Texas Abortion ban comes into effect.

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,601
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
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.

California takes a page from Texas' book.
Seems your Governor agrees with your idea, Raz'r.

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
 

...

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."

...

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
61,190
5,020
De Nile
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”

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,601
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
Now NY AG James wants to build more support for the TX abortion law.
 

...

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.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
61,190
5,020
De Nile
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.....

 

MR.CLEAN

Moderator
45,990
4,225
Not here
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. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bus Driver

Bacon Quality Control Specialist
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,601
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
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.

Also, you are specific to "defect liability". 
I'm not the only one.

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.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,601
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
Hardball is so inconvenient, isn't it Tom?


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.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,601
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
Democrats should apply Supreme Court’s abortion decision to firearms

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

...

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.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,601
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
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.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
61,190
5,020
De Nile
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. 

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
61,190
5,020
De Nile
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. 

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,601
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
Still looks to me like a way to "scare" the Supremes away from the Texas law.
Still?

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.

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.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
61,190
5,020
De Nile
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. 

 

ShortForBob

Super Anarchist
34,422
2,663
Melbourne
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 :)

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,601
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
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
 

...

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.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,601
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
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.


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.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
61,190
5,020
De Nile
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.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
61,190
5,020
De Nile
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.

 
Top