The All things Political Topic - The Night never knew that its end was fleet.

[Amentep]

31 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Would that be their employer?

The presumptive father, an involved parent, a best friend or some other interested party who'd assist with cash towards the procedure, I'd assume.

[Gromnir]

28 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

He said that fifty (!) years ago. His record has been pretty consistent throughout his career, and he definitely believes what he says. You may not agree with him, but that doesn't mean he's not genuine. Now if he suddenly started advocating for lower taxes after becoming a millionaire...

---

Edit: Forum layout tricked me into replying to a two days old post, thought it was fresh. Sorry for the off-topic.

is a decent question even so. fifty years has seen a substantial amount o' inflation. $7 million in 2021 dollars. most estimates we has seen suggest bernie is worth $2million. as such bernie arguable has another another five million to go before risking the stain o' immorality.

am thinking we mentioned earlier in the thread how if you wanna retire at 65 in 2021, then you likely need more than $1million and that is IF you can count on social security supplementing the rather smallish yearly roi and IF you is willing to live someplace affordable. anybody confident social security is gonna be as robust twenty years from today?

$1million sounds like lots, and if you are young and stoopid and not considering retirement yet, or if you is the half of the US adult population with literal more debt then assets, one million is indeed a large amount o' cash. such a recognition should be terrifying most americans, but many o' us, 'cause it feels like there is nothing we are able to do 'bout it, push those fears down as we try and get to sleep at night. 

in the US, $1,000,000 is far less than it seems. if you are not aiming to be at least a millionaire, then you are doing it wrong.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 2, 2021 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

27 minutes ago, Amentep said:

The presumptive father, an involved parent, a best friend or some other interested party who'd assist with cash towards the procedure, I'd assume.

Wonder if they can sue the cell phone provider they used to call the Uber driver to take them to the clinic as well.

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, Amentep said:

 

As I understand it, that's what the Texas statute allows for their anti-abortion law; anyone can sue even if they do not have any connection to anyone else involved, and they can sue anyone in the chain (the doctor, the person who drove them their, the person receiving the abortion, the person who gave them money to get the abortion) 

Yeah, I get the notion, but what would be the substance of the lawsuit though? If I understand correctly it would be a civil suit and civil suit needs to have something that the suing side wants from the side they are suing. Mostly it's a monetary compensation for something (like damages), but those need to be accounted in real stuff. For example if a neighbour throws a bottle in my backyard and hits my car and the repair will cost 10k$ I can sue for those 10k$ because that's the cost I would have to pay for repairs. But for me to sue my neighbour if he damages the other neighbour car then this is illogical because he didn't made any damages to me. So this law is a little baffling in that regard.

 

[Elerond]

5 hours ago, Skarpen said:

This sounds kinda dumb. What would the lawsuit be about if the person suing have no damages to be covered?

Ask Texas state legislature 

[Gromnir]

8 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Wonder if they can sue the cell phone provider they used to call the Uber driver to take them to the clinic as well.

again, you are gonna need a showing o' sufficient criminal intent/knowledge. if the uber driver drops off a young woman at an abortion clinic, maybe you are able to show the uber driver knew he were aiding in the commission o' a crime. maybe.

even with strict liability offenses, there is a limit to how far the causal chain is extending. toxic waste dumping is illegal, and the state doesn't even care if you knew the stuff you were dumping is hazardous. you dump? you are liable. period. no intent needed. the thing is, we don't hold liable the guy who sold gasoline to the person who drove the truck which carried the toxic sludge. 

there is legal thresholds as to how expansive is the causal chain, but most o' the boogiemen being imagined is unlikely to ever be an issue. am doubting uber drivers is ever gonna be prosecuted 'cause is getting kinda remote and also for simple reason the uber drivers is gonna be asked to drop off passengers not at the clinics in question, but perhaps one block remote from the clinics. 

cell phone providers is even more remote.

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

Erasure

Edited September 2, 2021 by Malcador

[Elerond]

38 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Yeah, I get the notion, but what would be the substance of the lawsuit though? If I understand correctly it would be a civil suit and civil suit needs to have something that the suing side wants from the side they are suing. Mostly it's a monetary compensation for something (like damages), but those need to be accounted in real stuff. For example if a neighbour throws a bottle in my backyard and hits my car and the repair will cost 10k$ I can sue for those 10k$ because that's the cost I would have to pay for repairs. But for me to sue my neighbour if he damages the other neighbour car then this is illogical because he didn't made any damages to me. So this law is a little baffling in that regard.

 

The idea is to give people bounty to expose abortion that have happened after six weeks, and people get that bounty by suing suspected law breakers in civil court and I they can show that they were breaking Texas' ban for abortions after six week then they are rewarded with 10k dollars bounty/compensation.

As most abortion seekers are poor and there are lots of rich people on anti-abortion side, you will see lots of court case against even people who followed Texas law just to cause them financial burden in order to scare people seeking or providing abortions. 

Law gives purposely unspecified right to sue those who are suspected to help in seeking or providing illegal abortion, so that people would be hesitant to offer any assistance to people seeking legal abortions. As purpose is to effectively create total ban of abortions in Texas.

 

EDIT: This article gives good explanation of the what is the idea behind the law

https://qz.com/2054552/a-new-abortion-law-in-texas-turns-citizens-into-bounty-hunters/

Edited September 2, 2021 by Elerond

[Hurlshort]

The term 'abortion clinic' bugs me. It's just a clinic. Maybe they are different in Texas, but in California they offer a wide range of services for women going through the pregnancy and early parenthood process. Two of my co-workers had kids in High School, and they credit Planned Parenthood with helping them get through it, getting through High School, getting through college, and making it into the teaching profession. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

3 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Seems like it's more aimed at using the civil legal system to harass these people (and I guess the judges too) more than actually punishing them.

I think the idea is that it could circumvent Roe v Wade by having it be civil suits instead of criminal. You can also read it as subsidizing anti-abortion activists through pilfering abortion providers and recipients.

Personally I care less about the legal minutiae of the abortion bounty law and more about the fact it is going to make things considerably worse. Fact of the matter is that abortions are going to become next to impossible to get in Texas and it wasn't easy before the law. This is probably going to not effect rich folk too much (including the Republicans' mistresses) but poor folk are going to have to choose between raising an unwanted child (which even beyond the costs of raising a kiddo, just giving birth can be prohibitively expensive), throwijg yet another kid into foster care,, paying 10000 to some dip****s, or "back alley" abortions that could kill them.

In short, the law is ****ed.

[Malcador]

19 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

again, you are gonna need a showing o' sufficient criminal intent/knowledge. if the uber driver drops off a young woman at an abortion clinic, maybe you are able to show the uber driver knew he were aiding in the commission o' a crime. maybe.

even with strict liability offenses, there is a limit to how far the causal chain is extending. toxic waste dumping is illegal, and the state doesn't even care if you knew the stuff you were dumping is hazardous. you dump? you are liable. period. no intent needed. the thing is, we don't hold liable the guy who sold gasoline to the person who drove the truck which carried the toxic sludge. 

there is legal thresholds as to how expansive is the causal chain, but most o' the boogiemen being imagined is unlikely to ever be an issue. am doubting uber drivers is ever gonna be prosecuted 'cause is getting kinda remote and also for simple reason the uber drivers is gonna be asked to drop off passengers not at the clinics in question, but perhaps one block remote from the clinics. 

cell phone providers is even more remote.

HA! Good Fun!

Well, was being a bit flippant - although if they could target corps, you'd see that changed right quick.  When that limit is checked, is the person being sued involved ? Seems like this is just a scheme to use the legal system to harass people more than anything else.

[Gromnir]

Just now, KP the meanie zucchini said:

I think the idea is that it could circumvent Roe v Wade by having it be civil suits instead of criminal. You can also read it as subsidizing anti-abortion activists through pilfering abortion providers and recipients.

 

no. the thing is, the law makes it illegal to have an abortion past six weeks. regardless o' the texas bounty scheme, roe is triggered.

the bounty scheme is a way to avoid the criminal courts and the protections defendants would receive in criminal court. from a practical pov, doesn't matter if the texas law is unconstitutional or that you are innocent o' any wrong doing. is expensive and time consuming fighting civil suits, and various conservative groups has already built up war chests in anticipation of going after violators o' the texas law. 

'course none o' this would be an immediate concern if any 5th circuit court or SCOTUS did their job and blocked enforcement pending a future inevitable decision.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Pidesco]

For how long can the courts not do their job? Can they just delay things forever?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

8 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

no. the thing is, the law makes it illegal to have an abortion past six weeks. regardless o' the texas bounty scheme, roe is triggered.

Ok then, I stand corrected.

Like I said before, I care less about the laws wording and legal minutiae than I care about the fact it is going to make where I live considerably worse. If this law was around 7 years ago, I could have gotten hit with a 10k lawsuit for having given a friend a ride to a clinic. Unfortunately, the law is not academic for me and is going to effect me and my friends and family directly.

13 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

For how long can the courts not do their job? Can they just delay things forever?

Long enough to really **** a lot of people over.

[Gromnir]

4 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

For how long can the courts not do their job? Can they just delay things forever?

should be less remote than forever. is a house o' cards built on contrived procedural bs, and is exact the kinda bs the Court ignored last year during the pandemic to grant various religious groups emergency relief from covid-19 restrictions.

there is a 5th circuit decision, an administrative stay actually, which s'posed prevents other courts from interfering while certain legal questions is addressed. again, is procedural bs, and we can't see such silliness being carried out too long much less indefinite. SCOTUS could ignore the 5th circuit stay, but via a 5-4 shadow docket decision has chosen to remain silent. 

again, is procedural bs and am not certain how the 5th circuit stay could remain viable for more than a couple weeks w/o becoming presumptive unconstitutional, but am genuine surprised we are at this point, so...

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Gromnir]

1 minute ago, KP the meanie zucchini said:

Ok then, I stand corrected.

Like I said before, I care less about the laws wording and legal minutiae than I care about the fact it is going to make where I live considerably worse. If this law was around 7 years ago, I could have gotten hit with a 10k lawsuit for having given a friend a ride to a clinic. Unfortunately, the law is not academic for me and is going to effect me and my friends and family directly.

 

that's the thing. the texas law ain't creating some kinda remote burden on maybe a few people somewheres. roe is current the law o' the land and says abortion is legal well beyond six weeks. the texas law criminalizes abortions past six weeks. is a conflict. the texas law don't even provide exemptions for those who were raped. am having difficulty explaining why the courts is willing to indulge procedural bs when so many facing an already hard choice is gonna need decide whether to risk criminalization.

[HoonDing]

[rjshae]

^ If there really was a supernatural, that bible would have burst into flames. Quod erat demonstrandum. 

[BruceVC]

10 hours ago, HoonDing said:

Hoonding I need to tell you something and I know this is going to upset you but thats why you have friends on this forum who can help you shoulder  any emotional burden

Trump doesnt espouse many  Christian  values, anyone can say "Im a Christian " but you need more than  words to make it true 

 

[Raithe]

https://abovethelaw.com/2021/08/is-this-how-abortion-goes-out-not-with-a-bang-but-a-whimper/

    The Supreme Court’s shadow docket — a concept you barely even cover in law school, mind you — is going to be the death of us all. Or at least American democracy. Well, it’s been a 240+ year run and I suppose nothing lasts forever.

    Anyway, for the last 18 hours or so, legal Twitter has been abuzz with news of the Court’s shadow docket. After Texas passed the infuriating SB8, which would ban abortions after 6 weeks and empower private citizens to sue anyone they believe helped procure one, the Fifth Circuit put the kibosh on oral arguments that put the law on track to go into effect tomorrow, September 1st…

    This is the Court that is widely anticipated to gut reproductive freedom this Term — they granted review to a case challenging the Mississippi law that banned abortion after 15 weeks. As Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern describe, a simple I prefer not to from the Court is an easy decision for those whose mission it is to destroy reproductive freedom:

    If you’re asking yourself why the Supreme Court would possibly allow the state of Texas to overturn decades of precedent following Roe v. Wade before the court itself decides the issue, the answer seems simple: Whyever wouldn’t they? The current court’s [Republican] majority always planned to leave the husk of Roe in place, while allowing the states to strangle the fundamentals of the ruling. It was, as we have stressed, probably never going to pen the words “Roe v. Wade is overturned,” triggering a national culture war around the composition of the court and more awkward talk of possible court expansion. If the six conservative justices were seeking to avoid writing an opinion announcing that states can ban abortion once again, this case hands them a sterling opportunity: They can allow states to ban abortion without writing an opinion at all.

    Ruling against the Texas plaintiffs’ request for relief, and doing so under the cloak of an emergency order, on the shadow docket, in a case that purports to be about federalism and states’ rights? This is the stuff an anti-abortion jurist’s dreams are made of. If the high court simply decides not to decide the fate of SB 8, in an unsigned, unreasoned two-sentence order over the summer recess, who’s going to pay attention? Texas wants to ban all abortions. The Supreme Court wants Texas to ban all abortions. In the most cynical sense, the decision to do nothing at all here is a win for everyone.

[Raithe]

Pro-choice people flood Texas abortion whistleblower site with Shrek memes, fake reports, and porn (upworthy.com)

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

42 minutes ago, Raithe said:

Pro-choice people flood Texas abortion whistleblower site with Shrek memes, fake reports, and porn (upworthy.com)

The way I heard it was it was Shrek porn, which is not a rabbit hole I want to go down.

[Raithe]

43 minutes ago, KP the meanie zucchini said:

The way I heard it was it was Shrek porn, which is not a rabbit hole I want to go down.

[Agiel]

The Latest GOP Schism: How to Handle Afghan Evacuees

It seems to me that the GOP in its commitment to entertaining the basest impulses of its dwindling constituency is potentially missing a big opportunity with Afghan refugees. Consider in 1975 the Democrats having swept into the majority of Congress denied then President Ford's request to provide additional funding and air support for South Vietnam in order to stem the renewed NVA offensive (Operation Linebacker I and the Battle of An Loc demonstrated how this would likely have been sufficient to halting the Northern advance). As a result many refugees from the former RVN have blamed the Democrats for the fall of South Vietnam and much like their counterparts from Cuba still retain strong anti-communist convictions, with many becoming ardent Republicans (RVN flags were reported to have been flown during the Jan 6th Capitol attack). In addition like their Cuban counterparts Vietnamese-Americans also have phenomenally higher rates of small business entrepreneurship as compared to most other demographics in the US.

Fall of Kabul, refugee plight provoke painful memories for Vietnamese 'boat people'

[Raithe]