Roe v Wade is on deck

[Jimmy Higgins]

I am quoting what the judge is thinking, not what he actually stated.

That's pretty impressive. How do you know?

https://wapo.st/3nZ2fbF

Just as a reminder.

 

[ZiprHead]

The controversial article Matthew Kacsmaryk did not disclose to the Senate

As a lawyer for a conservative legal group, Matthew Kacsmaryk in early 2017 submitted an article to a Texas law review criticizing Obama-era protections for transgender people and those seeking abortions.

The Obama administration, the draft article argued, had discounted religious physicians who “cannot use their scalpels to make female what God created male” and “cannot use their pens to prescribe or dispense abortifacient drugs designed to kill unborn children.”

But a few months after the piece arrived, an editor at the law journal who had been working with Kacsmaryk received an unusual email: Citing “reasons I may discuss at a later date,” Kacsmaryk, who had originally been listed as the article’s sole author, said he would be removing his name and replacing it with those of two colleagues at his legal group, First Liberty Institute, according to emails and early drafts obtained by The Washington Post.


What Kacsmaryk did not say in the email was that he had already been interviewed for a judgeship by his state’s two senators and was awaiting an interview at the White House.

Another lying liar who lies.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The controversial article Matthew Kacsmaryk did not disclose to the Senate

As a lawyer for a conservative legal group, Matthew Kacsmaryk in early 2017 submitted an article to a Texas law review criticizing Obama-era protections for transgender people and those seeking abortions.

The Obama administration, the draft article argued, had discounted religious physicians who “cannot use their scalpels to make female what God created male” and “cannot use their pens to prescribe or dispense abortifacient drugs designed to kill unborn children.”

But a few months after the piece arrived, an editor at the law journal who had been working with Kacsmaryk received an unusual email: Citing “reasons I may discuss at a later date,” Kacsmaryk, who had originally been listed as the article’s sole author, said he would be removing his name and replacing it with those of two colleagues at his legal group, First Liberty Institute, according to emails and early drafts obtained by The Washington Post.


What Kacsmaryk did not say in the email was that he had already been interviewed for a judgeship by his state’s two senators and was awaiting an interview at the White House.

Another lying liar who lies.

One wonders if it would have made a difference to his confirmation.

 

[Jarhyn]

The controversial article Matthew Kacsmaryk did not disclose to the Senate

As a lawyer for a conservative legal group, Matthew Kacsmaryk in early 2017 submitted an article to a Texas law review criticizing Obama-era protections for transgender people and those seeking abortions.

The Obama administration, the draft article argued, had discounted religious physicians who “cannot use their scalpels to make female what God created male” and “cannot use their pens to prescribe or dispense abortifacient drugs designed to kill unborn children.”

But a few months after the piece arrived, an editor at the law journal who had been working with Kacsmaryk received an unusual email: Citing “reasons I may discuss at a later date,” Kacsmaryk, who had originally been listed as the article’s sole author, said he would be removing his name and replacing it with those of two colleagues at his legal group, First Liberty Institute, according to emails and early drafts obtained by The Washington Post.


What Kacsmaryk did not say in the email was that he had already been interviewed for a judgeship by his state’s two senators and was awaiting an interview at the White House.

Another lying liar who lies.

One wonders if it would have made a difference to his confirmation.

Let all receive this who may...

Except literally any who ask for it apparently...

Like, I would have a lot less problem with Christians if they didn't lie about literally everything they claim to believe.

If someone can't love a trans person or a robot or an Irish redhead or an orangutan, they do not believe in radical love. The point is that it isn't supposed to matter who or what you are, or what they are... you just love them, and you cry when they make you really happy and you cry when they make you really sad.

I don't see why people put in so much effort sometimes to avoid that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

SCOTUS pause in decision whether to stay a ruling regarding seriously imposing limits of access to a drug approved by the FDA because of bullshit "science". They were supposed to thumbs up or down by yesterday, but they didn't. My clairbuoyance tells me that there is a majority decision, just not the one Alito wants. Alito and the uber-right of the bench (Barrett, Thomas) want to rape victims to joyfully give birth to babies. They want to ban anything that impedes pregnancy.

I have no idea what Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Roberts are thinking. They likely want abortion to be illegal, but likely have a couple potential issues here.

1) This sets some very arbitrary and shitty legal standards that look pretty bad. Sure, the district "judge" included stuff about rights of the fetus, but can one tiny technicality justify finding in the favor of banning a drug? I'd figure Roberts would likely want a much better case to extend the legal rights to a fetus. IE can an entire ruling be negated, but the asterisk pulls it through?
2) The pill. Allowing this to go through would allow states to ban the daily birth control pill. I don't know think CJ Roberts wants that. I can't tell with Gorsuch or Kavanaugh. This changes everything. 2024 could manage to be a blood bath for the GOP in a decidedly friendly map for them (mainly the Senate).

But right now, this is merely about whether the stay the ruling until appeals. Of course, this becomes another type of problem. SCOTUS said legal interpretations regarding a woman's right to an abortion were out of bounds. So what bounds do they stay this ruling? Roberts has been the worse CJ in history and now he is starting to sow what he reaped.

 

[lpetrich]

Or more precisely, reap what he sowed.

Judge Kacsmaryk has been far to the right for a long time.

Oppose the Confirmation of Matthew Kacsmaryk to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas - The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights - 12.12,17

LGBT Animus: Mr. Kacsmaryk fundamentally disapproves of LGBT people. ...

Marriage Equality: Mr. Kacsmaryk has expressed strong opposition to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which established a constitutional right to marriage equality in America. ...

LGBT Equality Legislation: Mr. Kacsmaryk has vigorously opposed bipartisan federal legislation that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. ...

Anti-Transgender Bias: Mr. Kacsmaryk has a particular animus and insensitivity toward transgender people. ...

Public Accommodations: First Liberty Institute, where Mr. Kacsmaryk serves as deputy general counsel, recently filed an amicus brief in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission on behalf of the petitioner baker who seeks to deny baking wedding cakes for same-sex couples. ...

Women’s Health: Mr. Kacsmaryk wrote a Supreme Court amicus brief in Zubik v. Burwell attacking the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive access requirement, making the sweeping argument that “Congress, in short, enacted RFRA to protect all religious objectors from all laws that substantially burden their religious beliefs.” ...

Federalist Society: Like many of President Trump’s judicial nominees, Mr. Kacsmaryk has been very active in the archconservative Federalist Society. ...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

SCOTUS currently has until midnight tonight to meddle in the abortion pill case. The scary thing at this point is that the longer it takes to come out... the more and more it looks like it'll be a bad thing and they are providing cover for allowing the Federal judge's bullshit ruling to stand (and with this court, defending their actions might just be something they feel is beneath them and unnecessary). Time will tell whether pill abortions are going to be unavailable (easily) in most US states Monday morning.

 

[crazyfingers]

SCOTUS currently has until midnight tonight to meddle in the abortion pill case. The scary thing at this point is that the longer it takes to come out... the more and more it looks like it'll be a bad thing and they are providing cover for allowing the Federal judge's bullshit ruling to stand (and with this court, defending their actions might just be something they feel is beneath them and unnecessary). Time will tell whether pill abortions are going to be unavailable (easily) in most US states Monday morning.

SCOTUS has kept the pill available under the FDAs current rules for appeals to take place.

I have no doubt that many of them wanted to ban it outright but perhaps they are finally becoming concerned about their own total lack of credibility.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

We need a picture with Alito and Thomas dressed like Taliban.

 

[Ford]

SCOTUS currently has until midnight tonight to meddle in the abortion pill case. The scary thing at this point is that the longer it takes to come out... the more and more it looks like it'll be a bad thing and they are providing cover for allowing the Federal judge's bullshit ruling to stand (and with this court, defending their actions might just be something they feel is beneath them and unnecessary). Time will tell whether pill abortions are going to be unavailable (easily) in most US states Monday morning.

SCOTUS has kept the pill available under the FDAs current rules for appeals to take place.

I have no doubt that many of them wanted to ban it outright but perhaps they are finally becoming concerned about their own total lack of credibility.

Thomas doesn't care about his credibility. He's been quietly collecting the benefits of his friendship with a donor for decades. Is credibility worth more than millions? Not for Clarence.

 

[lpetrich]

We need a picture with Alito and Thomas dressed like Taliban.

I suggest looking for some pictures of Taliban leaders and pictures of the Justice, and then doing image editing to make such a picture. I've done such creative image editing myself, so you should at least try to do that.

Yes, this is often called Photoshopping, but one does not need full-scale Adobe Photoshop for that -- one can find much cheaper image editors that can do that, even free ones like The Gimp.

 

[Shadowy Man]

We need a picture with Alito and Thomas dressed like Taliban.

I suggest looking for some pictures of Taliban leaders and pictures of the Justice, and then doing image editing to make such a picture. I've done such creative image editing myself, so you should at least try to do that.

Yes, this is often called Photoshopping, but one does not need full-scale Adobe Photoshop for that -- one can find much cheaper image editors that can do that, even free ones like The Gimp.

Will this kind of photoshopping become extinct in the era of AI-generated images?

 

[lpetrich]

We need a picture with Alito and Thomas dressed like Taliban.

I suggest looking for some pictures of Taliban leaders and pictures of the Justice, and then doing image editing to make such a picture. I've done such creative image editing myself, so you should at least try to do that.

Yes, this is often called Photoshopping, but one does not need full-scale Adobe Photoshop for that -- one can find much cheaper image editors that can do that, even free ones like The Gimp.

Will this kind of photoshopping become extinct in the era of AI-generated images?

I doubt it.

 

[Jarhyn]

We need a picture with Alito and Thomas dressed like Taliban.

I suggest looking for some pictures of Taliban leaders and pictures of the Justice, and then doing image editing to make such a picture. I've done such creative image editing myself, so you should at least try to do that.

Yes, this is often called Photoshopping, but one does not need full-scale Adobe Photoshop for that -- one can find much cheaper image editors that can do that, even free ones like The Gimp.

Will this kind of photoshopping become extinct in the era of AI-generated images?

I doubt it.

It will enhance it: "take this image of this guy as a Taliban dude and locate all surreal elements, and generate a text description of how to modify it to remove the surreal parts", then take the results there and say "take this image and fix these problems with it".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

link

Zurawski, who was diagnosed with an “incompetent cervix” during her second trimester last year, received an emergency abortion only after her condition deteriorated and she went into septic shock.

“I cannot adequately put into words the trauma and despair that comes with waiting to either lose your own life, your child’s life, or both,” she told The Intercept earlier this year. “For days I was locked in this bizarre and avoidable hell.”

On Wednesday, Zurawski explained that the mental health repercussions—including PTSD and depression—she’s suffered in the eight months since the ordeal have been “paralyzing.”

Imagine seeing an oncologist and being told to come back once you are Stage IV.

It seems absurd that it is now becoming law that pregnant women are to be refused access to health care.

 

[bilby]

It seems absurd that it is now becoming law that...

When you put a bunch of certifiable lunatics into your judiciary and legislature, whose primary reason for selection was their heartfelt belief in stuff that's not only untrue, but wildly at odds with anything that remotely resembles the real world, it should seem completely surd when incredibly stupid, dangerous, and inequitable things become law.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It seems absurd that it is now becoming law that...

When you put a bunch of certifiable lunatics into your judiciary and legislature, whose primary reason for selection was their heartfelt belief in stuff that's not only untrue, but wildly at odds with anything that remotely resembles the real world, it should seem completely surd when incredibly stupid, dangerous, and inequitable things become law.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Yes, I get that. But there is always that hope in the back of your mind that maybe Gorsuch and Roberts pull a Souter. Roberts did with ACA, but that was about it. Now they look like children in a candy store... after hours with no one to bother them for the entire weekend.

The worst part is the the justifications for some of these rulings have been terribly err'd and unprofessional, which might provide a manner to reverse them, but the trouble with reversing some of this stuff is that at some point you tear the judicial system into pieces and it just becomes a partisan bench.

 

[Shadowy Man]

but the trouble with reversing some of this stuff is that at some point you tear the judicial system into pieces and it just becomes a partisan bench.

That hasn’t happened yet?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'd argue revering what reversed Roe v Wade would be that step. SCOTUS has reversed itself before, not terribly often, but it happens. But to reverse a reversal has got to be terribly difficult regarding precedence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Meanwhile, with dog having caught car, dog is quickly becoming aware that the car can kill them.

Nebraska and South Carolina failed in getting abortion bans or close to bans passed or even to the floor for a vote. Now, keep in mind this isn't the entire GOP finding god... but rather a few (or just enough) politicians that are having second thoughts now that their vote would mean an actual restriction, instead of merely providing red meat for their base. It is interesting to ponder how much this has to do with the actual impact the legislation has on women (as stories keep coming out) or whether just about political protection from getting handed a pink slip by their jurisdiction.

The remaining GOP'ers in Nebraska and South Carolina are pissed! I'd say I'm enjoying this, but right now it seems it is merely barely a sense of relief that the bans are being just barely held back with the stakes being so high. That this is happening in deep red states provides a small bit of hope, however, this might also lead to SCOTUS providing cover with a Federal protection of fetuses as the reddest states are having an odd issue of discovering that they aren't quite as red as previously thought.

Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Carolina, Wisconsin have either lost in the polls or in the Legislature. Red to purple, America's support for sexual reproductive rights is becoming very clear. States like Ohio are trying to make it much harder to get ballot initiatives moving forward with fear of a Wisconsin like popular vote both reversing the heart-beat bill (which is tied up in court I think) and bleeding over into the statewide/Federal races.