|
Rigel posted:If you scroll down just a little bit further in your link, there are apparently no doctors, hospitals, or clinics in the entire country who will do it after 24 weeks, even though the law at the national level says they could. The important thing is that there is no question if a particular medical procedure might be considered a crime by a prosecutor, grand jury and petit jury with no knowledge of medicine or anatomy.
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2022 15:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
Rigel posted:I have 3 sources from mainstream media and an academic paper from this year all saying abortion is not available in Canada after 24 weeks. To the extent that this even really matters (it probably doesn't), I don't think I have the burden of proof here. Can you come up with at least 1 good, solid source that says it is being provided? When there’s say an infection in the third trimester requiring extremely aggressive interventions to save the mother’s life that may increase the chance of a stillbirth is that an “abortion” in Canada or is that just medical care?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:If striking unions are required to pay back any damages caused by work not performed being performed strikes and unions would cease to exist. The next question is if it’s legal to quit your job.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2022 06:09
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:They're quietly investigating it, but the Supreme Court isn't really an investigative agency in the first place, and the whole institution is kind of built on putting a ton of trust in clerks and other staff, so it's not super shocking that it's taking a while. I always thought an internal investigation was gonna be dicey for exactly those reasons, but I'm sure the justices don't want to call in executive agencies to dig through their business. There isn't really much precedent for something like this. I’m going to be shocked if the entire matter isn’t dropped because it was one of the justices themselves. “The ship of state leaks from the top”
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:Barrett denied it without referring it to the whole court. The “tax payer standing” theory is going to be the last thing that the court lets go through because it’s just a mess and would create more work for the judiciary.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait wait wait, someone tried to sue because they just wanted to keep making loan payments? mobby_6kl posted:I think the idea was that in some chud state, they'd owe income tax on the amount forgiven. Obviously it would be much less than the payment and the whole thing was certainly a stunt to derail Biden's program. It is a good edge case they clearly put a lot of thought into. The student loan holder is enrolled in the public service forgiveness program and is close to the date that their loans would be forgiven under it. In their state forgiveness under the public service forgiveness program is specifically exempted from tax. So, if the state taxes owed are greater than the remaining payments until the forgiveness kicked in then that person would have damages equal to the difference. The Biden admin mooted that by requiring you to apply for forgiveness.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2022 00:00
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I'm guessing it's the HEROES act That’s what the Biden admin used. This is the original bill as enacted: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ122/html/PLAW-107publ122.htm The congressional research service published a report on the statutory basis which may be of interest to everyone: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10818 One snippet: quote:OLC next concluded that a borrower’s obligation to pay a loan’s principal and interest arises from a “statutory or regulatory provision” that applies to Title IV loans. For example, regulations state that a “borrower is obligated to repay the full amount of a Direct Loan, including the principal balance, fees, any collection costs” and “any interest not subsidized by the Secretary.” Because a borrower’s payment obligation derives from statute and regulation, OLC concluded that the obligation was subject to waiver or modification under the HEROES Act.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2022 21:47
|
|
|
This is the FDA lawsuit: https://adflegal.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Alliance-for-Hippocratic-Medicine-v-FDA-2022-11-18-Complaint.pdf It’s… something. quote:First, the FDA never had the authority to approve these drugs for sale. In 2000, the FDA approved chemical abortion drugs under 21 C.F.R. § 314, Subpart H (Subpart H). This regulation authorizes the FDA to grant “accelerated approval” of “certain new drug products that have been studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments.” 21 C.F.R.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2023 01:43
|
|
|
BTW, the two drugs they’re suing over are mifepristone and misoprostol. mifepristone is also approved as: quote:--------------------INDICATIONS AND USAGE------------------- Same dose. And for misoprostol: quote:INDICATIONS AND USAGE They mention these approved indications once as an indication of how unsafe the drugs are in pregnancy but this seems to kind of make the entire matter moot, no? Well, I guess they’re suing to remove an indication for the drugs?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2023 02:06
|
|
|
PT6A posted:This is why lawyers should never represent their own interests. It's always a lovely idea. You should always seek independent legal advice in matters that require legal advice, even if you yourself are qualified to provide legal advice. See also whatever the gently caress is going on with Bad Faith still having Virgil on the branding.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
Devor posted:Deny cert That’s fine until there’s a circuit split because lower courts have no idea how to implement the inconsistent standards.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2023 21:04
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:At which point they issue a ruling of "do X but not Y (because we like X and gently caress Y)" to further bend the country in the direction they've been pushing for decades. Roberts cares enough about this stuff to not go along with striking it down. He just needs someone else. Gorsuch?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2023 21:23
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:They all did. Beer and Gorsuch were the only two who dissented. There's probably some kind of reason for it, but none of them put their reasoning in writing. If I had to guess, I'd say it's most likely because there's a precedent from the 1980's that Gorsuch mentions in his dissent where a court “approved the use of court-appointed prosecutors as a ‘last resort’ in certain criminal contempt cases." So while it's undoubtedly a conflict of interests, unfair, and almost assuredly bad, it's a thing that's happened before. Only 2 published something and 4 are needed to hear a case. Does that leave the possibility that one justice voted to hear the case but didn’t want to join the opinion for whatever reason?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2023 17:15
|
|
|
Shazback posted:Extra rich coming from the Justice that professes that it doesn't matter what decisions others have made, he should make his own determination. And he has.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2023 18:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't really understand why any of this is a problem? Unless you’re governor of Illinois for some bizarre reason, then bribery laws work the way everyone thinks they should and not this way.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2023 21:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1655993723866738688?s=46&t=TBi_iSImUmzjTxXAKsMEHw While a snarky quip is this possibly actually pretty clever? The obvious “legislative purpose” for investigating a Supreme Court justice would be for impeachment, a function of the house and not the senate. Subpoenas for impeachment would have to go through a committee setup by McCarthy so could this angle simply be to create a stalemate?
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2023 19:09
|
|
|
Hennepin county lost hard on the takings clause case, that’s good at least. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-166_8n59.pdf
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2023 16:06
|
|
|
AvesPKS posted:There aren't any reserve military railroad engineers waiting to step in and replace them, right? Seems like a pretty serious vulnerability. What if some bad actor decided to just hire away all the rail engineers into other jobs for more money? Seems more effective at disruption than bombs, in this system we've created. For some truly random trivia I looked this up once when joking about rail engineers. The answer is actually yes, the military does have rail engineers! About a dozen. There’s a couple Air Force bases in Alaska that do not have fuel pipelines and need a yard engine to move cars full of jet fuel around. Everywhere else has pipelines or can manage with just trucks.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2023 18:27
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:I'm really curious why Thomas signed with the majority given his typical leanings, but I also don't want to gaze into the abyss. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf This is all very much on first glance: Thomas signed on to the Gorsuch opinion which simply says that the states don’t have standing because there is no remedy available to the courts. “The States lack standing because federal courts do not have the authority to redress their injuries”. The Kavanaugh opinion seems to be much narrower and goes into a bunch of ways that a different case could be ruled differently? The Gorsuch concurrence in judgement is much more direct. hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Jun 23, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
Cimber posted:So since the USSC said that courts do have the right to review congressional maps (among other things), how long until the NCSC reviews the matter of controversy? Never - the case is in fact moot. However the problem there is that if the Supreme Court always had to dismiss a case when the current specific controversy becomes moot they wouldn’t actually decide anything so they often just gloss over that sometimes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2023 16:31
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Well, the case was made moot because the NCSC said "Oh, we don't actually have the right to review this stuff." The USSC said "Yeah actually, you do have the right, don't listen to those legislators talking out their asses." I thought that was a second case but I guess technically not because the NCSC just went back and undid their previous decision? The shenanigans with this case are very confusing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
god this blows posted:This shows up in my news feed https://www.thenation.com/article/society/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-gifts-felony/ quote:The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The constitution plus prior interpretation of “civil officers” seems pretty clear about how you’re supposed to accuse and remove a justice for bribery. Testing the practical bounds of judicial immunity through a different process would seem ill advised?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2024 01:40
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Presumably the 9th is going to overrule his "I'm tossing all charges BECAUSE ANTIFA ARE THE REAL TERRISTS" decision as well and hopefully have the judge removed from the case and it handed to someone whose brain hasn't turned into a bubbling cauldron of diarrhea and white wing talking points. Aren’t there more permanent ways the judge can spike the case if push comes to shove?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2024 04:41
|
|
|
Slaan posted:I've seen some law profs basically say this makes it so the only way to stop Trump for 14th amendment reasons at this point is for Congress to refuse to certify his electoral votes. You know, the very same thing Trump tried to riot his way into doing! I mean, it was always up to congress at the end of the day? quote:No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2024 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I want to bring attention to an interesting exchange with ACB in oral arguments for Grants Pass, a suit involving an Oregon town that's I think they’re trying to say that they would need to rule on an actual application of the law to determine if it’s cruel and unusual instead of hypotheticals?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2024 18:16
|
|