|
mila kunis posted:seems to me that the supreme court just makes poo poo up and uses whatever justification they can to reach the political end goal they want shocked pikachu face
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
i wonder if any medical associations are considering redefining pregnancies as beginning at the first missed menstrual cycle rather than the last actual menstrual cycle just to gently caress with this law the current definition already makes no sense anyway and just confuses people also ive never understood how its supposed to work with people who have irregular menstrual cycles
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
lol remember RBG officiating some wedding right before getting covid and dying
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 18:32
|
|
|
Jose posted:lol remember RBG officiating some wedding right before getting covid and dying We don't know if covid was a comorbidity but I just know deep in my heart that it was, especially because it was a maskless wedding
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/drogon_dracarys/status/1433954244709736449
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 02:46
|
|
|
 so the reaction of the justice department to the new weird abortion law is to promise to enforce all the other non weird abortions laws that already exist that they were already enforcing thats comforting
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 05:10
|
|
|
that statement says nothing about the Texas law
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 06:00
|
|
|
it would be kind of funny if you got sued by a private citizen for a violation of the tx law it would then allow you to counter sue them under the face act
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 07:01
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:that statement says nothing about the Texas law did you read the first sentence
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 15:16
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:that statement says nothing about the Texas law https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLP58Di0jd4
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 15:18
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:a ruth bader ginsburg style cult of personality
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
do we have pictures
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
indigi posted:did you read the first sentence yes, it refers to a woman seeking an abortion. the Texas law does not involve the woman seeking an abortion, it allows people to sue companies and people that provide or facilitate abortions but very specifically does not allow them to sue the woman seeking an abortion. this is Texas’s “one weird trick” the part where they talk about defending clinics is about property damage. not lawsuits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
so uh, weren't people already free to sue whomever they wish? or does the new law in some way make it easier or more possible for them to actually win such a suit?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 18:35
|
|
|
Spergin Morlock posted:so uh, weren't people already free to sue whomever they wish? or does the new law in some way make it easier or more possible for them to actually win such a suit? you need standing to win a suit, which a random person wouldn't have without this law, and filing frivolous lawsuits can lead to having to pay the defendant's lawyer fees, which this law protects the random person from
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
its such a bizarre law were in totally uncharted territory about how its even supposed to work the supreme court appears to have decided to allow it to go into effect just in the hopes that someone will bring forth a more specific lawsuit to be clear the ruling was still very bad and if it had been about anything else instead of abortion they would have just unanimously said no your law is very stupid and gently caress you for trying to pass it the long game seems to be using it to chip away abortion rights moderatishly in the context of an actual legal decision
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 18:50
|
|
|
Dustcat posted:you need standing to win a suit, which a random person wouldn't have without this law, and filing frivolous lawsuits can lead to having to pay the defendant's lawyer fees, which this law protects the random person from ok but what damage would some rando suffer from someone else driving a woman to a clinic? seems like people are going to try this and get countersued for lawyers fees anyways lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 19:10
|
|
|
Spergin Morlock posted:ok but what damage would some rando suffer from someone else driving a woman to a clinic? seems like people are going to try this and get countersued for lawyers fees anyways lol The Texas law specifically empowers anyone to file suit without showing damages and protects them from being countersued for legal fees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 19:38
|
|
|
YOLOsubmarine posted:The Texas law specifically empowers anyone to file suit without showing damages and protects them from being countersued for legal fees. if someone sues the uber driver for the texas law, although they can't countersue, the FACE act would allow the person receiving the abortion or the company providing the abortion to countersue the person who filed against the driver for obstructing their ability to receive reproductive care. its like a magic the gathering interrupt sequence except everyone loses
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
The American system has so many trap doors to let you do whatever you want, or sandbag things you don't want to do. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 21:43
|
|
|
Vomik posted:if someone sues the uber driver for the texas law, although they can't countersue, the FACE act would allow the person receiving the abortion or the company providing the abortion to countersue the person who filed against the driver for obstructing their ability to receive reproductive care No it wouldn’t. The FACE act only deals with physical force or threats of physical force.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
YOLOsubmarine posted:No it wouldn’t. The FACE act only deals with physical force or threats of physical force. depends on how you want to interpret intimidation and blocking access to a clinic - guess someone will have to sue and see how they rule
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
use the FACE act to sue the entirety of texas under the guise of intimidating people wanting to get abortions
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 02:53
|
|
|
Vomik posted:depends on how you want to interpret intimidation and blocking access to a clinic - guess someone will have to sue and see how they rule quote:(a) Prohibited activities.--Whoever-- (1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services;[3] There’s not a lot of room for interpretation there but even if there was it’s a federal crime so you’d have to convince the feds to bring charges.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 05:27
|
|
|
YOLOsubmarine posted:There’s not a lot of room for interpretation there but even if there was it’s a federal crime so you’d have to convince the feds to bring charges. according to the libertarian doctrine that taxation is the use of force (which probably 5/9 supreme court justices would agree with) then therefore a civil court proceeding that has the result of requiring someone to pay you money is the use of force and therefore the existence of this law is the threat of force to intimidate or interfere with providing reproductive health services, there you go fbi please come invade texas to give free abortions to everyone
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 13:57
|
|
|
YOLOsubmarine posted:There’s not a lot of room for interpretation there but even if there was it’s a federal crime so you’d have to convince the feds to bring charges. Good thing the US Attorney General is saying the doj will do just that. Whether a court will buy their argument who knows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 14:19
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Good thing the US Attorney General is saying the doj will do just that. Whether a court will buy their argument who knows. Read the statement again, that’s not what it says.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 16:54
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Breyer will never retire and is going to die the very instant Republicans regain a Senate majority. It will be funnier that way but it wouldn't have mattered if he died the instant Biden took office, the democrats wouldn't bother to appoint anybody because they'd rather fundraise off the vacancy leading up to the most important election ever Then Mitch open palm slams a justice into the slot
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 17:03
|
|
|
YOLOsubmarine posted:Read the statement again, that’s not what it says. I mean, there is already precedent that a foreign court duly enforcing the law against Americans doing business in their country can be charged under RICO because issuing decisions the U.S. government doesn't like is a form a racketeering. Now just apply that to Texas courts!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2021 18:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/1436060594872926218?s=20
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 01:52
|
|
|
he’s going to retire the first day of trump’s second term
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2021 01:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 22:09
|
|
|
my brain is far bigger than Dan rathers because I could easily make that up
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/Law360/status/1437825987539001346
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 01:56
|
|
|
this is why you don't stick your neck out for the dems
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 06:07
|
|
|
lol what a punk
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 06:23
|
|
|
who do I have to pay first in my pantheon of intellectual creditors?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 19:31
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:fun fact RBG loving loved that poo poo, had mugs and posters and all kinds of kitschy "Notorious RBG" crap all over her home. It was like the judicial version of the dumb basic yuppie lifestyle fan club that Obama attracted
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AIIAmericanGirI/status/1438644904129875970 extremely funny how life news appears to be the only publication willing to make a big thing out of this given that the supreme court going nah why bother preventing people from trying to enforce this ridiculous law until it gets to trial was the start of all this brouhaha wanna guess why that was a crime against the republic but this isnt because the judge in question robert pitman is an obama appointee lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
owned 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 06:33
|
|
