Supreme Court Overturns Texas Abortion Law

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

This is good news.

Oh Boy!

More abortions!

The Daily Show's official twitter response was

"Celebrate the SCOTUS ruling! Go knock someone up in Texas!"

How droll.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

To liberals who don't live in Texas perhaps, but isn't that just like liberals. It ain't enough for them to determine the laws of the States in which they hold majorities...everybody has to toe the line.

Yours is not an uncommon expression among liberal bigots which is why there's a new slogan down here: "First Brexit, then Texit."

I assume you'll be in favor of us moving along.

1 Reply

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, which was joined in full by Kennedy. Breyer wrote that despite arguments that the restrictions were designed to protect women's health, the reality is that they merely amounted to burdening women who seek abortions.

"There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure," Breyer wrote. "We agree with the District Court that the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an "undue burden" on their constitutional right to do so."

Abortion in America: More complex than you think

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Breyer's opinion and wrote a brief concurring opinion, which focused on what she called women in "desperate circumstances."

"When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety," she wrote.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

let me know what you really think. You are not in the least compelled to disbelieve texas' argument that they are "looking out for the health of women"?

Conservative bigots dont ever doubt that what they do makes actual "sense".

Texans who beleve as you can certainly move to whatever area satisfy their several "Unique" worldviews. The geography stays however. Maybe you guys would want to populate Mexico, that way we wouldnt need the ferschluginer wall that your candidate is yelling about, and you can be as racially and religiously pure as you wish without worrying about a Constitution.
___________________

Meanwhile, you endorse blocking a new USSC justice on the belief that the net Pres will yield a friendlier candidate to your party script. Now all you can do is bitch about the consequences of taking your chances .

" Give us everything or we secede " sounds like a Texas mantra doesnt it?

I await a case wherein th Texas practice of having a "science textbook" committee at the state level is challenged because it violates the first amendment.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Meanwhile, you endorse blocking a new USSC justice on the belief that the net Pres will yield a friendlier candidate to your party script. Now all you can do is bitch about the consequences of taking your chances .

Consequences? I do not perceive the Republicans facing any consequences.

I highly doubt that Hillary will win, but if she does win, the Republicans will simply confirm Obama's pick (I forget the guy's name) in a lame duck session.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

if she does win, the Republicans will simply confirm Obama's pick (I forget the guy's name) in a lame duck session.

Ya takes a chance. YA dont get everything of what you want. Hillary would probably nominate Bernie Sanders. Very Happy

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

I do not perceive the Republicans facing any consequences

perhaps your views arent as rigidly all- encompassing as are Finnsy"s. As I recall, your days begin and end with the second amendment.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

When Hillary wins, which she will since she does have a duble digit lead over Disgustin'Donny,who is roundly despised by 3/4 of the electorate,MerrickGarland will graciously withdraw his name from contention, leaving Republicans to rue the day they stonewalled Obama, and President Clinton free to choose Elizabeth Warren, who will be handily confirmed by the Democratic-majority Senate-elect, giving a solid 5-4 SCOTUS majority to get down to the serious business of making Heller the 21st-century version of Plessy v. Ferguson and one of SCOTUS's all-time huge blunders,and restoring the 2nd amendment to what it has actually been all along, a collective right, not an individual one, that deals with the rights of a militia, which is the National Guard, and which has been technologically obsolescent sing the invention of the machine gun, let alone the rest of the 20th anc 21st century weaponry. In other words, oralloy, sanity will return and you gun fanatics will fulminate and nobody will care.

4 Replies

@MontereyJack,

if the gop wises up and dissolves the trump suicide pact, and akes back the convention, they may, if theyre smart, lure enough dem voters away and win a close one without any trumps around at the end

1 Reply

@farmerman,

problem with that theory is, none of the other lame-os the GOP had in the primaries was any better than Trump, or had any more viable ideas, or stood any chance of winning with any voter with a modicum of common sense.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

perhaps, at least I hope your right. But any change from Trump could be a slight edge giver, because , fce it. The DEMS candidate has perceived baggage.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

a solid 5-4 SCOTUS majority to get down to the serious business of making Heller the 21st-century version of Plessy v. Ferguson and one of SCOTUS's all-time huge blunders,

In other words, you admit that Liberals hate the Constitution, and will nominate judges who are devoted to overturning the Constitution.

Anyone who cares about America should take that into account and vote for Trump.

MontereyJack wrote:

and restoring the 2nd amendment to what it has actually been all along, a collective right, not an individual one, that deals with the rights of a militia,

The problem with Liberal lies about reality is, they are nothing but Liberal lies about reality.

There is in fact a long-standing history of gun rights jurisprudence that includes the right of individuals to have guns for self defense.

Even if you somehow could separate this right from the Second Amendment (and you can't), the Ninth Amendment would step in and provide the same level of protection for this individual right.

MontereyJack wrote:

a militia, which is the National Guard,

Not even close. The militia is constitutionally distinct from the standing army. The National Guard is part of the standing army.

State governments choose the officers of their militia. I've never heard of state governments appointing National Guard officers.

The militia only serves within US borders. The National Guard serves in overseas actions.

And most importantly of all, militiamen have the right to have their own machineguns, grenades/grenade launchers, anti-tank bazookas, and Stinger missiles, and the right to keep their weapons at home.

MontereyJack wrote:

and which has been technologically obsolescent sing the invention of the machine gun,

Irrelevant. If you wanted to try to limit the Second Amendment to cover only the militia, you needed to have a militia to apply the right to.

Logical fail.

MontereyJack wrote:

In other words, oralloy, sanity will return and you gun fanatics will fulminate and nobody will care.

Even if Liberals got the Supreme Court to stop defending the Constitution, the NRA is more than capable of defending the Constitution on their own. The only fulminating would be frustrated Liberals who were unable to do anything against the indomitable might of the NRA.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

MerrickGarland will graciously withdraw his name from contention, leaving Republicans to rue the day

This part of your fantasy is particularly funny.

This guy spent most of his life dreaming of becoming a Supreme Court justice. You really think he will throw that all away right when it is finally offered to him?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I think it should be Obama.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Vote for the racist bigot, xenophobe, narcissist, Trump? He'll win the votes of the uneducated; it figures.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Vote for the racist bigot, xenophobe, narcissist, Trump? He'll win the votes of the uneducated; it figures.

That's another problem with Liberals. They think that anyone who disagrees with their failed ideology either is a bigot, is uneducated, or is both.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Here; explain this about Trump: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83
Also,

Quote:

He questions whether President Obama was born in the United States

Long before calling Mexican immigrants “criminals” and “rapists,” Trump was a leading proponent of “birtherism,” the racist conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States and is thus an illegitimate president. Trump claimed in 2011 to have sent people to Hawaii to investigate whether Obama was really born there. He insisted at the time that the researchers “cannot believe what they are finding.”

Obama ultimately got the better of Trump, releasing his long-form birth certificate and relentlessly mocking the real estate mogul about it at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner that year.

But Trump continues to insinuate that the president was not born in the country.

“I don’t know where he was born,” Trump said in a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday. (Again, for the record: He was born in Hawaii.)

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
He insisted at the time that the researchers “cannot believe what they are finding.”

Now, if that doesn't sound like click bait, I don't know what does.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

and President Clinton free to choose Elizabeth Warren, who will be handily confirmed by the Democratic-majority Senate-elect,

One more flaw in your fantasy that just occurred to me: even if the Democrats managed to get a majority in the Senate and managed to get Hillary elected, they would not be able to break a Republican filibuster if Hillary were to nominate an extremist to the Supreme Court.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

Flaws in your argument. 1. Warren is hardlyy an ectremist. Alito is more extreme on the other end.

1 Reply

Supreme Court Overturns Texas Abortion Law

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know