• 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 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
K1052 said:
If I may be permitted a lens into one possible future:

Sacramento (AP) - California lawmakers today passed a bill creating a $50,000 bounty for successful lawsuits against the unvaccinated utilizing public spaces. The unvaccinated may be sued by any person in the state without having to prove injury. It has been reported that hundreds of people are traveling to rural areas in the state in anticipation of capitalizing on the law.
Click to expand...
Let's see SCOTUS deal with this one. If California instituted vaccine bracelets unvaxed would be easier to identify.
 
HomerJS said:
Let's see SCOTUS deal with this one. If California instituted vaccine bracelets unvaxed would be easier to identify.
Click to expand...
Why should the vaccinated have to keep up with a bracelet? That's not fair.

They should go door to door and mark the unvaccinated with a Sharpie marker on their foreheads so it's permanent and difficult to obscure.
 
Scarpozzi said:
Why should the vaccinated have to keep up with a bracelet? That's not fair.

They should go door to door and mark the unvaccinated with a Sharpie marker on their foreheads so it's permanent and difficult to obscure.
Click to expand...
This is what promoting vigilantism brings
 
It seems to me this shenanigans the Texas Repubs are pulling has much more to do with rallying their supporters around an imaginary national flag they've stitched together for themselves that looks exactly like a patchwork of smoldering single issue talking points that they want to fan into flames rather than fighting for any moral/ethical/religious value they half-assed swore to before Trump showed up.
 
I picture Mitch McConnell hunched over rolling palms over fists whispering to himself "Yes, yes my plan to own the Supreme Court is bearing fruit much sooner than I had hoped for. Now onward we must go with the court firmly in hand to ensure that the corporate takeover of America is firmly chiseled into the laws of the land."
 
Commodus said:
Maybe (cc @Brainonska511 ). But we've also seen this SCOTUS rule in ways conservatives didn't expect, and even the die-hards on the bench might have to object given the shaky ground here.
Click to expand...
That they allowed a law to go into effect that clearly conflicts with previous precedent speaks volumes. I fully expect them to fully punt Roe to the states and allow shit like this to stand at this point.
 
Commodus said:
To be clear, the Supreme Court didn't agree to an emergency block on the law. It still has the power to strike down the law through its usual channels, and it just might even with the stacked court.
Click to expand...

Between now and when SCOUTS decides on this lawsuits based on this law will be filed and probably decided. If they then decide that the law is unconstitutional what happens to those already completed lawsuits? That is why courts normally give injunctive relief if they think it is possible that they might declare a law unconstitutional, because otherwise it will cause harm to people that is hard or impossible to correct.

Overall not giving injunctive relief strongly suggests that the court has already basically made it's decision, and it is going to let the law stand.


I can't help but think the SCOTUS will be using this as optics. Skip the emergency block as a wink-wink-nudge-nudge to conservatives, but strike it down upon a formal challenge.
Click to expand...

This will cause real harm. To people. To businesses. To our country. If SCOTUS is using peoples lives as a political barometer, playing politics with the law to see how much they can get away with before we riot, then I don't know what to say. It truly is time for a revolution. Stack the court. Impeach the sitting Justices. Burn the Constitution and start over if we have to. It is rotten to the point of no recovery.


kage69 said:
Your contempt for liberty and women in particular is going to come back and hit you assholes like a bus.
Click to expand...

If you really think this will hurt the Politicians in Texas, well then you don't know Texas. There will probably be parades in their honor.
 
Brainonska511 said:
Sure, eventually the public will notice when their house is on fire. But the level of discourse still seems to be centered on blaming Democrats for not doing enough to put out the fire, instead of holding the arsonists to account.


With this court, I think that is hopelessly optimistic.
Click to expand...
And then recalling the ones that tried to put out the fire for using too much water.
 
Zorba said:
And then recalling the ones that tried to put out the fire for using too much water.
Click to expand...
Yep - lots of nihilism and fatalism when it comes to getting more liberal people to consistently show up and vote for the Democratic Party.

On a side note, the recall mechanisms are pretty ridiculous end-runs around democracy. You don't need this mechanism when the next election is around the corner.
 
SMOGZINN said:
Between now and when SCOUTS decides on this lawsuits based on this law will be filed and probably decided. If they then decide that the law is unconstitutional what happens to those already completed lawsuits? That is why courts normally give injunctive relief if they think it is possible that they might declare a law unconstitutional, because otherwise it will cause harm to people that is hard or impossible to correct.

Overall not giving injunctive relief strongly suggests that the court has already basically made it's decision, and it is going to let the law stand.

This will cause real harm. To people. To businesses. To our country. If SCOTUS is using peoples lives as a political barometer, playing politics with the law to see how much they can get away with before we riot, then I don't know what to say. It truly is time for a revolution. Stack the court. Impeach the sitting Justices. Burn the Constitution and start over if we have to. It is rotten to the point of no recovery.
Click to expand...

Again, it's a maybe. You're certainly right about what a lack of injunctive relief typically suggests, but it's hard not to think about those optics again... pander to the base as much as possible, but strike the law down when it fails a constitutional challenge.

And yeah, we're in a bad state if even the SCOTUS is going that far... but then, Trump and the current GOP picked and voted for candidates with dreams of stacking the court for decades, not to create just outcomes. We're just fortunate that they've made some rulings based on actual law rather than along party lines.
 
When are the Dems going to learn from Mitch McConnell. You do it because you can. We need the following

Add justices to the SC
HR-1 and HR-4
DC statehood (only need majority in Congress)
 
Sunburn74 said:
It's also stunning to me that the fifth circuit didn't block the law. They didn't even review the case. Stunning.
Click to expand...
Actually, the fifth went a step above and beyond - they pre-emptively blocked a district court judge from holding a scheduled hearing on merits of the case - and thereby the 5th circuit proactively allowed the law to be enacted without a hearing. Entirely via shadow docket.
 
Strategically it may be best to let the new law go into effect in these states. Long term it will bite Republicans in their collective asses
 
K1052 said:
they don't know what to do or how to respond now that they've caught the car

https://twitter.com/x/status/1433473341978030086
Click to expand...
Was talking to a colleague earlier about this, Republican leaders need the abortion FIGHT to drive voters who otherwise might eventually notice they keep voting against their own self interests. If they actually catch the car (overturn Roe V Wade), they may find themselves in a bit of a bind.
 
woolfe9998 said:
True. I think it may well help energize dem voters, not just in TX, but everywhere.
Click to expand...

Yep. And remember, abortion as a "big deal" was created by republican strategists in the late 70's when people grew tired of their anti-commie and blatant racism schtick and they realized all their policy ideas were really unpopular.

If conservative voters think they've "won" then they'll have lost a big chunk of their motivation to vote, and dems voters will be super energized as you said.
 
TheVrolok said:
Was talking to a colleague earlier about this, Republican leaders need the abortion FIGHT to drive voters who otherwise might eventually notice they keep voting against their own self interests. If they actually catch the car (overturn Roe V Wade), they may find themselves in a bit of a bind.
Click to expand...

Maybe.

Far as I can tell, they have a long list of things and groups to blame for their misfortune. The GOP still has illegals, gays, trannies, kneeling football players, and the Taliban (once again) to prop up in a never-ending fear-mongering circle jerk.

I have a lot of Evangelical relatives and know many in their circles--though I stay away from them recently---and while abortion is indeed a driving force, they seem equally angry over any number of other things. I reckon they'll take this victory over choice as a sign to push harder for more Jesus-driven law--that right there is the difference between the Left and the Right, at least when it comes to large numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top