Roe v Wade is on deck

[Jimmy Higgins]

Which is why I say we should impeach the 5 justices that voted for this abomination. Whatever you think about abortion is this a very bad law that most certainly should have been stayed. Any justice who says otherwise isn't competent and doesn't belong on any bench, let alone the top one.

Is that possible? How would that work in the US system?

It is possible, but we might as well toss a nuclear weapon into Congress as it'd just end our Democracy. Granted, axing Roe v Wade could come close to that as well, because the principle of precedence might die, and this court apparently doesn't care any more about law as functional system with their 5-4 'awww... fuck it" indifference to a grossly unconstitutional and unsustainable bill.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which is why I say we should impeach the 5 justices that voted for this abomination. Whatever you think about abortion is this a very bad law that most certainly should have been stayed. Any justice who says otherwise isn't competent and doesn't belong on any bench, let alone the top one.

Is that possible? How would that work in the US system?

Same as impeaching a president. The votes aren't there, it's not going to happen.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So the court used Standing to not hear the case yet. Still, once someone with standing is present, that means this will have to go to the court.

Three options:
Federal pro-choice
Federal pro-life
Send it to the states.

Those who are pro-choice, most of them don't know just how fucking lucky our side has been. I mean seriously, Over the last 50 years the overwhelming majority of SCOTUS justices have been Republican appointees, and for the last several courts those counted as "liberals" have included Republican appointees.

If those "liberal" Republicans had stuck to the party line, Roe v Wade would have been struck down long ago. Yet most people who are pro-choice don't see that. The cause has been living on borrowed time. Although it was a stupid move strategically for the Texas Republicans to do this now (imagine if they had waited until after the expected Republican gains in the Midterms) it is still pushing this issue back up to the one place that can actually overturn Roe.

I saw this, and tried to tell the rest of the Pro-Choice side "look, see, the cause is in trouble" and was called a pro-lifer for my efforts. In fact, there are complete and utter idiots out there who think the LP is pro-life for reasons that no sane and literate person can understand.

So if this goes to the court, there are three possible outcomes: full loaf, half a loaf, and no loaf. Half a loaf is better than none, but there are those who will never consider half a loaf because it isn't as good as a full loaf. They they will call me a pro-lifer for saying "half a loaf is better than none".

Roe v. Wade has two components, not just one. Component one is that it is pro-choice instead of pro-life. Component two is that it federalizes the issue instead of leaving it to the states and territories. If Roe gets struck down, let us hope it is no longer a federal issue, federal pro-life is the worst case scenario.

For me that is. There are actually people out there who are so dedicated to it being a federal issue they'd rather risk federal pro-life than make it a state issue.

 

[Elixir]

Which is why I say we should impeach the 5 justices that voted for this abomination. Whatever you think about abortion is this a very bad law that most certainly should have been stayed. Any justice who says otherwise isn't competent and doesn't belong on any bench, let alone the top one.

Is that possible? How would that work in the US system?

Same as impeaching a president. The votes aren't there, it's not going to happen.

Right - impeachments are not going to happen.
But it is not exactly true that those five justices voted FOR the bill, they just voted to shirk their responsibility to forbid it's going into effect pending an examination of its constitutionality,
That examination is coming up, and quickly.

 

[ZiprHead]

Same as impeaching a president. The votes aren't there, it's not going to happen.

Right - impeachments are not going to happen.
But it is not exactly true that those five justices voted FOR the bill, they just voted to shirk their responsibility to forbid it's going into effect pending an examination of its constitutionality,
That examination is coming up, and quickly.

Wait, wut? They needed time to think about it?

 

[Elixir]

Same as impeaching a president. The votes aren't there, it's not going to happen.

Right - impeachments are not going to happen.
But it is not exactly true that those five justices voted FOR the bill, they just voted to shirk their responsibility to forbid it's going into effect pending an examination of its constitutionality,
That examination is coming up, and quickly.

Wait, wut? They needed time to think about it?

Well ... their assertion is that the constitutionality of the bill was a question that was never put to them.

 

[ZiprHead]

Wait, wut? They needed time to think about it?

Well ... their assertion is that the constitutionality of the bill was a question that was never put to them.

That sounds like a cop out.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Only if "Pepper" Anderson has an aborsh.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wait, wut? They needed time to think about it?

Well ... their assertion is that the constitutionality of the bill was a question that was never put to them.

That sounds like a cop out.

The four other justices, including the Chief Justice agrees.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Justice Barrett decides to explain how independent she is.

My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.

Says the Justice who was accelerated to SCOTUS consideration almost exclusively due to her position on Roe v Wade. Get a shovel ready.

The media, along with hot takes on Twitter, report the results and decisions. … That makes the decision seem results-oriented. It leaves the reader to judge whether the court was right or wrong, based on whether she liked the results of the decision. And here's the thing: Sometimes, I don't like the results of my decisions. But it's not my job to decide cases based on the outcome I want.

Ain't this a lump of crap. I mean, just because the decision works in my political favor doesn't mean I like it...

Fuck you! I'll let your record speak for itself, not your alleged caring about being an "originalist". Originalist... must be Latin for 'dragged yelling and screaming to expand or uphold civil rights'.

 

[Gospel]

As SB 8 stands at this moment, can I sue the State of Texas for aiding & abetting after they've collecting taxes from and rendered services to Abortion clinics that broke the law?

 

[Jarhyn]

As SB 8 stands at this moment, can I sue the State of Texas for aiding & abetting after they've collecting taxes from and rendered services to Abortion clinics that broke the law?

Yes. And everyone in Texas should hop onto it.

 

[Shadowy Man]

As SB 8 stands at this moment, can I sue the State of Texas for aiding & abetting after they've collecting taxes from and rendered services to Abortion clinics that broke the law?

And the power company for providing electricity to the clinics.

 

[Gospel]

As SB 8 stands at this moment, can I sue the State of Texas for aiding & abetting after they've collecting taxes from and rendered services to Abortion clinics that broke the law?

Yes. And everyone in Texas should hop onto it.

The law (to my knowledge) not only attacks women's rights it also removed standing (which attacks everyone's rights). Meaning I, a Florida State Resident, can sue any person, Organization/party, etc for aiding & abetting an unlawful abortion in Texas.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So if a contractor resurfaces the road next to the clinic...

 

[TomC]

As SB 8 stands at this moment, can I sue the State of Texas for aiding & abetting after they've collecting taxes from and rendered services to Abortion clinics that broke the law?

Yes. And everyone in Texas should hop onto it.

The law (to my knowledge) not only attacks women's rights it also removed standing (which attacks everyone's rights). Meaning I, a Florida State Resident, can sue any person, Organization/party, etc for aiding & abetting an unlawful abortion in Texas.

This kind of stupid laws, based more on political grandstanding than common sense, is exactly why I'd rather keep RvW than make it a football for dumbass politicians to use for personal gain.
Even though I oppose RvW, it's still better than this crap.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

So if a contractor resurfaces the road next to the clinic...

Yeah, thanks to our current SCOTUS, soon anyone doing anything in America must be preceded with;

"Your direct or indirect use of this event &/or service or anything similar is an agreement to defend, hold harmless and indemnify [Insert name here], [insert name here]'s current and future Owner(s), Partners & affiliate(s)".

 

[ideologyhunter]

Morbidly curious: anyone know if the TX law limits the number of possible lawsuits -- that is, if a woman is being sued for having an abortion in the seventh week, does the lawsuit have to come from the first to file? Can other claimants jump on board?

 

[Elixir]

Morbidly curious: anyone know if the TX law limits the number of possible lawsuits -- that is, if a woman is being sued for having an abortion in the seventh week, does the lawsuit have to come from the first to file? Can other claimants jump on board?

My understanding is that the entire Great State of Texas can jump on board. So 30,000,000 x $10,000 ... a three hundred billion dollar fine should keep that beotch from trying that baby killing thing again!

 

[ideologyhunter]

Just googled this a bit and I think you're right. That's just as insane as the expansion of legal standing. I can't believe this kind of law will be upheld by higher courts. It's such a radicalization of the concepts of lawsuit and standing and personal injury. We are living in the Age of Cuckoo Righties.