Supreme Court Overturns Texas Abortion Law

let me know what you really think.

I always do.

You are not in the least compelled to disbelieve texas' argument that they are "looking out for the health of women"?

I am certainly willing to concede that there are political considerations baked into this law as there are in virtually every law passed in this nation, and particularly so when the subject addressed is as controversial as abortion, but I responded to what you posted, not what you now assert to support a snarky comment that is reflective of a consistent and reflexive bigotry directed at Texans by those who are left of center.

Here's what you posted in case you forgot:

Quote:

Any time a TEXAS law is struck down, that IS good news.

Yeah, I know you were simply trying to be amusing, just like whoever wrote the Daily Show's tweet.

Perhaps bigotry is too strong a word to use, although considering that part of what I've termed as bigotry from the left is based on the myriad of expressions from that quarter that Texans are all bigots, I tend to think not. In any case it's ironic, just as it's ironic that folks who profess to abhor prejudice and stereotyping based on race, religion, sexual orientation and what-have-you, don't seem to be quite so upstanding when it comes to Southerners and Southwesterners; (particularly if they are white, male conservatives) as the targets of prejudice, stereotyping and amusing insults.

I've lived in Texas for 12 years now but I don't necessarily consider myself a Texan; not because I have any reason to shy away from the association, but because of roots and heritage. The bigotry directed towards Texans probably pisses me off more than it does the natives though, and it's because of what I consider to be hypocrisy, and the power that is inherent, today, in calling out racists, bigots and the like. Power that is welcome overall, but which has been abused by the left.

While I didn't specifically call you a bigot, I'm not going to get cute and suggest I didn't clearly imply that. For that I apologize, I do believe your attitude towards Texas is founded, in some measure, on bigotry, but to say you are a bigot is wrong.

Conservative bigots don't ever doubt that what they do makes actual "sense".

I don't know whether or not this is true, but if it is, I'm sure the same can be said of liberal bigots.

I think though that you are suggesting that conservatives as a whole never doubt what they do makes actual "sense." How is this different from liberals as a whole?

I've acknowledged (quite happily) that there had to be political considerations involved in this law: politicians who felt that by advancing it or simply voting for it, they improved their chances for re-election. It might have even been quid pro quo from an election donation in one or two cases. Again, how would this be different from liberals legislators in Pennsylvania, or here in Texas? The bill(s) wasn't passed with a unanimous vote. Did the Dems who voted against it do it solely out of principle? Did they vote against the wishes of the people who elected them?

It's pretty clear that the restrictions/requirements of this law were intended to make it tougher to get an abortion in Texas, but do you think they had no benefit what-so-ever to the women seeking abortions? More to the point, do you think that everyone or most everyone who voted for the bill, and every Texan who supported its passage or voted for the legislators who did, are all authoritarian patriarchs who want to keep women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Do you think every legislator who voted for it was a white male? I don't know, but I think we could probably find out.

Is it possible that some, if not most, of the men and women, anglo and latino, who voted for it were motivated by deeply held principles about the sanctity of life and not bound and determined to keep Texan women in their place: the kitchen, the field, or some back ally with a bruja and a coat hanger?

I'm sure there are conservatives who actually believe that Pro-choice Dem politicians and the liberals who vote for them are blood thirsty ghouls who profit, in some way, by the killing of unborn children, and that any claim they might make to principle on the topic is fraudulent. I haven't met any though. I don't believe that and I don't know any conservative who does.

Are pro-life Dem politicians cognizant of how their constituencies feel on the topic, and does this have an influence on the legislative actions they take. Of course, or they won't be in office for very long. Is it the only reason? No more than re-election is the only reason the Republicans voted for the law.


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.

I'm assuming you are employing the generalized "you" here because I have on numerous occasions indicated that I have no intention of voting for Trump.

I don't know of anyone (maybe I don't get out enough) who would like to see Texit happen who is talking about an armed insurrection. I also don't know anyone in favor of Texit who believes that, barring a set of circumstances not to be wished for, it has a snowball's chance in hell of happening. I'm sure there are deluded fools who think a public referendum is all that it will take and there may even be some loons who would be willing to reenact the Alamo...including being wiped out to the man, but they are a small minority of the Texans who, keeping in mind it ain't going to happen without a national catastrophe or series of catastrophes, think favorably of the notion.

Of course you had to double down and imply anyone who thinks favorably of something like Texit is a racist or a religious fanatic (and I'm not sure which one you think is worse but I know you think they are both very bad), and this is precisely why I brought up Texit.

Considering the general contempt in which you and your confreres hold Texans, you'd think you would be happy to see us go, and I'm sure you would be. You just want us to leave all we've built behind.

Most Texans are OK with staying in the Union (which doesn't preclude liking the idea of leaving) because, believe it or not, they're smart enough to know that the national circumstances that would make it feasible are, again, not to be wished for, but their degree of OK is directly proportionate to the degree of independence they believe the State has from an elite progressive political class that considers them a bunch of ignorant racists. Right now, I believe most are OK with the degree of independence Texas has, but time will tell. I know liberal bigotry about the State isn't going to decrease unless and until it turns a reliable deep Blue, and even then the pointy-heads in the NE and West Coast will continue to look down their noses at Texas and Texans.


___________________

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 again assume you are using the generalized "you." I do endorse waiting to see how the election is likely to turn out before moving on the open seat. If Trump wins we will get a better candidate. If it looks like he can't win, I bet McConnell offers up a vote on Obama's choice. It will be a transparent political mover, but will the president decide the deal's off the table and turn 180 degrees and insist Clinton should get to pick her justice? Considering how he did a 180 about his constitutional power to selectively enforce immigration law, I won't be surprised if he flips on this, but what's rich is that you and your friends will almost assuredly support him if he does. Politically a good move, but hypocritical as hell if you were braying about the Constitution and the need to fill the vacancy ASAP when the Republicans announced they would block a vote.

I'm not however complaining about the result of this particular case, and I defy you to show me where I did. It is what it is. The GOP took this route and you have to take the good with the bad. Besides, I don't think it was a heinous decision. I don't agree with it, but I'm not outraged by it.

Hey if "Give us everything or we secede!" worked, I'd be all for it. It won't and the Texas government isn't using 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.

Fine and dandy. I'm not thrilled by the degree of influence the religious right has on the public school science curriculum in Texas, but it's pretty rich for a liberal to complain about politicizing public school systems when this has been a major (and successful) strategy by the Left for decades. We can agree that I'm not quite the science zealot you are, but I doubt you'll agree that I'm not at all the religious zealot you think I am. Never-the-less, while I don't like religion encroaching on public schools anymore than I like progressive orthodoxy doing the same, I'm not about to run naked and screaming in the streets because a moment of silent prayer is allowed in classrooms, or if a biology teacher is required to address creationism during a unit on evolution, but can point out all of the scientific flaws in it to his students. I'm a big fan of the 10th Amendment and State's Rights. For the most part, I trust the locals to work these things out without Uncle Sam sticking his big nose into the mix.


The bottom line is that while it is not accurate to call you a bigot per se, you do have an attitude toward Texas, Texans (and conservatives) that is woven through with bigotry, but you're entitled to your opinion and if you don't care if Texans think you are a horse's ass, so be it.

Warren is hardlyy an ectremist.

2. I think confirmation just requires a siimple majority not 60 votes

3. She can just wait them out. If they halt gobvernnment co a couple months after demanding we wait for a new Pres they wii REALLY look like as#holes they are.