Breaking: SCOTUS strikes down Texas abortion restriction

[glenn1]

I've been pointing out these type of end-run round laws for years and maybe once I've had someone on the right say if was wrong. So how about you start calling foul on "your team" first before you cry foul about an imaginary situation that hasn't happened?

I have repeatedly, you can check my history of posts here. No matter what the restriction my position is always the same, regardless of whether the restriction in question is abortions, firearms, large containers of soda, or pretty much anything else you can think of. Quite simply I oppose any restrictions on these things absent overwhelmingly clear government interest in doing so. That being said, if you live in a state whose voters want to live in a state that passes stupid laws because that's the way the citizens of your state want to live (as expressed at the ballot box) I likewise think you should have the right to do so. It's something I would vigorously oppose in my state but if you want to live around likeminded idiots and let the nation's people self-sort into their own little perfect worlds that effectively outlaw things that they dislike then have at it.

 

[sontakke]

How come Justice Roberts joined the crazy train on this one? I am very impressed with Blackjack's ability to guess the three dissenting ones.

 

[Jhhnn]

I have repeatedly, you can check my history of posts here. No matter what the restriction my position is always the same, regardless of whether the restriction in question is abortions, firearms, large containers of soda, or pretty much anything else you can think of. Quite simply I oppose any restrictions on these things absent overwhelmingly clear government interest in doing so. That being said, if you live in a state whose voters want to live in a state that passes stupid laws because that's the way the citizens of your state want to live (as expressed at the ballot box) I likewise think you should have the right to do so. It's something I would vigorously oppose in my state but if you want to live around likeminded idiots and let the nation's people self-sort into their own little perfect worlds that effectively outlaw things that they dislike then have at it.

You obviously don't realize that kind of thinking supported Jim Crow for 100 years. This is really no different.

 

[bshole]

I have repeatedly, you can check my history of posts here. No matter what the restriction my position is always the same, regardless of whether the restriction in question is abortions, firearms, large containers of soda, or pretty much anything else you can think of. Quite simply I oppose any restrictions on these things absent overwhelmingly clear government interest in doing so. That being said, if you live in a state whose voters want to live in a state that passes stupid laws because that's the way the citizens of your state want to live (as expressed at the ballot box) I likewise think you should have the right to do so. It's something I would vigorously oppose in my state but if you want to live around likeminded idiots and let the nation's people self-sort into their own little perfect worlds that effectively outlaw things that they dislike then have at it.

I disagree. For example, if your state votes to re-implement slavery, the federal government should intervene. States should be free to enact laws that do not run afoul of federal law. Texas did an unconstitutional thing here. They attacked a federally guaranteed freedom. This type of behavior should be prohibited. We can never allow any state to revert voluntarily to the dark ages. If Texans really want theocracy, there is an entire civilization in the Middle East that fits the bill. They can live there if that is the type of government they desire. If they want to live in a first world country, they should learn to accept Western secularism. The rank disgusting and unethical actions taken by Christians in this move are beyond the pale. They have exposed that there is NO correlation between religion and correct moral behavior (unless it is in the inverse).

 

[Blackjack200]

How come Justice Roberts joined the crazy train on this one? I am very impressed with Blackjack's ability to guess the three dissenting ones.

If you go back to the Gay Marriage ruling, Roberts asked some questions that strongly suggested that he would support the eventual majority opinion. In fact, it was a pretty straightforward equal protection case, it should have been 9-0 on that alone. But Roberts doesn't seem to want to allow lopsided decisions on these culture war cases. I suspect he dissented with the majority in the gay marriage case for the same reason he's dissenting here, to provide some comfort to the pro-lifers so they don't feel totally abandoned by the SCOTUS.

 

[glenn1]

You obviously don't realize that kind of thinking supported Jim Crow for 100 years. This is really no different.

Yeah, it actually is different. Jim Crow represented a 14th amendment right violation that targeted a specific group of people. Restrictions on large sodas or firearms don't target specific groups and impact everyone roughly equally; I presume the basis for them wasn't primarily to deny <insert specific target group here, e.g. blacks, etc> from getting their Big Gulp fix. Even abortion restrictions where the ostensible customer is female the father typically has quite a vested interest in these restrictions as well so they're likewise broad based (but still stupid).

One could even make the (historically correct) argument against many of these restrictions being based primarily upon racial animus or other bigotry - for example, blacks were particularly targeted to restrict their firearm ownership and encourage them to get abortions for eugenics reasons. That doesn't mean that Texas is looking to restrict abortion for racist reasons, or that Chicago is looking to restrict firearms now for racist reasons (although fear of the "super predators who need to be brought to heel" is lurking in the background) but it's a consideration.

 

[bshole]

Yeah, it actually is different. Jim Crow represented a 14th amendment right violation that targeted a specific group of people.

Yeah right. And the Texas law didn't specifically target a group of people? I'll give you a hint here.... poor pregnant people. Christians have a remarkable consistency in only attacking only the most vulnerable in society.

 

[Atreus21]

Christians have a remarkable consistency in only attacking only the most vulnerable in society.

Uh, yeah. Complete bullshit.

 

[glenn1]

Yeah right. And the Texas law didn't specifically target a group of people? I'll give you a hint here.... poor pregnant people. Christians have a remarkable consistency in only attacking only the most vulnerable in society.

So I return to my original statement - are you inconsistently supporting the similar targeting of poor pregnant people when it comes to restricting their ability to get a firearm, drink large sodas, or other nanny state laws? Seems odd that you would only determine whether to support the "most vulnerable" once you knew if it was a right you supported them exercising (or not).

 

[IronWing]

Anyone in a remotely civilized part of the country has easy inexpensive access to contraception.

So you're completely full of it.

We're talking about Texas here.

 

[IEC]

Yeah right. And the Texas law didn't specifically target a group of people? I'll give you a hint here.... poor pregnant people. Christians have a remarkable consistency in only attacking only the most vulnerable in society.

That you even believe that to be true speaks volumes about your lack of objectivity.

 

[Atreus21]

We're talking about Texas here.

Which is plenty civilized, but I still laughed.

 

[glenn1]

That you even believe that to be true speaks volumes about your lack of objectivity.

He lives somewhere that seems fine with targeting the poor otherwise. Hell, when PBS and The Atlantic ask "Why is Milwaukee so bad for black people" you should probably tone down the whole "you're just racist" thing and get your own shit squared away.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/why-is-milwaukee-so-bad-for-black-people/

http://www.citylab.com/crime/2015/1...t-place-to-live-for-african-americans/413218/

 

[Thump553]

We're talking about Texas here.

It's not just Texas-damn near every state with a GOP fundamentalist government has passed nearly identical statutes.

I always get a kick out of the hypocrisy of anti-big government politicians trying to outlaw abortion by burying it with overly restrictive rules and regulations. This thread even doubled my pleasure, with the gun nut chiming in that ANY sort of gun restriction would be the same situation.

Now if only the Supreme Court would buckle down on the shameless attempts to legally burden voting rights for no proven valid reason they would go a ways towards regaining some respect.

 

[Balt]

The correct decision. It's a shame that three (undoubtedly four if Scalia was still alive) justices dissented. This was an obvious and pathetic attempt to get around Roe v. Wade, and everyone knows it.

 

[Blackjack200]

Waiting for HRC to get elected and Kennedy and RBG to retire so she can nominate Garland and two other reasonable justices. SCOTUS golden age right there.

Oh, the tears and 6-3 decisions will rain down...

 

[Balt]

Waiting for HRC to get elected and Kennedy and RBG to retire so she can nominate Garland and two other reasonable justices. SCOTUS golden age right there.

Oh, the tears and 6-3 decisions will rain down...

Has she committed to (re)nominating Garland? If I were in her position I think I'd kindly suggest to him in private that he should withdraw his name after she wins the election. Then I'd nominate someone a bit to his left as punishment for the Republicans' obstructionism (obviously she shouldn't go crazy and nominate an ultra-liberal since the nominee still has to make it through Senate confirmation).

 

[bshole]

Waiting for HRC to get elected and Kennedy and RBG to retire so she can nominate Garland and two other reasonable justices. SCOTUS golden age right there.

Oh, the tears and 6-3 decisions will rain down...

With so much on the line and such a weak candidate on the Democrat side, it staggers the mind that this what the Republicans came up with..... TRUMP. A large percentage of their members must be functionally retarded, there can be no other explanation. They will now reap what they have a sown..... a progressive court for DECADES.

Ironically a progressive court will probably end up doing Republicans good over time... Progressivism generally benefits everybody in the long run, just as conservatism harms everybody in the long run.

 

[JockoJohnson]

And it would decrease even more if access to contraception was expanded. But of course, it's not about that. It's about slut shaming, so that's not really on the table.

Did you mean to say "free access"? Because as far as I am aware, there are no restrictions on contraception. People might be too cheap to pay for condoms, the pill, etc. Why should anybody be responsible for their actions when gov't will step in to make things right?

 

[Paratus]

It's not just Texas-damn near every state with a GOP fundamentalist government has passed nearly identical statutes.

I always get a kick out of the hypocrisy of anti-big government politicians trying to outlaw abortion by burying it with overly restrictive rules and regulations. This thread even doubled my pleasure, with the gun nut chiming in that ANY sort of gun restriction would be the same situation.

Now if only the Supreme Court would buckle down on the shameless attempts to legally burden voting rights for no proven valid reason they would go a ways towards regaining some respect.

Maybe it would be the same if gunshop owners were required to:

• keep a gunsmith on hand at all times
• have an attached shooting range for handguns and rifles - minimum 500yard range
• tell potential buyers about the dangers of extended clips and fully automatic fire rates

Until then it's just BS.

 

[1prophet]

I disagree. For example, if your state votes to re-implement slavery, the federal government should intervene. States should be free to enact laws that do not run afoul of federal law. Texas did an unconstitutional thing here. They attacked a federally guaranteed freedom. This type of behavior should be prohibited. We can never allow any state to revert voluntarily to the dark ages. If Texans really want theocracy, there is an entire civilization in the Middle East that fits the bill. They can live there if that is the type of government they desire. If they want to live in a first world country, they should learn to accept Western secularism. The rank disgusting and unethical actions taken by Christians in this move are beyond the pale. They have exposed that there is NO correlation between religion and correct moral behavior (unless it is in the inverse).

Good answer, but one question why do all these so called liberals want to import 10 to 100' of thousands of these religious right types whom the Saudi's will be more than happy to build mosques for along with a "secular tolerant imam" to go with it?

 

[JockoJohnson]

I've been pointing out these type of end-run round laws for years and maybe once I've had someone on the right say if was wrong. So how about you start calling foul on "your team" first before you cry foul about an imaginary situation that hasn't happened?

This was the correct decision and sadly the majority should have been bigger. But then again, I don't usually lean right on every issue. The religious definitely need to have less influence with laws and gov't. I am fine with giving them their space to gather, pray and worship. But they shouldn't have the right to have their beliefs start interfering with public policy.

 

[zinfamous]

Holy shit, a straw family was just murdered so you can attempt to defend your hackery.

so true. That was the most bizarre off the farm straw-o-rama that I have seen in P&N.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Good answer, but one question why do all these so called liberals want to import 10 to 100' of thousands of these religious right types whom the Saudi's will be more than happy to build mosques for along with a "secular tolerant imam" to go with it?

I am sure it is not just liberals. Each may have their own reasons but none of them seem to be in the best interest of Americans.

 

[Subyman]

Glad to hear this ruling. Some of the victims of these backward restrictions had horrible stories. The most affected were young girls. One that I heard was in her mid teens and a victim of rape but was too poor to make the trip. So sad.