• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court won’t stop Texas abortion ban, but lets clinics sue

Hamish Howl

Hamish Howl

Horrible Bastard
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2019
Messages
39,587
Reaction score
38,112
Location
Tucson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
apnews.com

Court won't stop Texas abortion ban, but lets clinics sue

The Supreme Court is leaving in place Texas' ban on most abortions. And the decision on Friday offers only a glimmer of daylight for clinics in the state to challenge the nation’s most restrictive abortion law.
apnews.com apnews.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday left in place Texas’ ban on most abortions, offering only a glimmer of daylight for clinics in the state to challenge the nation’s most restrictive abortion law.

The decision, little more than a week after the court signaled it would roll back abortion rights and possibly overturn its landmark Roe v. Wade decision, was greeted with dismay by abortion rights supporters but praise by opponents.

Five conservative justices, including three appointed by former President Donald Trump, formed a majority to limit who can be sued by the clinics, a result that both sides said probably will prevent federal courts from effectively blocking the law.

Texas licensing officials may be sued, but not state court judges, court clerks or state Attorney General Ken Paxton, the court ruled. That seems to leave people free, under the unusual structure of the Texas law, to sue abortion clinics and anyone else who “aids or abets” an abortion performed after cardiac activity is detected in an embryo, around six weeks and before some women know they’re pregnant.

“The Supreme Court has essentially greenlit Texas’s cynical scheme and prevented federal courts from blocking an unconstitutional law,” the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents the Texas clinics, said on Twitter.
Click to expand...

This effectively kills Roe.

Should be an interesting election next year.
 
This ought to make the evangelicals mess in their pants, but given how many Americans were in favor of Roe, it might not work out the way they expect.

Personally, I blame the bernie bros.
 
I'm against using the courts to harass people for engaging in what is currently constitutionally protected activities. I have to read their decisions, the Texas law is a clever way to end-run Roe. Not a fan of that generally speaking. If you want to go after Roe in the courts make a direct attack. Don't harass doctors.
 
Hamish Howl said:
Hardly a surprise, though.
Click to expand...
I really didn't think they would. So much for the hundred billionthy times I've said the Justices aren't partisan and that they put their own opinions on hold. They just hinted in arguments that they may well force taxpayers to fund tuition for students in religious schools, too.

www.scotusblog.com

Conservative justices scoff at Maine’s exclusion of religious schools from tuition-assistance program - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Wednesday in a challenge to a Maine program that pays tuition for some students to attend private school when their own school district does not operate a public secondary school. Two Maine couples argue that the state’s refusal to provide funds for students
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com

The Supreme Court Is Ready to Make Taxpayers Fund Religious Schools

"On its face, the case, Carson v. Makin is an outlier. Maine has a unique system for students in far-flung rural areas: If there’s no public school available, then the state will pay around $11,000 to families toward private-school tuition, so long as the private school is not religious in...
debatepolitics.com debatepolitics.com

I get it that we live in a democracy, and the people voted to put the Repubs in position to appoint three conservative justices, so I guess I need to accept it. But I don't like it.
 
I've read all of the opinions now. This is so, so much worse than just Roe. This approach will affect voting rights, class actions of all kinds, and virtually every other civil rights claim (except Christian religious infringement). What the 5 ideologues are doing is erecting a barrier to standing for every kind of claim they do not want to adjudicate. CJ Roberts has lost control, entirely.

I intend to take the time to analyze the effects. This is, perhaps, the worst opinion (and has the least basis) since Lochner. it is nearly impossible to describe how truly awful it is. They dismissed the DoJ outright. Think about that. They eliminated all of the meaningful defendants. It's totally absurd.
 
I hope I'm not overstating this, but the Texas thing about allowing regular citizens to sue anybody and everybody that they see aiding an abortion might actually create an American version of the Nazi "brown shirts" who enjoyed ratting out those who didn't kiss Hitler's posterior. Remember that boy in "The Sound of Music" who went Nazi and turned against his loved ones? I'm afraid we'll eventually see more of that, but in real life.
 
MaryP said:
I get it that we live in a democracy, and the people voted to put the Repubs in position to appoint three conservative justices, so I guess I need to accept it. But I don't like it.
Click to expand...

A democracy (constitutional republic with weak democratic functions) shouldn't allow for this to happen, but the Republicans took advantage of whatever they could. The American system isn't that good. The framers weren't truly wanting to set up a good system.
 
NWRatCon said:
They dismissed the DoJ outright. Think about that. They eliminated all of the meaningful defendants. It's totally absurd.
Click to expand...

Please give a brief explanation of that part.
 
MaryP said:
I get it that we live in a democracy, and the people voted to put the Repubs in position to appoint three conservative justices, so I guess I need to accept it. But I don't like it.
Click to expand...
But we didn't, really. They usurped power that didn't belong to them to put Gorsuch on the bench instead of Garland. They did the same with hundreds of other judges.

This is a coup in action. It's been going on for a century, going back to 1920. I'm not exaggerating. In 1920, when the Census demonstrated that rural congressional Districts would be overwhelmed by urban Districts, they changed the rules. In 1929 they passed the Permanent Apportionment Act. Its purpose was to permanently skew the Congress to favor rural voters. It's why both George W. Bush and Trump were elected, because it also skews the Electoral College. Gerrymandering doesn't begin to rival that action.
 
Emily L said:
I hope I'm not overstating this, but the Texas thing about allowing regular citizens to sue anybody and everybody that they see aiding an abortion might actually create an American version of the Nazi "brown shirts" who enjoyed ratting out those who didn't kiss Hitler's posterior. Remember that boy in "The Sound of Music" who went Nazi and turned against his loved ones? I'm afraid we'll eventually see more of that, but in real life.
Click to expand...
EVERYONE was so sure that approach would not, could not fly. Legal opinion after legal opinion said it's intolerable, will create total legal anarchy, etc etc. I'm surprised.
 
Antiwar said:
A democracy (constitutional republic with weak democratic functions) shouldn't allow for this to happen, but the Republicans took advantage of whatever they could. The American system isn't that good. The framers weren't truly wanting to set up a good system.
Click to expand...
Fiddle dee dee
 
NWRatCon said:
This is a coup in action. It's been going on for a century, going back to 1920. I'm not exaggerating. In 1920, when the Census demonstrated that rural congressional Districts would be overwhelmed by urban Districts, they changed the rules. In 1929 they passed the Permanent Apportionment Act. Its purpose was to permanently skew the Congress to favor rural voters. It's why both George W. Bush and Trump were elected, because it also skews the Electoral College. Gerrymandering doesn't begin to rival that action.
Click to expand...

Wow. I'd like to hear a bit about the EC thing. I know it was originally apportioned using 3/5ths compromise math, but don't know what (if anything) happened after abolition of slavery to correct that. I assume that nothing had to be done, that citizenship and voting rights took care of it.

I've done a basic analysis of a couple of presidential elections, so I have a decent idea about how it works with regard to voting-power being variable.

If you don't have time to, I'm thinking that link might shed light.
 
Hamish Howl said:
apnews.com

Court won't stop Texas abortion ban, but lets clinics sue

The Supreme Court is leaving in place Texas' ban on most abortions. And the decision on Friday offers only a glimmer of daylight for clinics in the state to challenge the nation’s most restrictive abortion law.
apnews.com apnews.com



This effectively kills Roe.

Should be an interesting election next year.
Click to expand...
I remember how nasty and aggressive the ProChoice ladies were to Susan Collins when she was considering her vote on Kavanaugh. Couldn't even get into her Bangor office for days.

Yeah, it could get very interesting. It won't do any good, probably, but there will be one more screaming faction out there on the streets.
 
MaryP said:
Oh, pshaw?
Horse hockey?
Bullshit?
Click to expand...

Ok. You believe the framers were and system is good. Maybe you're being protective.
 
Antiwar said:
Please give a brief explanation of that part.
Click to expand...
In United States v. Texas, they summarily dismissed the writ of certiori brought by the Department of Justice. The basis for the DoJ's suit is to avoid the 11th Amendment (sovereign immunity) basis for dismissal that the Court used to dismiss all the meaningful Defendants. DOJ sued the State, not officials. That is the same basis that DoJ uses for its entire Civil Rights Division.

While they remanded to the District Court for the Whole Women's case, they did not address the separate interest of the United States in protecting Civil Rights (say, like voting rights). That cop out limits the bases for bringing Civil Rights actions. It's a minor issue in this case, but it is consistent with the roadblocks to court they've erected in other cases. It's a worrisome trend.
 
Antiwar said:
Please give a brief explanation of that part.
Click to expand...
I forgot to address my "meaningful Defendants" part. I'll get back to that. It's late. Being concise will take time.
 
Lol... y'all are some seriously messed up folks :)
 
Antiwar said:
Wow. I'd like to hear a bit about the EC thing. I know it was originally apportioned using 3/5ths compromise math, but don't know what (if anything) happened after abolition of slavery to correct that. I assume that nothing had to be done, that citizenship and voting rights took care of it.

I've done a basic analysis of a couple of presidential elections, so I have a decent idea about how it works with regard to voting-power being variable.

If you don't have time to, I'm thinking that link might shed light.
Click to expand...
There's math involved. The gist, though, is this: the Senate already skews rural because every State gets two Senators regardless of size, so Alaska and Wyoming, for example, have the same number of Senators as California and New York, although 1/67th the size (California's Senators represent 39 million people, Wyoming's 590,000).

In 1929, Congress fixed the number of Congressional Districts at 435. Since every State gets 1 regardless of size, the same math affects Districts. Rural Congressmen represent fewer constituents than urban ones do, on average. The skew is so bad that 60% of the population gets only 40% of Congress, and a small minority gets 60% of the votes. By 2040, two-thirds of Americans will be represented by 30 percent of the Senate (WaPo, Subscription) "In 2016, the 25 most-populous states were home to 83.6 percent of the country. ... In 2016, the five largest states are home to 37.2 percent of the population." 10 Senators represent nearly 40% of the population. The skew in the House is not at bad, but it still means the average Democrat has to overperform by 4% over the Republican candidate to break even, and Gerrymandering skews this even worse. I left out a link that might clarify the process: How to Fix the House of Representatives in One Easy, Radical Step

Those numbers apply directly to the Electoral College, which is why Hillary Clinton lost, despite getting 3 million more votes, and Biden barely won despite getting 7 million more votes. Al Gore only got 500,000 more votes than George W. Bush.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom