|
Mr. Nice! posted:Wouldn't it be awesome if we had a 4 liberal majority, kennedy concurrence saying it should be sent back down for more info, and alito/roberts/thomas dissent? No, AFAIK, it would be pretty lovely. Pretty much every clinic in Texas would be closed pending a Supreme Court ruling probably.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Wouldn't it be awesome if we had a 4 liberal majority, kennedy concurrence saying it should be sent back down for more info, and alito/roberts/thomas dissent? Wouldn't that result in the clinics being closed
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:No, AFAIK, it would be pretty lovely. Pretty much every clinic in Texas would be closed pending a Supreme Court ruling probably. Not if there's a four justice majority, as in the case of a 4-1-3 decision. A non binding return to lower court happens only in the event of a tie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:This seems like an easy trap to step out of "I trust the other states to appropriately regulate their medical facilities, if your concern is convenience why are you pretending other states don't exist?" That seems consistent with the reasoning Texas is already using, though its hardly convincing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
twodot posted:This seems like an easy trap to step out of "I trust the other states to appropriately regulate their medical facilities, if your concern is convenience why are you pretending other states don't exist?" It's not and he would have gotten skewered even harder if he tried that. Texas is fully aware of exactly what regulations New Mexico has. It's not like he can say they have no idea but they just trust New Mexico has done it right. The clinic they are pointing to exists only because it is not subject to Texas's new restrictions, which Texas is claiming are for the health of the mother and not just to gently caress with clinics. If you trust that New Mexico's regulations are appropriate, why are you imposing such harsher regulations?.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:No, AFAIK, it would be pretty lovely. Pretty much every clinic in Texas would be closed pending a Supreme Court ruling probably. Didn't the Supreme Court issue a stay?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
No matter what the decision is, we're going to have to settle for Alito tears at best. There's a reason they called him Scalito, but it isn't necessarily because of his rhetoric in opinions. He gets emotional but it's a thin, pissy kind of emotional and not the florid jiggery-pokery type poo poo Scalia had.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Not if there's a four justice majority, as in the case of a 4-1-3 decision. A non binding return to lower court happens only in the event of a tie. A 4-4 tie upholds the lower court decision, not remands it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:That seems consistent with the reasoning Texas is already using, though its hardly convincing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm not saying it's convincing, it's just that reasoning isn't a trap for Texas. In that exchange both sides are ignoring the actual crux of the issue of whether it poses an undue burden. Tossing out figures like 100 miles is meaningless if it doesn't actually deter people (similarly the ability to cross states lines is meaningless if it does deter people for whatever reason). It absolutely is a trap for texas, because by relying on clinics that don't meet the standards they claim are ever-so-necessary, they undercut their argument that the standards are actually medically necessary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It absolutely is a trap for texas, because by relying on clinics that don't meet the standards they claim are ever-so-necessary, they undercut their argument that the standards are actually medically necessary. twodot fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Mar 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:A 4-4 tie upholds the lower court decision, not remands it. Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant but I didn't say it properly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It absolutely is a trap for texas, because by relying on clinics that don't meet the standards they claim are ever-so-necessary, they undercut their argument that the standards are actually medically necessary. It seems problematic to discuss another states in this way when discussing constituionality of Texas's laws, as it gives really bizarre effects like that a Texas law might only be constitutional unless New Mexico passes a similar law, or that the same law might be constitutional only if Rhode Island is the only state that has it, etc. Is there some sort of legal principle matching my intuition here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant but I didn't say it properly. I'm just being pedantic
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:A 4-4 tie upholds the lower court decision, not remands it. That's not what I was saying though. I was saying 4 in majority opinion, Kennedey concurring (i.e. I agree with the outcome) and the three shitheads dissenting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That's not what I was saying though. I was saying 4 in majority opinion, Kennedey concurring (i.e. I agree with the outcome) and the three shitheads dissenting. I wasn't talking to you tho? But, addressing your point, why would Kennedy concur in the judgment if he wanted it sent back down to the lower courts? Especially since Kennedy is pro restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Dude I was just spitballing some hypothetical while baked, but it seemed from reading the transcript that none of the justices were really on board with Texas outside of Alito.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:It seems problematic to discuss another states in this way when discussing constituionality of Texas's laws, as it gives really bizarre effects like that a Texas law might only be constitutional unless New Mexico passes a similar law, or that the same law might be constitutional only if Rhode Island is the only state that has it, etc. Is there some sort of legal principle matching my intuition here? Only if Texas is arguing that their law is totally OK because you can go do whatever the Texas law impact in New Mexico. Otherwise the fact that those along the border aren't having an undue burden placed on them because they can just cross the border means that states like Delaware or Rhode Island can go hog wild with otherwise unconstitutional laws because everyone can just cross the border with ease. Texas has to make an argument that their restrictions are acceptable on their own, and would be regardless of godless New Mexico, in order to show they aren't placing an undue burden on women trying to get an abortion. Arguing that New Mexico is right there undermines the argument that Texas believes these changes are needed to protect women, because their argument would then boil down to if you don't like it go somewhere unsafe. Which is along the same path as, if you don't like the law, well, you've got coat hangers in your closet right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
The law already went to into effect because shitheads wouldn't uphold a stay on enforcement. So a bunch of clinics closed already, and odds of them coming back seem low.... At least it would put a kibosh on introductions of similar laws in other states.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
twodot posted:Tossing out figures like 100 miles is meaningless if it doesn't actually deter people (similarly the ability to cross states lines is meaningless if it does deter people for whatever reason).  For what it's worth, the distance is addressed. The law even requires that women who take an abortifacient pill do so in the properly licensed/equipped medical setting. So a woman would have to travel the (X) miles to the office, take the pill, then go home, return the next day, be observed, then finally go home. Either she commits to a 2-day ordeal of travel or springs for a hotel in the area to avoid the travel. Which, to me, seems kind of burdensome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Nominate Jane Kelly!Franco Potente posted:A Challenger Appears!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Patty judge taking one for the team. That's a good Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That's not what I was saying though. I was saying 4 in majority opinion, Kennedey concurring (i.e. I agree with the outcome) and the three shitheads dissenting. 4-1-3 is precedential mandatory abortion
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Sadly Grassley is very well entrenched in Iowa. He and Harkin are the only Senators most Iowans have ever known in their lifetimes. Well now JONI as well, but I like to forget that she represents my state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
twodot posted:Where's the evidence that the Texas legislature (edit2: I guess more correctly their Solicitor General) should believe that the standards are necessary in other states (edit: That have their own separate set of standards that may moot Texas regulations) or that even assuming the standards are necessary in other states, that applying those standards would close the clinics they are relying on? As I said earlier this whole thing is just a distraction from the actual issue of undue burden. Because Texas was relying on clinics in New Mexico to claim that women within 100 miles of the border aren't burdened by the law so they could say the closures don't hurt that many women. Texas is saying that non-ASC clinics are too unsafe to even be allowed to operate, so it doesn't make sense to say "this won't affect anyone because they can get an unsafe abortion somewhere else". If having the choice to go out of state counts as access, then why shouldn't women have that choice in state? They'd never make the argument "well you always have access since you can throw yourself down the stairs without leaving your house" because the medical risks of that obviously aren't justified by the convenience. Arguing El Paso women can go to a noncompliant New Mexico clinic rather than travel all the way to San Antonio is basically an admission that the new regulations are an undue burden because according to Texas' own argument it's better to go to a non-ASC clinic 10 miles away than a compliant one hundreds of miles away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
What I don't understand is why we have to have these tortured justifications and equally tortured refutations instead of just asking some doctors if the requirements are medically justified. There's got to be a medical consensus on the kind of clinical support required for a safe abortion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Skrewtape posted:There's got to be a medical consensus on the kind of clinical support required for a safe abortion. There is, and it's that the clinics were fine as they were.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Skrewtape posted:What I don't understand is why we have to have these tortured justifications and equally tortured refutations instead of just asking some doctors if the requirements are medically justified. There's got to be a medical consensus on the kind of clinical support required for a safe abortion. If only there was a group of doctors, say an association, that could officially give their opinion. They would truly be a friend of the court.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
They already have said these requirements are totally unnecessary but that's irrelevant if you are a justice trying to make abortion illegal and have no respect for your profession or position.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Skrewtape posted:What I don't understand is why we have to have these tortured justifications and equally tortured refutations instead of just asking some doctors if the requirements are medically justified. There's got to be a medical consensus on the kind of clinical support required for a safe abortion. These laws aren't actually being passed because the right wing is concerned with abortion safety. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:These laws aren't actually being passed because the right wing is concerned with abortion safety. Well I know that, of course. In fact, I'm not even surprised that Texas lawmaker are doing such bullshit, but I would hope that the courts would have more concern for actual facts that exist in reality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Skrewtape posted:Well I know that, of course. In fact, I'm not even surprised that Texas lawmaker are doing such bullshit, but I would hope that the courts would have more concern for actual facts that exist in reality. Judges, politicians, and so on typically originate from society. I don't know a non sarcastic sounding way to say this. You're literally saying you're surprised that justices are people with the same variety of values as a group that voted for the fuckers who wrote the law in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Skrewtape posted:What I don't understand is why we have to have these tortured justifications and equally tortured refutations instead of just asking some doctors if the requirements are medically justified. There's got to be a medical consensus on the kind of clinical support required for a safe abortion. Because these recommendations would have to be given to the Texas state legislature, and they already know better. Skrewtape posted:Well I know that, of course. In fact, I'm not even surprised that Texas lawmaker are doing such bullshit, but I would hope that the courts would have more concern for actual facts that exist in reality. It's not like the SCOTUS has the latitude to do what they feel is right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Skrewtape posted:Well I know that, of course. In fact, I'm not even surprised that Texas lawmaker are doing such bullshit, but I would hope that the courts would have more concern for actual facts that exist in reality. Did you forget the Hobby Lobby case?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
There is a larger issue of scientific accuracy vs. adversarial expert(?) testimony, which is also relevant for criminal justice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Skrewtape posted:What I don't understand is why we have to have these tortured justifications and equally tortured refutations instead of just asking some doctors if the requirements are medically justified. There's got to be a medical consensus on the kind of clinical support required for a safe abortion. You start out in 1954 by saying, "friend of the family, friend of the family, friend of the family." By 1968, you can't say "friend of the family" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "friend of the family, friend of the family."
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
mortal posted:If only there was a group of doctors, say an association, that could officially give their opinion. They would truly be a friend of the court. Skrewtape posted:What I don't understand is why we have to have these tortured justifications and equally tortured refutations instead of just asking some doctors if the requirements are medically justified. There's got to be a medical consensus on the kind of clinical support required for a safe abortion. It's a Bad Idea for legal systems to take the recommendation of medical (or even scientific) entities at face value. Setting aside the fact that they are sometimes just factually wrong or corrupted, such entities have vested interests in the outcome of cases and are themselves political, politicized entities. I might agree with their recommendations here, but there's a reason they're relegated to amici and not particularly central to either party's presentation of the case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Do you suggest that lawyers be experts on all fields of life public and private? Or do you assume they already are by virtue of having passed the bar?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's a Bad Idea for legal systems to take the recommendation of medical (or even scientific) entities at face value. Setting aside the fact that they are sometimes just factually wrong or corrupted, such entities have vested interests in the outcome of cases and are themselves political, politicized entities. I might agree with their recommendations here, but there's a reason they're relegated to amici and not particularly central to either party's presentation of the case. Wait, so it's bad for the law to take into account medical or scientific entities because they are political and politicized...but lawyers and politicians aren't? Or am I entirely misreading your statement there?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Wait, so it's bad for the law to take into account medical or scientific entities because they are political and politicized...but lawyers and politicians aren't? Or am I entirely misreading your statement there? The statement seems to be that just because a medical or scientific group advocates a certain way doesn't mean that that stance is selfless, without bias, and containing all the truth. Thus just because you've got some medical opinions backing you up doesn't mean the court should simply accept their findings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:53
|
|