• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Roe v Wade is on deck

So now in Texas, anyone can sue someone for helping abort a fetus - even if "helping" means giving money or just a ride to a clinic.
I intend to sue every restaurant and bar that serves alcohol for contributing to the abortion of every female customer that has ever miscarried.
I suspect we can also sue the city for providing bus services for anyone that chose to take a bus to a clinic.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
And SCOTUS doesn't even shrug as wildly illegal bill goes into effect. All things equal, Federal Court would likely say it isn't legal, but I feel for the first doctor/staff that gets sued by a third party.

I'd be interested in what the legal eagles, including James Madison (not the founding father... he's dead, the Member here, who I believe is quite alive) here think about this concept of providing an unharmed third party the right to sue someone. It seems like a cheap parlor trick.

SCOTUS is supposed to rule on another case on Roe v Wade so maybe they are thinking they can just roll it together.The writing appears to be on the wall, the only question is how useless will precedence become. SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly in favor of the right of a woman to have an abortion. To overcome each of those rulings will take an incredible amount of finesse I think this court simply lacks. And really, I'm not certain it can be ruled easily on without leaving a lot of frayed fabric. I see no avenues to repeal Roe v Wade to state level that doesn't risk Griswold v Connecticut, and states get to choose what birth control options women can use.
Click to expand...

So, last I knew wasn't it explicitly and recently rules that a legislature could not legislate as to who holds standing for the courts?

Someone fill me in on how that went again?
 
Jarhyn said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
And SCOTUS doesn't even shrug as wildly illegal bill goes into effect. All things equal, Federal Court would likely say it isn't legal, but I feel for the first doctor/staff that gets sued by a third party.

I'd be interested in what the legal eagles, including James Madison (not the founding father... he's dead, the Member here, who I believe is quite alive) here think about this concept of providing an unharmed third party the right to sue someone. It seems like a cheap parlor trick.

SCOTUS is supposed to rule on another case on Roe v Wade so maybe they are thinking they can just roll it together.The writing appears to be on the wall, the only question is how useless will precedence become. SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly in favor of the right of a woman to have an abortion. To overcome each of those rulings will take an incredible amount of finesse I think this court simply lacks. And really, I'm not certain it can be ruled easily on without leaving a lot of frayed fabric. I see no avenues to repeal Roe v Wade to state level that doesn't risk Griswold v Connecticut, and states get to choose what birth control options women can use.
Click to expand...

So, last I knew wasn't it explicitly and recently rules that a legislature could not legislate as to who holds standing for the courts?

Someone fill me in on how that went again?
Click to expand...
Schiavo is coming back to memory and Congress attempting to pass a law saying Federal Courts had standing in the case.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Jarhyn said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
And SCOTUS doesn't even shrug as wildly illegal bill goes into effect. All things equal, Federal Court would likely say it isn't legal, but I feel for the first doctor/staff that gets sued by a third party.

I'd be interested in what the legal eagles, including James Madison (not the founding father... he's dead, the Member here, who I believe is quite alive) here think about this concept of providing an unharmed third party the right to sue someone. It seems like a cheap parlor trick.

SCOTUS is supposed to rule on another case on Roe v Wade so maybe they are thinking they can just roll it together.The writing appears to be on the wall, the only question is how useless will precedence become. SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly in favor of the right of a woman to have an abortion. To overcome each of those rulings will take an incredible amount of finesse I think this court simply lacks. And really, I'm not certain it can be ruled easily on without leaving a lot of frayed fabric. I see no avenues to repeal Roe v Wade to state level that doesn't risk Griswold v Connecticut, and states get to choose what birth control options women can use.
Click to expand...

So, last I knew wasn't it explicitly and recently rules that a legislature could not legislate as to who holds standing for the courts?

Someone fill me in on how that went again?
Click to expand...
Schiavo is coming back to memory and Congress attempting to pass a law saying Federal Courts had standing in the case.
Click to expand...

And how did that go again? My memory says it didn't.

This is going to get called as precedent almost immediately. Any lawyers out there on the forums want an easy case? Represent any one of these people getting sued, and it's ripe for leverage.
 
I hate to say it, but we all knew this was coming. The turn started when Gore lost. But the supreme court was lost for a generation when Trump won. If we (the left) want it back, we have to vote. Get out there and mobilize, make your vote count, and vote.
 
Harry Bosch said:
I hate to say it, but we all knew this was coming. The turn started when Gore lost. But the supreme court was lost for a generation when Trump won. If we (the left) want it back, we have to vote. Get out there and mobilize, make your vote count, and vote.
Click to expand...
Actually it was stolen by McConnell when Scalia wasn't replaced. Radicalization started in the 80s for the right-wing though with Scalia and Rehnquist. Kennedy and O'Connor were conservatives that approved of expansion of Civil Rights, but the other two were pretty damn radical. And now we have Alito who is further to the right than Scalia and Comey Barrett who was put on the court for one reason. The Chief Justice is between Kennedy and Scalia. Kavanaugh is wholly unknown at the moment. He could be a second Roberts, but the Christian Right doesn't need both of their votes.
 
Texas: Where a virus has reproductive rights but a woman does not.
 
Texas: where individual freedoms trump an emergency response to a global pandemic, unless you are a woman, then fuck your individual rights.
 
I think (democrat) women should deputize themselves to sue gun sellers who sold guns or ammo which ended up killing people.
 
barbos said:
I think (democrat) women should deputize themselves to sue gun sellers who sold guns or ammo which ended up killing people.
Click to expand...

This is actually an excellent way to attack the Texas law. Pass a ridiculous law like this and the cons will panicky and strike down the Texas law
 
For those with a login, the NY Times has a very good article that goes through the issues I raised. Including the 5-4 decision to shrug shoulders by SCOTUS (CJ Roberts sided with the libs).
article said:
Chief Justice Roberts wrote that he would have blocked the law while appeals moved forward.

“The statutory scheme before the court is not only unusual, but unprecedented,” he wrote. “The legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large. The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the state from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime.”
Click to expand...
The article says the law can live while in court, but I wonder if a Federal Court could block it, after someone sues a doctor.

That the radicals on SCOTUS voted to allow the law into practice, which is a Rube Goldberg abortion ban, is haunting.
 
Jarhyn said:
barbos said:
I think (democrat) women should deputize themselves to sue gun sellers who sold guns or ammo which ended up killing people.
Click to expand...

This is actually an excellent way to attack the Texas law. Pass a ridiculous law like this and the cons will panicky and strike down the Texas law
Click to expand...

The people who wrote this law don't have a great track record for legislation clarity. It would be fun if they overlooked this possibility.
But I'm guessing that they wrote it restrict action to abortion, and not other kinds of killing.
Tom
 
TomC said:
Jarhyn said:
barbos said:
I think (democrat) women should deputize themselves to sue gun sellers who sold guns or ammo which ended up killing people.
Click to expand...

This is actually an excellent way to attack the Texas law. Pass a ridiculous law like this and the cons will panicky and strike down the Texas law
Click to expand...

The people who wrote this law don't have a great track record for legislation clarity. It would be fun if they overlooked this possibility.
But I'm guessing that they wrote it restrict action to abortion, and not other kinds of killing.
Tom
Click to expand...

Yeah, doesn't matter. As long as it's a law that makes such legislation of standing odious to their goals, they will strike it rather than risk losing a war to win a battle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom