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

[Raithe]

So, for the American legal beavers. how on case is this?

The new anti-abortion law in Texas is not just about abortion; it is about undermining civil rights decisions made by the Supreme Court during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. The Supreme Court declined to stop a state law that violates a constitutional right.

Since World War II, the Supreme Court has defended civil rights from state laws that threaten them. During the Great Depression, Democrats under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt began to use the government to regulate business, provide a basic social safety net—this is when we got Social Security—and promote infrastructure. But racist Democrats from the South balked at racial equality under this new government.

After World War II, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, a Republican appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, and Chief Justice Warren Burger, a Republican appointed by Richard Nixon, the Supreme Court set out to make all Americans equal before the law. They tried to end segregation through the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, decision prohibiting racial segregation in public schools. They protected the right of married couples to use contraception in 1965. They legalized interracial marriage in 1967. In 1973, with the Roe v. Wade decision, they tried to give women control over their own reproduction by legalizing abortion.

They based their decisions on the due process and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, passed by Congress in 1866 and ratified in 1868 in the wake of the Civil War. Congress developed this amendment after legislatures in former Confederate states passed “Black Codes” that severely limited the rights and protections for formerly enslaved people. Congress intended for the powers in the Fourteenth to enable the federal government to guarantee that African Americans had the same rights as white Americans, even in states whose legislatures intended to keep them in a form of quasi-slavery.
Justices in the Warren and Burger courts argued that the Fourteenth Amendment required that the Bill of Rights apply to state governments as well as to the federal government. This is known as the “incorporation doctrine,” but the name matters less than the concept: states cannot abridge an individual’s rights, any more than the federal government can. This doctrine dramatically expanded civil rights.

From the beginning, there was a backlash against the New Deal government by businessmen who objected to the idea of federal regulation and the bureaucracy it would require. As early as 1937, they were demanding an end to the active government and a return to the world of the 1920s, where businessmen could do as they wished, families and churches managed social welfare, and private interests profited from infrastructure projects. They gained little traction. The vast majority of Americans liked the new system.

But the expansion of civil rights under the Warren Court was a whole new kettle of fish. Opponents of the new decisions insisted that the court was engaging in “judicial activism,” taking away from voters the right to make their own decisions about how society should work. That said that justices were “legislating from the bench.” They insisted that the Constitution is limited by the views of its framers and that the government can do nothing that is not explicitly written in that 1787 document.

This is the foundation for today’s “originalists” on the court. They are trying to erase the era of legislation and legal decisions that constructed our modern nation. If the government is as limited as they say, it cannot regulate business. It cannot provide a social safety net or promote infrastructure, both things that cost tax dollars and, in the case of infrastructure, take lucrative opportunities from private businesses.
It cannot protect the rights of minorities or women.

Their doctrine would send authority for civil rights back to the states to wither or thrive as different legislatures see fit. But it has, in the past, run into the problem that Supreme Court precedent has led the court to overturn unconstitutional state laws that deprive people of their rights (although the recent conservative courts have chipped away at those precedents).

The new Texas law gets around this problem with a trick. It does not put state officers in charge of enforcing it. Instead, it turns enforcement over to individual citizens. So, when opponents sued to stop the measure from going into effect, state officials argued that they could not be stopped from enforcing the law because they don’t enforce it in the first place. With this workaround, Texas lawmakers have, as Justice Stephen Breyer noted in his dissent, “delegate[d] to private individuals the power to prevent a woman from…[exercising]...a federal constitutional right.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was more forceful, calling the measure “a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny.” And yet, the Supreme Court permitted that state law to stand simply by refusing to do anything to stop it. As Sotomayor wrote in her dissent: “Last night, the Court silently acquiesced in a State’s enactment of a law that flouts nearly 50 years of federal precedents.”
A state has undermined the power of the federal government to protect civil rights. It has given individuals who disagree with one particular right the power to take it away from their neighbors. But make no mistake: there is no reason that this mechanism couldn’t be used to undermine much of the civil rights legislation of the post–World War II years.

On September 4, 1957, three years after the Brown v. Board of Education decision, a crowd of angry white people barred nine Black students from entering Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The white protesters chanted: “Two, four, six, eight, we ain’t gonna integrate.”
In 1957, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower used the federal government to protect the constitutional rights of the Little Rock Nine from the white vigilantes who wanted to keep them second-class citizens. In 2021, the Supreme Court has handed power back to the vigilantes.

[Darkpriest]

So what is this all fuss about? Seems to be on a very far fringe of my news feeds, but some people seem to get very emotiobal about it. 

 

Seems like Texas put a some sort of ban on abortions past 6th week (which is 1/6 period of pregnancy?). 

I'd guess one still has a lot of time prior to that moment to take care of unwanted pregnancy or am I missing something? (it would cover things like r... etc.) 

I'll be honest, I have not taken any time to read on this topic, so I'm happy to be proven wrong. 

 

[Amentep]

My understanding is that most women won't know they're pregnant at 6 weeks. The "6 weeks pregnant" symptoms being easily confused with PMS symptoms. 

[Gorth]

Next up, Texas going to criminalise wanking, because you’re depriving all those poor little sperm cells of their god given right to become a person…

 

Just kidding, not going to happen, as that would impact the male half of the population. Not misogynistic enough. You have to ask yourself, if the Taliban were running Texas, what would they do?

[Gromnir]

12 hours ago, Raithe said:

So, for the American legal beavers. how on case is this?

 

 

not very. for those angry the Court might kill roe, keep in mind a couple points:

1) from the moment roe were decided, there has been a whole lotta disagreement 'bout its legitimacy. 

please recall that rbg criticized the legal reasoning behind roe. unlike gun possession or speedy trial, abortion as a right were created by a handful of justices who were not clear or in agreement 'bout what part o' the Constitution created a new fundamental right and what limitations might exist for such a right. not a strong opinion and since 1973 there has been fears the decision could be overturned. based on nothing save legal merits, the continued existence o' roe for near fifty years is nothing short o' amazing.

2) Congress coulda' legislated a solution anytime over the past decades.

this is not a Court problem save that Congressional cowardice has made it so. again, has been fears every decade since 1973 that roe might be overturned, and Congress didn't want any part in creating an abortion right which w/o legislative intervention could be vanished anytime by Justices who were not democratic elected and who is typical more concerned with legal principle than the real world impact o' expunging questionable precedent. many thousands o' women will suffer if there is a return to pre roe fumbduckery? is always a few Justices who take the image o' justice blindfolded extreme serious. remember your school lessons 'bout government? what is the role o' the Judiciary and what is the role o' Congress? took a decade for Congress following brown v. board of education to get off their collective arses and pass the civil rights acts. it's 2021 and Congress never addressed the problems created by roe. 

...

am not suggesting roe should be overturned, but nobody should be surprised if it is... overturn is not a slam dunk btw.

HA! Good Fun! 

[Agiel]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

Next up, Texas going to criminalise wanking, because you’re depriving all those poor little sperm cells of their god given right to become a person…

 

Just kidding, not going to happen, as that would impact the male half of the population. Not misogynistic enough. You have to ask yourself, if the Taliban were running Texas, what would they do?

Obligatory: 

 

[Raithe]

Independent - Satanic Temple takes legal action against Texas abortion law

Pro-choice advocates in Texas have been offered a faint ray of hope from a possibly unexpected source this week – Satanists.
Purportedly in the name of religious freedom, The Satanic Temple has hit back hard against the state’s recent institution of draconian anti-abortion laws.
The Massachusetts-based religious group has filed a letter with the US Food and Drug Administration to make the case that abortion is the faith-based right of its members.

The Satanic Temple argued that under The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was created to allow Native Americans access to peyote for use in rituals, its members should be allowed to access abortion pills Misoprostol and Mifepristone without regulatory action.

Satanic Temple spokesperson, Lucien Greaves, said in a statement. “I am sure Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton—who famously spends a good deal of his time composing press releases about Religious Liberty issues in other states—will be proud to see that Texas’s robust Religious Liberty laws, which he so vociferously champions, will prevent future Abortion Rituals from being interrupted by superfluous government restrictions meant only to shame and harass those seeking an abortion.”

He added that Satanists hold bodily autonomy and science sacrosanct, and abortion “rituals” are an important part of those beliefs, reports Fortune.
“The battle for abortion rights is largely a battle of competing religious viewpoints, and our viewpoint that the nonviable fetus is part of the impregnated host is fortunately protected under Religious Liberty laws,” he said.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

11 hours ago, Gorth said:

Next up, Texas going to criminalise wanking, because you’re depriving all those poor little sperm cells of their god given right to become a person…

 

Just kidding, not going to happen, as that would impact the male half of the population. Not misogynistic enough. You have to ask yourself, if the Taliban were running Texas, what would they do?

The Taliban has nothing to do with this, it's all a type of Christian and they've been doing this stuff for decades. There's less mystery if you read what Texas Republicans say they want to do.

[Gorth]

11 minutes ago, KP the meanie zucchini said:

The Taliban has nothing to do with this, it's all a type of Christian and they've been doing this stuff for decades. There's less mystery if you read what Texas Republicans say they want to do.

It was just me alluding to people who give up on their independence and let religious dogma do their thinking for them are all very similar. Whatever they call themselves.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

22 minutes ago, Gorth said:

It was just me alluding to people who give up on their independence and let religious dogma do their thinking for them are all very similar. Whatever they call themselves.

I got that, my point was saying that these guys are homegrown. The call is coming from inside the house, as it were.

[Gorth]

Australia's (and Canada and the US) contribution to the fight against climate change...

 

[ComradeYellow]

Tripwire President Starts Controversy by Supporting Texas Abortion Law | TechRaptor

Hmmm.  I have tons of hours clocked in on Red Orchestra (surprise!), and I suppose it's good that he's honest...but I'm still indifferent to the issue, and almost inclined to say it's a state issue not a federal one because from what I can see the U.S. appears to be heading towards decentralization rather than centralization.  There's nothing I see indicating that the U.S. is headed towards central authority so why should I screeeeam at Texans for doing crap their own way?  

As long as they don't revert back to slavery I really could care less what Texans do xD

[BruceVC]

6 hours ago, Gorth said:

Australia's (and Canada and the US) contribution to the fight against climate change...

 

My favorite hottie is back, I have decided whatever she says its true 

Dont you love her imitation of Canadian and American accents 

Edited September 6, 2021 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

5 hours ago, ComradeYellow said:

Tripwire President Starts Controversy by Supporting Texas Abortion Law | TechRaptor

Hmmm.  I have tons of hours clocked in on Red Orchestra (surprise!), and I suppose it's good that he's honest...but I'm still indifferent to the issue, and almost inclined to say it's a state issue not a federal one because from what I can see the U.S. appears to be heading towards decentralization rather than centralization.  There's nothing I see indicating that the U.S. is headed towards central authority so why should I screeeeam at Texans for doing crap their own way?  

As long as they don't revert back to slavery I really could care less what Texans do xD

He is entitled to his opinion, it doesnt mean the rest of us have to share it or we have to punish the company he works for by not buying their products for example. I think its wrong what is happening in Texas and I can see this spreading to other Republican states

[ComradeYellow]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

He is entitled to his opinion, it doesnt mean the rest of us have to share it or we have to punish the company he works for by not buying their products for example. I think its wrong what is happening in Texas and I can see this spreading to other Republican states

I suppose you're probably correct, Republicans could care less about state identity or individual states rights, they just seem to want to turn the whole of the U.S. completely Red.  Kind of have a hard time taking both sides seriously at this point, as they both seem to care more about national dominance than governing to help the people.  Time for a new vision I guess, outside of the box.

Also, I wonder if that Australian woman really believes what she's saying or if she's just hired to say such things.  I know both sides have a habit of employing and paying attractive women to give their agenda a boost, as sex does sell.

For instance:

North Korean defector says 'even North Korea was not this nuts' after attending Ivy League school | Fox News

She comes off as rather fake, and just found a way to make money by finding an audience that it willing to cater to whatever grief she has from the DPRK.  I can imagine every old graying Gen-X or Boomer Fox News watching troglodyte simping the Hell out of her.

^That's North Korea, so  when I hear rumors that they're all starving and have no electricity, I can't help but laugh and think the whole world is just one big propaganda machine.

[rjshae]

On 9/4/2021 at 6:45 PM, Amentep said:

My understanding is that most women won't know they're pregnant at 6 weeks. The "6 weeks pregnant" symptoms being easily confused with PMS symptoms. 

I suspect that's the point of the law; to make it much more difficult to get an abortion without absolutely prohibiting it. It effectively cripples Roe v. Wade without challenging the established ruling itself. I'm sure they have been thinking about this for a long, long time.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/meet-the-legal-strategist-behind-the-texas-abortion-ban

[Raithe]

 

 

[Raithe]

[Gfted1]

Wait, isnt Plan B available over the counter? If youre worried about becoming pregnant, go pop a couple pills?

[Hurlshort]

3 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

Wait, isnt Plan B available over the counter? If youre worried about becoming pregnant, go pop a couple pills?

My God, you've done it. You've solved the whole problem. Huzzah.

[Elerond]

10 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

Wait, isnt Plan B available over the counter? If youre worried about becoming pregnant, go pop a couple pills?

According to people behind new Texas law plan b is abortifacient and should be illegal

Edited September 8, 2021 by Elerond

[rjshae]

As abortion ban goes into effect, Texas poised to double down with separate restrictions on abortion-inducing medications

Quote

Lawmakers in the Texas House of Representatives on Tuesday voted 82-41 on the bill, which would shorten the window for a pregnant person to have a medication abortion. Currently, a person who is up to 10 weeks pregnant can have a medication abortion in Texas; the bill would ban the use of abortion-inducing medication for anyone who is more than seven weeks pregnant. The Texas Senate first passed the bill, known as SB 4, last month during a special session. Tuesday’s vote in the House followed a lengthy debate on Monday.

 

[Gfted1]

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

According to people behind new Texas law plan b I'd abortifacient and should be illegal

Dunno. I guess not?

1 hour ago, rjshae said:

As abortion ban goes into effect, Texas poised to double down with separate restrictions on abortion-inducing medications

 

 

[Elerond]

3 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

Dunno. I guess not?

 

Just give them time