Jump to content

Texas Abortion ban comes into effect.


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:
20 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Yeah, sorry.  I was more interested in getting into the priest's daughter's pants than I was interested in studying the bible in minute detail.  So sue me.  Which interestingly, TX can now.  

Sorry to pick nits, but I am hoping you meant minister's daughter.  

No, still a Priest.  Episcopalian.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 708
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

you want a compromise? ok.... lets do this.... if you have a vagina, you get to decide both what goes into it, and what comes out of it. if you dont have one, you dont. full stop.

After giving this a bit more thought, this is yet another confirmation of why I think many people identify with Trump. He's an asshole. I think there is a bit of an asshole component in all

the funniest part of this attack on women's rights is the fact that these Texan cunts are screaming, 'my body, my choice' at anti vax anti mask rallies.

Posted Images

13 hours ago, Burning Man said:

  

And any of the rest of you folks who have a strong feeling against abortion, I'd be happy to understand your rational argument against.  TIA.

 

If @A guy in the Chesapeakewas around you could have had that discussion, he felt pretty strongly about it.  I know born and brought up vegetarians who would throw up if they came to know the cake they ate an hour ago contained egg so upbringing I guess. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

Sorry to pick nits, but I am hoping you meant minister's daughter.  

If I remember correctly, Episcopalians call their clergy priests. They are allowed to marry and therefore can have daughters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit I haven’t read this entire thread. Has anyone posted this? Excellent argument.

“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

Pastor Dave Barnhart

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I admit I haven’t read this entire thread. Has anyone posted this? Excellent argument.

“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

Pastor Dave Barnhart

Wow, nailed it in one!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

When I hear that argument, I ask their thoughts on the death penalty.

That question usually elicits an awkward silence.

Principles are malleable.

Actually, that's not a good argument. The Bible practically mandates the death sentence. There are several places in the Old Testament like:

Genesis 9:6 - "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for he is blah, blah blah...

and

Exodus 21:12 - “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.”

and one of my favorites

Leviticus 20:9 - "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."

Not a lot of grey area there, and there are probably a hundred places that talk about putting people to death in the Bible. The problem comes up when Jeebus gets involved and says crazy shit like "Turn the other cheek." You would think that JC would have had a basic understanding of the Old Testy, since it's the word of his dad, but apparently not. F'ing commie.

Edit to add: If Texas wanted to show strong Christian values, inline with the teachings of the Bible, they really should implement the death penalty for having an abortion. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, bhyde said:

Actually, that's not a good argument. The Bible practically mandates the death sentence. There are several places in the Old Testament like:

Genesis 9:6 - "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for he is blah, blah blah...

and

Exodus 21:12 - “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.”

and one of my favorites

Leviticus 20:9 - "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."

Not a lot of grey area there, and there are probably a hundred places that talk about putting people to death in the Bible. The problem comes up when Jeebus gets involved and says crazy shit like "Turn the other cheek." You would think that JC would have had a basic understanding of the Old Testy, since it's the word of his dad, but apparently not. F'ing commie.

Edit to add: If Texas wanted to show strong Christian values, inline with the teachings of the Bible, they really should implement the death penalty for having an abortion. 

 

Yeah, I get that "cafeteria Christianity" stuff.  When pressed, they usually fold like a chair.  It's the blanket statement in the Commandment they state (Thou shalt not kill.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Yeah, I get that "cafeteria Christianity" stuff.  When pressed, they usually fold like a chair.  It's the blanket statement in the Commandment they state (Thou shalt not kill.)

That is part of the charade that includes "My body, my choice" in certain circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Justice Department May Have Found a Winning Argument Against the Texas Abortion Law
 

Quote

 

...

In an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction filed in United States v. Texas, the federal government stresses the many ways in which the Texas law "impermissibly regulates the Federal Government…and poses unlawful obstacles to the accomplishment of federal objectives." In other words, because federal sovereignty and federal interests are being harmed by the state, the federal government may lawfully sue the state over those injuries in federal court.

How does the Texas abortion law injure federal sovereignty and interests? For one thing, the state law undermines Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, a federal statute which says that state officials may be sued for constitutional rights violations. If you have been following the roiling national debate over qualified immunity, you have probably heard of Section 1983 since it is the law under which federal civil rights lawsuits are filed against abusive cops.

There is no question that banning pre-viability abortions, as the Texas law does, is flatly unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court precedent. What that means is that those parties impacted by the state law are entitled to seek legal recourse in federal court by filing Section 1983 lawsuits—except that the Texas law was specifically designed to block those parties from seeking that very recourse.

...

The Texas abortion law also runs afoul of a longstanding rule that says that states may not impose civil or criminal penalties on federal officials for carrying out their federal duties. That rule applies here because the Texas law, as the U.S. motion notes, "purports to prohibit federal personnel and contractors from carrying out their federal obligations to assist in providing access to abortion-related services to persons in the care and custody of federal agencies." Likewise, the law "purports to impede the Department of Defense's implementation of its statutory obligation to provide such medical services [abortion] to service members."

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2021 at 5:09 PM, B.J. Porter said:

I think we should strongly consider embedding a picture of Amy Schumer in every reply to El Cucaracha. I think he has a thing for her.

https://imagesvc.meredithcorp.io/v3/mm/image?url=https:%2F%2Fstatic.onecms.io%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F6%2F2017%2F01%2Fschumer1-2000.jpg

Looks like Rick missed his chance to father her children.

Amy Schumer reveals she had uterus and appendix removed due to painful endometriosis

And, before anyone gets her/his panties in a twist, I am not making light of her condition.  That sounds horrible and most would probably keep it private.  Good on her for being open, in the chance it helps someone else.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hooray for Uncooperative Doctors
 

Quote

 

...

San Antonio gynecologist Alan Braid, whose abortion clinics joined the other plaintiffs in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, could trigger such a case by revealing that he deliberately violated S.B. 8. "On the morning of Sept. 6," he writes in a Washington Post opinion piece published on Saturday, "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. I fully understood that there could be legal consequences—but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn't get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested."

...

When the Court declined to intervene in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson earlier this month, it cited the "complex and novel antecedent procedural questions" that the 5th Circuit later addressed. But once a private party sues Braid, the constitutional issues raised by S.B. 8 will be unavoidable. The only way to uphold the law will be to renounce Roe v. Wade and its progeny. Although most of the current justices seem to disagree with those precedents, that does not necessarily mean they are prepared to abandon half a century of jurisprudence, along with all the expectations built on it, in one fell swoop.

Update: Oscar Stilley, who describes himself as a "disbarred and disgraced former Arkansas lawyer," filed an S.B. 8 complaint against Braid on Monday in Bexar County, which includes San Antonio. Stilley, who is serving a 15-year federal sentence for tax fraud that he received in 2010, told The Washington Post his interest had been piqued by the $10,000 bounty and news coverage of Braid's stance. Stilley said he is not opposed to abortion but thought the law should be tested in court. "If the law is no good," he said, "why should we have to go through a long, drawn-out process to find out if it's garbage?"

 

And opportunistic inmates, of course. Sorry as usual about the Koch-$pon$ored TeamR cheerleading.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah! Turns out that "any person" means "any person."
 

Quote

 

...

All of the parties to these lawsuits, in other words, seem to think enforcement of S.B. 8 should be blocked. That situation dismays Chelsey Youman, Texas state director and national legislative adviser for Human Coalition, an anti-abortion group based in Frisco. "These out-of-state suits are not what the bill is intended for," Youman told The New York Times, which notes that her organization "said it had no plans to file a lawsuit" against Braid "or to encourage others to do so." Youman "speculated that the lawsuits were 'plants,' and she portrayed Dr. Braid's opinion essay as an attempt to bait a frivolous suit that would challenge the law's constitutionality in court."

Texas Right to Life also argues that the Stilley and Gomez lawsuits are improper. "Texas Right to Life is suspicious that Braid's op-ed is purely a legal and publicity ploy," it says. "The abortion industry's 16 previous efforts failed to stop this law from saving lives so far, and this may be another attempt….Neither of these lawsuits are valid attempts to save innocent human lives. Both cases are self-serving legal stunts, abusing the cause of action created in the Texas Heartbeat Act for their own purposes."

Contrary to the implication, S.B. 8 does not require that plaintiffs be motivated by a desire to "save innocent human lives." Its description of potential plaintiffs—"any person"—could not be broader. Private civil lawsuits ordinarily seek to vindicate the plaintiff's rights and compensate him for an injury. By eliminating any such requirement and embracing legal tricks that conservatives have long condemned, S.B. 8 invited just the sort of gamesmanship that offends Human Coalition and Texas Right to Life.

...

 

Sorry as usual about the Koch-$pon$ored TeamR cheerleading.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2021 at 5:19 AM, Excoded Tom said:

Hah! Turns out that "any person" means "any person."
 

Sorry as usual about the Koch-$pon$ored TeamR cheerleading.

 

If you're "Sorry" why do you keep posting them?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

If you're "Sorry" why do you keep posting them?

I'm posting as usual and also sorry as usual.

People seem to object to certain media sources with clean fact check records, but never say why. It's a mystery. Similarly, my desire to spread factual TeamR cheerleading in spite of the objections is another mystery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

If you're "Sorry" why do you keep posting them?

He thinks he's being cute and funny. 

But, he's just a pedantic ass who gets off on luring you down one of his rabbit holes.  Once you engage with him, he'll bury with links to his own posts and challenge you to defend yourself.  He must have one helluva spreadsheet to keep all of these "gotcha" opportunities straight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Snaggletooth said:

You cane usse thisse oune...............

2d87363eddb1d97cd32e0a5f594c0155.jpg

hoppe that helpes...........                                :)

Thacks Snags.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2021 at 8:31 PM, Burning Man said:

No, I disagree.  I'd be interested to see where the religious aspect of this comes into play.  IIRC from sunday school growing up, there was a lot of smiting and smoting and bashing the first born babies heads in against walls and all kinds of fun & games.  So curious where abortion comes in.

Speaking of which, I never understood the religious objection of vaccines either.  Maybe you guys could do a twofer explano......

The Catholics have always been against abortions, along with birth control.  Probably a combination of growing a base of believers (recall that Rome allowed women that had three living children to control their own property) and enforcing conformity to "God's Will".  Robert P. Jones (PRII.org) asserts that during the '70's Catholics joined forces with the conservative Evangelicals to get into politics with abortion being the price the Evangelicals paid.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Mike G said:

 

More detail

A US federal judge temporarily blocked a near-total ban on abortion in Texas, the toughest such law in the United States, following a challenge from President Joe Biden's administration after the US Supreme Court let it proceed.

Key points:

  • The Biden administration says the Texas law is unconstitutional and improperly interferes with the operations of the federal government
  • An attorney for Texas said the Justice Department's arguments were inflammatory and filled with hyperbole
  • US conservatives have long sought to overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade precedent affirming a woman's right to seek an abortion

The action by US District Judge Robert Pitman in Austin prevents the state from enforcing the Republican-backed law, which prohibits women from obtaining an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, while litigation over its legality continues.

The case is part of a fierce legal battle over abortion access in the United States, with numerous states pursuing restrictions.

"This court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right," Judge Pitman said in his ruling.

The ink was barely dry on Judge Pitman's order before Texas notified the court that it intended to appeal the ruling to the conservative-leaning Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, setting the stage for the next phase of the legal battle.

"Tonight's ruling is an important step forward toward restoring the constitutional rights of women across the state of Texas," White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement late on Wednesday.

"The fight has only just begun, both in Texas and in many states across this country where women's rights are currently under attack," she added.

udge Pitman heard about three hours of arguments for the Justice Department's request.

Justice Department attorney Brian Netter called the law an "unprecedented scheme of vigilante justice" that must be struck down.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-07/us-judge-blocks-texas-abortion-law/100522408

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2021 at 7:53 PM, ShortForBob said:

Justice Department attorney Brian Netter called the law an "unprecedented scheme of vigilante justice" that must be struck down.

That's not quite true, as I noted in this thread last month. If you missed it, "vigilante justice" of this kind is hardly unprecedented and only sometimes bad.

Thoughts on the Supreme Court's Texas Abortion Ruling—and How to Prevent it From Setting a Dangerous Precedent

Quote

 

...

To be clear, the problem here is not simply that Texas is using private law suits as an enforcement mechanism. Many laws—including many supported by the political left—rely heavily on enforcement by private litigants. That is true of numerous environmental regulations, consumer protection laws, and land-use restrictions, among others. California's notorious CEQA statute empowers NIMBYs (who in that state tend to be left-wing) to use private litigation to block new housing construction and other development. This exacerbates that state's serious housing shortage, and even leading to such absurd outcomes as a court ordering UC Berkeley to freeze enrollment.

Thus, condemnations of SB 8 for empowering private "vigilantes" are off-base, unless you also disapprove of the many other laws that  use private litigants as enforcers. I'm old enough to remember when conservatives denounced environmental and civil rights laws that utilized "private attorneys general," while many on the left defended them as essential regulatory tools. On both right and left, attitudes towards the use of private litigation as an enforcement mechanism often depend on whose ox is being gored.

The troubling aspect of SB 8 is not the use of private enforcement, as such, but the resort to it as a mechanism for evading judicial review.

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

That's not quite true, as I noted in this thread last month. If you missed it, "vigilante justice" of this kind is hardly unprecedented and only sometimes bad.

Thoughts on the Supreme Court's Texas Abortion Ruling—and How to Prevent it From Setting a Dangerous Precedent

 

Sounds kinda breezy, Dogballs. Kinda vague, too. Please cite your reference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2021 at 7:53 PM, ShortForBob said:

The action by US District Judge Robert Pitman in Austin prevents the state from enforcing the Republican-backed law, which prohibits women from obtaining an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, while litigation over its legality continues.

The catch is, Despite the Injunction Against the Texas Abortion Ban, Clinics That Resume Their Usual Services Could Face 'Crippling Liability'
 

Quote

 

...

Among other things, it says defendants cannot rely on a court's determination that the statute is unconstitutional if that ruling is later overturned—even if that did not happen until after the conduct that gave rise to the lawsuit. In other words, Texas clinics that perform prohibited abortions now cannot cite Pitman's ruling as a defense if the 5th Circuit overrules him, as seems likely.

...

For the time being, Pitman's injunction bars Texas courts from hearing lawsuits authorized by S.B. 8. But that will no longer be true if the 5th Circuit stays his injunction, as the state is asking it to do.

What happens then? If people are sued because of abortions performed before the 5th Circuit responds to the state's appeal, you might think, they could argue that they acted in good-faith reliance on a federal judge's conclusion that S.B. 8 is unconstitutional. But the law explicitly forecloses that possibility.

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
1 hour ago, Rain Man said:

In other words, the law is brilliantly evil.  

I wouldn't call brilliant and evil in the same sentence. Cunningly, disgustingly, maybe. Whoever came up with it should be consumed by giant crotch crabs forever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rain Man said:

In other words, the law is brilliantly evil.  

I think so, but it has its fans who want to reinforce and expand on this plan. For example:

  

On 10/23/2021 at 11:01 PM, Raz'r said:

Only right that guns go away in liberal states. Might as well use the same technique. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2021 at 2:19 AM, Excoded Tom said:

Sorry as usual about the Koch-$pon$ored TeamR cheerleading.

apology accepted, i guess

is this a great country, or what?

 

dogballs 7.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

I think so, but it has its fans who want to reinforce and expand on this plan. For example:

  

 

Gotta play with the hand that’s dealt. 
 

seems to be how power works. Use it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are republicans ready to trade in their guns to punish those dirty little whores seeking abortions? Me thinks a state like California should pass a SB8 anti-gun measure pronto.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Are republicans ready to trade in their guns to punish those dirty little whores seeking abortions? Me thinks a state like California should pass a SB8 anti-gun measure pronto.

I'm not and I think that's why gun rights advocates filed a brief for the paintiffs.  I've long said here that how one right gets treated is how all rights will follow.  What you're missing is that the TX R's didn't just make this up out of thin air, they are stealing the D's anti-gun playbook.  This is a lot of what you guys have proposed over the years and tried to get enacted and failed.  I.e. to make exercising the RKBA so onerous and difficult - while technically allowing it to remain "legal" - that it effectively shuts down the ability to get a gun/abortion.  The TX cunts just found a novel way to make it stick, where the D's continually got slapped down for trying the same shit.

I had a post not long ago, but well before SB8, that essentially said to take whatever state's proposed bill we were discussing at the time and insert the word "abortion" everywhere it said "firearm" and see how fine you were with it.  Of course you scoffed at the time and said nothing like that could happen because RvW.  But now you're seeing that I was right all along.  I hate to say I told you so...... but I told you so.  

As I have said here many times and have been consistent on it - I am a staunch pro-choice'er.  But there is a part of me that that revels in the schadenfreude joy of saying "See, I fucking warned you".  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

I'm not and I think that's why gun rights advocates filed a brief for the paintiffs.  I've long said here that how one right gets treated is how all rights will follow.  What you're missing is that the TX R's didn't just make this up out of thin air, they are stealing the D's anti-gun playbook.  This is a lot of what you guys have proposed over the years and tried to get enacted and failed.  I.e. to make exercising the RKBA so onerous and difficult - while technically allowing it to remain "legal" - that it effectively shuts down the ability to get a gun/abortion.  The TX cunts just found a novel way to make it stick, where the D's continually got slapped down for trying the same shit.

I had a post not long ago, but well before SB8, that essentially said to take whatever state's proposed bill we were discussing at the time and insert the word "abortion" everywhere it said "firearm" and see how fine you were with it.  Of course you scoffed at the time and said nothing like that could happen because RvW.  But now you're seeing that I was right all along.  I hate to say I told you so...... but I told you so.  

As I have said here many times and have been consistent on it - I am a staunch pro-choice'er.  But there is a part of me that that revels in the schadenfreude joy of saying "See, I fucking warned you".  

I see your faux equivalence and laugh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2021 at 8:48 AM, Raz'r said:

Gotta play with the hand that’s dealt. 

Yeah.

7 hours ago, Burning Man said:

I think that's why gun rights advocates filed a brief for the paintiffs.

Acting like the game is over and authoritarians have won is one way to "play."

They're not following the script.

By the way, nutters were the only ones to interfere with the court at the merits stage, so particularly reprehensible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kavanaugh seems to understand the (bug/feature) built into the TX law

(so does the wise Latina)
 

Quote

 

What if a state passed a law that says "everyone who sells an AR-15 is liable for a million dollars to any citizen," Kavanaugh asked the Texas official. "Would that kind of law be exempt from pre-enforcement review in federal court?"

Stone conceded that his theory would shield that gun control law too. "My answers on whether or not federal court review is available does not turn on the nature of the right," he told Kavanaugh.

So "Second Amendment rights, free exercise of religion rights, free speech rights," Kavanaugh emphasized, could all "be targeted by other states" using the Texas abortion law as a model. "And you also said that the amount of the penalty doesn't matter, a million dollars per sale," Kavanaugh added. "A state passes a law [that says] anyone who declines to provide a good or service for use in a same-sex marriage, a million dollars if sued by anyone in the state, that's exempt from pre-enforcement review?"

"Is that a yes?" Kavanaugh pressed the Texas official.

"Yes, your honor," Stone replied.

Later, Justice Sonia Sotomayor picked up on Kavanaugh's line of questioning. "A state dissatisfied with [District of Columbia v.] Heller says anyone who possesses a firearm anywhere is subject to litigation by any private citizen anywhere in the country and gets a million-dollar bounty," Sotomayor said to Stone. "So this is not limited to abortion." This is about any right "that a state is dissatisfied with."

"Your point," Sotomayor told Stone, "is that no matter how much a state intends to chill the exercise of a constitutional right…that does not give anyone a right to a federal forum when the state has deputized every citizen to act on its behalf."

Kavanaugh and Sotomayor are correct. If allowed to stand, the structure of S.B. 8 will be copied by every state legislature that wants to restrict an unpopular right that the Supreme Court has recognized. That outcome should worry Americans of all political stripes.

 

Except, of course, those Americans who are willing to sacrifice any/all other rights to diminish one hated one.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Seriatim Tom said:

Kavanaugh seems to understand the (bug/feature) built into the TX law

(so does the wise Latina)
 

Except, of course, those Americans who are willing to sacrifice any/all other rights to diminish one hated one.

 

So far, the only ones willing to go there are the abortion foes. Basically, the South. So, I ask again, are you willing to give up all your Connie rights so that the dirty brown slut can’t get an abortion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Raz'r said:

So far, the only ones willing to go there are the abortion foes. Basically, the South. So, I ask again, are you willing to give up all your Connie rights so that the dirty brown slut can’t get an abortion?

From my POV, you've got that exactly the wrong way around.

That law, if it stands, will be copied and it will wipe out a raft of other rights.

It's in everyone's interests to have it thrown out, permanently.

The problem you face is, you'd actually like to use that sort of law but just against gun owners. The Texas Govt has shown you graphically just what a bad idea it is allowing any such precedent to be established.

So it's on you to decide if you're prepared to allow it to stand just so you can use its precedent as a basis of eliminating stuff you don't want.

Or you're going to actually have some principles and ensure nobody can do this regardless. It comes back to the old question - do the ends justify the means? Because the moment you say yes, you open the same arguments to your opponents.

Pro-choice person here if it matters. I just think that laws like this are far too clever by half and they WILL be used to attack things you hold precious. Better to remove the possibility ASAP.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

From my POV, you've got that exactly the wrong way around.

That law, if it stands, will be copied and it will wipe out a raft of other rights.

It's in everyone's interests to have it thrown out, permanently.

The problem you face is, you'd actually like to use that sort of law but just against gun owners. The Texas Govt has shown you graphically just what a bad idea it is allowing any such precedent to be established.

So it's on you to decide if you're prepared to allow it to stand just so you can use its precedent as a basis of eliminating stuff you don't want.

Or you're going to actually have some principles and ensure nobody can do this regardless. It comes back to the old question - do the ends justify the means? Because the moment you say yes, you open the same arguments to your opponents.

Pro-choice person here if it matters. I just think that laws like this are far too clever by half and they WILL be used to attack things you hold precious. Better to remove the possibility ASAP.

FKT

I think the discussion is revolving around what happens if the SC lets this hideous law stand. It will engender all sorts of heinous repression, so I doubt the Supremes want to go there. They will have to can it, and quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

From my POV, you've got that exactly the wrong way around.

That law, if it stands, will be copied and it will wipe out a raft of other rights.

It's in everyone's interests to have it thrown out, permanently.

The problem you face is, you'd actually like to use that sort of law but just against gun owners. The Texas Govt has shown you graphically just what a bad idea it is allowing any such precedent to be established.

So it's on you to decide if you're prepared to allow it to stand just so you can use its precedent as a basis of eliminating stuff you don't want.

Or you're going to actually have some principles and ensure nobody can do this regardless. It comes back to the old question - do the ends justify the means? Because the moment you say yes, you open the same arguments to your opponents.

Pro-choice person here if it matters. I just think that laws like this are far too clever by half and they WILL be used to attack things you hold precious. Better to remove the possibility ASAP.

FKT

uhh, no, you have misinterpreted my stretching a point to make one. I hope the Supremes toss that thing out like the garbage it is. 

What I'm asking is, "are the abortion opponents, (who are, from what we can tell, staunchly pro-gun,) ready to give up their guns so that they can stop abortions?

No one seems to want to answer that question. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ishmael said:

I think the discussion is revolving around what happens if the SC lets this hideous law stand. It will engender all sorts of heinous repression, so I doubt the Supremes want to go there. They will have to can it, and quickly.

I sincerely hope that they do can it ASAP.

The fact that it takes the same tool off of the anti-gunners may well cause them to wail and gnash their teeth, but this thing is DANGEROUS.

I've always maintained that what one government can do for you, another one can use to do something to you, so better to not give them the tool.

The pro-2nd people have been pointing out how dangerous laws like this can be and all the anti-gun people pooh-poohed it and like Razr said 'false equivalence'.

Well 2 Supreme Court justices can see the equivalence, as could Blind Freddy. Be careful what you ask for because you might get it.

This thing is so egregious and such an abuse of power that Texas may have inadvertently done everyone a favour.

Assuming it gets tossed out that is.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

uhh, no, you have misinterpreted my stretching a point to make one. I hope the Supremes toss that thing out like the garbage it is. 

What I'm asking is, "are the abortion opponents, (who are, from what we can tell, staunchly pro-gun,) ready to give up their guns so that they can stop abortions?

No one seems to want to answer that question. 

Yep, sorry, that's a legitimate and interesting argument & point.

I too would wonder what their answer would be. I'd LOVE to have them forced to answer it.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I sincerely hope that they do can it ASAP.

The fact that it takes the same tool off of the anti-gunners may well cause them to wail and gnash their teeth, but this thing is DANGEROUS.

I've always maintained that what one government can do for you, another one can use to do something to you, so better to not give them the tool.

The pro-2nd people have been pointing out how dangerous laws like this can be and all the anti-gun people pooh-poohed it and like Razr said 'false equivalence'.

Well 2 Supreme Court justices can see the equivalence, as could Blind Freddy. Be careful what you ask for because you might get it.

This thing is so egregious and such an abuse of power that Texas may have inadvertently done everyone a favour.

Assuming it gets tossed out that is.

FKT

The false eqivalence I've pointed out to Flyboy is that no gun grabber, not even the Brady Bunch, has ever proposed a law such as this, and it's not for lack of creativity. They really DON'T want a theocracy to run the show.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raz'r said:

So far, the only ones willing to go there are the abortion foes. Basically, the South. So, I ask again, are you willing to give up all your Connie rights so that the dirty brown slut can’t get an abortion?

I didn't see where you asked me that for the first time, but OK.

Ask someone who opposes abortion would be my answer.

No would be a shorter answer.

You seem eager to throw abortion under the bus in the holy crusade to ban battlefield .22's and I find that regrettable. Don't give up on abortion rights just yet, even if it might mean some gungrabbing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

The false eqivalence I've pointed out to Flyboy is that no gun grabber, not even the Brady Bunch, has ever proposed a law such as this, and it's not for lack of creativity.

Meanwhile, back in reality, we have the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act because of a long history of grabbers trying to sue a right out of existence. Abortion foes finally got in on the act.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Seriatim Tom said:

Meanwhile, back in reality, we have the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act because of a long history of grabbers trying to sue a right out of existence. Abortion foes finally got in on the act.

yellow flag. False equivalence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Raz'r said:
9 hours ago, Seriatim Tom said:

Meanwhile, back in reality, we have the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act because of a long history of grabbers trying to sue a right out of existence. Abortion foes finally got in on the act.

yellow flag. False equivalence.

Attaching crippling liability to a protected right is equivalent to attaching crippling liability to a protected right to me. I understand that no goal can override gungrabbiness, so nothing can be equivalent to you, but that's not how I feel about our rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Seriatim Tom said:

Attaching crippling liability to a protected right is equivalent to attaching crippling liability to a protected right to me. I understand that no goal can override gungrabbiness, so nothing can be equivalent to you, but that's not how I feel about our rights.

I'm sorry that you cannot understand the difference between people with standing being allowed to sue, and people with no standing being encourage to sue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 11/2/2021 at 6:29 PM, Raz'r said:

The false eqivalence I've pointed out to Flyboy is that no gun grabber, not even the Brady Bunch, has ever proposed a law such as this, and it's not for lack of creativity. They really DON'T want a theocracy to run the show.

That didn't take long.

On 12/11/2021 at 10:37 PM, Ishmael said:

California takes a page from Texas' book.

 

Seems your Governor agrees with your idea, Raz'r.

  

On 10/23/2021 at 11:01 PM, Raz'r said:

Abortion rights are pretty much already gone in many southern states. Only right that guns go away in liberal states. Might as well use the same technique. 

I continue to disagree, more so now that your statement of Thursday before last has fallen by the wayside.

Here Is Why a Texas Judge Concluded That the State's Abortion Ban Is Unconstitutional
 

Quote

 

...

Needless to say, conservatives who applaud S.B. 8 because they oppose abortion won't necessarily like the results when people with different views use the same approach to promote their agendas. "We are a diverse and creative people, and it seems naïve to hope these procedures will be cabined voluntarily once they are upheld," Peeples writes. "A new and creative series of statutes could appear year after year, to be enforced by eager ideological claimants, who could bring suit in their home counties, where the judges would do their constitutional duty and enforce the law. Pandora's Box has already been opened a bit, and time will tell."

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

That didn't take long.

Seems your Governor agrees with your idea, Raz'r.

  

I continue to disagree, more so now that your statement of Thursday before last has fallen by the wayside.

Here Is Why a Texas Judge Concluded That the State's Abortion Ban Is Unconstitutional
 

 

Yep. Good for the goose and all that. Will be interesting to see how the US supremes say yes to Texas and no to California, but I can see it happening around “no right to personal autonomy” and “absolute right to guns”

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now NY AG James wants to build more support for the TX abortion law.
 

Quote

 

...

Co-host Sarah Haines said, “Last the Supreme Court refused to block a Texas law that allows everyday citizens to sue abortion providers. Then California Governor Newsom wants to take that law and flip it and allow citizens in his state to sue assault weapon and ghost gun providers. Would you do something like this? is it an effective legal strategy?”

James said, “The answer is yes. When I heard about that, I said to my team we need to follow his lead. The reason why that is is because gun manufacturers and gun distributors in this country are immunized. No liability whatsoever. They’re the only industry that is protected in this country, and given the carnage and given the fact that this is the ninth anniversary of Sandy Hook, I am sick and tired of prayers and individuals whose hearts go out to all of those who have lost lives. We can do something about it. What we need to do is hold these gun manufacturers and these gun distributors liable.”

She added, “We are reviewing it and talking to California, and so this is a first. Yes, The Office of Attorney General Letitia James is looking at that model, and I congratulate Governor Newsom.”

 

Looks like she's a proponent of the incomplete badlat reading of the PLCAA and doesn't know it provides for product defect liability. I guess she also doesn't know about liability immunities for makers of airplanes and vaccines. Lots of ignorance to be fixed, but the real point is that she wants to build on the TX precedent while there's still a good chance of tearing it down instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

Now NY AG James wants to build more support for the TX abortion law.
 

Looks like she's a proponent of the incomplete badlat reading of the PLCAA and doesn't know it provides for product defect liability. I guess she also doesn't know about liability immunities for makers of airplanes and vaccines. Lots of ignorance to be fixed, but the real point is that she wants to build on the TX precedent while there's still a good chance of tearing it down instead.

Hardball is so inconvenient, isn't it Tom?

BTW - in other news, the FDA is approving medical abortion drugs for remote diagnosis and prescription (ala Viagra). Several states are scrambling to not-allow telemedicine (for abortions only, not Viagra) as a response. Those small gov't republicans at work.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

but the real point is that she wants to build on the TX precedent while there's still a good chance of tearing it down instead.

In other words, when faced with an arms race, the best defense is to complain about the opposing force’s new weapon? Or is this the famous “you’ll bring themselves down to their level!!” argument that has provided comfort to so many victims throughout history?

Your suggestion parrots the usual Democrat response to “libertarian” and extremist Christian legislative activism. Hopefully and finally, they seem to be in the process of writing a new playbook that actually attempts to attack instead of whine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

Now NY AG James wants to build more support for the TX abortion law.
 

Looks like she's a proponent of the incomplete badlat reading of the PLCAA and doesn't know it provides for product defect liability. I guess she also doesn't know about liability immunities for makers of airplanes and vaccines. Lots of ignorance to be fixed, but the real point is that she wants to build on the TX precedent while there's still a good chance of tearing it down instead.

Are you saying gunz, vaccines, and airplanes are similar in how the average citizen is able to acquire them and likely to use them to cause havoc?  Also, you are specific to "defect liability". 

Those seem like apples to aardvarks comparisons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

re you saying gunz, vaccines, and airplanes are similar in how the average citizen is able to acquire them and likely to use them to cause havoc?

No, I'm saying again that she also doesn't know about liability immunities for makers of airplanes and vaccines. That's really all I said. One sentence, having nothing to do with your post. Try again.

18 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Also, you are specific to "defect liability". 

I'm not the only one.

  

On 4/20/2015 at 9:34 PM, Jim M said:
Quote

 

Cite or it didn't happen. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not protect them from suits for product defects. Just suits for things like suicides, which are the main topic of this thread.

 

 

"(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

 

That definitely does protect them from lawsuits for product defects ...

Badlat was also specific. And wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Hardball is so inconvenient, isn't it Tom?

 

20 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

In other words, when faced with an arms race, the best defense is to complain about the opposing force’s new weapon?

Rather than baseball or war, I'd liken this idiocy to playing "chicken" with cars.

It's authoritarian chicken. The thing is, neither one is scared of grabbing power, so the "collision" isn't scary at all to them. They win. The only way for non-authoritarians to win is to stop the stupid game.

I still think that outcome more likely than not but grabbers in NY and CA are not helping.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats should apply Supreme Court’s abortion decision to firearms

More authoritarian chicken, this time from Lawrence Tribe, who actually admits he knows better.

Quote

 

...

There is no doubt that Texas’ controversial abortion ban and its injunction-skirting mechanisms represent an alarming affront to federal protection of constitutional rights and to the rule of law. As advocates of such protection, we do not come easily to our endorsement of these efforts. We would much rather follow Michelle Obama’s once timely mantra, “When they go low, we go high.” But doing so here would dramatically misread the moment.

...

 

They're pretending that the TX law is now "established" in law but that fight is far from over and TX is still likely to lose, IMO. Still grabbers who want to entrench the precedent before it's even established are not helping.

If you think a situation forces you to accept an "alarming affront to federal protection of constitutional rights" then maybe it's time to think a bit harder about the situation and ways out of it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2021 at 11:53 AM, Burning Man said:
On 9/2/2021 at 4:42 PM, B.J. Porter said:

Maybe what we could do to expedite this case would be to get a very blue state to take the body of the law and replace "abortion" with "guns" (like Detumescent Tom is wont to do in arguments, even!) and make it so anyone who sees someone owning, using, procuring, or helping with procuring a gun can file a civil suit against them.

It won't actually BAN guns, but it will set the same environment where anyone who is bothered by them can sue for $10,000, making gun ownership financially risky and prohibitively expensive.

And we know the current court would be on THAT in 8/10 of a millisecond to block it, thereby establishing the legal precedent to get rid of the Texas law.

Expand  

Wow, it's almost as if someone here in PA has said that exact thing over and over here for years.  That gun control is exactly like abortion control in how it is treated and viewed by the courts.  And that same person has said repeatedly that y'all better watch out with your stupid anti-gun proposals because some on the anti-abortion side is going to copy it and use it against you.

Hmmmm, now I wonder who that was that was so prescient all those years ago??

I think BJ might have been kidding (except the lying about me part, of course) but obviously his idea is being eagerly adopted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2021 at 4:16 AM, Lochnerian Tom said:

 

Rather than baseball or war, I'd liken this idiocy to playing "chicken" with cars.

It's authoritarian chicken. The thing is, neither one is scared of grabbing power, so the "collision" isn't scary at all to them. They win. The only way for non-authoritarians to win is to stop the stupid game.

I still think that outcome more likely than not but grabbers in NY and CA are not helping.

Kinda like your other fav topic, tarriffs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

Democrats should apply Supreme Court’s abortion decision to firearms

More authoritarian chicken, this time from Lawrence Tribe, who actually admits he knows better.

They're pretending that the TX law is now "established" in law but that fight is far from over and TX is still likely to lose, IMO. Still grabbers who want to entrench the precedent before it's even established are not helping.

If you think a situation forces you to accept an "alarming affront to federal protection of constitutional rights" then maybe it's time to think a bit harder about the situation and ways out of it.

 

Still looks to me like a way to "scare" the Supremes away from the Texas law. They won't be. The Supremes are completely ok with banning abortion this way, but also protecting guns from this type of regulation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Still looks to me like a way to "scare" the Supremes away from the Texas law.

Still?

On 9/2/2021 at 10:00 AM, Raz'r said:

Sounds like a blueprint for California gun-control legislation…

I think you're like the rest of the TeamD players and not at all afraid to grab power by any means if gungrabbiness is a possibility. Similarly, the TeamR players are not at all afraid to grab power by any means if banning abortions is a possibility.

  

On 9/2/2021 at 9:42 AM, ShortForBob said:

With a little bit of naughty social media rabble rousing, imagination and creative thinking, it could even be used to undermine 2A. Now that would be amusing.

It's cute that Meli thought she was joking. Newsom, James, and Tribe, among others, clearly are not. They'll throw abortion right under the bus if gungrabbing is a possibility, as Eva Dent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lochnerian Tom said:

 

I think you're like the rest of the TeamD players and not at all afraid to grab power by any means if gungrabbiness is a possibility. Similarly, the TeamR players are not at all afraid to grab power by any means if banning abortions is a possibility.

  

 

You don't like to pay attention much to people's changing views. 

I used to think we could do something about gunz. We clearly cannot. There will be no gun-grabbing in my lifetime.

What we can do it hold venues responsible for security. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

You don't like to pay attention much to people's changing views. 

I used to think we could do something about gunz. We clearly cannot. There will be no gun-grabbing in my lifetime.

What we can do it hold venues responsible for security. 

Leave them on the fireplace with the brandy and mince pies. 

Happy Christmas eve :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...
On 10/11/2021 at 5:51 AM, Pertinacious Tom said:
Quote

The troubling aspect of SB 8 is not the use of private enforcement, as such, but the resort to it as a mechanism for evading judicial review.

 

That's still true. The game right now is to evade talking about it.

Majority turns down request to send Texas abortion litigation back to federal district court
 

Quote

 

...

Telling the justices that Texas officials “are not entitled to a second bite at the apple,” the providers came back to the Supreme Court on Jan. 3, again asking the justices to intervene and order the court of appeals to return the case to Judge Pitman. When the Supreme Court grants review before the court of appeals weighs in, as it did in this case, the providers contended, the Supreme Court’s decision effectively takes the place of the lower court’s ruling. And here, the providers reasoned, a majority of the Supreme Court agreed that the providers’ case against the licensing officials could move forward, so there is nothing left for the 5th Circuit to do but send the case back to the district court.

The providers stressed the need for the Supreme Court to step in because of the “extraordinary, urgent circumstances of this case.” “For more than four months,” they emphasized, “thousands of Texans have been unable to exercise their federal constitutional right to terminate their pregnancy.” Those who can afford to do so are traveling to other states, they noted, causing backlogs at clinics there, while others must continue “pregnancy and childbirth against their will.” They urged the justices to fast-track their request, suggesting that the Texas officials be required to file their opposition – which would otherwise be due on Feb. 3 – in just two days. 

The justices did not direct the Texas officials to move quickly, and the 5th Circuit heard oral argument as scheduled on Jan. 7. Earlier this week, the 5th Circuit granted the state officials’ request to seek a ruling from the state supreme court on the scope of the power given to them by state law. Judge Stephen Higginson dissented from the court’s order, complaining that the court of appeals was “only causing further delay, indeed delay without specified end.”  

In a one-sentence order on Thursday afternoon, the justices turned down the providers’ request, ensuring that the litigation will remain at the Texas Supreme Court and not return to the federal district court for the foreseeable future. Breyer penned a one-page dissent, joined by both Sotomayor and Kagan, in which he explained that he would grant the providers’ request because the 5th Circuit had “ignored” the Supreme Court’s instructions in its Dec. 10 opinion. “As a result,” Breyer noted, “an unconstitutional 6-week abortion ban remains in effect in Texas — as it has for over four months.”

The main dissent, however, came from Sotomayor. In a seven-page opinion joined by both Breyer and Kagan, Sotomayor criticized the 5th Circuit’s decision to seek a ruling from the Texas Supreme Court as a “transparent effort” to stave off review of the merits of the providers’ challenge. Indeed, she observed, one of the judges who heard oral argument in the case suggested that the court of appeals could “just sit on this until the end of June,” when the Supreme Court could issue a decision (in the term’s other high-profile abortion case) overruling its landmark rulings in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. By rejecting the providers’ request to return the case immediately, Sotomayor lamented, the Supreme Court “accepts yet another dilatory tactic by Texas.” Therefore, she continued, the federal district court “will remain powerless to address S.B. 8’s unconstitutional chill on abortion care, likely for months to come.” Although her colleagues in the majority “may look the other way,” she wrote, “I cannot.”

 

That's one Wise Latina.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 11/2/2021 at 7:39 PM, Pertinacious Tom said:
On 11/2/2021 at 11:43 AM, Raz'r said:

So far, the only ones willing to go there are the abortion foes. Basically, the South. So, I ask again, are you willing to give up all your Connie rights so that the dirty brown slut can’t get an abortion?

I didn't see where you asked me that for the first time, but OK.

Ask someone who opposes abortion would be my answer.

No would be a shorter answer.

  

15 hours ago, Raz'r said:
23 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

So far, the only ones willing to go there are the abortion foes. Basically, the South. So, I ask again, are you willing to give up all your Connie rights so that the dirty brown slut can’t get an abortion?

The only reason (hah!) that you state the Texas abortion law is wrong, is because Dems might use it against guns. How about the "sue your teacher" statutes being contemplated in Florida and elsewhere as posted above. Same logic? They'd be ok except Dems might do something?

Well, no, like the last time you tried to paint me as an abortion foe, I continue to support abortion rights just because I support them. You know, freedumb.

But you'll continue to be triggered by the gun thing and lie about me. And I'll continue to have actual posts that prove you wrong, since you can never quote a post in support of your lies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

  

Well, no, like the last time you tried to paint me as an abortion foe, I continue to support abortion rights just because I support them. You know, freedumb.

But you'll continue to be triggered by the gun thing and lie about me. And I'll continue to have actual posts that prove you wrong, since you can never quote a post in support of your lies.

Your against abortion, gold-star for you. Our states have found a new loophole to avoid judicial review. Quite the mess these federalist society judges are making of the system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

  

7 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Stealing @Julespost, what say you @Pertinacious Tom? Will the supremes recognize the can of worms?


I say we already had more than one perfectly good thread on this topic and I don't feel like keeping up with another one.

You already know that I oppose the TX law and the gungrabbers' attempts to legitimize it while it's still not a valid precedent. What else do you want to know?

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Pertinacious Tom said:

  


I say we already had more than one perfectly good thread on this topic and I don't feel like keeping up with another one.

You already know that I oppose the TX law and the gungrabbers' attempts to legitimize it while it's still not a valid precedent. What else do you want to know?

What do you think the Supremes will do? I think they will figure out a way to differentiate suing teachers for making a kid feel bad or driving the Uber taking a girl to a clinic vs suing someone for selling scary black guns. Just MHO of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Raz'r said:

What do you think the Supremes will do?

Strike the law down, then get around to the follow-on acts like grabbers and censors.

As I noted previously, at least a couple seem to see the obvious problem with playing authoritarian chicken: grabbers, censors, and anti-abortion folks are not at all afraid to grab power by any means to advance their sacred causes.

  

On 11/2/2021 at 5:24 AM, Pertinacious Tom said:

Kavanaugh seems to understand the (bug/feature) built into the TX law

(so does the wise Latina)
 

Except, of course, those Americans who are willing to sacrifice any/all other rights to diminish one hated one.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites