• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What The Texas Abortion Ban Does And What It Means For Other States

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Greenman said:
The reason that won't work is that owning guns is a specific right, abortion isn't.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. It will greatly reinforce the narrative this SCOTUS is completely partisan which we already know is true.

They will shoot it down and the outrage will grow. Put some pressure on those fucks for future rulings and raise the possibly for packing the court.
 
HomerJS said:
Doesn't matter. It will greatly reinforce the narrative this SCOTUS is completely partisan which we already know is true.

They will shoot it down and the outrage will grow. Put some pressure on those fucks for future rulings and raise the possibly for packing the court.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make any sense at all. How does forcing the court to do exactly what they should do put pressure on them?
The bounty part of the Texas law will be stopped because the plaintiffs will have no standing.
If the people of Texas have any brains at all the clowns that enacted the this law will be voted out. I don't expect that to happen because agenda always trumps common sense.
 
Greenman said:
That doesn't make any sense at all. How does forcing the court to do exactly what they should do put pressure on them?
The bounty part of the Texas law will be stopped because the plaintiffs will have no standing.
If the people of Texas have any brains at all the clowns that enacted the this law will be voted out. I don't expect that to happen because agenda always trumps common sense.
Click to expand...
Preach over and over again the courts blocked laws restricting guns but not laws restricting abortion.

I understand your point but we talking facts vs politics which Trump has set the standard they are not the same. You need a talking point that can be drilled into the heads of people and this would be an easy one.
 
Greenman said:
The reason that won't work is that owning guns is a specific right, abortion isn't.
Click to expand...
Yeah I disagree. You have a right to bear arms. What arms means is debatable. Over the years we've come to generally accept this means guns but we also know you can't walk down the street with a bazooka or a tank or grenades. Some states don't even let you walk down the street with swords. You'd have to take that to court and probably would lose .

Every citizen has the right to equal protection under the law and due process and against illegal seizure. These basic tenets in the bill of rights form the basics of abortion rights. These basic tenets support lots of things in american society (for example miranda rights, a fairly recent development in US history is now considered hard coded into our society) but they also support the ability of a woman to get an abortion.

Gun ownership is no more a specific right than say miranda rights or abortion rights or all the nuances with voting rights. The constitution is broad in its language and courts get to generally interpret the details.
 
Greenman said:
The reason that won't work is that owning guns is a specific right, abortion isn't.
Click to expand...

I disagree, it is not the right to have an abortion that this law tramples, nor would it be the right to bear arms, this law, as applied to either, tramples on a different right altogether, the right to privacy, which is a declared right and in large part of what the Row v Wade is based on.
 
I am surprised nobody has posted this yet about what grounds Texas argued in court (appeals) on the abortion ban (read it, it will blow your mind):

www.rollingstone.com

Supreme Court Rulings Are Just 'Opinions,' Texas Argues in Defense of Abortion Ban

Lawyers representing Texas argued that states can ignore the Supreme Court's rulings and interpret the Constitution as they see fit.
www.rollingstone.com www.rollingstone.com


It appears the appeals court agreed as they ruled to keep the abortion ban:


www.politico.com

Appeals court keeps Texas abortion law in place

The new decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extends a previous order that for now keeps in place the Texas law known as Senate Bill 8.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
www.reuters.com

U.S. appeals court rules to keep Texas abortion ban in effect

A U.S. appeals court on Thursday refused a petition by the U.S. Department of Justice to put on hold Texas's restrictive abortion law, which bars the procedure as early as six weeks into pregnancy.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
NWRMidnight said:
I am surprised nobody has posted this yet about what grounds Texas argued in court (appeals) on the abortion ban (read it, it will blow your mind):

www.rollingstone.com

Supreme Court Rulings Are Just 'Opinions,' Texas Argues in Defense of Abortion Ban

Lawyers representing Texas argued that states can ignore the Supreme Court's rulings and interpret the Constitution as they see fit.
www.rollingstone.com www.rollingstone.com


It appears the appeals court agreed as they ruled to keep the abortion ban:


www.politico.com

Appeals court keeps Texas abortion law in place

The new decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extends a previous order that for now keeps in place the Texas law known as Senate Bill 8.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
www.reuters.com

U.S. appeals court rules to keep Texas abortion ban in effect

A U.S. appeals court on Thursday refused a petition by the U.S. Department of Justice to put on hold Texas's restrictive abortion law, which bars the procedure as early as six weeks into pregnancy.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
Click to expand...

That should make the USSC happy, this is a lower court questing the authority of the USSC to rule on what is Constitutional.

Hey, everyone, this court thinks that the US Constitution is invalid.

What do we call people like these again?

For those in the back of the class that may have a hard time hearing, were absent, or were distracted in some other way.
 
It seems like the ruling was regarding keeping the law in place whilst the case proceeds. However usually these rulings tell you how the court will eventually rule because if they don't find a problem now, its unlikely they'll find problems with additional evidence provided. Very concerning indeed.
 
DarthKyrie said:
That should make the USSC happy, this is a lower court questing the authority of the USSC to rule on what is Constitutional.

Hey, everyone, this court thinks that the US Constitution is invalid.

What do we call people like these again?

For those in the back of the class that may have a hard time hearing, were absent, or were distracted in some other way.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately we call them employed for life with no real ability to fire them.
 
On another note, why can't Biden add members to the fifth circuit to uncrazy it? I mean why do we talk about courtpacking just with the SCOTUS?
 
Sunburn74 said:
On another note, why can't Biden add members to the fifth circuit to uncrazy it? I mean why do we talk about courtpacking just with the SCOTUS?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing no empty spots ATM.

In general the court system needs to expand, but that can't happen because the courts are seen as a political tool.
 
Sunburn74 said:
It seems like the ruling was regarding keeping the law in place whilst the case proceeds. However usually these rulings tell you how the court will eventually rule because if they don't find a problem now, its unlikely they'll find problems with additional evidence provided. Very concerning indeed.
Click to expand...
that was the original temporary of reinstating the law after the 1st judge blocked it. This one was the final ruling, rejecting the Biden's administrations position. Which means they agreed with Texas's defense. (did you read it?) Appeals don't get to punt to the SCOTUS. That isn't how it works. The final appeals ruling, has caused the Biden Administration to go to the SCOTUS and ask them to hear the case.
 
NWRMidnight said:
that was the original temporary of reinstating the law after the 1st judge blocked it. This one was the final ruling, rejecting the Biden's administrations position. Which means they agreed with Texas's defense. (did you read it?) Appeals don't get to punt to the SCOTUS. That isn't how it works. The final appeals ruling, has caused the Biden Administration to go to the SCOTUS and ask them to hear the case.
Click to expand...
Wow is all I can say
 
SCOTUS once again affirms it's going to scuttle Roe Vs. Wade. They have once again refused to block the Texas law and will not review until Nov. 1. Soto Mayer is pissed. No link yet.

There is a silver lining to this. If the SCOTUS goes ahead and throws R V W out, Dems will win back majority in the Senate, maintain the HOR, and president. My bet.
 
The
hal2kilo said:
SCOTUS once again affirms it's going to scuttle Roe Vs. Wade. They have once again refused to block the Texas law and will not review until Nov. 1. Soto Mayer is pissed. No link yet.

There is a silver lining to this. If the SCOTUS goes ahead and throws R V W out, Dems will win back majority in the Senate, maintain the HOR, and president. My bet.
Click to expand...
The willingness to destroy abortion rights aside it is really a testament to how partisan and lawless the Supreme Court has become where they are perfectly content to watch states brazenly pass unconstitutional laws and then attempt to undermine the principle of judicial review because they like the outcome.

Packing the court is the only way to reign in a branch that’s totally out of control.
 
hal2kilo said:
SCOTUS once again affirms it's going to scuttle Roe Vs. Wade. They have once again refused to block the Texas law and will not review until Nov. 1. Soto Mayer is pissed. No link yet.
Click to expand...
SCOTUSblog is the go to resource for in-depth reporting on Supreme Court cases.
www.scotusblog.com

Court won't block Texas abortion ban but fast-tracks cases for argument on Nov. 1

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Nov. 1 in a pair of cases challenging the Texas law that bans nearly all abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy. […]
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com
They've basically limited the case to whether US has standing. Sotomayor's scathing dissent included in ruling:

"I cannot capture the totality of this harm in these pages. But as these excerpts illustrate, the State (empowered by this Court’s inaction) has so thoroughly chilled the exercise of the right recognized in Roe as to nearly suspend it within its borders and strain access to it in other States. The State’s gambit has worked. The impact is catastrophic"... The court thus found that S. B. 8 has prohibited as many as 95% of abortions previously provided in the State.
 
hal2kilo said:
There is a silver lining to this. If the SCOTUS goes ahead and throws R V W out, Dems will win back majority in the Senate, maintain the HOR, and president. My bet.
Click to expand...
Nope. The right lockstep votes based on abortion. The left and center vote on economic issues. Banning abortion won't get the left and center to the polls.
 
ivwshane said:
Sounds like similar laws can be passed to remove all guns from a state or whatever else they left wants to do.
Click to expand...
And the right can put cash bounties on people of color presuming to vote, or anyone assisting them to get to the polls, much more direct than the current indirect harassments. But first they'll probably put cash bounties on anyone teaching or publishing any works on so-called "CRT", which to the right means anyone mentioning the history or existence of slavery or racism in the US. After the rest of the South follows Texas example on stomping all over Roe of course, which is already in progress in multiple states.
 
Dave_5k said:
And the right can put cash bounties on people of color presuming to vote, or anyone assisting them to get to the polls, much more direct than the current indirect harassments. But first they'll probably put cash bounties on anyone teaching or publishing any works on so-called "CRT", which to the right means anyone mentioning the history or existence of slavery or racism in the US. After the rest of the South follows Texas example on stomping all over Roe of course, which is already in progress in multiple states.
Click to expand...
It’s essentially a recipe for anarchy - anything unconstitutional you want to do you just farm out to a cash bounty system.

I do expect them to eventually invalidate the bounty provision due to the pure chaos it will cause but the fact that they’ve let it exist at all speaks volumes to their lack of commitment to the rule of law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top