"California bill would allow citizens to enforce weapons ban"

Althea said:
Take a wild guess. I'll wait

Of course. Meanwhile, abortions are illegal in Texas for how long?

Not sure what you mean here, but the Voting Rights Act specifically protected voters who would be denied a vote based on racist regulations. As soon as the Shelby/Holder case was improperly ruled, the very states that were under scrutiny for past voting rights practices got to work and are denying votes again.

Where their new regulations would have been reviewed by the Feds before Shelby, now they are free to suppress votes with a Supreme Court that continues to allow it.
Click to expand...

Yep. And a brand new standard for judging state laws. A standard that is impossible to prove. But they knew that when they established it.
 
Flash said:
The Texas case was the correct legal decision based on procedural issues. That case is still in the courts because it was sent back to the Texas Supreme Court. They are usually required to exhaust all state remedies before going to the Supreme Court.

The case tried suing the state where no state action was involved. The abortion providers argued that by suing other citizens for providing abortions, the state courts were involved in its enforcement. That would be a state issue to be decided by the Texas courts. If the Texas courts rule against them then they can appeal to the federal courts. Also, there was a complex (to me) issue of whether these appeals to state and federal courts could occur at the same time.

The court issued the proper decision, just not one that made the pro-choice people happy. A good legal decision does not mean it has to satisfy our political preferences.

I don't think the TX or CA case will stand because any state can use that tactic to take away any constitutional right.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the SC in a position to impose a stay until the case wound its way through the proper courts?

Wouldn't that make more sense given your observation re. both silly laws?
 
Concart said:
Yep. And a brand new standard for judging state laws. A standard that is impossible to prove. But they knew that when they established it.
Click to expand...
I also believe the SC stated that Congress is in a position to create protections moving forward.

I'm guessing nobody on the bench has been watching the news for the last 15 years.
 
Althea said:
Wasn't the SC in a position to impose a stay until the case wound its way through the proper courts?

Wouldn't that make more sense given your observation re. both silly laws?
Click to expand...

Sounds logical. I don't know the legalities of imposing a stay. There has been a 60% increase in women going to OK, KS, LA, CO and other states to get abortions.

"The justices also allowed the abortion providers to sue some state licensing officials, but not state court clerks or judges, citing difficulties surrounding sovereign immunity. Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative-leaning justice, and all three liberal justices argued that other state officials could be sued — but lost to the majority vote.


The defendants removed from the suit were a key party whom providers were seeking to block from enforcing the abortion law. Enforcement was temporarily blocked for two days in October when a U.S. district judge prevented court clerks and judges from taking cases under the law, the strongest judicial reprimand to the statute so far."

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/11/05/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court/
 
Flash said:
Sounds logical. I don't know the legalities of imposing a stay. There has been a 60% increase in women going to OK, KS, LA, CO and other states to get abortions.

"The justices also allowed the abortion providers to sue some state licensing officials, but not state court clerks or judges, citing difficulties surrounding sovereign immunity. Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative-leaning justice, and all three liberal justices argued that other state officials could be sued — but lost to the majority vote.


The defendants removed from the suit were a key party whom providers were seeking to block from enforcing the abortion law. Enforcement was temporarily blocked for two days in October when a U.S. district judge prevented court clerks and judges from taking cases under the law, the strongest judicial reprimand to the statute so far."

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/11/05/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court/
Click to expand...
The problem, which the Texas legislature knew full well, is that these actions require time and money. They essentially put the handful of providers out of business immediately.

We're also going to find that Texas citizens are probably getting morning after pills and the like, in the mail from other states.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Well, ya got yahoos and religious fanatics threatening and in some cases assaulting and/or killing women seeking abortions or the medical personnel that perform them.

But hey, now you got yahoos ready to shoot it out when they ratted to the cops (if this law were to pass)....yeah, when it's defenseless women, doctors and nurses it's no problem.
Click to expand...


actually there haven't been any attacks like that in over a decade and the people who did it (less than five) are all in jail.......
Click to expand...

Actually, you're wrong....take note: https://feminist.org/anti-abortion-violence/facts.html

https://jezebel.com/violence-from-self-proclaimed-pro-lifers-increased-125-1848230259
 
The private sector should qualify for immunity if our legislators organize enough militia.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Actually, you're wrong....take note: https://feminist.org/anti-abortion-violence/facts.html

https://jezebel.com/violence-from-se...125-1848230259
Click to expand...



neither of those identify a single act, they just claim they exist.....I googled "attack on abortion clinic and got no hits after 2015........apparently the serious violence and serious harassment your links didn't merit getting on the news.....
Click to expand...


GMAFB! You stated that it's been a decade since violence was perpetrated against the pro-abortionist in over a decade and everyone is in jail.

I gave documented evidence to the contrary....so you just double down and now (personally) deem the violence is not "serious" or any done by individuals. That is a lie on your part, as the information contained in my links clearly show....either that or you didn't fully read what was provided.

Your incessant need to disprove anything "liberals" expose in society's faults just exposes your bias and intellectual myopia. The chronology of the posts will always be your undoing. Now, double down and repeat your folly predictably.
 
archives said:
Wouldn't say so, but if it was, how is it any different than Texas' abortion law that allows someone to sue the Uber driver if he drives a person to an abortion clinic?
Click to expand...

or for someone to sue a bartender for over serving someone who drives drunk and kills someone............soon we'll be seeing hotlines for drivers to call authorities for people whose windows are too dark or not wearing seat belts

as hawkeye said, regressives adore snitches
 
a-jpeg.934340
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top