Breaking: SCOTUS strikes down Texas abortion restriction

[dawp]

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).

I think that depend on if and how badly the gop loses in the senate. if the dems get 60+ seats, screw them and nominate the most liberal judges you can find.

 

[jackstar7]

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

This is a weird point.

Is objectivity a virtue?

 

[bshole]

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?

There is a significant divide in the liberal camp on this. There is minority of liberals (myself being one) who oppose importing muslim people from failed radical regions of the world. I am perplexed by liberals who support allowing in deeply religious fundamentalists who oppose western Secularism. These people and Christian fundamentalists are very closely similar. Neither group will do anything other than impede civilizational/secientific advancement.

Think about this. 1st or 2nd generation muslims represent FAR less than 1% of the American population and yet represent a significant or perhaps majority percentage of deaths in terrorist incidents on American soil. That is a scathing indictment of our immigration policy.

 

[Blackjack200]

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).

I get the sentiment, but I think if HRC is elected, Garland will be confirmed.

Even if HRC wanted to do that, I don't think Garland would withdraw his name, and the Senate could simply confirm him before Clinton takes office.

 

[PokerGuy]

How exactly is a background check even remotely similar? Does it force gun dealers to conform to some ridiculous standard that would cost a lot of money to implement? Does it force buyers to drive hundreds of miles to buy a gun? Does it have next to zero chance of having an impact on making sure the wrong people don't have access to guns?

So please explain how they are similar.

First, note that I didn't list background checks as an example of a similar end-run around the constitution. Most people don't have a problem with just a background check -- provided it doesn't impose onerous burdens and doesn't become a mechanism for building a buyer database. I also don't think it would have any impact whatsoever on keeping guns out of the hands of "the wrong people", because "the wrong people" can get them any number of ways very easily. That's neither here nor there, I don't see that particular one as an end-run. I was referring more to trying to impose taxes on ammo to make it expensive, impose expensive and onerous registration fees and requirements.

The point is, there are constitutional rights that we like, and there are ones we don't like. I'm 100% opposed to shenanigans that in essence try to ban/restrict some constitutionally protected right that can't be directly banned/restricted, regardless if it's something I like or don't like. If something should not be allowed, then amend the constitution, don't come up with stupid barriers to try and prevent people from doing something they can do according to the constitution. These admitting rights laws were exactly that: an attempt to stop abortions without directly banning abortions. :thumbsdown:

 

[bshole]

The point is, there are constitutional rights that we like, and there are ones we don't like. I'm 100% opposed to shenanigans that in essence try to ban/restrict some constitutionally protected right that can't be directly banned/restricted, regardless if it's something I like or don't like. If something should not be allowed, then amend the constitution, don't come up with stupid barriers to try and prevent people from doing something they can do according to the constitution. These admitting rights laws were exactly that: an attempt to stop abortions without directly banning abortions. :thumbsdown:

Best post you ever made. Grats...

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

Mere conflation & obfuscation under a mountain of other gripes.

The rights of a woman wrt to abortion cannot be abrogated by State govt. Period. Per interpretation of the Constitution by the SCOTUS & upheld many times. That is what Texas law attempted to do in an utterly dishonest way & that's why it was struck down.

 

[Artdeco]

Those laws were some end run bullshit, glad the court ruled on it

 

[glenn1]

Mere conflation & obfuscation under a mountain of other gripes.

The rights of a woman wrt to abortion cannot be abrogated by State govt. Period. Per interpretation of the Constitution by the SCOTUS & upheld many times. That is what Texas law attempted to do in an utterly dishonest way & that's why it was struck down.

Why don't you just make the shorter and more accurate statement: "I want my state to be able to restrict firearms but other states not able to restrict abortion." I can at least respect someone who is honest about their partisan hypocrisy.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why don't you just make the shorter and more accurate statement: "I want my state to be able to restrict firearms but other states not able to restrict abortion." I can at least respect someone who is honest about their partisan hypocrisy.

Why don't you just stay on topic?

 

[glenn1]

Why don't you just stay on topic?

Oh right, the topic of how states harass those who exercise their rights. As I posted in the other thread Texas ought to adopt as its next step the keeping a database of everyone who gets an abortion in the state. Just for the lulz and since it's legal and all.

 

[Balt]

I get the sentiment, but I think if HRC is elected, Garland will be confirmed.

Even if HRC wanted to do that, I don't think Garland would withdraw his name, and the Senate could simply confirm him before Clinton takes office.

I believe McConnell is on record as saying the Senate won't consider Garland while Obama is still president even if Hillary gets elected, but we'll see if he wants to change his tune in November.

 

[Blackjack200]

I believe McConnell is on record as saying the Senate won't consider Garland while Obama is still president even if Hillary gets elected, but we'll see if he wants to change his tune in November.

I don't remember him saying that, but it wouldn't surprise me. Their justification for refusing to vote is to allow the next president to have a say. If they confirm him after HRC is elected but before she takes office, it becomes naked partisanship.

 

[buckshot24]

It is sad that religious nuts would try to backdoor Roe V Wade like this. The dishonesty in their tactics tell us much about the moral fiber of rabid followers of Christianity.

Meat machine, what do you know about morality? Is dishonesty wrong?

 

[sandorski]

Oh right, the topic of how states harass those who exercise their rights. As I posted in the other thread Texas ought to adopt as its next step the keeping a database of everyone who gets an abortion in the state. Just for the lulz and since it's legal and all.

There is one huge difference between Abortion Rights and Gun Rights: 1 involves a persons own Body, the other the possession of an Object. I think it's pretty obvious, or should be, which should be considered more important.

 

[Moonbeam]

Meat machine, what do you know about morality? Is dishonesty wrong?

It takes a meat machine to ask a binary question the answer to which depends depends on context.

 

[buckshot24]

It takes a meat machine to ask a binary question the answer to which depends depends on context.

I'm not a meat machine, bshole thinks he is. He then talks as if his moral opinion is worth more than his preference in cookie flavors.

 

[sandorski]

Meat machine, what do you know about morality? Is dishonesty wrong?

For your edification

 

[Balt]

Looking at/listening to the transcript from oral arguments back in March, Justice Breyer straight-up murdered Texas' Solicitor General Scott Keller:

JUSTICE BREYER: I'd like to go back to the -- the question
2 that Justice Ginsburg was asking, which is about what is
3 the benefit of this procedure.
4 There are two laws. I am focusing on the
5 first law. The first law says that a doctor at the
6 abortion clinic must have admitting privileges in a
7 hospital 30 miles within that -- nearby, right?
8 MR. KELLER: Correct.
9 JUSTICE BREYER: Okay. Prior to that law,
10 the law was that the clinic had to have a working
11 arrangement to transfer such a patient, correct? I'm
12 just reading it from this.
13 MR. KELLER: That's correct.
14 JUSTICE BREYER: Okay. So I want to know,
15 go back in time to the period before the new law was
16 passed, where in the record will I find evidence of
17 women who had complications, who could not get to a
18 hospital, even though there was a working arrangement
19 for admission, but now they could get to a hospital
20 because the doctor himself has to have admitting
21 privileges? Which were the women? On what page does it
22 tell me their names, what the complications were, and
23 why that happened?
24 MR. KELLER: Justice Breyer, that is not in
25 the record.

 

[sandorski]

I'm not a meat machine, bshole thinks he is. He then talks as if his moral opinion is worth more than his preference in cookie flavors.

Whether we are "Meat Machines", he believes we are, and you don't believe we are, we are all the same species, we all have the same basic functionality, and we all have the same basic flaws. Your continued belaboring of this point is just plain stupid.

 

[buckshot24]

Whether we are "Meat Machines", he believes we are, and you don't believe we are, we are all the same species, we all have the same basic functionality, and we all have the same basic flaws. Your continued belaboring of this point is just plain stupid.

His elevation of his moral opinions are just plain stupid.

 

[zinfamous]

Oh, a wild buckshot appears. Thread suffers critical hit!

 

[sandorski]

His elevation of his moral opinions are just plain stupid.

At least he backs them up with some form of substance. That's more than you attempt.

 

[buckshot24]

At least he backs them up with some form of substance. That's more than you attempt.

His assertions aren't any form of substance.

 

[buckshot24]

There is one huge difference between Abortion Rights and Gun Rights: 1 involves a persons own Body, the other the possession of an Object. I think it's pretty obvious, or should be, which should be considered more important.

One is plainly enumerated in the constitution as well.