Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 55 of 111 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765105 ... LastLast
Results 811 to 825 of 1658
  1. #811
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    101,586
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    The Biden administration attempted to overrule the supreme court but a federal judge stopped them again:
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jud...s-abortion-law
    Not to belabor the point but this isnít what the article you posted claims.

  2. #812
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    7,307
    Biden's justice department tried to get another judge to say that the law was unconstitutional and lost again.
    I do believe this law is too strict. 6 weeks is not really enough to determine viability of the baby or whether or not the mother's health will be jeopardized by carrying the baby to term. I would prefer 12-16 weeks, but overall, I do not support abortion on request in most cases.
    What does a "temporary restraining order" to stop enforcement of the law say to you gentlemen? It tells me that the DOJ tried to "forum-shop" to find a judge that would stop the law from going into effect. The judge refused to file the restraining order.
    Last edited by catman; 09-16-2021 at 10:55 PM.

  3. #813
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    41,416
    The DOJ tried to get a federal judge to issue an injunction preventing enforcement of the law while cases move through the courts. That is not the same thing as asking the judge to find it unconstitutional.

    Too strict is only one of a great many problems with this bill.

  4. #814
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    7,307
    Unfortunately, you will have to find another way to get it repealed, Nate. The supreme court won't do it.

  5. #815
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    41,416
    SCOTUS is probably going to overturn Roe and watch gleefully as teen pregnancy, maternal mortality, poverty, and a whole host of other problems start to rise.

    Roberts will vote against it, because he seems to be the only conservative Justice that cares about precedent, but it won't be enough.

    The real fun will be when a Dem legislature tries to use the same kind of law to let people sue gun owners or something of the sort and the same Court will have to perform mental gymnastics in public to overturn it.

  6. #816
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    7,307
    And one more thing -- What good will a restraining order do for a law that is constitutional? The goal is to find it unconstitutional and they will have to build a whole lot better case than they have so far to do so.

  7. #817
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    41,416
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    And one more thing -- What good will a restraining order do for a law that is constitutional? The goal is to find it unconstitutional and they will have to build a whole lot better case than they have so far to do so.
    It will prevent them from enforcing it until the question of constitutionality is decided? It's a pretty common practice.

  8. #818
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,045
    Quote Originally Posted by sethjoel View Post
    Would that include, post delivery abortions? If so I would definitely not oppose someone aborting Pelosi, Schiff, Swalwell, Feinstein, and Newsome. I guess there are definitely some Hollywood celebrities that could be added to that list.
    You should turn off Newsmax. This was dumb

  9. #819
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    2,516
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    Check entry #2 you slaugther lover.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder
    So disengenuous.

  10. #820
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,124
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    Biden's justice department tried to get another judge to say that the law was unconstitutional and lost again.
    I do believe this law is too strict. 6 weeks is not really enough to determine viability of the baby or whether or not the mother's health will be jeopardized by carrying the baby to term. I would prefer 12-16 weeks, but overall, I do not support abortion on request in most cases.
    What does a "temporary restraining order" to stop enforcement of the law say to you gentlemen? It tells me that the DOJ tried to "forum-shop" to find a judge that would stop the law from going into effect. The judge refused to file the restraining order.
    That is not what happened at all. First, the Supreme Court can grant injunctions upon requests of injunctive relief. They declined to do so in this case but did say their decision "is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas's law"

    The DOJ did not "judge shop", they did the next procedural step in the process, which is request a restraining order, and here's the important part, through the Western District of Texas, Austin Division Federal court, which is the appropriate court for such a filing. They could not have say filed their request in the California Division Federal Court or judge shop as you put it.

    Also, the goal is not to get the Judge to say the law is unconstitutional, it's to get the Judge to say it might be unconstitutional and thus requires judicial review before it is implemented.

    You once advised me to not talk about medical matters for which I was uninformed. I implore you to do the same with legal matters. It's clear you don't know procedurally what happened, nor what it means.
    Last edited by valade16; 09-16-2021 at 11:23 PM.

  11. #821
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,124
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    Unfortunately, you will have to find another way to get it repealed, Nate. The supreme court won't do it.
    For someone who is supposedly against the law you seem positively giddy at the prospect it is upheld.

  12. #822
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    39,306
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    SCOTUS is probably going to overturn Roe and watch gleefully as teen pregnancy, maternal mortality, poverty, and a whole host of other problems start to rise.

    Roberts will vote against it, because he seems to be the only conservative Justice that cares about precedent, but it won't be enough.

    The real fun will be when a Dem legislature tries to use the same kind of law to let people sue gun owners or something of the sort and the same Court will have to perform mental gymnastics in public to overturn it.
    Is there any reason, other than fear, to think this court will overturn Roe v Wade?

    Do we know when the Minnesota case is on the schedule?

  13. #823
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    39,306
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    It will prevent them from enforcing it until the question of constitutionality is decided? It's a pretty common practice.
    Since the law explicitly says the state can't enforce it it will be interesting to see what the court says if they ever do rule on it.

  14. #824
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    41,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Is there any reason, other than fear, to think this court will overturn Roe v Wade?

    Do we know when the Minnesota case is on the schedule?
    Using the shadow docket to let this law go into effect by a majority vote. It's a pretty good indication of how they'll vote when this case reaches them, and I don't know of any way someone could argue that Roe and the subsequent rulings are in effect if this law is allowed to stand. It's literally in direct contradiction to Roe.


    "`Can you explain this gap in your resume?`

    `Well, the vaccinated hosts on the news channel I like convinced me to resign to protest my work's vaccine mandate and take a few years off to help extend the pandemicĒ" - @LOLGOP

  15. #825
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    44,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Is there any reason, other than fear, to think this court will overturn Roe v Wade?

    Do we know when the Minnesota case is on the schedule?
    Which of those that declined to grant the injunction do you see reversing course and upholding Roe?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •