|
vyelkin posted:It's not a joke, I honestly expect Texans to start suing internet companies for allowing other Texans to access information about abortion. For example, you could sue Google Maps for allowing someone to get directions from their house to the nearest out-of-state abortion clinic. Probably also textbook companies, medical publishers, and anyone who promotes sex education other than abstinence and marital sex for procreation. You can get even more absurd than that. Since "aiding and abetting" isn't defined in the law, you can sue any airline that flies into Texas and any company that sells vehicles there, since they all provide means for someone to get an abortion outside the state, and you could sue utilities in Texas for providing power/water to abortion clinics while you're at it too.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:35 |
|
|
morothar posted:Medium-term solution: move ops out of the state. What’s TX going to do? The same people who wrote the TX law are gonna have it passed in all states the GOP control (so a vast majority of states) by the end of 2022 at the absolute latest, its a national problem
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 17:37
|
|
|
And all of those states are passing crippling voter laws to further solidify their control over said states. Then any new states they manage to get control of in 2022 will get these lovely laws and more because they will absolutely see this country burn before they willingly let the people vote their theocratic asses out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:The same people who wrote the TX law are gonna have it passed in all states the GOP control (so a vast majority of states) by the end of 2022 at the absolute latest, its a national problem I’m not disagreeing. I’m just saying that as Facebook or Google, just move operations out of state. It’s a civil lawsuit, what are chud states going to do?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 17:43
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:You can get even more absurd than that. And since seeing can lead to destitution can I then go up to somebody seeing me for helping a woman get an abortion and shoot them under castle doctrine because their threatening my life and liberty? Because it’s the same logic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 18:04
|
|
|
Just in case anyone in here didn't know exactly how things were going to go: https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1433459909732020225 loving burn the judiciary to the ground.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 18:19
|
|
|
morothar posted:I’m not disagreeing. I’m just saying that as Facebook or Google, just move operations out of state. It’s a civil lawsuit, what are chud states going to do? I don't think Republican states even care if they chase away businesses anymore Big business governors like Doug Ducey or Rick Perry who are Chamber of Commerce simps that could be threatened into vetoing bathroom bills or mandating gardasil etc are on their way out. Every time one of them retires they're replaced with some nutjob like Abbott or Kemp who does not care. We had Georgia Republicans threatenimg Delta's subsidies last year who thought we'd ever see that. They've found a way to rile up vast swathes of nonvoters with advertising and grievance and insanity, if anything they're warming up to the thought that if they drive out all the high-tech businesses and the educated workers with them, they'll benefit politically and become even more powerful. They're fine with burning down their own economy if they can rule over the ashes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't think Republican states even care if they chase away businesses anymore Agreed. Thinking about it, I feel like that’s actually a much more solid political strategy than even gerrymandering or disenfranchisement (though these may be necessary temporary precursors): use the power you have to turn your states into conservative theocratic hell-scapes. Once a sufficient amount of liberals moves out or is discouraged from moving in, you’ve created a more persistent imbalance than through any other means. You also get to keep the senate, and by extension, the Supreme Court that enables all of this. Pity about Texas though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
The federal structure of our government has been loving us that way since day 1 In any kind of actual democracy if you make people hate you so much they flee political subdivisions you control just to get away from you, your influence in the national government shrinks proportionally. Thanks to the senate and (to a lesser extent) the electoral college it doesn't matter how many people support you as long as you control the right bits of land. You can even disenfranchise most of your population you still get the same federal representation, making you even more powerful than a small-d democratic party whose principles mean they are ok with losing sometimes to the other party in states they tend to control. And it didn't have to happen, a plan for a unicameral population based legislature was almost adopted for the constitution because of just how bad the 1-state 1-vote Confederation government was! gently caress you New Hampshire this is all your fault.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Just in case anyone in here didn't know exactly how things were going to go: I’m surprised they didn’t have this ready 8am
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Of course the eviction moratorium has more of a relationship to disease than the Muslim ban had to national security, interesting that back then the Roberts court ruled that it isn't the court's job to say whether the relationship to what the executive wants to do is good enough or not, and didn't mind congress doing some delegating when they liked what the delegatee was doing morothar posted:I’m feeling like folks get too hung up too far downstream, when it should be a basic question of jurisprudence. The correct answer should be along the lines of: “Did you fuckers not pay attention? Abortion is a right; any law that’s passed that tries to restrict that right in a way that can’t be justified relative to other rights and interests is unconstitutional and gets struck” *which, no, he wasn't, but that doesn't matter from a legal standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No. Thanks, I am aware of the blue slip policy, which is not "Democrats unilaterally promising not to appoint liberals to the 5th circuit." Literacy includes "knowing what words mean", and the opinion commentary article you keep citing talking about how Democrats (partially) restored blue slip rules only to have them ignored again under Republican leadership does not equate, in any way, to "Democrats unilaterally promising not to appoint liberals to the 5th circuit." Good evidence for proving "Democrats unilaterally promising not to appoint liberals to the 5th circuit." is not a thing that happened would be Gregg Costa, Stephen A. Higginson, and James E. Graves Jr... 5th circuit court justices nominated by Obama and confirmed in the senate, during the time period in which you are claiming this "promise not to appoint liberals to the 5th circuit" got made. So did this promise never exist, or did democrats just break their promise after making it? Or are we going to move the goal posts and talk about how those three judges aren't really liberals?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Controlling the entry of non-citizens is widely acknowledged by both law and the courts to be one of the areas where the executive has the greatest latitude this is just a circular argument
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
The bigger issue with Hawaii was they made a totally inconsistent judgement in another case in the same session.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
Stephen Breyer continues to show that he has a good sense of timing. Today is the hardcover release date of his new book.  quote:A sitting justice reflects upon the authority of the Supreme Court―how that authority was gained and how measures to restructure the Court could undermine both the Court and the constitutional system of checks and balances that depends on it. Good and timely thesis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 19:59
|
|
|
LegendaryFrog posted:Good evidence for proving "Democrats unilaterally promising not to appoint liberals to the 5th circuit." is not a thing that happened would be Gregg Costa, Stephen A. Higginson, and James E. Graves Jr... 5th circuit court justices nominated by Obama and confirmed in the senate, during the time period in which you are claiming this "promise not to appoint liberals to the 5th circuit" got made. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Costa quote:In July 2011, Texas's two Republican senators, John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, sent a letter to President Barack Obama, recommending that he nominate Costa to the vacant seat on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas that had been created when Judge John David Rainey took senior status in June 2010  We can quibble over the definition of 'liberal' if you want to argue that John Cornyn would recommend a liberal, so let's skip that and I'll revise my wording that Democrats unilaterally promised not to nominate anyone Republicans didn't like and that Republicans eventually took advantage of this and said "ok great then we don't like anyone at all"
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
Honestly the fastest way to get SB8 repealed is just to sue every TX state legislator for procuring an abortion for their mistress in some remote county, because the law appears to insulate claimants from assessments of attorney's fees or costs. Anyway, I'm sure everyone mad about Texas playing gently caress-gently caress games to avoid judicial review is equally incensed by New York attempting to evade review of its gun permit system by just issuing a gun permit to anyone with a case that looks favorable and claiming the matter is settled.  https://dl.airtable.com/.attachments/09ac862147fd6ace59828095998007be/628d9a6f/AbekassisvNYCCertPetition.pdf VitalSigns posted:this is just a circular argument Groovelord Neato posted:The bigger issue with Hawaii was they made a totally inconsistent judgement in another case in the same session.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
I’d argue the opposite: if you pass a state law in a sphere that has been decided at the federal level, that law bears a burden of proof of constitutionality, and should be regarded as suspect instead of pretending it needs to be reviewed de novo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:In what way? "The courts treated executive discretion differently in that case because the courts treated executive discretion differently in that case"
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
How is this Texas abortion case not in direct contradiction to the long standing holding that courts cannot enforce restrictive covenants which violate equal protection clause matters (IE, a deed that says no black people can live here) Those cases don't even have a state legislation cause of action origination, they are entirely based on contracts between two parties. I'm aware the equal protection clause is not the fundamental right granting basis for abortion, but if the state can enforce civil actions against people to abridge their right to abortion, why couldn't the state enforce civil actions to abridge people their equal protection rights?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:How is this Texas abortion case not in direct contradiction to the long standing holding that courts cannot enforce restrictive covenants which violate equal protection clause matters (IE, a deed that says no black people can live here) I imagine because those covenants weren't barred based on esoteric arguments about the 4th amendment's ineffable penumbra, but were explicitly invalidated by federal legislation which the courts ruled was a constitutional use of federal power. School desegregation was an equal protection issue, but privately sponsored discrimination had to be addressed with legislation. Congress could solve the problem today by passing Roe v Wade into federal law, but for political reasons they prefer to pass the buck to the courts and say the only thing we can do is hope some old men squint their eyes just the right way to see abortions hovering just inside the penumbra of privacy rights VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Sep 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 21:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I imagine because those covenants weren't barred based on esoteric arguments about the 4th amendment's ineffable penumbra, but were explicitly invalidated by federal legislation which the courts ruled was a constitutional use of federal power. Nope. They weren’t even barred! What was barred was enforcement of those covenants by the courts, as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. No legislation involved whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 21:29
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Nope. They weren’t even barred! What was barred was enforcement of those covenants by the courts, as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Exactly, there was less of a nexus of state created cause of action in the restrictive covenants then in this Texas case, where the cause of action was created entirely out of thin air by the legislature through this law. There should be a significantly more compelling reason to bar state official from enforcing it than the entirely private contract based restrictive covenants that violate other fundamental rights, unless for some reason equal protection rights are somehow special in demanding a bar on state officials from enforcing an abridging of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
The real answer is that Shelley v Kraemer is actually a Bush v Gore - a case where it just doesn’t get applied beyond its own facts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 21:35
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Nope. They weren’t even barred! What was barred was enforcement of those covenants by the courts, as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Oh interesting thanks for the case citation, I didn't realize that ruling happened back in 1948 wow I imagine today's court would be more about the sanctity of contract if it came up again E: Holy poo poo lol quote:Three justices—Robert H. Jackson, Stanley Reed and Wiley B. Rutledge—recused themselves from the case because they owned property subject to restrictive covenants. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Sep 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 21:44
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:How is this Texas abortion case not in direct contradiction to the long standing holding that courts cannot enforce restrictive covenants which violate equal protection clause matters (IE, a deed that says no black people can live here) Because 5 of the conservative justices want abortion outlawed in its entirety and the SCOTUS has long known that it can do whatever it wants without repercussion. Even if the executive and legislative branches came over to overrule the SCOTUS on something, the SCOTUS could and would be able to say "nu-uh that's Unconstitutional try again" (I'm going to beat the Shelby County drum until the end of time) and the other two branches would accept it. Only slightly more likely would be that those two branches would respond by packing the courts but there is zero loving chance of that happening. VitalSigns posted:Congress could solve the problem today by passing Roe v Wade into federal law, but for political reasons they prefer to pass the buck to the courts and say the only thing we can do is hope some old men squint their eyes just the right way to see abortions hovering just inside the penumbra of privacy rights Even if they did that, which they won't because lots of lovely Dems oppose abortion rights, the SCOTUS could at any point rule that abortion law unconstitutional because they say so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Holy poo poo lol Worth noting that that may well not have been something they sought out - one of the most pernicious aspects of racial covenants was that they run with the land. You can’t sell it to someone else without the covenant attached, and removing them can be non-trivial - those covenants are often still in the deeds when those houses are sold today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Worth noting that that may well not have been something they sought out - one of the most pernicious aspects of racial covenants was that they run with the land. You can’t sell it to someone else without the covenant attached, and removing them can be non-trivial - those covenants are often still in the deeds when those houses are sold today. I mean yeah once it's on the deed you can't get rid of it and if they'd sought those out to keep blacks and Chinese out of the neighborhood I figure they wouldn't have recused themselves from the case that nerfed them. Just drat even if you're on the supreme court it's like "you want a non-racist house, that's a real tall order mister" Evil Fluffy posted:Even if they did that, which they won't because lots of lovely Dems oppose abortion rights, the SCOTUS could at any point rule that abortion law unconstitutional because they say so. Could they. I've never really bought the "they can't overturn Roe, it's a bridge too far" reasoning, I think liberals mostly won't care because they've won that ideological fight within the Democratic party and they write off red states already as full of people so stupid they get what they deserve for voting Republican anyway. But what legal argument would overturn Roe V Wade The Federal Law? Assuming they bothered with the fig leaf of legal argument and didn't write "gently caress you, no", the feds can obviously regulate healthcare. They could rule on fetal personhood and say a fertilized egg has a 4th Amendment right to life, but that would ban abortion nationwide and I think that really would be a bridge too far. I'm genuinely asking, like if Florida said "you know what we think cancer is fake and gay, cancer treatment is illegal in Florida now" that would clearly violate federal law and wouldn't stand. Wouldn't abortion work like that unless the courts ruled zygotes are people, in which case they'd have to ban it nationwide not just let red states do it VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Sep 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
I'm not entirely sure on whether they would attack Roe directly because ultimately what they actually want to do is grant themselves authority over how people act in private, so they might take the line that Griswold v Connecticut was the thing that that was decided incorrectly. In the Righteous Theocracy that the fascies want, the right to privacy would be privatized to those who could afford it, because the state (read: themselves, personally) has a vested interest in maintaining social order by legislating out the things they find distasteful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 22:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I mean yeah once it's on the deed you can't get rid of it and if they'd sought those out to keep blacks and Chinese out of the neighborhood I figure they wouldn't have recused themselves from the case that nerfed them. Don't rule out them banning abortion via fetal personhood. Banning abortion nationwide isn't a bridge too far for the modern Republican Party. When McConnell was warning the Democrats not to abolish the filibuster, he gave a list of things the Republicans would do next time they had a majority if the filibuster was abolished, and a fetal personhood bill was on that list. If McConnell is using it as a threat to keep the Dems in line, it's close enough to the Republican mainline that you really can't guarantee five justices wouldn't decide to go for it. I don't think it's 100% nailed on, but I think if Congress somehow passed a nationwide abortion law there's a non-zero chance that SCOTUS strikes it down via fetal personhood and thereby bans abortion in the United States completely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But what legal argument would overturn Roe V Wade The Federal Law? Assuming they bothered with the fig leaf of legal argument and didn't write "gently caress you, no", the feds can obviously regulate healthcare. They could rule on fetal personhood and say a fertilized egg has a 4th Amendment right to life, but that would ban abortion nationwide and I think that really would be a bridge too far. "Abortion is murder and legalizing murder is unconstitutional."
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"The courts treated executive discretion differently in that case because the courts treated executive discretion differently in that case"
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:"Abortion is murder and legalizing murder is unconstitutional." Ok sure but do they have 5 votes for that. I mean we have their dissents in June Medical Services and none of them said abortion is murder and it's illegal to legalize it. Thomas and Alito think Roe was wrong and the state legislature should decide philosophical questions of personhood. Thomas also thinks Griswold is wrong and states should decide questions like whether condoms make Jesus sad and whether the reverse cowgirl position is a crime. Gorsuch accepts Roe and Casey and says all these stupid laws aren't undue burdens. Kavanaugh accepts Roe and Casey and Whole Women's Health and says there wasn't enough evidence that this case is similar enough to Whole Women's Health maybe the law isn't as bad. I think a federal law would work, if they wanted to rule that abortion is illegal from sea to shining sea because of fetal personhood they would have done that already or at least it'd be in their dissents.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 23:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If you think "courts defer to the judgment of the government/executive to different degrees depending on the subject & circumstances" is illogical and contradictory, uh, I'm not sure what to tell you except that it's unlikely to change and probably for the best. Maybe it's for the best, especially in your eyes when you happen to like the outcome, but it certainly isn't required by the constitution as you were trying to claim. They rewrote the law authorizing the CDC to use its discretion to fight the pandemic because they didn't like how the CDC was doing it so they claimed the relationship between preventing evictions and controlling a pandemic was too tenuous in some nebulous fashion (even though it is just objectively the case that distrupting millions of people's housing and throwing them all into the street is going to worsen an epidemic) They didn't second-guess the Muslim Ban even though there was objectively not even a plausible national security justification and said it would be unconstitutional of them to second-guess a relationship asserted by the president. It's pretty clear what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 23:46
|
|
|
In addition to the racism, why did we ever think it was a good idea to let someone bind all future owners of the land forever without any new consideration? Why is that part of the common law? This is the rule against perpetuities but in contact or deed form so it somehow doesn’t count.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 23:59
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:"Abortion is murder and legalizing murder is unconstitutional." Is it though? What’s the constitutional authority that a state can’t legalize murder? Nobody has done it because that’s insane, but…
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 00:02
|
|
|
von Metternich posted:Is it though? What’s the constitutional authority that a state can’t legalize murder? Nobody has done it because that’s insane, but… Ardlen fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Sep 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 01:08
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Honestly the fastest way to get SB8 repealed is just to sue every TX state legislator for procuring an abortion for their mistress in some remote county, because the law appears to insulate claimants from assessments of attorney's fees or costs. Ah yes, truly there is no difference between a state licensing board issuing a license to moot a legal problem before it sees a courtroom and a state government turning every human being in the United States into a vigilante mercenary to try and completely bypass the checks and balances system of American democracy. Exactly the same thing. What was it you said in your very next post? Something like: Dead Reckoning posted:If you think "courts defer to the judgment of the government/executive to different degrees depending on the subject & circumstances" is illogical and contradictory, uh, I'm not sure what to tell you except that it's unlikely to change and probably for the best. So either the situations are fundamentally and obviously not the same and we're all completely right to not care about New York punching the 2nd Amendment right in the balls like it deserves compared to Texas's rouge state bullshit, or its actually not good for the Courts to get to Calvinball how much they defer to the government based on nothing but their personal ideology in complete defiance of both the law and common sense. Which is it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 02:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The federal structure of our government has been loving us that way since day 1 are there other large pop sovereign state federations that actually do work well? you got uh...: - Russia (lol, no) - Brasil (not doing great atm) - India (ditto) - Pakistan (i won't claim anywhere near as much knowledge here as i can about Russia's dysfunction, but afaik, not great) idk even how well the smaller pop well-established ones (Germany, Canada, Australia, Argentina, Malaysia, Nigeria) work, but at least some of those seem more functional. the EU, for all its faults, seems a better model of how you do a bigass federation, but it has that whole not being a sovereign state thing Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Stephen Breyer continues to show that he has a good sense of timing. he's not exactly wrong, in a very "my house is on fire, but look at how pretty this not-yet-melted ice cube i have on the table is--please, please do not look at the surrounding walls that are on fire, the ice cube is VERY pretty!" way
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 05:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:35 |
|
|
CMYK BLYAT! posted:are there other large pop sovereign state federations that actually do work well? you got uh...:
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 11:16
|
|