|
Why I violated Texas’s extreme abortion banquote:[O]n the morning of Sept. 6, I provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit. I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care. What's going to happen to this doctor, do you think?
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 08:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
boquiabierta posted:Why I violated Texas’s extreme abortion ban He can be sued but I believe it isn't criminal just civil. So lose a lot of money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 10:13
|
|
|
boquiabierta posted:Why I violated Texas’s extreme abortion ban If he's lucky he'll only get sued (which is his intent so he can force a legal issue). OTOH right wingers are loving insane so there's also a non-zero chance someone murders him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 13:39
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Which one? US v. Texas, No. 1:21-cv-00796 (W. Dist. Tex) (Sept. 9, 2021). https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/728a97df05adcf361ef9ee9233c9a1a0/US%20v%20Texas%20_%20SB%208.pdf https://apnews.com/article/texas-abortion-justice-department-lawsuit-851b4ef55da816bda704be491bfc032c
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 15:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/scotusblog/status/1439985310226685956?s=21 Prepare for pain
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
ulmont posted:US v. Texas, No. 1:21-cv-00796 (W. Dist. Tex) (Sept. 9, 2021). My bet would be no preliminary injunction, but no dismissal and it proceeds through the district court. Tying it to military healthcare/insurance was a smart choice, and USG always gets a little leeway that private entities don’t anyway. E: and there’s now a direct case filed against a provider so it’s going to be tested one way or another. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/texas-abortion-doctor-sued/2021/09/20/f5ab5c56-1a1c-11ec-bcb8-0cb135811007_story.html Kalman fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Sep 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
Bush v Gore was the point of no return for the Court and we've got what now a third of the Court composed of people that helped steal that election?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 14:11
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Bush v Gore was the point of no return for the Court and we've got what now a third of the Court composed of people that helped steal that election? And a majority of the court were appointed by presidents who lost a popular election. (Yes, I know, Bush’s appointments technically came after he “won” one)
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 14:32
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Bush v Gore was the point of no return for the Court and we've got what now a third of the Court composed of people that helped steal that election? Handmaiden was directly involved in the Brooks Brothers Riot, among other Florida election poo poo in 2000, iirc. The current SCOTUS is entirely illegitimate and that's a big part of why you have the recent coordinated gaslighting attempts by shitheads like Thomas. If/when they overturn Roe I hope there are states that just outright reject the SCOTUS in full. Biden's a centrist piece of poo poo so he'd probably crack down on said state(s) but the issue needs to be forced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 14:38
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:And a majority of the court were appointed by presidents who lost a popular election. (Yes, I know, Bush’s appointments technically came after he “won” one) Since 1968 (53 years ago now!), there have been 32 years of Republican presidents and 21 years of Democratic presidents. In that time, Republicans have appointed 16 Supreme Court justices and Democrats have appointed 4.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 14:51
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Since 1968 (53 years ago now!), there have been 32 years of Republican presidents and 21 years of Democratic presidents. In that time, Republicans have appointed 16 Supreme Court justices and Democrats have appointed 4.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 14:57
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:And a majority of the court were appointed by presidents who lost a popular election. (Yes, I know, Bush’s appointments technically came after he “won” one) It's certainly pretty indefensible that only four of the nine supreme judges for life were installed by presidents who had democratic legitimacy. What else can you call that but a kangaroo court? vyelkin posted:Since 1968 (53 years ago now!), there have been 32 years of Republican presidents and 21 years of Democratic presidents. In that time, Republicans have appointed 16 Supreme Court justices and Democrats have appointed 4. Yeah, and if you discount the years for Republican presidents who lost the popular vote it's more like 20 years of Republicans out of 53.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
It's almost as if one party has been spending decades targeting the judiciary for capture while the other has been whining about legitimacy and 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It's almost as if one party has been spending decades targeting the judiciary for capture while the other has been whining about legitimacy and you have seen with your own eyes how fast the Dems crack down on the faintest hint of social progress I'm frankly shocked they even got behind marriage equality ...well, to the extent that they are still letting the issue hang on a court case and are not using their control of Congress and the White House to enshrine it in law
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 17:04
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:you have seen with your own eyes how fast the Dems crack down on the faintest hint of social progress Technically, there's an argument that marriage equality is another Federalist Society win. The lead counsel for plaintiffs was Theodore Olsen who literally used to host federalist society student conventions at his house. The Democrats didn't win that court case, the Federalist Society won that court case. It's just one of those rare libertarian clocks right twice a day situations like pot legalization where the libertarian wing of the Republicans happened to support a civil liberty by chance. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Sep 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Technically, there's an argument that marriage equality is another Federalist Society win. The lead counsel for plaintiffs was Theodore Olsen who literally used to host federalist society student conventions at his house. The Democrats didn't win that court case, the Federalist Society won that court case. ??? Olson was brought on by committed Democrats who wanted a good appellate lawyer (which Olson absolutely is). And FedSoc folks writ large wanted him to drop the case. They get no credit. (Especially not a reasonable argument since the SCOTUS cases were led by Roberta Kaplan and Mary Bonauto.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
IIRC, Obama was also pretty much silent on SSM and LGBT rights until there were court cases that made it clear those changes would happen one way or another. I forget the case in question, I think it was some Log Cabin Republicans suing over DADT-adjacent stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
obama campaigned for "civil unions" and against same sex marriage. he only publicly supported same sex marriage in a very perfunctory way after biden went public on it, which obama privately threw a hissy fit over. naturally liberal rags from the NYT to the New Yorker lauded obama for his courage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 19:53
|
|
|
I think you'll find that Obama always personally believed that same-sex couples should have the same rights, but just didn't feel that it could be made official policy without violating people's religious rights, lol. Get bent, Barack.
Stickman fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Sep 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
Obama is the ultimate embodiment of the Democratic Party and he better thank God every day that his presidency was book-ended by two massive disasters since it makes him look amazing by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 21:10
|
|
|
What'll always stick in my head was Obama agreeing to be part of the Saddleback Megachurch forum hosted by Rick Warren. It was such a loving surreal event even for my then 16 year old idiot rear end to watch. Warren was a vocal creationist and anti-LGBT but Obama not only went over to his propaganda event to court the Evangelical crowd, he later invited Warren to give the inauguration invocation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
What does it take for Texas to overturn a death sentence? https://twitter.com/jsmccullou/status/1440680330726313994?s=20 It turns out the answer is to have the prosecutor also moonlight as the lead clerk on the case, and openly handle all of the judge's legal work for his own case. https://twitter.com/RMFifthCircuit/status/1440742120856252425 Of course, by the time this comes out, the judge has died of old age, and the prosecutor was disbarred a whole year before he would have retired anyway due to being old.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 21:44
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:IIRC, Obama was also pretty much silent on SSM and LGBT rights until there were court cases that made it clear those changes would happen one way or another. I forget the case in question, I think it was some Log Cabin Republicans suing over DADT-adjacent stuff. In 2008, Obama favored civil unions, but opposed same-sex marriage, trumpeting that old "marriage is between a man and a woman (and the Christian God)" line as his excuse. On LGBT rights in general, he mostly campaigned for repealing previous anti-LGBT laws like DOMA and DADT. He dragged his feet even on that, though. The DADT repeal bill wasn't passed until the end of 2010, when the Democrats got savaged in the midterms and suddenly rediscovered the ability to pass legislation in the lame-duck period before they lost the House. Obama never seriously pushed DOMA repeal at all in Congress, though in 2011 he stopped defending it in court, in hopes that the judiciary would get rid of DOMA for him. In 2012, Obama suddenly "evolved" his position on gay marriage to include full support. Except even then it was a screw-up, because Biden let it slip first, which diluted the impact of the announcement. Because there's absolutely no loving way that a conspicuous position change on a major political issue in an election year wasn't carefully planned and choreographed. After that, he did basically jack poo poo on LGBT rights until midterm year came around, at which point he signed an executive order banning anti-LGBT discrimination in the workforces of federal contractors, and that was pretty much it. In 2015, he publicly supported the Obergefell ruling and suddenly started talking positively about trans people and trans rights, but once again, there wasn't much action to back up the words. Incidentally, this is about the same time Axelrod wrote a book attempting to absolve Obama of all responsibility for his pre-2012 position, claiming that Obama was always pro-SSM and that his advisors had convinced a reluctant Obama to oppose gay marriage in order to appeal to black churches. I'm glad Axelrod is such a terrible liar. For me, the thing that's always stood out the most about Obama's movements on gay marriage and LGBT rights is that they were always in an election year or in a lame duck period. He completely ignored LGBT folks in odd-numbered years, with the notable exception of 2015, when he no longer had any elections to win and was already shifting into his lame-duck who-gives-a-gently caress mode. It's pretty clear that if the Dems had held the House and Senate, DADT repeal would have come later than it actually did - I suspect it was something he'd been planning to sit on until 2012.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 21:47
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Technically, there's an argument that marriage equality is another Federalist Society win. The lead counsel for plaintiffs was Theodore Olsen who literally used to host federalist society student conventions at his house. The Democrats didn't win that court case, the Federalist Society won that court case. I was referring to marriage equality as an issue on the party platform, but daaaaaaayum.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2021 13:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1441038499843489810?s=20
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2021 14:59
|
|
|
Breyer's stances are a microcosm of the current generation of liberals in charge of the DNC/Democratic Party as a whole. They are too rich and old to have to deal with the consequences of them continually losing fights to an increasingly reactionary Right. So I really don't see any urgency among any of them to fix the issues that needed to be fixed a decade or more ago. Which is just going to continue to fuel the Right and push people away from the Dems as people become disenchanted and just disengage from the party while you have Trump or his successor preparing to go full fash when they get back into office.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2021 23:47
|
|
|
Yes, and I also think they badly miscalculate the problem because they're so out of touch. "Centrists" like Breyer think it's the '80s and that slapping Republicans on the back and befriending them will lead to bipartisanship - "my good friends across the aisle" and all that. It hasn't been that way since the '90s at the very least, but they're stuck in the past and seemingly unable to adjust to the modern world. Republicans know this and they're deliberately skirting the edge because they can, knowing that Democratic leadership is too trapped in decorum to do much except wag their fingers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 00:14
|
|
|
Maybe it's more that some rich fucks feel a sense of solidarity with their fellows that comes from understanding that their work is somewhere between noblesse oblige and a hobby and they think the other side still feels the same way, or at least believe that they'll be motivated enough by self-interest to prevent a collapse of the systems that enrich them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 00:23
|
|
|
Maybe the most likely answer is that SCOTUS perceives a threat to its power as an institution and has coordinated a "charm offensive" that they are the high priests of democracy, not extraordinarily powerful politicians in robes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-public-opinion/2021/09/25/379b51ec-1c6c-11ec-bcb8-0cb135811007_story.html quote:A Gallup poll released last week said Americans’ opinions of the Supreme Court have dropped to a new low, with only 40 percent approving of the justices’ job performance. “At this point, less than a majority of Republicans, Democrats and independents approve of the job the court is doing,” said Gallup, which has been tracking the trend since 2000. It turns out people noticed when the court de facto banned abortion in every red state without so much as signing a loving opinion. As the Republicans lose power elsewhere, their stacked Supreme Court is being thrust into the center of every controversy, and equivocating is no longer helping.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 01:09
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Maybe the most likely answer is that SCOTUS perceives a threat to its power as an institution and has coordinated a "charm offensive" that they are the high priests of democracy, not extraordinarily powerful politicians in robes. people can notice but not care enough to remedy it though, they've often banked on this and, well, it's paid off pretty handily.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Yes, and I also think they badly miscalculate the problem because they're so out of touch. "Centrists" like Breyer think it's the '80s and that slapping Republicans on the back and befriending them will lead to bipartisanship - "my good friends across the aisle" and all that. It hasn't been that way since the '90s at the very least, but they're stuck in the past and seemingly unable to adjust to the modern world. Republicans know this and they're deliberately skirting the edge because they can, knowing that Democratic leadership is too trapped in decorum to do much except wag their fingers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 04:54
|
|
|
I love how Democrats are all like buddy buddy with Republicans thanks to but almost all of the Republicans would feed the Democrats into a wood chipper in hopes of their billionaire masters giving them a check for 5 cents. Especially the new wave of completely Fox-news raised Repubz.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 20:24
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Especially the new wave of completely Fox-news raised Repubz. It's less a new wave raised on Fox News (their average viewership is super old, iirc their viewership with under 50s is extremely bad) and more that a lot of the right wing assholes under the age of 40 are the product of Reagan-worshiping, MAGA-hatted boomers who have poisoned their kids' minds from the day they were born and who hate college because the exposure to other people and cultures can and regularly does break those kids free of the toxic mindset they were raised with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
jeeves posted:I love how Democrats are all like buddy buddy with Republicans thanks to Yes, the Hannity and Colmes dynamic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 21:42
|
|
|
hahaha what a whiny moron https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/1443626052450852911?s=20 https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/1443626954540953614?s=20 (a hit dog hollers) edit: lmao https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1443625449163272202?s=20 Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Sep 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
.... There is a reason skilled professors I've TAd for made assignments due at 11:55pm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 19:23
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:hahaha what a whiny moron That first one is an utterly great thread. https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/1443629876464918558?s=20 reveal yourself, Justice Alito
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
These guys get everything they wanted and they still bitch and moan. Alito is the dumbest guy the Court has ever seated and still can't be happy that he gets to be in the majority until he dies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
They must be getting pretty scared of repercussions to be whining so much about the alleged non-partisanship of the Court. Good. It's past time to expand the Court.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1443655119086755852?s=20
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 20:16
|
|