Roberts turns coat..again
- Thread starter Dunraven
- Start date
Epstiens flight logs I’m guessing……
the law was to far reaching...good or bad
in laymen's terms:
if the women called a uber driver for a ride to the abortion clinic, a civil lawsuit could be brought against the driver for "facilitation a abortion"
thats not the way laws work, its not the same as a bank robbery and the get away driver
in laymen's terms:
if the women called a uber driver for a ride to the abortion clinic, a civil lawsuit could be brought against the driver for "facilitation a abortion"
thats not the way laws work, its not the same as a bank robbery and the get away driver
Was? This law?
www.foxnews.com
Supreme Court votes 5-4 to leave Texas abortion law in place
A deeply divided Supreme Court is allowing a Texas law that bans most abortions to remain in force, for now stripping most women of the right to an abortion in the nation’s second-largest state.
www.foxnews.com
Abortion=Murder. Period
Murder=Illegal. Period
Murder=Illegal. Period
The main good thing about this law, is that it makes Democrats go insane with rage.
To be fair, no matter your position on abortion, this is a spectacularly bad law and should be overturned. You want to make abortion after 6 weeks illegal? Fine, can't see much stopping you there. Abortion is NOT a civil right, appears nowhere in the Constitution and is therefore left 'to the States, or the people'. Don't like it? Vote.
However, you can't make it open season for civil suits on suspects thought to assist on the procedure. Let's imagine the same thing done to gun/ammo purchases. I believe you made an illegal sale in your garage, so I sue you. You have no recourse except to defend the suit, with your own money, and there is no penalty for me if I lose. You can't recover costs, you can't file a counter suit. That's insane, and so is this law.
However, you can't make it open season for civil suits on suspects thought to assist on the procedure. Let's imagine the same thing done to gun/ammo purchases. I believe you made an illegal sale in your garage, so I sue you. You have no recourse except to defend the suit, with your own money, and there is no penalty for me if I lose. You can't recover costs, you can't file a counter suit. That's insane, and so is this law.
10000000%
once there is a law...there can be case law...then you can use its likeness anywhere
your a young kid/highschool and you drive to a meet a few people
a kid you drove friend or not rapes a girl who you never met and did not know was going to be there
...you get sued for driving the rapist to the party
its a modern day Rico Act
.....you mean like suing a gun manufacturer because someone stole a gun and used it to shoot up a school?.....
...youre right, we have no idea what thats like....
Last edited:
On the bright side, we at least have a Federal law designed to prevent that. Not that it's a complete solution, but ...
Libtards are going crazy with lawsuits against gun companies. California is known for frivolous ADA lawsuits which the democrats think are wonderful. It was only a matter of time before a more conservative state used the same strategy for their own ends.
And yes Roberts is a pussy. Thank you W Bush, the gift that keeps on giving.
This right here.
I am beginning to become concerned that some people in The Bear Pit do not actually read shit before commenting on it from an informed position.
This ruling has nothing to do with abortion. It is a preliminary review of a novel legal mechanism by which Texas is attempting to avoid judicial review in the prohibition of an action they do not approve. This legal scheme has never been attempted before.
People need to seriously consider the ramifications if this mechanism is eventually upheld and what it will means for every constitutional right that is contentious enough for a majority in a single state to be opposed to.
Moreover, the court left it opened to be challenged on an individual case, so this is not actually settled.
"In reaching this conclusion, we stress that we do not purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants’ lawsuit. 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."
My fear is that if left uncontested (it won't be) this will provide the legal means for any liberal state to begin the process of passing unconstitutional gun laws and avoiding constitutional judicial review. Sotomayor says it best in her dissent:
"It cannot be the case that a State can evade federal judicial scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry"
You don't say?
The thing that always bothered me about the abortion issue is that the anti-abortion folks for the most part seem to really mirror the anti-gun folks as a whole:
Abortion
"Let's ban this thing we don't like, but do absolutely nothing to mitigate the causes for its demand in the first place. Even better, why don't we just do things to make the demand for abortion increase?"
Guns
"Let's ban this thing we don't like, but do absolutely nothing to mitigate the causes for its demand in the first place. Even better, why don't we just do things to make the demand for guns increase?"
Last edited:
On the other hand.
IF the Democrats fight this hard and win it and strike down being able to sue folks to do an end run around what they can't ban legally, it will kind of shoot the feet out of their anti-gun attempts.
So it could be a good thing to make them fight to the finish to beat it and get a good ruling banning the whole practice.
It will be a good thing only after this is all settled. In the meantime, the supreme court just created a new playbook for anti-gun nuts to follow and burden both our court systems and pocketbooks.
sorry, had to fix that for you.
roberts is compromised, if he was ever one our side.
Is anyone else as cold hearted as i am to not give a fat frog's fuck if liberals/leftists continue to murder their own future commie voter base?? The way i see it, nobody of our ilk is having abortions in the first place. I think abortion is repugnant and completely immoral. At the same time, im kinda glad the people that WANT abortions are getting them. Maybe i am just so jaded from the last 12ish years of total communist bullshit from the left that i dont care if they murder their own. Sounds super fucked up as im typing this but im thinking out loud, i guess. I reckon i just look for the silver lining.
Yes, I have read their red flag laws. And YES Fuck 'em. But this goes beyond red flag laws.
Despite what the talking heads are saying on TV, The Supreme Court did NOT rule on abortion. They did not even rule on the new legal mechanism. It DID rule they could not halt enforcement of the new law. THAT IS IT.
All this horseshit in the media about pro/anti abortion is a distraction. This is could turn into a real fuck us all moment if this is not reheard at the supreme court.
I am willing to bet that right now democrats across the nation are rushing to clone the new law with a few modifications towards firearms. If enacted in a single state and upheld, it could cripple the firearms industry. Seriously think about that.
Everyone from the loading dock worker to the delivery van driver would be open to financial ruin for participating in the firearms business if a single firearm is sold in the jurisdiction of this now possible law. Anyone within that jurisdiction can bring suit against anyone who facilitated without consequence.
But don't worry, they won't be coming for your firearms. No jail time either. They will just bring financial ruin to anyone that assists in making one available to you.
Conservatives everywhere just got snookered into celebrating the creation of a new legal tool to bypass the constitution, and then we attack the one justice that saw the potential harm of this and tried to stop it.
"the consequences of approving the state action, both in this particular case and as a model for action in other areas, counsel at least preliminary judicial consideration before the program devised by the State takes effect." - Justice Roberts dissent
you make some very fine, well articulated points. Many I find myself in lockstep with your position.
Every man mush choose for himself. If someone said we could end abortions at the cost of firearms, I’d make that trade.
I don’t believe in killing babies.
But to your point. The legal part. Is your position what Biden is referring to when he said it would unleash “constitutional chaos”? If the Supreme Court can do anything to stop enforcement of a law who can? What am I missing?
Not saying you agree w Biden. Is the news spinning his words too?
*****so how does one influence the court if they only look at the validity of the law? What can WE possibly do?
You equate killing somebody to owning an object. None the less, I'd be interested in how you think you could reduce this demand.
The social norms and moral decay is accelerating.
Me too. And I'm a prolife Texan. This is ill conceived law. While I back the intent, the old saw of "unintended consequences" looms large.
My opinion, the law with this civil component is not pure and straightforward. It will cause problems and the added civil component seems highly unnecessary.
This law could have been written in one paragraph with less than 100 words. Probably 40, but add the extra words to include the exceptions to the law.
This law could have been written in one paragraph with less than 100 words. Probably 40, but add the extra words to include the exceptions to the law.
I’m kind of on the same opinion, but, I’m sick of paying for these welfare skanks hanger appointments, it should be a one and done, you get an abortion on my dime, the next thing I better be paying for is getting your baby makers removed.
I personally do not believe in it, but if you want one who am I to tell people what to do, just don’t make me pay for the goddamn thing!
i see your point, but last time I checked, we weren’t using taxpayer $$ to buy guns for folks.
Well, outside Afghanistan anyway…
I no longer feel confident to say what Biden meant at any given time, as I suspect he has lost that ability himself.
It is interesting that you ask what the Supreme Court can do, as that was exactly the question the Supreme Court was asking itself.
The Supreme Court noted that it can act to stop the enforcement of a law if it falls within their constitutional oversight duties to do so.
In this case, the majority ruled that as this was a civil issue between citizens and not an enforcement of a law by the government and thus they did not have the authority to step in and prevent enforcement. No ruling was issued on the law itself or the validity of the novel mechanism of enforcement.
That’s the trick that Texas invented. They crafted a law that removes the government from the enforcement of a law and thus avoids federal judicial review for constitutionality.
If you are asking what we can do to end abortion, I suggest we work within our system to do so. There are plenty of legal means still available to us.
Barring a constitutional amendment, I question why haven’t laws been rewritten to satisfy the key criteria under Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992) regarding fetal viability outside of the womb?
Science has moved back the time well below the current statutory bar set based upon science then existing in 1992, so why don’t we apply more research to preservation of fetal viability outside of the womb earlier in a pregnancy?
If we could extract fertilized embryos and grow them in a lab to full gestation, it would still be in line with the preservation of a women’s right to abort pre-viability without undue interference from the state.
Better yet, the Casey case does not state that the government needs to pay for it, we only need to demonstrate that it is possible.
To answer you question, there is plenty we can do, but I cannot condone throwing out the entire constitution to stop a single evil that we still have the means to address. I strongly suggest that we preserve the constitution and use it to work for us in that effort.
If you are asking what we can do to end the use of this legal trick, I suggest that we wait for another court case to bring the issue up in a manner that allows the court to make a ruling. I also encourage everyone to not fall into the trap of believing this is about abortion.
You say that you would trade gun rights for the life of children. Would you also be willing to trade all of the protections in the constitution to end abortion in this manner?
What if someone used this legal mechanism to create a law that said your fellow citizens can sue you for failing to take the vaccine? Or for not telling them who you voted for after an election? Or for not voting for the correct political party? For not teaching the approved lessons in school? or not attending the correct church? or for posting on The Bear Pit?
The possibility of a legal trick of avoiding constitutional protections and judicial scrutiny is scary. Which is why I believe that this all will be quickly shot down.
The political spin by otherwise intelligent individuals is clearly a devious attempt to manipulate peoples emotions over a very contentious topic. It needlessly tears us apart from one another. The pundits will claim it is because the judges sided for abortion or some other such shit, but that will be far from the truth. Any future ruling invalidating the law will be to maintain the integrity of the constitution and our way of life.
If you still believe we should uphold this new legal trick because we want to end abortion today, I would like you to consider the exchange from “A Man for All Seasons” regarding the abolishment of any law that stood between the righteous and the pursuit of the evil. Sir Thomas More asks us the question, when we cut down the last law in the land and finally seize the devil, what will remain to protect all of us when the devil turns on you?
I no longer feel confident to say what Biden meant at any given time, as I suspect he has lost that ability himself.
It is interesting that you ask what the Supreme Court can do, as that was exactly the question the Supreme Court was asking itself.
The Supreme Court noted that it can act to stop the enforcement of a law if it falls within their constitutional oversight duties to do so.
In this case, the majority ruled that as this was a civil issue between citizens and not an enforcement of a law by the government and thus they did not have the authority to step in and prevent enforcement. No ruling was issued on the law itself or the validity of the novel mechanism of enforcement.
That’s the trick that Texas invented. They crafted a law that removes the government from the enforcement of a law and thus avoids federal judicial review for constitutionality.
If you are asking what we can do to end abortion, I suggest we work within our system to do so. There are plenty of legal means still available to us.
Barring a constitutional amendment, I question why haven’t laws been rewritten to satisfy the key criteria under Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992) regarding fetal viability outside of the womb?
Science has moved back the time well below the current statutory bar set based upon science then existing in 1992, so why don’t we apply more research to preservation of fetal viability outside of the womb earlier in a pregnancy?
If we could extract fertilized embryos and grow them in a lab to full gestation, it would still be in line with the preservation of a women’s right to abort pre-viability without undue interference from the state.
Better yet, the Casey case does not state that the government needs to pay for it, we only need to demonstrate that it is possible.
To answer you question, there is plenty we can do, but I cannot condone throwing out the entire constitution to stop a single evil that we still have the means to address. I strongly suggest that we preserve the constitution and use it to work for us in that effort.
If you are asking what we can do to end the use of this legal trick, I suggest that we wait for another court case to bring the issue up in a manner that allows the court to make a ruling. I also encourage everyone to not fall into the trap of believing this is about abortion.
You say that you would trade gun rights for the life of children. Would you also be willing to trade all of the protections in the constitution to end abortion in this manner?
What if someone used this legal mechanism to create a law that said your fellow citizens can sue you for failing to take the vaccine? Or for not telling them who you voted for after an election? Or for not voting for the correct political party? For not teaching the approved lessons in school? or not attending the correct church? or for posting on The Bear Pit?
The possibility of a legal trick of avoiding constitutional protections and judicial scrutiny is scary. Which is why I believe that this all will be quickly shot down.
The political spin by otherwise intelligent individuals is clearly a devious attempt to manipulate peoples emotions over a very contentious topic. It needlessly tears us apart from one another. The pundits will claim it is because the judges sided for abortion or some other such shit, but that will be far from the truth. Any future ruling invalidating the law will be to maintain the integrity of the constitution and our way of life.
If you still believe we should uphold this new legal trick because we want to end abortion today, I would like you to consider the exchange from “A Man for All Seasons” regarding the abolishment of any law that stood between the righteous and the pursuit of the evil. Sir Thomas More asks us the question, when we cut down the last law in the land and finally seize the devil, what will remain to protect all of us when the devil turns on you?
oh. I’d buy a gun off the black market and be a criminal.
If that's all it is, then why are liberals so rabidly opposed to it, and feel it is a victory for the right?
Successful propaganda? Sowing confusion? Manipulation of an illiterate public? Setting the public up for outrage again when the law is nullified? Politicians can act like they scored a victory and pump up voter support?
Likely, nothing more nefarious other than the simple formula that outrage sells more subscriptions and ads.
Nothing good comes to mind.
Whatever their reasons, it is easy to predict that people will be screaming once this is nullified and rail against the courts, thus further degrading confidence in the judicial system.
I did see a few news sources the day of the ruling accurately report the ruling. That mostly stopped after day one.
SCOTUS Blog had a good piece. I see that they put it into simple terms AND in a Tiktok video AND tweeted it out, so maybe that medium is better suited for educating the modern public. The last 12 seconds of the video simplifies and sums up the actual majority decision.
For those that are still interested in reading:
"www.scotusblog.com/2021/09/supreme-court-leaves-texas-abortion-ban-in-place/"
If this shit continues? I would agree. It needs to stay within the realms of pure emergency rulings. As it expands its coverage, it is quickly losing its legitimacy. Everyone should have just waited until an actual suit was brought against a party.
The Majority is conservative in that they follow the technical precedent and underpinnings of judicial review. Some of it is addressing exactly your lament, almost a condemnation of bringing it forward prematurely and using the shadow docket in the first place.
Roberts is in the middle, conservative but also from the point of view that extraordinary circumstances should compel us to act in order to address the considerable disruptive constitutional implications at hand.
I am betting odds its more like child porn or he went to Jeffrey Epstein island on a regular basis he could just be another dirty judge there sure are enough of those out there , that are never held accountable for there unethical and immoral rulings . I always thought that was congress's job with the over site oh wait they are just as dirty so no wonder no one is ever held accountable .
Similar threads
