The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.
[SCOTUS]: Super Fun Happy Times Edition
Posts
They're not referring people to that clinic.
The petitioners are the ones arguing that the existing regulations are sufficient. If the Court decided against the law, they would effectively be ruling that the status quo for abortion clinics is sufficient. If the New Mexico clinic is satisfactory*, then it needs to be considered when determining due burden. If the New Mexico clinic is not satisfactory, then the law has to be upheld.
*assuming New Mexico laws are comparable to existing Texas laws
correct
no, that does not make any sense
the only reason the new mexico clinic is even a factor is because defenders of the law are arguing it relieves the undue burden placed on texas women by these restrictions in an effort to circumvent the undue burden they are placing on texas women
their argument that women can simply go to this new mexico clinic, when new mexico does not have the same restrictions, means they are not concerned with the efficacy of the restrictions they are defending, simply with eliminating these clinics from texas
we need these restrictions to protect women, these restrictions don't place an undue burden on women because they can go to clinics without these restrictions
it's almost circular logic except there's no logic involved
*again assuming it has rules comparable to previous Texas rules
This is a better argument. Too bad RBG never actually made it.
A single clinic is pretty extreme, I'll admit.
one might consider it an undue burden
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
In a way it is, based on only abortion clinics being subject to these kinds of laws while similar out patient facilities that do actual invasive surgeries not being subject to them.
Its the dumb elephant in the room, abortions are less dangerous and less apt for complications than other procedures that have not even a fourth of the regulations of Abortion laws. And the dumb aspect is both sides know full fucking well what these laws are about, but we never can just say. "You want to shut down abortion clinics because you don't like them because of your religious belief which has nothing to do with any law ever."
pleasepaypreacher.net
The petitioners have no control over NM's laws. NM could change the law any day to make any standard that they now have less stringent. So how can Texas argue that closing most clinics doesn't mean undue burden because there's another clinic in another state that at any time may not meet these new regulations which are totally necessary to ensure clinics are safe?
That is the contradiction. Maybe the clinic is currently up to the TX standards. Tomorrow, NM might change its laws and then it might not be. And TX has no control over that. So they cannot argue that a clinic out of their jurisdiction relieves undue burden.
Therefore RBG didn't deliver some masterfully insightful question from the bench.
People say this ALL THE FREAKING TIME. Politicians, Pundits, Posters, and John Oliver. (Damn it, broke my alliteration at the end).
Yeah but not in the court cases. The court cases can't admit the obvious. That being none of these laws have anything to do with safety as they are not applied evenly to any other clinic providing any other procedure. They can never point to a specific regulation that is totally neccessary for reasons.
Like I believe the texas law has a requirement for hallways to account for two hospital beds going down them side by side without acknowledging in an abortion clinic THEY DON'T HAVE FUCKING HOSPITAL BEDS! LET ALONE MOVE THEM DOWN THE HALLWAY!
pleasepaypreacher.net
(no it does not)
if there is an undue burden, the law is unconstitutional
it doesn't matter if you mistakenly believe the law is justified anyway
that's not how the law works
A stronger argument as I conceded above.
And absolutely not the "brilliant" argument that RBG made.
it's the implication of the argument she made
pleasepaypreacher.net
The justification of the law does affect whether or not undue burden arises. The question is whether or not the restriction is "too severe" to quote John Paul Stevens. Coming up with a case where shuttering all but one abortion clinic in Texas is justified doesn't require much imagination. That this case isn't one of those isn't relevant to the underlying principle.
If I had a dollar for every time I had this thought (substituting a conservative justice in for RBG) in this thread, I'd be flying my personal jet to my own private island right now.
It really doesn't matter. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is widely recognized as a brilliant jurist, and is an historical figure in her own right. I doubt she gives a shit what some guy on an internet forum says about the strength of her arguments or whether she should get credit for them.
i give up
Not every question she asks is a witty riposte to the heart of the conservative delusion.
Because you haven't provided one, yet continue to assert as such.
Mine is Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 920
pleasepaypreacher.net
oh it's an XCOM reference
Oh I thought this was something about her history like she was accused of killing an illegal immigrant or something. There was some random thing about she was brutally beaten and the attacker was never caught.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Also, she's from Iowa and Grassley is on the record effusively praising her
that's the point she was absolutely getting at
you'll see it in her opinion if she writes one, I'm sure
Maybe. It wouldn't be a long term solution though, as the legislature would just pass the law again including those other clinics.
...Is there a reason that younger law professionals are never apparently considered for SCOTUS seats?
It's kind of dumb IMHO that everyone at that level is at least a couple of generations out of touch with the modern world.
mid 50s seems to be the norm lately
gives enough time to have actual experience and case history without being so old you're likely to only last a few years
They're willing to cripple a single tiny segment of the health industry that's never profitable anyways for politics, they will not be willing to destroy the health care sector of their state.
No they wouldn't, because they are not about to shut down out patient procedure clinics all over the state.
My main issue with TRAP laws is the blatant dishonesty at play. None of the regulations are written by medical professionals or have any real basis medically. Most of the lawmakers writing them don't even know how the most common abortion procedure is done. And they aren't even written by state law makers, instead its from a general right wing think tank who also aren't staffed by doctors. So its a bunch of politicians writing laws about something they don't understand beyond the most basic "pregnant woman goes in, not pregnant person leaves." Part of the equation.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Guess it's time to actually read the oral arguments.
I wouldn't call somebody who is 51 multiple generations out of touch, but you want SCOTUS judges as young as possible while still being qualified. It seems Obama is going heavy on the qualified factor this time.
The plaintiffs are claiming "fewer than 10" and every source I can find puts the number around 9.
The amount of jobs lost and small business owners / medical professionals pissed off from closing every strip mall private practice would chase the legislature right out of office.
MWO: Adamski
It won't work, of course. But I like the idea.
The claim was 25% of Texas' population would be further than 100 miles from a clinic, and that's counting the clinic in NM's radius. Which shouldn't count as a clinic to the TX people because they don't know if it will meet these new, totally necessary standards or not.