Update: SCOTUS to hear challenges to Texas abortion law on November 1

[osxmatt]

4 hours ago, Jason said:

 

 

He vowed it!

[Firewithin]

As we expected 

 

 

[johnny]

5 hours ago, osxmatt said:

 

He vowed it!

it’s been vowed! case closed. 

[Keyser_Soze]

10 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Joe, they're not going to "de jure" overturn Roe v. Wade.   They're just gonna "de facto" overturn it by not striking down these state laws when they come before the court.

 

Get your Crusader Kings lingo out of this thread!

[Jason]

 

[Jason]

 

[Jason]

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

 

 

[Jwheel86]

Democrats should use the same mechanism on gun manufacturers.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

 

 

[Chris-]

Is there is a reason the State of Texas couldn’t be sued for drafting/passing/signing a clearly unconstitutional law? I understand the loophole, but I don’t understand why that wouldn’t just lead to the party responsible for the loophole being held liable. 

[Jason]

7 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

 

 

 

Because I'm sure this SCOTUS will be extremely consistent in how it handles these sorts of cases. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

9 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Because I'm sure this SCOTUS will be extremely consistent in how it handles these sorts of cases. 

It's an exercise in power and more people need to realize it

[mclumber1]

58 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

Democrats should use the same mechanism on gun manufacturers.

 

Yes.  And I think SCOTUS should ultimately re-codify both the right to bear arms and abortion.  This shit is ridiculous and helps no one in any intrinsic way. 

[CitizenVectron]

9 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Yes.  And I think SCOTUS should ultimately re-codify both the right to bear arms and abortion.  This shit is ridiculous and helps no one in any intrinsic way. 

 

Whenever people argue that SCOTUS shouldn't be in charge of these types of laws (and that Congress should), I always have to ask: and how do you expect Congress to pass a law relating to gun rights, abortion, etc? Clearly it can't. So if Congress has to, but it can't, then what is the solution?

 

There is this fetishization of American government (in the abstract) like the setup is the most perfect in human history and if only we'd follow the rules as they were set up then government would run well. But clearly experience has shown that the American governmental system/structure is one of the worst in modern history, and cannot function in the modern world. Even a basic Parliamentary system (where the winner of a single house controls the government for 2-4 years solid and has near-dictatorial power, like in Canada or the UK) is far superior in that it can both get things done, but is also responsive to the electorate.

[Jwheel86]

2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Whenever people argue that SCOTUS shouldn't be in charge of these types of laws (and that Congress should), I always have to ask: and how do you expect Congress to pass a law relating to gun rights, abortion, etc? Clearly it can't. So if Congress has to, but it can't, then what is the solution?

 

There is this fetishization of American government (in the abstract) like the setup is the most perfect in human history and if only we'd follow the rules as they were set up then government would run well. But clearly experience has shown that the American governmental system/structure is one of the worst in modern history, and cannot function in the modern world. Even a basic Parliamentary system (where the winner of a single house controls the government for 2-4 years solid and has near-dictatorial power, like in Canada or the UK) is far superior in that it can both get things done, but is also responsive to the electorate.

 

Nuking the filibuster would greatly improve the situation. 

[Jwheel86]

40 minutes ago, Chris- said:

Is there is a reason the State of Texas couldn’t be sued for drafting/passing/signing a clearly unconstitutional law? I understand the loophole, but I don’t understand why that wouldn’t just lead to the party responsible for the loophole being held liable. 

 

I think it's because courts can't overturn laws, only the enforcement. Without a State Official enforcing the law, it has to wait until someone sues a provider, then it'll work its way through the courts. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

I think it's because courts can't overturn laws, only the enforcement. Without a State Official enforcing the law, it has to wait until someone sues a provider, then it'll work its way through the courts. 

 

This is correct.

 

The lawsuit has to be from someone who has been "injured" by the law.

[Jwheel86]

1 minute ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

This is correct.

 

The lawsuit has to be from someone who has been "injured" by the law.

 

Part of me wonders if one of these lawsuits will never go forward since providers first have to do an abortion.

[CitizenVectron]

2 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

Part of me wonders if one of these lawsuits will never go forward since providers first have to do an abortion.

 

Well that's the goal—to freeze abortions due to fear of lawsuit, even if the abortion might be legal.

[chakoo]

41 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

Nuking the filibuster would greatly improve the situation. 

 

Yes or at least force people to actually stand up there and talk non stop to actually filibuster. Even if it just gives the crazy a platform to talk for hours it keeps them tied up.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

And if "bad" laws get passed without the filibuster, so freakin' what?

[Fizzzzle]

8 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

And if "bad" laws get passed without the filibuster, so freakin' what?

"but if we nuke the filibuster, then THEY will be able to pass whatever they want when THEY take power again!"

 

Good! Let them! Or maybe if you, y'know, did your fucking jobs and actually passed legislation that people like then you wouldn't have to worry about it!

[Jason]

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

 

 

[Firewithin]

 

Did @Commissar SFLUFANstart this?

[Ghost_MH]

11 minutes ago, Firewithin said:

 

Did @Commissar SFLUFANstart this?

 

Someone's already made a script to help folks send in realistic, fake bounty requests.

 

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

33 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

"but if we nuke the filibuster, then THEY will be able to pass whatever they want when THEY take power again!"

 

Good! Let them! Or maybe if you, y'know, did your fucking jobs and actually passed legislation that people like then you wouldn't have to worry about it!

 

I remember a few months back when The Turtle went on about all the "horrible" things that his party would have the ability to do in the absence of the filibuster and my reaction was effectively, "OK - what's your point?  You're threatening that you'd be forced to do exactly what you were elected to do?"

[osxmatt]

2 hours ago, Jwheel86 said:

Democrats should use the same mechanism on gun manufacturers.

 

BREAKING: The Supreme Court just ruled 5-4 that any such law is unconstitutional.

[TwinIon]

7 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

I remember a few months back when The Turtle went on about all the "horrible" things that his party would have the ability to do in the absence of the filibuster and my reaction was effectively, "OK - what's your point?  You're threatening that you'd be forced to do exactly what you were elected to do?"

This is why I've been in favor of eliminating the filibuster. I want government to govern. I'm quite aware that at some point the GOP would have control and pass a bunch of stuff that I would rather they not, but I expect that a lot of the stuff they run on (abortion being an excellent example) would almost certainly be widely unpopular. Last time they had control, despite running on a message of repealing Obamacare and replacing it with something better, they never even proposed a plan.

 

Right now there's a well founded expectation that nothing will get done, regardless of who gets elected. I can't say for sure if I'd be happy with the overall results or not, but I'd like to see us get to a place where we expect the government to actually do things.

[osxmatt]

I'll tell you what, based on social media posts, I'm astonished how many friends and family members have no idea that "6 weeks pregnant" means 6 weeks since your last menstrual period.

 

Most seem to think it means 6 weeks since your last missed period.

[Reputator]

So majority white conservative Texas state governors and officials ensured that underprivileged minorities will have more babies, and that those babies will flood state welfare programs and also eventually dwarf the white population, ensuring that future generations of Texans will be majority liberal, and majority non-white governors and officials running the state?

 

Sounds like Republicans are once again working to defeat themselves.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

12 minutes ago, Reputator said:

So majority white conservative Texas state governors and officials ensured that underprivileged minorities will have more babies, and that those babies will flood state welfare programs and also eventually dwarf the white population, ensuring that future generations of Texans will be majority liberal, and majority non-white governors and officials running the state?

 

Sounds like Republicans are once again working to defeat themselves.

 

You're up next

 

 

Florida Legislature will consider abortion ‘heartbeat bill,’ Senate president says

WWW.TAMPABAY.COM

---

When asked for comment about potential new abortion restrictions, Wilton Simpson sent a reporter the smiling sunglasses emoji.

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

6 hours ago, Reputator said:

So majority white conservative Texas state governors and officials ensured that underprivileged minorities will have more babies, and that those babies will flood state welfare programs and also eventually dwarf the white population, ensuring that future generations of Texans will be majority liberal, and majority non-white governors and officials running the state?

 

Sounds like Republicans are once again working to defeat themselves.

 

I wouldn't be so sure.

 

It's very important to note that a significant proportion of the Latin population is very much "conservative" in terms of social issues.  It wouldn't surprise me if at least plurality (if not a majority) of Texans of Latin descent are favorably disposed to this legislation.  It's a very tenuous assumption that a state with a plurality/majority Latin population would inherently be a "liberal" one, especially in regard to social issues.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]