SCOTUS Over Rules 5th. Circuit On Texas Abortion Law.

[bravoactual]

Justices stop parts of Texas abortion law - Yahoo News

The Supreme Court has blocked key provisions of a highly restrictive Texas Abortion Law that closed all but 8-Abortion Clinics in the State of Texas.

Now, because every good ConJob/NeoNut/RePug/TeaHadist out believes deeply and sincerely in "The Government Should Not Be Involved In Health Care.", this ruling should make their hearts jump for joy.

But because they are after all low-life, scum-sucking, yellow-belly, slime-crawling liars, they will not doubt get their frillies in a twist.

It is not that they do not want "The Government" involved in Health Care, it's that they want to be able to talk out of both sides of lying ass face.

Because the Texas Law did in fact allow "The Government" to be directly involved in Health Care.

I often wonder these lying sacks of shit ever get whip lash of the tongue.

 

[TEA Party Patriot]

Murder is not a form of healthcare. It's a crime. The government should be involved in punishing and deterring crime as that is one of its few legitimate roles.

 

[bravoactual]

Murder is not a form of healthcare. It's a crime. The government should be involved in punishing and deterring crime as that is one of its few legitimate roles.

Abortion is in fact a medical procedure. You, as a ConJob believe that "The Government Should Be Involved In Health", unless you want "The Government" involved in Health Care.

 

[bravoactual]

Just so you know, all you god fearing, mother loving, apple pie eating, girl you left knocked up back home christians.

IF you supported the War(s) in Afghanistan and Iraq then you do not support the non-existent "Right To Life" Surely you would know that the U.S. Military Actions in those countries killed many "Unborn".

IF you support Capital Punishment, you do not support the "Right To Life". Capital Punishment is nothing more and nothing less than State Sanctioned First Degree Murder.

 

[bendog]

The Sup Ct didn't overturn the law, but it stayed its being implemented. The Fifth Cir upheld the law, and it would appear the Sup Ct will take up the case and issue some opinion, and there are at least three Justices who favor upholding the law requiring docs doing abortions have admitting privledges at local hospitals .... which would never grant them admitting privledges because they'd have protesters at the hospital.

Court blocks abortion limits in Texas SCOTUSblog

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Justices stop parts of Texas abortion law - Yahoo News

The Supreme Court has blocked key provisions of a highly restrictive Texas Abortion Law that closed all but 8-Abortion Clinics in the State of Texas.

Now, because every good ConJob/NeoNut/RePug/TeaHadist out believes deeply and sincerely in "The Government Should Not Be Involved In Health Care.", this ruling should make their hearts jump for joy.

But because they are after all low-life, scum-sucking, yellow-belly, slime-crawling liars, they will not doubt get their frillies in a twist.

It is not that they do not want "The Government" involved in Health Care, it's that they want to be able to talk out of both sides of lying ass face.

Because the Texas Law did in fact allow "The Government" to be directly involved in Health Care.

I often wonder these lying sacks of shit ever get whip lash of the tongue.

Thank Gawd no liberals are hypocrites

What a moronic thread

 

[bravoactual]

The Sup Ct didn't overturn the law, but it stayed its being implemented. The Fifth Cir upheld the law, and it would appear the Sup Ct will take up the case and issue some opinion, and there are at least three Justices who favor upholding the law requiring docs doing abortions have admitting privledges at local hospitals .... which would never grant them admitting privledges because they'd have protesters at the hospital.

Court blocks abortion limits in Texas SCOTUSblog

I did not say the law was overturned (learn to write...it helps so damn umch).

 

[bendog]

The Sup Ct didn't overturn the law, but it stayed its being implemented. The Fifth Cir upheld the law, and it would appear the Sup Ct will take up the case and issue some opinion, and there are at least three Justices who favor upholding the law requiring docs doing abortions have admitting privledges at local hospitals .... which would never grant them admitting privledges because they'd have protesters at the hospital.

Court blocks abortion limits in Texas SCOTUSblog

I did not say the law was overturned (learn to write...it helps so damn umch).

you said "overrules" in the op. The scotus did NOT overrule the 5th circuit. Learn to use English, or at the very least don't start adolescent bitches over words..

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, so SCOTUS is capable of reading its own past decisions and re-affirming them by overturning lower courts. I guess they have to be more than a year old in order for SCOTUS to do that. Windsor 2013 I guess was just used to declare states have the unquestioned authority on marriage just to facilitate a win for Edie Windsor.. Not because...you know...states have the ACTUAL choice on marriage. Just the 'choice' to only say "yes".

 

[Skylar]

Oh, so SCOTUS is capable of reading its own past decisions and re-affirming them by overturning lower courts. I guess they have to be more than a year old in order for SCOTUS to do that. Windsor 2013 I guess was just used to declare states have the unquestioned authority on marriage just to facilitate a win for Edie Windsor.. Not because...you know...states have the ACTUAL choice on marriage. Just the 'choice' to only say "yes".

Silo.....of course the SCOTUS can overturn lower court rulings. You're falling into the fallacy of assuming that the processes of the court are only valid if you agree with their rulings. Which just isn't the case. As for Windsor, it was case about the supremacy of legislation. Federal legislation vs state legislation in deciding marriage. It was ruled that in such a contest, state legislation would win out. It said nothing to the validity or constitutionality of gay marriage bans on the State level. Only that if the definitions in State law were more expansive than the definitions in federal law regarding marriage....that the federal legislation was invalid.

Windsor was a contest of federal legislation v. state legislation.

But court rulings aren't legislation. And the rulings of the lower courts regarding gay marriage aren't federal legislation v. state legislation. They're state legislation v. the rights of federal citizens. And as the Loving V. Virginia decision made ludicrously clear, the court has every authority to overrule marriage restrictions by the State that violate the rights of federal citizens. And every American is a federal citizen.

You misinterpreted Windsor. You assumed that state supremacy in a federal legislation v state legislation battle meant that the State could violate any right it wished in a State legislation v. Individual right contest. And Kennedy already slapped that silly shit down with the Romer V. Evans decision. The States don't have the authority to abrogate the rights of gay people. And they don't have the right to create discriminatory legislation that targets gays when that legislation serves no compelling state interest.

You were simply wrong.

 

[Silhouette]

Look, let's just call it what it is, OK? The SCOTUS's conservative Justices are following a Carl Rove/Dick Cheney play plan designed to enrage conservatives to hopefully vote republican in a couple weeks. They're trying to increase the turnout. Only the uncalculated result of what they're doing is turning away millions of votes from exasperation and apathy.

They've failed to notice the 'exasperation and apathy' factor in their own base...and more importantly...right leaning middle voters. They think that making it look like "oh gee there's nothing we can do about it...the looney left has won"...is going to bring out the vote. They FAIL to notice though that the whole reason people join the republican party or crossover to vote that way is because of the image of strength they see....or rather...USED to see in the GOP leadership.

Base monkeys like a strong silverback to protect the troop in times of peril. Well....they're getting good at manufacturing and ramping up peril on the eve of most elections. Only they forgot to add the "see we are the strong leaders who are stepping up to protect you RIGHT NOW".

It is a gross miscalculation and it's going to cost them in the short run AND the long run when they breed conservatives out of existing by pushing the bar so far left on who raises children of future generations. They will have slit their own throat.

This is what happens when you take your play plan from a couple of pressed ham-head [thank you Colbert Report ] rich pasty old cloistered white dudes so far removed from the common man that they've totally lost touch with how he operates...and THINKS. And yes, we really do THINK..

 

[bendog]

sil, I think you have too much conspiracy theory here. There's more than just a little evidence that the Texas law is not about the health of women so much as shutting off access to abortion. 3 Judges, Alito Scalia and Thomas want to flat out overturn Roe. 4 Justices do not, and I'm willing to go out on a limb and say they'd find Tex's law unconstitutional. That's enough for the Sup Ct to take the case, and there's a good deal of sense for BOTH sides to not want the law to go into effect. The 3 ant-Row votes don't want a record showing legal abortions are down and illegal ones up. The 4 pro-Roe don't want women denied choice. Roberts in his heart wants to overturn Roe, but he's got a legacy issue. I doubt he wants it on a 5-4 vote. And, Kennedy .... he could go either way.

 

[Skylar]

Look, let's just call it what it is, OK? The SCOTUS's conservative Justices are following a Carl Rove/Dick Cheney play plan designed to enrage conservatives to hopefully vote republican in a couple weeks. They're trying to increase the turnout. Only the uncalculated result of what they're doing is turning away millions of votes from exasperation and apathy.

Remember when Utah was granted a stay by the USSC. And you waxed eloquent about what the Justices were thinking, what the justices believed, how they were motivated, how they had just ruled that gay marriage bans were constitutional. And that the stay applied to all States, with Prop 8 now being in force?

Did you learn NOTHING from your exercise in baseless projection? You're doing the exact same thing again. Imagining these elaborate internal monologues for people you don't know, inventing complicated conspiracies for them, imagining complex motivations, and once again projecting your feelings onto the USSC.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

Roberts in his heart wants to overturn Roe, but he's got a legacy issue. I doubt he wants it on a 5-4 vote. And, Kennedy .... he could go either way.

I think you've got a good peg on Roberts. Though Kennedy has never expressed any interest in overturning Roe V. Wade.

 

[Silhouette]

sil, I think you have too much conspiracy theory here. There's more than just a little evidence that the Texas law is not about the health of women so much as shutting off access to abortion. 3 Judges, Alito Scalia and Thomas want to flat out overturn Roe. 4 Justices do not, and I'm willing to go out on a limb and say they'd find Tex's law unconstitutional. That's enough for the Sup Ct to take the case, and there's a good deal of sense for BOTH sides to not want the law to go into effect. The 3 ant-Row votes don't want a record showing legal abortions are down and illegal ones up. The 4 pro-Roe don't want women denied choice. Roberts in his heart wants to overturn Roe, but he's got a legacy issue. I doubt he wants it on a 5-4 vote. And, Kennedy .... he could go either way.

This is different. The conservative Justices were outnumbered. It only took 4 to vote to take up the gay marriage appeals. And those four decided to follow the Rove/Cheney plan instead.

And it was a foolish mistake.


Their fail on the abortion issue is that strict anti-abortion is a far right trait. And those votes are already guaranteed and statistically turn out at the polls without prompting. All the abortion thing did for GOP votes was to diminish them from the middle where folks undertsand the necessary evil of abortion.

So in that sense they are one and the same with respect to "my conspiracy theories" on the GOP failed strategy. This is their "grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory". They've got about three weeks. Let's see if they pull out of the nose dive.

If you really want me to get into one of my pet conspiracy theories that I almost never discuss...it is that both sides groom and place key "advisors" to the DNC or RNC respectively to gain their trust over time and ultimately feed the precisely the wrong advice at precisely the wrong time in order to gain a victory for their true masters.

How about that for a conspiracy theory?

Probably completely off-base....but you never know..

 

[bendog]

Roberts in his heart wants to overturn Roe, but he's got a legacy issue. I doubt he wants it on a 5-4 vote. And, Kennedy .... he could go either way.

I think you've got a good peg on Roberts. Though Kennedy has never expressed any interest in overturning Roe V. Wade.

I'm sorry. You are right about Kennedy and Roe. I meant that he could go either way on the Texas case. My guess: I think he's basically an honest guy, and the Texas case is dishonest in that it says it's premised on protecting women's health; it's not, and it's premised on denying the right to choose. So, my guess is its 60-40 that Texas is going down, but Kennedy could decide to go along and defer to the texas legislature's saying the law is to protect the health of women and children.

I think Roberts is waiting to see if he can get at least 5 votes plus his to overturn Roe, and he's like 6.

 

[bendog]

sil, I think you have too much conspiracy theory here. There's more than just a little evidence that the Texas law is not about the health of women so much as shutting off access to abortion. 3 Judges, Alito Scalia and Thomas want to flat out overturn Roe. 4 Justices do not, and I'm willing to go out on a limb and say they'd find Tex's law unconstitutional. That's enough for the Sup Ct to take the case, and there's a good deal of sense for BOTH sides to not want the law to go into effect. The 3 ant-Row votes don't want a record showing legal abortions are down and illegal ones up. The 4 pro-Roe don't want women denied choice. Roberts in his heart wants to overturn Roe, but he's got a legacy issue. I doubt he wants it on a 5-4 vote. And, Kennedy .... he could go either way.

This is different. The conservative Justices were outnumbered. It only took 4 to vote to take up the gay marriage appeals. And those four decided to follow the Rove/Cheney plan instead.

And it was a foolish mistake.


Their fail on the abortion issue is that strict anti-abortion is a far right trait. And those votes are already guaranteed and statistically turn out at the polls without prompting. All the abortion thing did for GOP votes was to diminish them from the middle where folks undertsand the necessary evil of abortion.

So in that sense they are one and the same with respect to "my conspiracy theories" on the GOP failed strategy. This is their "grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory". They've got about three weeks. Let's see if they pull out of the nose dive.

I think it's clear that Kennedy truly believes DOMA violates equal protection. And, I'm really not sure that Roberts, in his heart of hearts, disagrees. I do think he wants to avoid the whole gay rights issue and let people fight it out at the ballot box. Scalia and Thomas think gays are perverts who should go to jail. Alito is a good catholic.

 

[Skylar]

I think Roberts is waiting to see if he can get at least 5 votes plus his to overturn Roe, and he's like 6.

I really don't. More than anything, Roberts is about the integrity of the court. I'm left of center and I've always thought he was a fine Chief Justice. Roe V. Wade is such an iconic ruling, the case law so well founded in our society that to reverse it would dramatically undercut the public perception of stability in the courts. Roberts might try to nibble at it. Erode it. But a straight up reversal?

I don't see it.

Now, the Texas case would be an excellent example of a nibble. And if I had to guess, I'd say that Roberts would side in favor.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

But because they are after all low-life, scum-sucking, yellow-belly, slime-crawling liars, they will not doubt get their frillies in a twist.

True, liberals are truly bad people, but you've came up with a description of them that would make me even blush.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, "The SCOTUS's conservative Justices are" not "following a Carl Rove/Dick Cheney play plan designed to enrage conservatives to hopefully vote republican in a couple weeks."

The conservative justices refused to hear the cases until they HAVE TO hear a case, which does not appear to going to happen anytime soon.