I am sure that Lanzman made this same argument all the time back when conservatives were complaining about judges legislating from the bench and the like.[/sarcasm] #bothsides
No, it was about enslaving blacks. The Nullification Crisis just happened because the Federal laws they didn't like involved not enslaving blacks.
As well as, as a person who is adamant about an individual's right to privacy, he should be shitting his pants about the Texas law and this Supreme Court's decision to allow the law to pass until the decision as to whether or not the law is unconstitutional is resolved.
I’ve seen some people arguing that Democratic states should now enact laws that mandate vaccines or allow people to sue those who purchase assault rifles. Trust me, this is a one way street with this Supreme Court. Laws like those would be enjoined immediately.
This. The Supreme Court answers the question that is before it, and the Constitutionality of the law was not the question. Although some of the Court's more conservative justices may ultimately vote to uphold this law should it come up for review, those hoping Roe v Wade will be overturned are doomed to disappointment: I expect several of the conservative justices will adhere to stare decisis.
Yanno, I just thought the law is only if people help pregnant *women* seek abortion, but what about if a pregnant trans man wanted to abort? Or a non-binary person? Can they still sue in those cases if the pregnant person is, in fact, not a woman?
Access Denied - GoDaddy Website Firewall If you are the site owner (or you manage this site), please whitelist your IP or if you think this block is an error please open a support ticket and make sure to include the block details (displayed in the box below), so we can assist you in troubleshooting the issue. Block details: Your IP: ########## URL: prolifewhistleblower.com/anonymous-form/ Your Browser: ##### Block ID:GEO02 Block reason: Access from your Country was disabled by the administrator. Time: 2021-09-02 14:53:51 Server ID: 20004 Looks like I'm going to have go with a VPN.
Not entirely. It started with the Alien and Sedition acts, followed by Northern states opposition to the war of 1812.
I tend to doubt that any of the five would adhere to stare decisis on abortion specifically. Thomas, I believe, has blatantly said that Roe is bad law, and I would not be surprised if Alito has also. But even assuming that they are never willing to actually overturn Roe, they can accelerate the death of a thousand cuts strategy to the point where the overall framework of legality might remain but so many barriers are permitted that it is effectively dead letter.
Dems are bringing a bill forward to codify RvW, but it's not clear they can pass it. More an attempt to hold Collins and other "Kavanaugh wouldn't kill RvW!" GOPpers to account. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...-rights_n_6130eeeae4b05f53eda4b24b?ri18n=true At the very least, they should be using this to push 2022 turnout and to slap some sense into Munchin and Symantec or whatever the fuck she's called - sycophant seems likely.
But elections are fake and both parties are exactly the same and you can't force me to vote for my preferred rapist and whatever other bullshit they repeat every fucking time instead of doing one basic thing in the name of minimizing harm. That moral high ground tho.
Credit where it's due, at least when the Taliban boycotted elections they had an actual, credible, Plan B to change things outside of the standard electoral process.
In case you were wondering, that is my sarcastic way of saying "No, I feel absolutely no shame whatsoever and screw you and your crocodile tears."
Yep. This is typical partisan paranoia on display. The question isn't if abortion should be allowed(that's already been decided) it's how long or short after conception, which is not decided in Roe vs Wade. The ability to sue is a new wrinkle and one that shouldn't be a part of the law. That reason alone should have struck it down. Interesting turn for a state that not long ago was opposed to "jackpot justice."
Most women experiencing an unplanned pregnancy don't even know they're pregnant at six weeks, dumbass. That's a de facto ban and everyone knows it.
Seems like bringing a bill would do bupkis since if/when the conservatives hold that Roe is not good law, so goes any statute.
Surely you can understand that the difference between "no abortion more than six weeks after conception" and "no abortion at all" is ... well, almost no difference at all.
Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? I think the safest bet is that assuming the court is not "packed" that within 5 years, Roe will be effectively overturned or actually overturned. By that I mean that there will be a ruling from SCOTUS that does one or more of the following: 1. Explicitly states that Roe and the line of cases that emerged from it is not to be followed, that a fetus has rights that need to be respected or the like. 2. Pays deference to Roe on paper but allows states to implement schemes that allow severe or total bans on abortion as early as 6 weeks. (as opposed to requiring abortions to be legal for the first three months) 3. Allows states to impose civil penalties against abortion providers or seekers or allows criminal penalties such that it effectively makes it impossible for a large swath of people to either provide or seek abortion.
Fucks sake. You guys have been saying the same thing for more than 20 years. And now look at Texas. I do not trust ANYONE who votes Republican. Fuck off with you bullshit. You know nothing.
Don't try to reason with T.R. ... I mean, the guy has his hands full. His right hand is busy jerking off Paladin. His left hand is busy jerking off Rudy Giuliani. And every other orifice is being gang-banged by Republican QAnon fucktards. So everyone, please just leave the poor guy alone. He's busy.
I just said that the part about lawsuits should have struck the law down and you're STILL going to call me a Republican? You're lost.
