|
Evil Fluffy posted:This ruling also kills those right, or do people need to mount legal challenges, cite this case, and have the courts in those states kill each law? All struck down at once.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 14:01 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:So how many states had laws on the books like Texas? This ruling also kills those right, or do people need to mount legal challenges, cite this case, and have the courts in those states kill each law? The New York Times (paywalled) has some very handy diagrams. By my hasty count, this affects at least 25 states. (!!!!)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Yeah it has a huge impact on Abortion rights and Women's reproductive health. I can totally see this being used against several other types of "totally not making abortion" laws that many states have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
yeah hopefully waiting periods, ultrasounds, and doctors being forced to deliver literally false information will be knocked out by this as well
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:So how many states had laws on the books like Texas? This ruling also kills those right, or do people need to mount legal challenges, cite this case, and have the courts in those states kill each law? Technically yes, if each of those states wanted to be assholes they could continue enforcing their laws until someone filed a suit naming them specifically as a party. But it would amount to showing up in court, handing the judge a piece of paper citing this decision, and immediately winning summary judgment. Laws that are similar but not exactly identical might require new cases though, if the states decide to defend the other provisions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:yeah hopefully waiting periods, ultrasounds, and doctors being forced to deliver literally false information will be knocked out by this as well It won't but it will strengthen their arguments against those things. Really it's now up to District Courts to say whether this ruling provides guidance on some of these other issues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:All struck down at once. Not quite. Technically speaking this was an as-applied challenge and other states can argue that as applied to their states these would be ok. They'll now lose, but they can drag it out - but no circuit but the 5th was giving them the time of day with these so they'll get stayed and then struck down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
5th Circuit continues to be the worst circuit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
So it does look like that the SC ruling really hinders those loving TRAP laws that pro-life people love to use. Good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Not quite. Technically speaking this was an as-applied challenge and other states can argue that as applied to their states these would be ok. They'll now lose, but they can drag it out - but no circuit but the 5th was giving them the time of day with these so they'll get stayed and then struck down. They grabbed facial relief to an as applied challenge, though
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Has Obama just not had as many chances to appoint judges to the Fifth Circuit or what?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:yeah hopefully waiting periods, ultrasounds, and doctors being forced to deliver literally false information will be knocked out by this as well Waiting periods were already affirmed. Ultrasounds have not specifically been, but there is a 99% chance they would be. Doctor's speech restrictions have already been affirmed in lower courts, because it is "professional speech" and not personal. The Supremes haven't ruled on it yet. #DreamCrusher
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:As a clueless non-lawyer, what exactly does this level of severability actually buy you? Or is it just another attempt by a state to make the federal government's/court's job as hard as possible. The hope was that as much as possible of the bill would survive legal challenge. Severability clauses are normal, they just shot for the moon. It's unknown what would have happened with a less extreme version
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Has Obama just not had as many chances to appoint judges to the Fifth Circuit or what? 5th has 3 Clinton judges, 3 Obama, 6 Reagan, 6 GW Bush, 2 Carter, 2 GHW Bush, and 2 vacancies. There are 14 conservative appointments to 8 liberal and two empty seats at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
alnilam posted:
"[T]he state has a compelling state interesting in protecting. . . elective abortion. . . "
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:16
|
|
Every single word is severable so even if you separately strike down every other word then by gawd we'll still have HB2 on the books even if it contains only the word 'whereas'
|
yoctoontologist posted:"[T]he state has a compelling state interesting in protecting. . . elective abortion. . . " We ... su ... ck ... do ... n ... k ... e ... y ... d ... ic ... ks 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:ironically, a lot of asian (and particularly chinese) anti-affirmative action advocates are also against disaggregating the asian-american category, even though southeast asians indeed are much less well-off and less educated than chinese-americans\ I don't know what a dylann storm liu is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I don't know what a dylann storm liu is. Seems like the implication is Racist Asians looking to  with the racist white people?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Regarding Voisine, it seems like something of a problem that the Supreme Court is engaging in this sort of analysis at all. Clearly Voisine should have reasonably known that he needed to be careful with respect to guns, but I don't see how he could have reasonably known he was breaking a law when he's got two Supreme Court justices agreeing that he didn't break a law. I feel like there should be some deference to whether they could have known they were doing something illegal. Does the Department of Justice issue advisory opinions? Can I email them like "I'm considering possessing this research chemical while buying and using guns, is this something you would arrest me for?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
exploding mummy posted:Are they going to take the out that McDonnell never gave any official favors to his patron so there was no quid pro quo and thus coeruption? They took the out that arranging a meeting for someone isn't an official act. (Which is a good interpretation, because the alternative implies that a lot of traditional constituent services are corruption.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Kalman posted:They took the out that arranging a meeting for someone isn't an official act. I was speaking more on the lines of contracts/tax breaks/exemptions and not just hosting a meeting where the dude interacted with scientists and university brass as he looked at his nice new Rolex OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Jun 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
exploding mummy posted:I was speaking more on the lines of contracts/tax breaks/exemptions and not just hosting a meeting where the dude interacted with scientists and university brass as he looked at his nice new Rolex Problem is that that isn't what he actually got convicted on honest services fraud for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/heres-what-is-niext-in-scotus-abortion-decisionquote:The decision Monday marked a significant win for abortion rights advocates who had argued for years that admitting privilege laws, which require abortion providers be able to access nearby hospitals, were difficult to obtain and did little to protect the health of women. quote:The court ruled that some of those requirements in Texas, which included "among other things, detailed specifications relating to the size of the nursing staff, building dimensions, and other building requirements" did "not benefit patients" and were "not necessary."
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Problem is that that isn't what he actually got convicted on honest services fraud for. Then he'll be convicted again with correct jury instructions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/johnddavidson/status/747463316973326336
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
only if you're dumb
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:only if you're principled and consistent
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
The context for it is that Texas suggested that HB2 would force actually unsafe places to shut down (alongside everyone else), protecting Women's Health. That was their response.WhiskeyJuvenile posted:only if you're dumb I am dumb. I don't really see how that response is much different than the stupid line about "if you ban guns only criminals will have them." Like to be clear I think Texas' argument is dumb because their goal clearly isn't to shut down unsafe practices, but all of them, and that a better way to enforce safety would be to enforce actually good safety measures (which exist and are followed by the vast majority of clinics in the country). I'm looking to be told how/why I'm wrong, to be clear, and not trying to pick a fight or defend the "banning guns is pointless" bullshit, I just don't see where "banning guns is pointless" is a bad argument where the SCOTUS' argument is a good one. I think that tweet is stupid, but I also think that line in the SCOTUS ruling is as well. Magres fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Jun 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Magres posted:I am dumb. I don't really see how that response is much different than the stupid line about "if you ban guns only criminals will have them." Like to be clear I think their argument is dumb because their goal clearly isn't to shut down unsafe practices, but all of them, and that a better way to enforce safety would be to enforce actually good safety measures (which exist and are followed by the vast majority of clinics in the country). The issue is there was already significant numbers of regulations and laws the guy violated and there's no real description of how these regulations would have fixed it instead of making it more illegal. For example, to use the 'ban guns' analogy: if you ban guns semi-effectively, you will reduce the number of guns in circulation and reduce the number of people who wish to use a gun in a crime because they can't get one/find it too expensive to get one. Obviously, people will dispute if a particular regulation is effective - doubly so with guns - but that's the basic point: does the regulation do something so that people who are breaking the current ones have to comply in some way, or does it just make it more illegal when the existing illegality isn't deterring the conduct? For example that goes to the death penalty deterrence argument: the death penalty is really just about making murder more illegal and there's strong evidence that doesn't work because once you're murdering someone you're not really carefully weighing it so life without parole is a risk you're willing to run but the death penalty isn't. At a more basic level though, the issue is that there isn't a problem - this was a single guy in like a decade or two. He was an extreme, extreme case that is not at all indicative of a larger problem for those regulations to attack. He was an excuse for what we all know the regulations are deliberately designed to do: make abortion harder to get, for the sole reason that it's abortion and they aren't allowed to outright ban it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Okay that makes more sense. My takeaway of it is essentially that there is a point to enforcing some regulations (ie basic sanitation and safety standards at clinics, or simple background checks wrt guns) but that you'll never catch every case of it, and when your existing regulations are effective enough to deter the overwhelming majority of the problem, trying to catch that last 0.001% problem is pointless. In particular when trying to catch that last 0.001% problem means placing hugely burdensome regulations on everyone following the already existing and effective regulations. Thank you for the explanation! Magres fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Jun 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Magres posted:The context for it is that Texas suggested that HB2 would force actually unsafe places to shut down (alongside everyone else), protecting Women's Health. That was their response. I'd say that follows pretty directly from the following paragraph: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf posted:Regardless, Gosnell’s deplorable crimes could escape detection only because his facility went uninspected for more than 15 years. Pre-existing Texas law already contained numerous detailed regulations coveringabortion facilities, including a requirement that facilities be inspected at least annually. The record contains nothing to suggest that H. B. 2 would be more effective than pre-existing Texas law at deterring wrongdoers like Gosnell from criminal behavior. The dissent made the argument that Gosnell's actions might have been prevented through Texas's extra regulations. The majority opinion counters this by pointing out that Gosnell's actions were already illegal under existing regulations, and the reason why they went through anyways was because he wasn't inspected. In this particular context, they are entirely correct by pointing out that the additional regulations would not have made a lick of difference, since they wouldn't have made it any more likely that Gosnell's clinic would actually be inspected in the first place. The dissent's argument is essentially akin to suggesting that you can curb street-level illegal drug trade by requiring dealers to check the ID of their customers. The central action there is already illegal, piling additional statute on top of that does not make it inherently any more likely that the dealer is caught and charged in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Another issue is that there's two types of regulations: types that target wrongdoers, and types that target lazy people. If we mandate that all surgeons wash their hands before and after surgery, we're not targeting wrongdoers - we are targeting lazy surgeons who don't want to hurt people, they just won't wash their hands unless you make them. We're not targeting someone who is intentionally trying to get people sick and so a rule where everyone has to wash their hands will make a big improvement, even if someone then intentionally infects someone. There's other types of regulations that target people you think are intentionally going to try to break the rules, but there your goal is different: you want to make it more difficult for them to break the rules because they're required to do something that makes it obvious if they break the rules. For example, interlocks for people convicted of drunken driving - you have decided they can't be trusted not to try to drive when they are drunk, so you breathalyze them before the car can start. Or, you require banks to report all cash transactions over $10k so it's much more difficult for criminals to get dirty cash into the banking system. Things like that. The regulations at issue here pretend they're targeting the "lazy" clinics (there are none, really). But they're seeking to justify them with an intentional wrongdoer, because they can't justify their need based on actual evidence of "lazy" clinics. But the regulations are not targeted at those wrongdoers and so they're going to do nothing there, they're just going to raise the costs of compliance for people trying to follow the law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Laws targeting lazy vs wrongdoers also makes a lot of sense. Additionally, I am dumb and didn't read the following paragraph. Thank you for pointing it out, Perestroika! Also your new avatar is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Magres posted:The context for it is that Texas suggested that HB2 would force actually unsafe places to shut down (alongside everyone else), protecting Women's Health. That was their response. In this case you have a state's interest against the people's collective individual constitutional rights. Constitutional rights can be restricted or in some narrow cases eliminated entirely in limited circumstances if the state can prove that its necessary to advance a very important state interest. But, the state has to prove that the law is necessary when they are restricting a constitutional right. These TRAP laws significantly impact an individual's right to have an abortion, but they could be justified in an alternate reality where women were dying left and right from abortions performed in dangerous, unsanitary clinics run by unqualified morons. We don't live in that world though, and existing Texas law has made abortion very safe. Texas' argument is basically "but you never know, there could be a weird rogue clinic or doctor someday, we want to make super-duper EXTRA sure that abortion is safe!" The court is basically saying "nah, it seems safe enough, the microscopic theoretical improvement for women's health, if there is any at all, is outweighed by the huge impact to individual constitutional rights." An alternate Texas argument was that the court shouldn't try to objectively determine how safe is safe enough using evidence and expert witnesses, and that they must defer to the legislature for those judgment calls weighing state interests against individual rights. the court basically said "nah, we probably shouldn't do this often, but we can step in when you imbeciles are egregiously wrong"
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Magres posted:Laws targeting lazy vs wrongdoers also makes a lot of sense. Additionally, I am dumb and didn't read the following paragraph. Thank you for pointing it out, Perestroika! Also your new avatar is fantastic. It's not your fault that you missed out on context when an idiot took to Twitter, a medium devoid of context, to post a snippet out of context with a really stupid interpretation of that snippet that (probably) intentionally ignores the context he found it in and then another idiot posted that without context to win sick burn points. Munkeymon fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jun 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
yoctoontologist posted:"[T]he state has a compelling state interesting in protecting. . . elective abortion. . . " Huge missed opportunity for the majority here
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Another issue is that there's two types of regulations: types that target wrongdoers, and types that target lazy people. If we mandate that all surgeons wash their hands before and after surgery, we're not targeting wrongdoers - we are targeting lazy surgeons who don't want to hurt people, they just won't wash their hands unless you make them. We're not targeting someone who is intentionally trying to get people sick and so a rule where everyone has to wash their hands will make a big improvement, even if someone then intentionally infects someone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
exploding mummy posted:Thomas's dissent in Voisine boils down to I'm totally ok with that. gently caress people who text and drive. They shouldn't be able to drive either, or I think have a cell, no guns is just the icing on the 'gently caress you, you irresponsible poo poo' cake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:As a clueless non-lawyer, what exactly does this level of severability actually buy you? Or is it just another attempt by a state to make the federal government's/court's job as hard as possible. This one says that any provision of the act which is ruled unenforceable in a particular case nonetheless remains enforceable against the next poor sucker who comes along. It's conservative wet-dream law that no self-respecting judiciary would tolerate, so of course it ended up in this particular act. Gazpacho fucked around with this message at 07:23 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 14:01 |
|
|
Can someone more familiar with Casey compare the application of the undue burden standard there and in this case? Does this ruling indicate that the undue burden standard may have more teeth than it has had before?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 08:45
|
|