casii
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,466
Jun 29, 2014 14:40:44 GMT
|
Post by casii on Sept 17, 2021 21:01:10 GMT
Wow, I hope it's airing where it will have the most impact.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 3:31:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2021 12:48:05 GMT
And, here it is, the "Close your legs" defense of the TX law: "The legal architect of the Texas abortion ban has argued in a supreme court brief that overturning Roe v Wade, the landmark decision which guarantees a right to abortion in the US, could cause women to practice abstinence from sexual intercourse as a way to “control their reproductive lives”. Former Texas solicitor general Jonathan Mitchell, who played a pivotal role in designing the legal framework of the state’s near-total abortion ban, also argued on behalf of anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life that women would still be able to terminate pregnancies if Roe was overturned by traveling to “wealthy pro-abortion” states like California and New York with the help of “taxpayer subsidies”. ‘Treating us like criminals’: Texas abortion ban creates chilling effect across state Read more “Women can ‘control their reproductive lives’ without access to abortion; they can do so by refraining from sexual intercourse,” Mitchell wrote in the brief. “One can imagine a scenario in which a woman has chosen to engage in unprotected (or insufficiently protected) sexual intercourse on the assumption that an abortion will be available to her later. But when this court announces the overruling of Roe, that individual can simply change their behavior in response to the court’s decision if she no longer wants to take the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.”" www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/17/texas-abortion-ban-jonathan-mitchell-supreme-court-briefI've said it before, I'll say it again. Many women in TX need to go all Lysistrata.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Sept 21, 2021 12:56:05 GMT
And, here it is, the "Close your legs" defense of the TX law: "The legal architect of the Texas abortion ban has argued in a supreme court brief that overturning Roe v Wade, the landmark decision which guarantees a right to abortion in the US, could cause women to practice abstinence from sexual intercourse as a way to “control their reproductive lives”. Former Texas solicitor general Jonathan Mitchell, who played a pivotal role in designing the legal framework of the state’s near-total abortion ban, also argued on behalf of anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life that women would still be able to terminate pregnancies if Roe was overturned by traveling to “wealthy pro-abortion” states like California and New York with the help of “taxpayer subsidies”. ‘Treating us like criminals’: Texas abortion ban creates chilling effect across state Read more “Women can ‘control their reproductive lives’ without access to abortion; they can do so by refraining from sexual intercourse,” Mitchell wrote in the brief. “One can imagine a scenario in which a woman has chosen to engage in unprotected (or insufficiently protected) sexual intercourse on the assumption that an abortion will be available to her later. But when this court announces the overruling of Roe, that individual can simply change their behavior in response to the court’s decision if she no longer wants to take the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.”" www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/17/texas-abortion-ban-jonathan-mitchell-supreme-court-briefI've said it before, I'll say it again. Many women in TX need to go all Lysistrata. Yes, Mr. Mitchell has the answer. “Just say no.” Religious extremists, busy giving faith a bad name in 2021. Good gravy, we have to keep these nutters from power. This guy is a dangerous lunatic. He is entitled to believe whatever he wants, but he does not have the right to impose his beliefs on everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Sept 21, 2021 13:20:19 GMT
And, here it is, the "Close your legs" defense of the TX law: "The legal architect of the Texas abortion ban has argued in a supreme court brief that overturning Roe v Wade, the landmark decision which guarantees a right to abortion in the US, could cause women to practice abstinence from sexual intercourse as a way to “control their reproductive lives”. Former Texas solicitor general Jonathan Mitchell, who played a pivotal role in designing the legal framework of the state’s near-total abortion ban, also argued on behalf of anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life that women would still be able to terminate pregnancies if Roe was overturned by traveling to “wealthy pro-abortion” states like California and New York with the help of “taxpayer subsidies”. ‘Treating us like criminals’: Texas abortion ban creates chilling effect across state Read more “Women can ‘control their reproductive lives’ without access to abortion; they can do so by refraining from sexual intercourse,” Mitchell wrote in the brief. “One can imagine a scenario in which a woman has chosen to engage in unprotected (or insufficiently protected) sexual intercourse on the assumption that an abortion will be available to her later. But when this court announces the overruling of Roe, that individual can simply change their behavior in response to the court’s decision if she no longer wants to take the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.”" www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/17/texas-abortion-ban-jonathan-mitchell-supreme-court-briefI've said it before, I'll say it again. Many women in TX need to go all Lysistrata. Yeah. Apparently he has never met the victim of rape, incest or sexual assault. It’s SO easy to just say no in any of those situations. /s 🙄 What an asshole.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Sept 23, 2021 18:18:12 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 3:31:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2021 13:27:18 GMT
Tens of thousands marched all over the country over the weekend to protest the diminution of abortion rights. TX, Denver, Nashville, Philly, DC.... "Women's March holds hundreds of rallies nationwide in support of abortion rights The march hopes to raise awareness about "abortion justice" in response to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's new law that bans nearly all abortions in the state. More than 600 women's rights marches to take place nationwide against Texas abortion law" Meanwhile "Lawyers for the Justice Department appeared in a Texas federal court on Friday to ask a judge to block the state's law, arguing it's "in open defiance of the Constitution." In court papers, the lawyers argued that the statute "prohibits most pre-viability abortions, even in cases of rape, sexual abuse or incest" and "also prohibits any effort to aid — or, indeed, any attempt to aid — the doctors who provide pre-viability abortions or the women who exercise their right to seek one." Lawyers for the Texas Attorney General's Office said that the law is constitutional and asked that any request for a preliminary injunction is denied. The judge, Robert Pitman, said he would issue a decision at a later date and did not indicate how he will rule. The Justice Department filed the case last month after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request to block the law from taking effect. The court's 5-4 decision said that abortion providers who'd challenged the law "have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law," but those arguments did not adequately address "complex and novel" procedural questions presented by the case. Organizers for the Women's March said when the Court denied the request to block the law "they effectively took the next step towards overturning Roe v. Wade," the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationally." www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/women-s-march-hold-hundreds-rallies-nationwide-support-abortion-rights-n1280623
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Oct 4, 2021 19:51:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 7, 2021 0:59:35 GMT
On Wednesday, a federal judge blocked enforcement of Texas' controversial new law enacting a near-total ban on abortion. Judge Mark Pittman of the Northern District of Texas — an appointee of former President Donald Trump — barred the law from being enforced by "the State", an order that expands even to judges and clerks. Pittman refused to stay his ruling pending appeal, saying that "The State has forfeited the right to any such accommodation by pursuing an unprecedented and aggressive scheme to deprive its citizens of a significant and well-established constitutional right." www.rawstory.com/judge-blocks-texas-abortion-law/
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Oct 7, 2021 2:39:41 GMT
So happy to see this! Hope this stops the Florida copycat attempt in its tracks. www.npr.org/2021/10/06/1040221171/a-u-s-judge-blocks-enforcement-of-texas-controversial-new-abortion-lawIn his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman said that from the moment SB 8 went into effect last month, "women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution." He added: "That other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion is theirs to decide. This Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right." U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland called the court's decision "a victory for women in Texas and for the rule of law." "It is the foremost responsibility of the Department of Justice to defend the Constitution," Garland said in a statement. "We will continue to protect constitutional rights against all who would seek to undermine them."
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 9, 2021 1:59:32 GMT
MSNBC: US 5th circuit court of appeals has reinstated the TX abortion law.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Oct 9, 2021 4:03:56 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 3:31:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2021 15:50:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Oct 22, 2021 21:11:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Oct 22, 2021 21:16:42 GMT
I am afraid that they will strike down Roe and force women to once again have unsafe abortions. I am very glad not to be a young woman right now.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 22, 2021 23:47:23 GMT
Review it Monday Nov 1st. In one week. Possible to roll it into the Mississippi case they are hearing in December.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 3:31:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2021 4:02:24 GMT
Good luck, Roberts. Your court is screwed. "The chief justice of the United States, John Roberts, warned Friday that the Supreme Court risks losing its own authority if it allows states to circumvent the courts as Texas did with its near-total abortion ban. In a strongly worded opinion joined by the high court’s three liberal justices, Roberts wrote that the "clear purpose and actual effect" of the Texas law was "to nullify this Court’s rulings." That, he said, undermines the Constitution and the fundamental role of the Supreme Court and the court system as a whole. The opinion was a remarkable plea by the chief justice to his colleagues on the court to resist the efforts by right-wing lawmakers to get around court decisions they dislike, in this case Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that made abortion legal in the United States, within limits. But in this case, his urgent request was largely ignored by the other justices on the court who were appointed by Republicans. His point to them was that the court system should decide what the law is, and it should resist efforts like that of the Texas Legislature to get around the courts by limiting the ability of abortion providers to sue. It is a basic principle, he wrote, "that the Constitution is the 'fundamental and paramount law of the nation,' and ' t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'" He cited as proof the landmark 1803 Marbury v. Madison case, which established the principle of judicial review, allowing the court to nullify laws that violate the Constitution.
“If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery,” he said, quoting the 1809 U.S. v. Peters case, which found that state legislatures can't overrule federal courts. “The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.”
The Texas law, which took effect in September, delegates enforcement to any person, anywhere, who can sue any doctor performing an abortion or anyone who aids in the procedure. That makes it virtually impossible for abortion providers to sue the state to block the law, S.B. 8. Texas has argued that the law's opponents had no legal authority to sue the state because S.B. 8 does not give state officials any role in enforcing the restriction.
Roberts has said that politics has no place at the Supreme Court and has made it clear he will resist efforts to draw the court into partisan cultural fights, fearing that the perception of partisanship will undermine the court's legitimacy.
With the court now having a 6-3 conservative supermajority, Roberts wound up siding with the three liberal justices: Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. The addition of three justices by former President Donald Trump meant Roberts could not find another vote for his position, leaving him largely in the minority in the abortion ruling"
www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/chief-justice-john-roberts-warns-supreme-court-over-texas-abortion-n1285747
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Dec 11, 2021 9:38:27 GMT
What the hell kind of jackass ruling is this? How does that stop anti-abortion private citizens—deputized by the state to enforce SB8—from filing suit against providers?! What good is there to the SC giving permission to go ahead and sue minor licensing officials? All Texas has to do is amend SB8 to remove the enforcement by the licensing officials.
And of course you can enjoin Texas courts from letting these suits by private citizens proceed. I don’t know what Gorsuch is banging on about. SB8 has no teeth unless courts adjudicate the civil suits initiated by the anti-abortion public. So, willingly or not, court officials have been co-opted in a scheme based on an unconstitutional statute.
This ruling is insane. So as long as enforcement is limited to private citizens who can sue in state courts, a state can nullify a constitutionally-protected right? Well, if there’s no supremacy in the Supreme Court’s decisions on supposedly settled law like Roe, then maybe a state can pass a law that deputizes private citizens to sue anyone they see buying a gun and collect at least $10,000 in damages.
Goose, gander, all that.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Dec 11, 2021 15:33:03 GMT
He may have a point…
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 11, 2021 15:44:23 GMT
What the hell kind of jackass ruling is this?...... Well, if there’s no supremacy in the Supreme Court’s decisions on supposedly settled law like Roe, then maybe a state can pass a law that deputizes private citizens to sue anyone they see buying a gun and collect at least $10,000 in damages. Goose, gander, all that. Isn't that exactly what kavanaugh alluded to during the arguments?
|
|
casii
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,466
Jun 29, 2014 14:40:44 GMT
|
Post by casii on Dec 11, 2021 16:18:08 GMT
What the hell kind of jackass ruling is this? How does that stop anti-abortion private citizens—deputized by the state to enforce SB8—from filing suit against providers?! What good is there to the SC giving permission to go ahead and sue minor licensing officials? All Texas has to do is amend SB8 to remove the enforcement by the licensing officials. And of course you can enjoin Texas courts from letting these suits by private citizens proceed. I don’t know what Gorsuch is banging on about. SB8 has no teeth unless courts adjudicate the civil suits initiated by the anti-abortion public. So, willingly or not, court officials have been co-opted in a scheme based on an unconstitutional statute. This ruling is insane. So as long as enforcement is limited to private citizens who can sue in state courts, a state can nullify a constitutionally-protected right? Well, if there’s no supremacy in the Supreme Court’s decisions on supposedly settled law like Roe, then maybe a state can pass a law that deputizes private citizens to sue anyone they see buying a gun and collect at least $10,000 in damages. Goose, gander, all that. I'm ready for us to start suing people who don't properly secure their guns that lead to injury or death. Some parents from the school in Michigan are suing the school for failure to act after the shooting. Our supreme court is not functioning at all. GOP got what they wanted: a politically loaded finger on the legal scales weighing whichever way they want.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 3:31:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2021 19:46:53 GMT
"That SB8 has been allowed to take effect – now for the second time – by the supreme court reflects the justices’ eagerness to gut abortion rights. The fact of the matter is that the court is already set to overturn Roe and allow states to ban abortion outright. That much was clear to anyone who listened to last week’s oral arguments in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health, a case surrounding the constitutionality of a 15-week ban in Mississippi, which devolved into grim misogynist spectacle as the Republican appointees held court on the supposed ease of giving infants up for adoption and their own robust comfort with overturning long-settled precedent. That ruling is scheduled to come down in late May or early June. When it does, a slim majority of states are expected to ban abortion, either immediately or very soon thereafter. That means that soon SB8 – and the copycat bills that it has inspired in states like Florida and Arkansas – won’t be necessary for the anti-choice lobby to achieve their aims. Instead of concocting an elaborate enforcement process in which rogue anti-woman vigilantes enforce their abortion bans, the states will be able to enforce their bans themselves. SB8, then, and the supreme court’s embrace of it, can be understood not only as a harbinger of the justices’ deep contempt for the abortion right, but also of their childish impatience to exert this contempt upon American women. They can’t even wait six months. They want to ban abortion right now. In pursuit of this goal, the supreme court has proven itself willing to undermine its own capacity to oversee state laws, to enforce federal supremacy, and to protect constitutional rights." www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/11/supreme-court-abortion-ruling-unsettlingRoberts' reputation as the chief justice of a court that respects precedent is OVER.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Dec 11, 2021 20:20:50 GMT
What’s the point of a Supreme Court then? Their primary function is to say what the law is. This SC is abrogating its own authority! By allowing some rogue state to fashion an end-run on federal judicial review—and once again, based on an unconstitutional statute—and essentially bless it (!), what do the supremes think will happen to their legitimacy? Roberts: "The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake."
Might as well ignore the lot of them and whatever future rulings they make.
Roe and Casey didn’t apply to just half of this country; pre-viability abortion is a federal constitutional right. Unless we’re in some sort of alternate universe, there is such a thing as federal supremacy…it’s in the Constitution. Just because states are sovereign does not mean they are free from judicial review when their laws conflict with federal. If the SC’s opinion is, sure, Texas, go for it…then what will stop red states to just go full-on rogue and legislate laws against same-sex marriage, contraceptives, interracial marriage, etc as long as they're clever with the enforcement portion? What the heck, why stop there? Might as well bring back segregation. Invalidate Obergefell, Griswold, Windsor, Loving, Brown, etc. Then blue states can retaliate by invalidating Heller, Hobby Lobby, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Shelby, Citizens United, etc.
Chaos and anarchy? I think that’s what Sotomayor is warning against: "The dispute is over whether States may nullify federal constitutional rights by employing schemes like the one at hand. The Court indicates that they can, so long as they write their laws to more thoroughly disclaim all enforcement by state officials, including licensing officials. This choice to shrink from Texas’ challenge to federal supremacy will have far-reaching repercussions. I doubt the Court, let alone the country, is prepared for them."
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Dec 12, 2021 3:23:53 GMT
If the Supreme Court doesn’t strike down the Texas law they may have opened a can of worms.
|
|
casii
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,466
Jun 29, 2014 14:40:44 GMT
|
Post by casii on Dec 12, 2021 13:19:28 GMT
If the Supreme Court doesn’t strike down the Texas law they may have opened a can of worms. He's playing some 3D chess. About damn time. The Supreme Court opened the door to this.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 15, 2021 16:26:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Dec 15, 2021 16:53:24 GMT
Given that the majority of women who have abortions already have children, one thing I really think about is not just the effect on women who place babies fo adoption (which is heartbreaking and traumatic enough), but also the effect on the kids they already have. Can you imagine watching your mom go through nine months of pregnancy and then leave your baby sibling at a fire station? (Or place them more traditionally for adoption, I am being facetious based on the justice’s callous remark).
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Dec 15, 2021 18:32:10 GMT
That wouldn’t have mattered a whit to her or any of the conservative justices. She shares the same fierce antipathy toward reproductive rights as her conservative cohorts. It seems that as far as she’s concerned, what she decided for herself personally ought to be universal. She’s someone who’s had several children and is aware many women don’t even know they’re pregnant at six weeks (I didn’t), and yet assented to the foreclosure of choice at that ridiculously early stage. A woman who enjoyed the right to choose what she deemed best for her life, her family’s life and her career, free to exercise privileges upheld by the same court she now sits on, unmolested by punitive laws. Yet she used her power to deny that choice to other women. Someone like that wouldn't care about the desperation or hardship other women may go through.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 16, 2021 4:56:58 GMT
|
|