1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Justices Hear Challenges to Texas Abortion Law LIVE @ 10AM EST- 9AM Central
Posted on 11/1/21 at 9:32 am to Big Gorilla
Posted on 11/1/21 at 9:32 am to Big Gorilla
twitter probably just broke out with #retire Breyer
Posted on 11/1/21 at 9:33 am to Big Gorilla
quote:It SHOULD be a "state issue," but (so long as Roe remains governing authority) it currently is not.
This is clearly a state issue. If they say anything else after "no standing"...I quit.
The final ruling on this case will turn upon the "non-governmental remedy" issue, rather than some broader concept. SCOTUS always seeks the narrowest issue for resolution.
Locke
This post was edited on 11/1/21 at 9:37 am
Posted on 11/1/21 at 9:57 am to Big Gorilla
quote:
Kavanaugh seems like he is pushing this to the states. Show some balls and keep it that way.
I am pro life but if they allow this law to stand, I am worried the democrats are going to pass similar stuff for example on gun rights in Oregon. I would rather Roe v Wade just get ripped apart for being bad law.
Posted on 11/1/21 at 10:00 am to Lou Pai
We have a 2nd amendment for gun rights. I've never seen the amendment for abortion rights.
Posted on 11/1/21 at 10:06 am to cajunangelle
Of the 3 or 4 lunatics on the court, Breyer is the most sane one. Sotohag, Roberts and Kagen are insane.
Posted on 11/1/21 at 10:07 am to Lou Pai
quote:The "non-governmental remedy" element of the law is a clever end-around Roe, but (in the end) it is equally problematic to both the Left and the Right. Any state would be able to use it to avoid ANY Constitutional right. That is not a good thing.
I am pro life but if they allow this law to stand, I am worried the democrats are going to pass similar stuff for example on gun rights in Oregon. I would rather Roe v Wade just get ripped apart for being bad law.
Locke
This post was edited on 11/1/21 at 10:11 am
Posted on 11/1/21 at 10:13 am to LockeNLoad
2A is explicitly protected by Bill of rights. Genocide against children was a "right" created in the 1970's out of thin air.
Not apple to apples.
This law needs to stand.
Not apple to apples.
This law needs to stand.
This post was edited on 11/1/21 at 10:14 am
Posted on 11/1/21 at 10:17 am to LockeNLoad
quote:
"non-governmental remedy"
What is the rationale for allowing Sam and Sally Texan to claim damages for something completely unrelated to them?
Posted on 11/1/21 at 10:23 am to Demshoes
All of this for the injunction not the merits underlying
Wow. Surprised scotus took it actually as they passed once
Wow. Surprised scotus took it actually as they passed once
Posted on 11/1/21 at 10:25 am to Demshoes
quote:It is not even limited to Sam and Sally. Any random foreigner could come to Texas and file one of these bounty suits:quote:What is the rationale for allowing Sam and Sally Texan to claim damages for something completely unrelated to them?
"non-governmental remedy"
quote:In any case, the concept has no real basis in tort law. It is a private bounty, authorized by the State, to encourage private citizens to do something that the State is prohibited from doing with regard to one of the Left's sacred cows.
Sec. 171.208(a) Any person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may bring a civil action ....
Again, it was clever, but it is a two-edged sword ... waiting to cut the Right when the next Leftist legislature tries to do the same on one of the Right's sacred cows.
Locke
This post was edited on 11/1/21 at 10:33 am
Posted on 11/1/21 at 10:27 am to LSURep864
quote:I understand your point, and agree that Roe is Constitutionally-questionable, but it IS SCOTUS who makes the determination as to what rights are protected by the Constitution.
2A is explicitly protected by Bill of rights. Genocide against children was a "right" created in the 1970's out of thin air.
Not apple to apples
You and I disagreeing with the Roe ruling has exactly ZERO legal significance. For now, Roe IS the law.
Locke
This post was edited on 11/1/21 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 11/1/21 at 10:29 am to LockeNLoad
quote:
Again, it was clever, but it is a two-edged sword ... waiting to cut the Right when the next Leftist legislature tries to do the same on one of the Right's sacred cows.
This.
Look no farther than the vaccine “mandates” to see how private enforcement of government prerogatives turns out for the citizenry.
Posted on 11/1/21 at 10:32 am to Indefatigable
quote:
quote:
Again, it was clever, but it is a two-edged sword ... waiting to cut the Right when the next Leftist legislature tries to do the same on one of the Right's sacred cows.
This.
Look no farther than the vaccine “mandates” to see how private enforcement of government prerogatives turns out for the citizenry.
At one point I would have looked at this as problematic as well.
At this point, I'm starting to think, so THIS is how secession can actually happen. Screw it. Let each state go as far each way as the populace each will allow and we can relocate as necessary, if we so desire.
This post was edited on 11/1/21 at 10:34 am
Posted on 11/1/21 at 10:34 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:We could accomplish the same thing with greater efficiency through a Constitutional Amendment negating the Incorporation Doctrine vis-a-vis the Bill of Rights.
I'm starting to think, so THIS is how secession can actually happen. Screw it. Let each state go as far each way as it's populace will allow and we can relocate as necessary, if we so desire.
That Doctrine is Constitutionally-suspect anyway.
Locke
Posted on 11/1/21 at 10:35 am to LSURep864
"2A is explicitly protected by Bill of rights. Genocide against children was a "right" created in the 1970's out of thin air.
Not apple to apples.
This law needs to stand."
Perfectly stated
+1000
Not apple to apples.
This law needs to stand."
Perfectly stated
+1000
Posted on 11/1/21 at 10:57 am to dafif
quote:As I recall, they declined to grant injunctive relief months ago but ordered expedited briefing and hearing on the substantive issue ... and are hearing the substantive issue today, as opposed to just injunctive relief.
All of this for the injunction not the merits underlying
Wow. Surprised scotus took it actually as they passed once
Posted on 11/1/21 at 10:57 am to LockeNLoad
quote:
We could accomplish the same thing with greater efficiency through a Constitutional Amendment
If current polarization trends hold, I am not sure we'll have the required consensus to amend the Constitution ever again.
Posted on 11/1/21 at 11:00 am to Indefatigable
quote:Valid point.
If current polarization trends hold, I am not sure we'll have the required consensus to amend the Constitution ever again.
Locke
Posted on 11/1/21 at 11:28 am to LockeNLoad
quote:
The "non-governmental remedy" element of the law is a clever end-around Roe, but (in the end) it is equally problematic to both the Left and the Right. Any state would be able to use it to avoid ANY Constitutional right. That is not a good thing.
Ehh
Sure, if you think the nation can be saved.
If you're hoping for more and more state-state disputes and state-federal tension, it might hasten that.
Posted on 11/1/21 at 11:33 am to cajunangelle
quote:
The Supreme Court hears oral argument in a case by a group of health providers challenging the Texas abortion law.
health providers?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News