claim that "most men" would have sexual relations with sheep then? I mean I can understand it, but it might be a little late.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I never made that explicit claim. Men "having sex with anything that moves" is a common statement. Sheep were not the focal point. But if the hip waders fit, wear them. Especially on hills.

Again, this was all related to the idea of tying racism to the sexual habits of men. And, the point was, opportunity is the driver...not race.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
Like any of that matters, the supreme court already gave the law the OK.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, they haven't.

The decision left open the option for abortion providers to challenge the Texas law in other ways in the future, meaning the case possibly — or even likely — will return to the Supreme Court, though not for months or longer.

The opinion was unsigned. It said the abortion providers didn't properly address "complex and novel antecedent procedural questions" in their case.

"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...
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/02/1033048958/supreme-court-upholds-new-texas-abortion-law-for-now
 
Warp12 said:
Yeah, I never made that explicit claim. Men "having sex anything that moves" is a common statement. Sheep were not the focal point. But if the hip waders fit, wear them. Especially on hills.

Again, this was all related to the idea of tying racism to the sexual habits of men. And, the point was, opportunity is the driver...not race.
Click to expand...

Then why drag in all that other nonsense about animals, etc? You could have made the same point, and frankly, much more succinctly and more credibly, without being offensive. Or was that the point?
 
Warp12 said:
Yeah, I never made that explicit claim. Men "having sex with anything that moves" is a common statement. Sheep were not the focal point. But if the hip waders fit, wear them. Especially on hills.

Again, this was all related to the idea of tying racism to the sexual habits of men. And, the point was, opportunity is the driver...not race.
Click to expand...

Well, you ever explicitly said sheep I suppose...
 
Stacyhs said:
Fasten your seatbelts. This could get bumpy:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/08/justice-department-texas-abortion-law-510801
Click to expand...

Here is the part of Merrick Garland's full announcement as it pettains to the Texas Abortion Law



Transcript for those who don't like videos

"Last week after the Supreme Court allowed Texas Senate bill 8 to take effect, I said the Justice Department was evaluating all options to protect the Constitutional rights of women and other persons. Today, after careful assessment, of the facts and the law, the Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas. Our position is set out in detail in our complaint. Its basis is as follows.

SB8 bans nearly all abortions in the state after six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant and months before a pregnancy is viable. It does so even in cases of rape, sexual abuse or incest, and it further prohibits any efforts to aid the doctors who perform pre-viability abortions or the women who seek them. The act is clearly unconstitutional under long standing Supreme Court precedent. Those precedents hold, in the words of Planned Parenthood versus Casey, regardless of whether exceptions are made for particular circumstances, “a state may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.”

Texas does not dispute that its statute violates Supreme Court precedent. Instead, the statute includes an unprecedented scheme to, in the chief justice's words, “insulate the state from responsibility”. It does not rely on the state's Executive Branch to enforce the law as is the norm in Texas and everywhere else. Rather, the statute deputizes all private citizens without any showing of personal connection or injury, to serve as bounty hunters, authorized to recover at least $10,000 per claim from individuals who facilitate a woman's exercise of her Constitutional rights. The obvious and expressly acknowledged intention of this statutory scheme is to prevent women from exercising their Constitutional rights by thwarting judicial review for as long as possible. Thus far, the law has had its intended effect. Because this statute makes it too risky for an abortion clinic to stay open, abortion providers have ceased providing services. This leaves women in Texas unable to exercise their Constitutional rights and unable to obtain judicial review at the very moment they need it.

This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear. If it prevails, it may become a model for action in other areas by other states and with respect to other Constitutional rights and judicial precedents. The damage that would be done to our society if States were allowed to implement laws that empower any private individual to infringe on another's Constitutionally protected rights in this way. The United States has the authority and the responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their Constitutional rights through a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights."

There is a second part of the announcement in which he goes into other reasons they are filing this lawsuit.

SB 8...

1. Conflicts with Federal law by prohibiting federal agencies from exercising their authorities and carrying out their responsibilities

2. Subjects Federal employees and nongovernmental partners who implement those laws to civil liability and penalties. These include...

a. The Labor Department's Job Corps program,
b. The Defense Department's Tri-Care Health program
c. The Office of Refugee Resettlement
d. The Bureau of Prisons
e. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services
f. The Office of Personnel Management.

3. Is invalid under the Supremacy Clause and the 14th amendment

4. Is pre-empted by Federal law

5. Violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.

You can see that here, beginning at 3:59

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_6KLBlIOwo
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Good question. If it's taxpayers' money, that would mean the government is involved.
Click to expand...

I assumed it was taxpayers' money, but that quote from Garland says:

the statute deputizes all private citizens without any showing of personal connection or injury, to serve as bounty hunters, authorized to recover at least $10,000 per claim from individuals who facilitate a woman's exercise of her Constitutional rights
Click to expand...

which seems to be saying that the money would come from the people being sued.
 
Where in the world did this idea come from that it's not the defendant's money?? Of course it's the defendant's money. The whole point of this is bleed the defendants (abortion providers) dry of money.
 
Stacyhs said:
Good question. If it's taxpayers' money, that would mean the government is involved.
Click to expand...


It’s not the taxpayer’s money . These are purportedly civil actions. The defendant in the civil suit would have to pay. Failure to pay would have to involve the judicial branch of the government to enforce such payment under some sort of threat.

Unless Texas proposed a non-governmental “judiciary”, a plot line in the latest season of “The Good Fight”!
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
It’s not the taxpayer’s money . These are purportedly civil actions. The defendant in the civil suit would have to pay. Failure to pay would have to involve the judicial branch of the government to enforce such payment under some sort of threat.

Unless Texas proposed a non-governmental “judiciary”, a plot line in the latest season of “The Good Fight”!
Click to expand...

And what is to happen of the court decides "X" has to pay the $10,000 and they refuse?

Who is going to collect it? Who is going to enforce that collection?

The courts? If so, the courts are a branch of government.
 
Last edited:
Oh come the ever-loving **** on what even is this?

The Courts are already masters of ruining people's lives and keeping them in perpetual poverty and criminality by enforcing fines and court fees in SANE cases. Why is anyone even questioning if they'll be able to do it here?
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
And what is to happen of the court decides "X" has to pay the $10,000 and they refuse?

Who is going to collect it? Who is going to enforce that collection?

The courts? If so, the courts are a branch of government.
Click to expand...

JoeMorgue said:
Oh come the ever-loving **** on what even is this?

The Courts are already masters of ruining people's lives and keeping them in perpetual poverty and criminality by enforcing fines and court fees in SANE cases. Why is anyone even questioning if they'll be able to do it here?
Click to expand...

Smartcooky has a good point. If a $10K fine is levelled against the defendant but they refuse to pay, how is that going to be enforced unless a court orders a garnishment of wages or a lien against property, etc? This is what happens in a civil case. If a court gets involved, isn't that the judicial branch of the state government enforcing it? AIUI, the whole point of not being able to sue TX over this that the state gov't was not the enforcer. This may be obvious to someone who understands the ins and outs of the law, but to those of us who don't, I don't think it's a silly question to ask.
 
slyjoe said:
I have a question - if Texas says the government is not enforcing the law, how does anyone expect to collect the $10,000?
Click to expand...

That is a bit of a sticky wicket. As Garland said, by assigning enforcement to private individuals for absolutely no reason, the Texas legislation is essentially acknowledging that enforcement by execute branch would be unconstitutional. Therefore, enforcement by the judicial branch would also be unconstitutional.

That is why the law goes on to say that it is not a defense that a woman has a right to an abortion (a third party defense) unless the U.S. Supreme Court says otherwise. The intent is to prohibit Texas court from being able to even consider the constitutionality of the law. And, even more bizarrely, ignore any rulings by Federal district or appellant courts on the constitutionality of the law.

It basically says that this law that is so obviously unconstitutional that even the State cannot enforce it must be enforced by the courts. Unless it goes to the Supreme Court so that they can get a back door in to essentially have a redo on Roe v. Wade, while making it look like something else.
 
This is the Supremacy Clause that AG Garland was talking about in his annoucement.

Constitution of the United States of America - Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.​


This is essentially saying that no state may have State Constitutions or State Laws that contradict the US Constitution or Federal Laws. It also prohibits any state from interfering with the Federal Government's exercise of its Constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the Federal government.

It does not allow the Federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect. I'm guessing this is the reason why the Garland and the DoJ have waited until now to bring the court action against Texas.
 
Stacyhs said:
Smartcooky has a good point. If a $10K fine is levelled against the defendant but they refuse to pay, how is that going to be enforced unless a court orders a garnishment of wages or a lien against property, etc? This is what happens in a civil case. If a court gets involved, isn't that the judicial branch of the state government enforcing it?
Click to expand...
Yes, of course it freaking is. Please drop this irrelevant de-rail. The fact that these civil suits are civil suits is not the freaking issue. It's obvious, irrelevant, and not even a problem that civil suits are civil suits.

The relevant problem is that private citizens with no relation to the events can file suit.

It is not at all a problem that civil suits are handled properly as civil suits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom