Doctors' worst fears about the Texas abortion law are coming true

how about instead of talking about creating a separate thread, let's actually create one! http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ould-these-affect-the-abortion-debate.597714/

 

This is a lie. But I'll "debate" (there really is no debate) that with you in another thread.

 

LOL, Of course there is no "debate"...you make statements and then can never back them up, you change the subject at whim while complaining that others change the topic, and duck facts or having to respond by saying "that's a subject for another thread"

Dodge duckdodge duck evade dodge

 

This is a good example of government interference in ones right to bodily autonomy should never be allowed.

 

Texas clinics’ lawsuit over ban on abortion after heartbeat "effectively over."

The Texas Supreme Court, joined with the Texas Legislature and Governor on Friday and "dealt essentially a final blow to abortion clinics’ best hopes of" of resuming unrestricted destruction of distinct beating hearts.

The US Supreme Court had allowed Texas clinics to move forward on litigation against the Texas State Law to stops abortion after a detectable separate heart beat.

Despite several Courts hearing the case of the pro-abortion zealots, court after court has ruled that they have again failed to meet the legal standard to prevail.

SCOTX Holds that SCOTUS Was Wrong, Justice Thomas Was Right, and Jonathan Mitchell Is Still A Genius.

"The Supreme Court of Texas brings the offensive litigation against S.B. 8 to an end."

The bitter trail for the separate heart beat destroyers.

December/21 - SCOTUS rules that abortionists "could not sue the Attorney General, state judges, and clerks of court as these state officers had no role to enforce S.B. 8, but, the majority opinion suggested that state licensing officials may play some role in enforcing the law" and they could try going after them.

Justice Thomas wrote, in the minority, that the majority was wrong, that "licensing officials cannot enforce the statute."

Remember, Federal Courts have no power to overrule legitimate law created by representative State Legislatures, but, they may forbid state officials from enforcing laws that violate the Constitution. The separate heart beat destroyers sought to have them prevent folks who don't enforce the law, from enforcing the law, which is stupid. You might as well ask the court to order me not to jump over the moon.

So, after SCOTUS sent this back to the Fifth Circuit, the 5th sent the question to the Texas Supreme Court: did the state licensing officials enforce the statute? Today, SCOTX answered the question no. Every Justice agreed on the unanimous Court.

The misconceptions this clarifies in our Federal Constitutional Republic:

1. The United States Supreme Court is not the supreme interpreter of state law.
2. Justice Thomas was right. For all the claims of a 6-3 textualist court only Thomas adopted the most natural reading of S.B. 8 as the clear meaning of the statute. We have a 1-8 textualist court, with 3 consequentialists and 5 inconsistent frogs.
   
3. "Chief Justice Roberts's judicial supremacy was rebuked. It is very rare that Roberts gets overruled. It happened. He deserves it."

Next up: DOBBS.

 

You're pining for Judicial Supremacy when you live in a constitutional liberal democracy. First, abortion up to detectable heartbeat is pro-abortion until detectable heartbeat, after which it is pro-detectable heartbeat.

You may draw the line differently, but, the most vocal and politically connected, rather than compromising, consistently pushed a maximalist position of abortion until the moment of birth, and even flirted with "post-birth" abortion. After refusing for a half century to compromise on a more reasonable line, backed by Judicial Supremacy rather than legislative support, some very clever legislation finally devised a way to restore Legislative Supremacy for the first time in most of our lifetimes, which has been in the era of a very unusual situation of Judicial supremacy, where a narrowly drawn robed cabal of 9 rose to prominence, also, about 50 years ago.

The Texas Legislature designed a law that made it impossible, for abortion providers to use Judicial Supremacy to overrule the Will of the People as expressed through their elected State Governor and Legislature. You are mourning the loss of illegitimate power, even while you retain the legitimate power to persuade your neighbor to your viewpoint and prevail, a power that most humans throughout history have not enjoyed. Two things to understand:

i) In our system the Constitution and other federal law are the "supreme law of the land."
ii) The decisions of the Supreme Court are not the "supreme law of the land."

In Cooper v. Aaron (1958 ), the Supreme Court purported to elevate its own decisions to the status of "supreme law of the land." "In doing so, the justices arrogated to themselves the power to resolve any constitutional dispute, notwithstanding the traditional rules of adjudication."

https://www.newsweek.com/texas-abor...rett-caved-judicial-supremacy-opinion-1644807

In our system of self-rule, the only legitimate law is that passed by majorities of our our elected representatives, under illegitimate Judicial Supremacy the only "majority" that matters is 5 robed lawyers.

"there is an uninterrupted line between the judicial supremacy of Cooper v. Aaron (1958 ) and what Justice Byron White called the "raw judicial power" of Roe v. Wade (1973).

ACB and Kavanaugh ruled consistently for Judicial Supremacy over Constitutional Liberal Democracy.​

What a disappointment they were after 50 years of effort to return the Court to it's constitutional moorings.

That should have ended the discussion, but Justice Kavanaugh was just warming up:

A "principle"?

ACB is no better.

So, the bawling in the OP is over a hospital possibly paying a $10,000 fine for saving a woman's life and faced with that, the hospital chooses to let her die? Hospitals cost in excess of 500 a square foot to construct, so for the cost of a 14' square room, they would instead let the woman die? Have you ever reviewed a hospital bill? $10,000 is a drop in the bucket. I'm confident that they make political donations, every year, many times that amount.

"In Cooper v. Aaron, the Warren Court pronounced that its rulings would affect people who are not even parties to a case" even though it "is not the role of the Court to manufacture new procedural rules to provide "global relief," especially where state courts are free to adjudicate individual claims."

"Three decades ago, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor lamented that "no legal rule or doctrine is safe from ad hoc nullification by this Court when an occasion for its application arises in a case involving state regulation of abortion." She was right. "