injinji
Well-Known Member
It's according to how far they go. If there is enough votes for personhood for the unborn, then all bets are off.
Is a reversal of Roe v Wade decision next?
- Thread starter CunningCanuk
- Start date
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
we're not only trying, we're succeeding...a lot slower than i like, but it's not hard to outsmart most republicans...they believe whatever you tell them, as long as its stupid and wrong...
Thanks for the info.
Budley Doright
Well-Known Member
Try???? Try what, winning? Seems that’s happening now. I hope your salty tears aren’t rusting your trailer
!
maxamus1
Well-Known Member
You are so right glad I could help.
maxamus1
Well-Known Member
Awwww look hes starting to turn red.
canndo
Well-Known Member
That is exactly how it works. But the richer errant women who are capable of getting a room somewhere in California next to a clinic might just have a problem upon returning home to Alabama after her little operation if her family, the attending physician, the airline and the Ramada in are sued.
One wonders exactly how that might work and the part the feds might be required to play.
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
You’re the one spending the day in here making a fool of yourself.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
dude, the day you can change my mood is the day the entire earth spins out of orbit and crashes into the sun...i only put value in the opinions of people who i DON'T think have their heads up their asses, and you clearly do not qualify to be taken seriously, you're a third rate troll, at best
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
i do have a job, i grow and sell weed...maybe you should try to trade up, i'm sure all the grease you get on you at kfc every day can't be good for your complection...
oh, and i ignored you, just so you don't assume you're living rent free in my head...no room for freeloading basement dwellers. have as good a life as karma will allow you to have
Budley Doright
Well-Known Member
Not in 28 opps 38 years but I could give you some pointers if your looking?
printer
Well-Known Member
Judge rules that enforcement provisions of Texas abortion law violate state constitution
District Judge David Peeples said enforcement mechanisms in the law denied due process and violated Texas's state constitution.
The controversial law bans all abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected. That milestone usually comes about six weeks into pregnancy, a point at which many are not yet aware that they are pregnant.
Peeples took issue with the law allowing anyone to file a suit against abortion providers and other individuals who "aid and abet" those who violate the law without the plaintiffs having to first prove that they have been harmed by such actions. The Texas law allows plaintiffs who succeed in their suits to collect a summary judgement of $10,000 plus legal fees from those they sue.
If they lose the case, meanwhile, plaintiffs are not required to pay the other person's legal fees. Critics have lambasted this provision as placing a bounty on abortion providers.
"SB 8 grants to 21 million Texans the power to bring cases without any guidance, supervision, or screening," Peeples wrote in his order.
"There is no guidance in the statute and no guidance from any public official. There is nothing to prevent a billionaire from Texas or another state, motivated by ideology, from setting up an enforcement system by locating a few willing Texans who live in favorable counties of venue to file suits in their home counties and enforce SB 8 across Texas," he added.
The case Peeples was considering had been consolidated from more than a dozen originally separate cases that all sought to declare the law unconstitutional and prevent the Texas Right to Life anti-abortion organization from filing lawsuits against the numerous plaintiffs, the Austin American-Statesman reported.
Peeples acknowledged that elements of the law are unconstitutional. The law is still effect, however, because the case was focused solely on the plaintiffs in the case and Texas Right to Life. Despite the limited effects of this ruling, the American-Statesman noted that it could have a broader impact going forward.
thehill.com
District Judge David Peeples said enforcement mechanisms in the law denied due process and violated Texas's state constitution.
The controversial law bans all abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected. That milestone usually comes about six weeks into pregnancy, a point at which many are not yet aware that they are pregnant.
Peeples took issue with the law allowing anyone to file a suit against abortion providers and other individuals who "aid and abet" those who violate the law without the plaintiffs having to first prove that they have been harmed by such actions. The Texas law allows plaintiffs who succeed in their suits to collect a summary judgement of $10,000 plus legal fees from those they sue.
If they lose the case, meanwhile, plaintiffs are not required to pay the other person's legal fees. Critics have lambasted this provision as placing a bounty on abortion providers.
"SB 8 grants to 21 million Texans the power to bring cases without any guidance, supervision, or screening," Peeples wrote in his order.
"There is no guidance in the statute and no guidance from any public official. There is nothing to prevent a billionaire from Texas or another state, motivated by ideology, from setting up an enforcement system by locating a few willing Texans who live in favorable counties of venue to file suits in their home counties and enforce SB 8 across Texas," he added.
The case Peeples was considering had been consolidated from more than a dozen originally separate cases that all sought to declare the law unconstitutional and prevent the Texas Right to Life anti-abortion organization from filing lawsuits against the numerous plaintiffs, the Austin American-Statesman reported.
Peeples acknowledged that elements of the law are unconstitutional. The law is still effect, however, because the case was focused solely on the plaintiffs in the case and Texas Right to Life. Despite the limited effects of this ruling, the American-Statesman noted that it could have a broader impact going forward.
Judge rules that enforcement provisions of Texas abortion law violate state constitution
A Texas judge on Thursday ruled that parts of the state’s law restricting abortion are unconstitutional and should not be enforced, but did not issue an injunction blocking it.Distr…
thehill.com
printer
Well-Known Member
Supreme Court allows abortion providers to sue over Texas law
The Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for abortion providers to pursue a federal lawsuit challenging a restrictive Texas law that bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.
The ruling did not deal directly with the ban’s legality, and Texas's law remains intact for now. Rather, the justices determined that federal courts have the power to review their legal challenge against some of the named defendants.
In a separate opinion, the justices dismissed a similar challenge brought by the Department of Justice.
In an 8-1 opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the majority handed abortion providers a modest win whose practical impact was not immediately certain. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately that he would have dismissed the case.
The ruling allows providers to pursue a constitutional challenge in lower federal courts against state licensing officials that, if successful, could prevent these officials from seeking to enforce violations of the abortion ban.
But some legal experts said the ruling had given Texas a roadmap for blocking these lawsuits.
“If Texas were to revise the statute to make clear that the licensing officials play absolutely no role in implementing the law, then no one in Texas could be sued to enjoin it,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, who called Texas’s abortion ban “blatantly unconstitutional.”
The majority’s ruling dismissed the abortion providers’ suits against Texas’s attorney general, as well as a number of state court judges and clerks and a private citizen.
Legal challenges to the Texas law have been ensnared in thorny questions related to the law’s unique legislative design, which critics have likened to a “bounty” system.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in a separate opinion that was joined by the court’s three liberals, called Texas’s law unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court precedent and said the ban has “effectively chill[ed] the provision of abortions in Texas.”
“The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings. ... Indeed, if the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery,” Roberts wrote, citing an 1809 decision.
“The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.”
Roberts and the court’s liberal members were in agreement that abortion providers should be allowed to bring suit against state licensing officials. Contrary to the controlling opinion, though, they also would have allowed Texas’s attorney general and court clerks to be sued.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a separate opinion, joined by her fellow liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, that blasted Texas for operating “in open defiance of this Court’s precedents” and the court’s conservative members for not using Friday’s opinion to block Texas’s law.
“The Court should have put an end to this madness months ago, before S. B. 8 first went into effect. It failed to do so then, and it fails again today,” she wrote, calling the move a “dangerous departure” from precedent authorizing the court to set aside the law.
“Federal courts can and should issue relief when a State enacts a law that chills the exercise of a constitutional right and aims to evade judicial review,” she continued. “By foreclosing suit against state-court officials and the state attorney general, the Court effectively invites other States to refine S. B. 8’s model for nullifying federal rights. The Court thus betrays not only the citizens of Texas, but also our constitutional system of government.”
thehill.com
The Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for abortion providers to pursue a federal lawsuit challenging a restrictive Texas law that bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.
The ruling did not deal directly with the ban’s legality, and Texas's law remains intact for now. Rather, the justices determined that federal courts have the power to review their legal challenge against some of the named defendants.
In a separate opinion, the justices dismissed a similar challenge brought by the Department of Justice.
In an 8-1 opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the majority handed abortion providers a modest win whose practical impact was not immediately certain. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately that he would have dismissed the case.
The ruling allows providers to pursue a constitutional challenge in lower federal courts against state licensing officials that, if successful, could prevent these officials from seeking to enforce violations of the abortion ban.
But some legal experts said the ruling had given Texas a roadmap for blocking these lawsuits.
“If Texas were to revise the statute to make clear that the licensing officials play absolutely no role in implementing the law, then no one in Texas could be sued to enjoin it,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, who called Texas’s abortion ban “blatantly unconstitutional.”
The majority’s ruling dismissed the abortion providers’ suits against Texas’s attorney general, as well as a number of state court judges and clerks and a private citizen.
Legal challenges to the Texas law have been ensnared in thorny questions related to the law’s unique legislative design, which critics have likened to a “bounty” system.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in a separate opinion that was joined by the court’s three liberals, called Texas’s law unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court precedent and said the ban has “effectively chill[ed] the provision of abortions in Texas.”
“The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings. ... Indeed, if the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery,” Roberts wrote, citing an 1809 decision.
“The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.”
Roberts and the court’s liberal members were in agreement that abortion providers should be allowed to bring suit against state licensing officials. Contrary to the controlling opinion, though, they also would have allowed Texas’s attorney general and court clerks to be sued.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a separate opinion, joined by her fellow liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, that blasted Texas for operating “in open defiance of this Court’s precedents” and the court’s conservative members for not using Friday’s opinion to block Texas’s law.
“The Court should have put an end to this madness months ago, before S. B. 8 first went into effect. It failed to do so then, and it fails again today,” she wrote, calling the move a “dangerous departure” from precedent authorizing the court to set aside the law.
“Federal courts can and should issue relief when a State enacts a law that chills the exercise of a constitutional right and aims to evade judicial review,” she continued. “By foreclosing suit against state-court officials and the state attorney general, the Court effectively invites other States to refine S. B. 8’s model for nullifying federal rights. The Court thus betrays not only the citizens of Texas, but also our constitutional system of government.”
Supreme Court allows abortion providers to sue over Texas law
The Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for abortion providers to pursue a federal lawsuit challenging a restrictive Texas law that bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.The ruli…
thehill.com
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
The House Progressive Caucus has voted to endorse the Judiciary Act, which would ADD 4 SEATS to the SUPREME COURT.
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
thats a good step, but a real improvement would be limiting terms to ten years, no more life terms. that's completely ridiculous. same thing for all judges, everywhere, at all levels...no more life appointments, no more permanently packing a court that in 4 years will not only be at odds with the new administration, but will probably be working directly against it...because there is no way in hell you can tell me that thomas, gorsuch, kavanaugh, or barrett are impartial or even bipartisan...they're bombs left in position to do as much damage to the democratic party as possible, and they're working it like a charm
printer
Well-Known Member
Texas abortion ban remains in effect after appeals court ruling
A federal appeals court rejected a request from Texas abortion clinics to return their challenge against the state’s controversial abortion ban, leaving in place the strictest ban in the country.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily transferred the case to the Republican-controlled Texas Supreme Court in a 2-to-1 decision, according to The Washington Post, postponing the decision for months.
The move will allow the Texas abortion ban, which has led to a large reduction in abortions in the state, to remain in place.
The ban restricts access to abortion after about six weeks into pregnancy, when a lot of women do not know they're pregnant yet.
“This court reasonably seeks the Texas Supreme Court’s final word on the matter,” wrote Judge Edith Jones, joined by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, nominees of former Presidents Reagan and Trump, respectively.
However, Judge Stephen Higginson disagreed with his colleagues' "second-guessing redundancy" and said the situation "deepens my concern that justice delayed is justice denied, here impeding relief ordered by the Supreme Court," according to the Post.
Abortion providers said that the latest decision is a tactic to delay the law from being discussed.
The news comes after a December Supreme Court procedural ruling effectively prolonged efforts by the abortion providers to block the law.
The controversial issue has also crossed state lines, with the Supreme Court discussing a Mississippi abortion ban that bars the procedure after 15 weeks. The debate has led conservative judges to hint at their support for overturning Roe v. Wade.
thehill.com
A federal appeals court rejected a request from Texas abortion clinics to return their challenge against the state’s controversial abortion ban, leaving in place the strictest ban in the country.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily transferred the case to the Republican-controlled Texas Supreme Court in a 2-to-1 decision, according to The Washington Post, postponing the decision for months.
The move will allow the Texas abortion ban, which has led to a large reduction in abortions in the state, to remain in place.
The ban restricts access to abortion after about six weeks into pregnancy, when a lot of women do not know they're pregnant yet.
“This court reasonably seeks the Texas Supreme Court’s final word on the matter,” wrote Judge Edith Jones, joined by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, nominees of former Presidents Reagan and Trump, respectively.
However, Judge Stephen Higginson disagreed with his colleagues' "second-guessing redundancy" and said the situation "deepens my concern that justice delayed is justice denied, here impeding relief ordered by the Supreme Court," according to the Post.
Abortion providers said that the latest decision is a tactic to delay the law from being discussed.
The news comes after a December Supreme Court procedural ruling effectively prolonged efforts by the abortion providers to block the law.
The controversial issue has also crossed state lines, with the Supreme Court discussing a Mississippi abortion ban that bars the procedure after 15 weeks. The debate has led conservative judges to hint at their support for overturning Roe v. Wade.
Texas abortion ban remains in effect after appeals court ruling
A federal appeals court rejected a request from Texas abortion clinics to return their challenge against the state’s controversial abortion ban, leaving in place the strictest ban in the …
thehill.com
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade published by Politico
www.cnn.com
Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade published by Politico
In a stunning breach of Supreme Court confidentiality and secrecy, Politico has obtained what it calls a draft of a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that would strike down Roe v. Wade.
www.cnn.com