Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

[anjelikaferrett]

 

[verreauxi]

View attachment 137841

Both true and painfully obvious (yet lost or conveniently ignored by many Americans).

 

[Tin-Tin]

The State of Texas will not say prevention because that would get the law over-tuned. It's bounty paid by the State for the successful prosecution of a civil case brought by a citizen against another for aiding and abetting an abortion after 6 weeks of pregnancy.

The hope, for the GQP, is that this will lead to huge legal bills for health care providers and clinics such that they will shut down. It's a cunning, deceitful work-around against precedent and the SCOTUS is accepting it. The Supreme Court of the United States is accepting citizen vigilantism in the courtroom.

It's mind-boggling.

Could Dem states not start doing this with unvaccinated, gun carriers and so on?

 

[BlueTX]

Could Dem states not start doing this with unvaccinated, gun carriers and so on?

I'd suppose so. Law of unintended consequences.

But imagine if this was a case of New York State empowering citizens to sue unvaccinated people for spreading COVID and offering bounties for successful cases. You think the response from the Catholic Federalist Society wing of the SCOTUS would have been the same?

The SCOTUS has become a game of Calvinball.

 

[BlueTX]

So no taxes can be used to pay for an abortion (since some tax payers would find that offensive), but tax payer $$ can be spent to prevent an 11 year old rape victim having an abortion despite some tax payers finding that offensive.

I apologize. My initial reading of the statue was incorrect. The defendants are liable. The State is trying to completely stay out of it.

So if your Uber driver drops you off at Planned Parenthood, your Uber driver could be at risk of legal exposure.

 

[Tin-Tin]

I'd suppose so. Law of unintended consequences.

But imagine if this was a case of New York State empowering citizens to sue unvaccinated people for spreading COVID and offering bounties for successful cases. You think the response from the Catholic Federalist Society wing of the SCOTUS would have been the same?

The SCOTUS has become a game of Calvinball.

No and thats exactly why they should do it, if they can. Its set a precident now. See how SCOTUS reacts when states start setting bounty's on private citizens for all rule breaking. Be like the wild west

Dems seem to be too nice. They are saying the right things, having a moan on twitter but dont seem to hold any power or are willing to play the GOP game.

 

[emir]

Imagine this, ladies of Texas and, possibly soon, other states in Taliban territory:

You get pregnant by your partner and together you decide to have a secret abortion. You later break up with him. Guess what the angry ex-partner can now do...??

While this bill violates "Roe v Wade", to what extent do you support the will of the people? Do you believe your state should have the right to legislate their own laws without federal intervention? If so, this abortion bill shouldn't be controversial as it's the will of the people of Texas.

 

[BlueTX]

While this bill violates "Roe v Wade", to what extent do you support the will of the people? Do you believe your state should have the right to legislate their own laws without federal intervention? If so, this abortion bill shouldn't be controversial as it's the will of the people of Texas.

The 10th Amendment addresses this. However, the SCOTUS has addressed various state efforts to limit abortion access for decades given there is a national interest (among other things).

This specific effort is an end-around where the State is enacting law with the express intention of innoculating the State from review or redress by having private citizens enforce provisions of the law.

It is state-sanctioned vigilantism.

 

[BlueTX]

No and thats exactly why they should do it, if they can. Its set a precident now. See how SCOTUS reacts when states start setting bounty's on private citizens for all rule breaking. Be like the wild west

Dems seem to be too nice. They are saying the right things, having a moan on twitter but dont seem to hold any power or are willing to play the GOP game.

Oh, it's a fact that mainstream elected Dems (especially the leadership) naively hold out hope for days gone by. Meanwhile, McConnell has no qualms with playing dirty or flat laying waste to precedent and tradition.

Classic case of nice guys getting run over by the shameless.

 

[emir]

The 10th Amendment addresses this. However, the SCOTUS has addressed various state efforts to limit abortion access for decades given there is a national interest (among other things).

This specific effort is an end-around where the State is enacting law with the express intention of innoculating the State from review or redress by having private citizens enforce provisions of the law.

It is state-sanctioned vigilantism.

I am anti-federalization. I believe the historical Roe v Wade ruling by SCOTUS is restrictive and controversial, because it's infringing the will of a lot of conservative individual states. The SCOTUS can't pick and choose their fights. They can't conveniently ban anti-abortion bills in Texas yet allow New York to legalize abortions up to 24 weeks. This is polarizing as hell.

I've spoke to some Texans and some of them are celebrating this bill. Biden shouldn't try to interfere here and [Poor language removed] the Texans.

 

[BlueTX]

I am anti-federalization. I believe the historical Roe v Wade ruling by SCOTUS is restrictive and controversial, because it's infringing the will of a lot of conservative individual states. The SCOTUS can't pick and choose their fights. They can't conveniently ban anti-abortion bills in Texas yet allow New York to legalize abortions up to 24 weeks. This is polarizing as hell.

I've spoke to some Texans and some of them are celebrating this bill. Biden shouldn't try to interfere here and [Poor language removed] the Texans.

Cool. Your belief has been rejected by court after court decision.

Not sure what you mean by the SCOTUS picking and choosing their fights.

If you believe in the "will of the people" then I'd suppose you'd agree that the POTUS was elected by popular will as was the Congress so if they choose to enact law that supercedes the Texas law, well then...

 

[LinekersLegs]

Oh, it's a fact that mainstream elected Dems (especially the leadership) naively hold out hope for days gone by. Meanwhile, McConnell has no qualms with playing dirty or flat laying waste to precedent and tradition.

Classic case of nice guys getting run over by the shameless.

Much as I detest this law I really wouldn’t want to see the same vigilante prosecutions used by Dem states (bad law is bad law regardless of its justification ) it just would be an endless race to the bottom.

But as you say McConnell and others in his caucus knows that and exploits it.

 

[emir]

Cool. Your belief has been rejected by court after court decision.

Not sure what you mean by the SCOTUS picking and choosing their fights.

If you believe in the "will of the people" then I'd suppose you'd agree that the POTUS was elected by popular will as was the Congress so if they choose to enact law that supercedes the Texas law, well then...

Well, I am against this 100%. But to ask, how can a federal law by congress ever supersede the Texan law? I thought that was the 10th amendment, that you were talking about and I thought only the SCOTUS acted as the federal barrier to state laws, or am I wrong?

Yes the POTUS was elected but was he elected as the Texan president? Those legislators that created this bill were all voted in by the people of Texas. Plus, Texas voted for Trump. So I don't agree with Biden using his hand in Texas. As someone who has studied the history of Yugoslavia and seeing what's unfolding in Catalonia, you don't want to give Biden or the congress too much power here.

 

[BlueTX]

I am anti-federalization. I believe the historical Roe v Wade ruling by SCOTUS is restrictive and controversial, because it's infringing the will of a lot of conservative individual states. The SCOTUS can't pick and choose their fights. They can't conveniently ban anti-abortion bills in Texas yet allow New York to legalize abortions up to 24 weeks. This is polarizing as hell.

I've spoke to some Texans and some of them are celebrating this bill. Biden shouldn't try to interfere here and [Poor language removed] the Texans.

Btw, I live here. My family has been here since before the Civil War.

Nobody in Texas ran on this bill.

Abortion access in Texas isn't controversial. Most people here recognize abortion rights should exist with certain limitations. Texans also value their privacy.

This bill takes a giant crap on both of those.

 

[BlueTX]

Well, I am against this 100%. But to ask, how can a federal law by congress ever supersede the Texan law? I thought that was the 10th amendment, that you were talking about and I thought only the SCOTUS acted as the federal barrier to state laws, or am I wrong?

Yes the POTUS was elected but was he elected as the Texan president? Those legislators that created this bill were all voted in by the people of Texas. Plus, Texas voted for Trump. So I don't agree with Biden using his hand in Texas. As someone who has studied the history of Yugoslavia and seeing what's unfolding in Catalonia, you don't want to give Biden or the congress too much power here.

You are wrong.

Federal law supercedes state law. We fought a Civil War, in small part, over that concept.