LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Justice will be served: Life in prison for abortion docs

about_average said:
Lets say you're 100% correct and SCOTUS refuses to rule in a way that changes the time line established by Roe v Wade and subsequent rulings.
Unless a judge can be persuaded to make an injunction 1000's of women will be impacted and doctors could end up in prison until it makes it way to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

The judge would have no choice except to permanently enjoin the new law. The law on this issue is clear and well established. There is no wiggle room and the SCOTUS has been extremely consistent in this area.

The States can "regulate" but they cannot eliminate, even through onerous "regulation". There is a limit on how far the State can go, this bill (and the heartbeat bills) are well beyond that line.

This bill is merely vote pandering.
 
heathergives said:
I'd be surprised if it makes it as far as the Supreme Court of Alabama.
Click to expand...

It's not a State court issue. The first stop will be in the Fed District Court because it involves a Federal Constitutional Right.
 
HisArpy said:
So, you're saying that overturning a case denying Sovereign Immunity is equal to abortion?
Click to expand...
No, just addressing the topic of stare decisis which was what Rob mentioned.
Then there's Kavanaugh's equivocal response when asked about Roe v. Wade referring to "settled law".
Yet he's also said "I think justices of all stripes agree that stare decisis is important, but not an inextricable command. It’s not inflexible, it’s not absolute,"
and
"I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent."

Query: In your opinion, should the State have immunity from being sued except in specific circumstances the State allows by Statute?
Click to expand...
I haven't thought about it enough to offer an opinion.

Kind of like Thomas, another who joined the majority in Hyatt, said at his confirmation hearing that he hadn't thought about or discussed Roe v Wade (probably the case of the decade) which was being heard while he was in law school.

Except I'm not lying when I say I haven't thought about it.
 
And, about the vote pandering...

Change the word "abortion" to "guns".

Why, in your politically idealogical world (of either persuasion), is 1 good while the other is bad and should be taken away?

Anti-abortion bills, like ant-gun bills are promoted to divide Americans and secure a reliable voting base. It has NOTHING to do with "America" or "righteousness" or "morality" and everything to do with getting reelected.

Those who do not see this are sheep to slaughter. In this day and age of internet political discourse, it's amazing to see how many people are completely ignorant of what's really going on behind the scenes.

When your legislators pit you against your neighbor just so they can keep their cushy jobs, YOU are the one who is a fool for going along with it.
 
about_average said:
No, just addressing the topic of stare decisis which was what Rob mentioned.
Then there's Kavanaugh's equivocal response when asked about Roe v. Wade referring to "settled law".
Yet he's also said "I think justices of all stripes agree that stare decisis is important, but not an inextricable command. It’s not inflexible, it’s not absolute,"
and
"I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent."

I haven't thought about it enough to offer an opinion.

Kind of like Thomas, another who joined the majority in Hyatt, said at his confirmation hearing that he hadn't thought about or discussed Roe v Wade (probably the case of the decade) which was being heard while he was in law school.

Except I'm not lying when I say I haven't thought about it.
Click to expand...

Stare decisis isn't rigid, it's designed to be flexible so that when new issues (not the "same" issues) crop up, the courts can deal with it.

Banning abortion is off the table. Regulating doctors and procedures MAY be ok, IF such regulations don't amount to a "ban" by being so overburdensome that few, if any, can comply. This is what Texas keeps trying to do. And failing to succeed on.

It's a limit that applies to ALL Constitutional Rights.

Thomas may not have been lying. During my years in law school I had very little time to devote to things not directly impacting my studies and homework. As an example, there were several Federal decisions which were made while I was in school. Those decisions didn't change the curriculum of the classes at all. Nor were they discussed in class or in my study group. We just didn't have time or energy to waste on them.

Once I graduated and went into practice, I wasn't concerned about decisions which didn't directly affect my area of practice. So, other than for general public knowledge and discussion, I never really put much thought into those cases.

Which, I expect, is about normal for most people regardless of their profession.
 
HisArpy said:
2 is not 5.
Click to expand...
Que said last week that 40% is "more than half", but I digress.

HisArpy said:
Nor is there any inkling that there are any votes to support overturning Roe. To limit or expand it, yes. But not to overturn it. Even Kavanaugh has stated that Roe is precedent. So did Gorsuch.
Click to expand...
Kavanaugh DID state Roe was precedent, but he also stated he would "narrowly interpret" it, i.e. make it so narrow that it would be essentially inapplicable. AND, Roberts and Alito said they'd narrowly interpret it too. And well all know how shufflin' and grinnin' affirmative action Justice Clarence Thomas would vote. Basically, Roe is now dependent upon Trump nominee Gorsuch, which does not bode well for the women of America.

HisArpy said:
Tell us, why is it that you consistently use propaganda based fearmongering to try to motivate people to do things against their best interests?
Click to expand...
I do nothing of the sort, but I understand how your near-pathological hatred of me would make you ascribe such positionst to me. Your obsession about me rivals that of NotVetteman, absent Vetty's constant fixation on my genitalia.


HisArpy said:
It would be interesting to read your response to this issue if the conflict wasn't over abortion but whether Indians, Blacks, or women are "men" under the Constitution and therefore are entitled to the rights "men" enjoy. Would you try to tell us that the SCOTUS could/would wave their magic legal tomes and make all that go away? Or that you think people should be concerned that they could actually do it and get away with it?
Click to expand...
My response to this verbal salad is "what purported rights do men enjoy that Indians, Blacks and women do not? You really need to get a better grip on your hypothetical "gotchas".

HisArpy said:
Abortion is a Right enshrined in the Constitution. It may not be definitively enumerated, but according to the SCOTUS, it's in there. Once so deemed to exist, SCOTUS has no power to remove it. Such a decision would violate the separation of powers doctrine. Something SCOTUS cannot do or get around. You can be sure SCOTUS is well aware of it's limitations in this regard.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right. I think you're mistaken though.
 
RobDownSouth said:
Que said last week that 40% is "more than half", but I digress.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Plus this is an attempt to deflect AND use Ad Hom in some strange way no one can understand.


Kavanaugh DID state Roe was precedent, but he also stated he would "narrowly interpret" it, i.e. make it so narrow that it would be essentially inapplicable. AND, Roberts and Alito said they'd narrowly interpret it too. And well all know how shufflin' and grinnin' affirmative action Justice Clarence Thomas would vote. Basically, Roe is now dependent upon Trump nominee Gorsuch, which does not bode well for the women of America.
Click to expand...

This is YOUR interpretation. So far, no one has seen any instances of it in either Kavanaugh's past decisions ro current ones. So it's really nothing more than fear mongering.

I do nothing of the sort, but I understand how your near-pathological hatred of me would make you ascribe such positionst to me. Your obsession about me rivals that of NotVetteman, absent Vetty's constant fixation on my genitalia.
Click to expand...

See first reply above.



My response to this verbal salad is "what purported rights do men enjoy that Indians, Blacks and women do not? You really need to get a better grip on your hypothetical "gotchas".
Click to expand...

Not my fault you can't keep up with the rest of the class.



I hope you're right. I think you're mistaken though.
Click to expand...

I believe I am. I have faith that the 9 people we've put into positions of ultimate power won't abuse those powers for personal political purposes. For the most part, in the past 200 years that belief has been borne out.
 
In the meantime all the law will do is to force women to seek out of state services or worse, send them to illegal in-state butcher shops; rusty coathangers and all. :rolleyes::mad:
 
RobDownSouth said:
Alabama ranks 46th overall in healthcare in America.

There is a public health crisis in Alabama, at least 32% of all children don't have access to adequate medical care...

yet lawmakers are focused on controlling women's bodies.

Make no mistake. This isn't about life. This is about controlling women.
Click to expand...


Indeed, it would be one thing if they were anti-abortion, but still managed to find ways to not cut funding to vital programs impacting children in need, and providing adequate healthcare to its population. The hypocrisy is astounding. Abortion should be the last thing on their minds. Repugs love to control.
 
Last edited:
HisArpy said:
Stare decisis isn't rigid, it's designed to be flexible so that when new issues (not the "same" issues) crop up, the courts can deal with it.

Banning abortion is off the table. Regulating doctors and procedures MAY be ok, IF such regulations don't amount to a "ban" by being so overburdensome that few, if any, can comply. This is what Texas keeps trying to do. And failing to succeed on.
Click to expand...
I hope you're right, but the Texas Omnibus Abortion Bil, HB2 was struck down in 5-4 vote in 2016
In an almost identical law passed by Louisiana Kavanaugh dissented this year in blocking it from taking effect.
He appears to have few concerns with a law that so restricts access that it effectively bans it.
 
about_average said:
I hope you're right, but the Texas Omnibus Abortion Bil, HB2 was struck down in 5-4 vote in 2016
In an almost identical law passed by Louisiana Kavanaugh dissented this year in blocking it from taking effect.
He appears to have few concerns with a law that so restricts access that it effectively bans it.
Click to expand...

Gosh, this would mean RobDownSouth was right and HisArpy was wrong!
Imagine that!
 
25 white men, who have nothing better to do (like improving conditions in this shitty state), waste their time passing clearly unconstitutional legislation. What’s your guess on the average IQ in the Alabama legislature?
 
Adre said:
25 white men, who have nothing better to do (like improving conditions in this shitty state), waste their time passing clearly unconstitutional legislation. What’s your guess on the average IQ in the Alabama legislature?
Click to expand...
80% opioid addicts.
 
Adre said:
25 white men, who have nothing better to do (like improving conditions in this shitty state), waste their time passing clearly unconstitutional legislation. What’s your guess on the average IQ in the Alabama legislature?
Click to expand...


prolly 70% higher than those who voted for them
 
HisArpy said:
2 is not 5. Nor is there any inkling that there are any votes to support overturning Roe. To limit or expand it, yes. But not to overturn it. Even Kavanaugh has stated that Roe is precedent. So did Gorsuch.

Tell us, why is it that you consistently use propaganda based fearmongering to try to motivate people to do things against their best interests?

Beyond that, the history of the SCOTUS shows how rarely they overturn their decisions. AFAIK, none of those times have they ever overturned a decision about a Constitutional Right's existence.

It would be interesting to read your response to this issue if the conflict wasn't over abortion but whether Indians, Blacks, or women are "men" under the Constitution and therefore are entitled to the rights "men" enjoy. Would you try to tell us that the SCOTUS could/would wave their magic legal tomes and make all that go away? Or that you think people should be concerned that they could actually do it and get away with it?

Abortion is a Right enshrined in the Constitution. It may not be definitively enumerated, but according to the SCOTUS, it's in there. Once so deemed to exist, SCOTUS has no power to remove it. Such a decision would violate the separation of powers doctrine. Something SCOTUS cannot do or get around. You can be sure SCOTUS is well aware of it's limitations in this regard.
Click to expand...


I don't think the Alabama case will trigger a reversal of Roe v Wade. It will be overturned on appeal and because the SCOTUS itself invented the Constitutional right by penumbra to "martial privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) that laid the legal foundation for the right to abortion with another penumbra invented in Roe v Wade, it will simply refuse to hear an appeal by pro-life attorneys, and let their inventions stand.
 
Adre said:
25 white men, who have nothing better to do (like improving conditions in this shitty state), waste their time passing clearly unconstitutional legislation. What’s your guess on the average IQ in the Alabama legislature?
Click to expand...

Passed into law on the signature of a female governor.
 
RobDownSouth said:
Que said last week that 40% is "more than half", but I digress.


Kavanaugh DID state Roe was precedent, but he also stated he would "narrowly interpret" it, i.e. make it so narrow that it would be essentially inapplicable.
Click to expand...


Dred Scott was precedent as well.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Why I am absolutely sure I will be banned.
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Sunlover102
Sunlover102
F
Looking for an exhibitionism/bdsm/incest(?) story where a woman is leaving an airport naked in medieval stocks and has her head through the sunroof
Replies
1
Views
308
fdsafdsafdsafdsa
F
J
The day time stopped for me.
Replies
5
Views
984
bobb64
B
S
Looking for a story
Replies
2
Views
217
sqhatch
S
TwystedDzyre
Word Combos That Show The Rot In Our Society
Replies
0
Views
177
TwystedDzyre
TwystedDzyre
Back
Top