Mostly Meritorious on the Monday Political Open Thread

[Z is for Zangie]

Good Morning! Have a meritorious Monday!

[Tarmaque]

I can't wait for the verbal and legal gymnastics that the conservative members of the Supreme Court use to defend their positions when the Texas abortion law finally is argued before them. I can't say if they'll rule for or against Texas, but I will say that either way the opinions they write will be convoluted, ridiculous, and based on little if any precedent. I suppose we can all hope that Justice Thomas keels over dead sometime between now and then, but otherwise I suspect they'll uphold it on a broad range of technicalities and squinting at gnats type of opinions.

[Randi]

Some people are overly curious about other people’s personal lives. In Pittsburgh we call that Nebby.
That’s what the Texas abortion law does it grants “ Christian Conservatives the right to put their nose where it doesn’t belong.
The only “ sin” they concern themselves with is their perception of some “ sinners” private intimate behavior. They aren’t ever concerned about how those children will live once they get here. Oh they might give the new mother some baby items. But what about all the years after babyhood? Healthcare? education? Opportunity, not so much

[Mike]

You know, the reasoning of Roe was considered convoluted when it occurred. There is no explicitly stated right to privacy in the Due Process Clause.

Unsurprisingly, Roe originated in Texas.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

I can't wait for the verbal and legal gymnastics that the conservative members of the Supreme Court use to defend their positions when the Texas abortion law finally is argued before them.

Dollars to donuts the law gets struck down.

[Mike]

I can't wait for the verbal and legal gymnastics that the conservative members of the Supreme Court use to defend their positions when the Texas abortion law finally is argued before them.

Dollars to donuts the law gets struck down.

On what basis?

I ask because they seem to have devised a good end-run around Roe. Texas is not outlawing abortion. Any timeframe could be argued on various merits, including scientific…. and I myself have in the past stated that a fetal heartbeat framework would not be scientifically unsound, as it is also at that time that a neural network begins to develop.

One could rationally argue that it is incumbent on women who screw during their ovulation to be diligent about checking their status.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

On what basis?

Voting history of the judges currently on the court. Both Rodgers and Gorsuch are likely to vote to strike it down. All the liberals on the court as well. If all the remaining conservatives voted to keep it (I'm not even sure this would be the case) it still gets struck down.

[Mike]

On what basis?

Voting history of the judges currently on the court. Both Rodgers and Gorsuch are likely to vote to strike it down. All the liberals on the court as well. If all the remaining conservatives voted to keep it (I'm not even sure this would be the case) it still gets struck down.

Have they ever voted on a statute such as this one? One that technically allows abortion, within a time limit?
Hint: every statute that allows abortion has a time limit. There is no place in the nation where a woman can get an abortion three days before her due date. So basing your answer on a track record really has no merit.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Have they ever voted on a statute such as this one? One that technically allows abortion, within a time limit?

No they have not, but you can look at their interpretations of other laws and extrapolate on this one. If this had been ruled on it wouldn't be before the court now. Every ruling the supreme court hears is a new case. I'm not sure how this invalidates anything I said.

[Tarmaque]

I can't wait for the verbal and legal gymnastics that the conservative members of the Supreme Court use to defend their positions when the Texas abortion law finally is argued before them.

Dollars to donuts the law gets struck down.

I have a tendency to think this as well, but I also know what kind of horrible people continue to be on the court today. (I also have a tendency to believe you meant "Roberts" since I don't think Steve or Fred are on the court.)

We know that Amy Coney Barrett is staunchly anti-abortion. It's the reason she was nominated in the first place, and she's close to the least qualified justice on the court. Brett "I like beer" Kavanaugh was nominated for a completely different purpose (i.e. to keep Trump in office no matter what) so his vote is less certain than Barrett's but still almost certainly will support Texarse. Clarence Thomas will support the conservative side no matter what because he's bought into their ideology so deeply he's lost sight of the law. His "Originalism" and "Textualism" has always been pretty fluid depending on the case in front of him. Unlike Scalia, he isn't particularly good at justifying his opinions, which never stopped him from voting them. But one never knows.

So I will guess there will be at least 3 SCOTUS justices who support Texarse. The Liberal justices are obvious and don't need discussion. These two groups cancel each other out.

Roberts has turned out to be particularly reasonable, which has surprised many. I think he's almost certain to vote against Texarse. However Alito and Gorsuch are more unpredictable on this subject. Conventional wisdom has both of them siding with the other conservatives, which would be a win for Texarse Conservatism. Alito I suspect will side with the conservatives. He's not as bad as Thomas, but he generally is thought to be the second most conservative member of the court today. However, he's also been known to break with the conservatives on occasion, when there's sufficient precedent to support it. I would count him as a definite maybe to overturn the Texarse law.

Gorsuch is a different critter. While he generally has voted conservatively on those issues that were not unanimous, he has broken with the conservatives on a number of surprising occasions. To me he seems the most likely to break ranks and vote to overturn based on precedent. Hence I tend to agree that the whole court will overturn this law. I think that both Alito and Gorsch will reluctantly break towards the liberals, and possibly Kavanaugh. I predict that Thomas will write the dissent, which will be full of "States Rights" rhetoric.

It's not impossible that this will be an 8:1 opinion, because it's possible even Thomas will reluctantly vote to strike it down, but I doubt that. Barrett would cut off her own leg before striking this down. It's the reason she was put in her position. A unanimous vote on this is unlikely verging on comically unlikely.

There. You have my analysis of the situation.

[Runswift9]

I ask because they seem to have devised a good end-run around Roe. Texas is not outlawing abortion.

But it could be argued that this law deputises all citizens to enforce the law and that, therefore, it is STILL the state of TX that is making abortion too difficult per Roe V Wade

[Mike]

I ask because they seem to have devised a good end-run around Roe. Texas is not outlawing abortion.

But it could be argued that this law deputises all citizens to enforce the law and that, therefore, it is STILL the state of TX that is making abortion too difficult per Roe V Wade

But the test is not how difficult it is. Else existing restrictions in some of these states would already have been overturned. The tests are: does Texas outlaw abortion? Answer is they do not. Next: is the time limit reasonable? From a scientific basis, on behalf of the fetus, there could be an argument that the existence of a nervous system connotes *awareness* of existence. That leaves the argument as: best interest of fetus vs the best interest of the pregnant woman, as perceived/believed by that woman. Conservatives on the Court might be loathe to confer complete legal status on a fetus, as it would then extend to children who have emerged from the womb… would infants then get the right to vote? To file lawsuits? It opens up some cans of worms that conservatives, who mostly prefer to claim ownership of their women and their children, might not want opened. That would be the only thing preventing at least five of those Justices from refusing to overturn it.

[Tarmaque]

I ask because they seem to have devised a good end-run around Roe. Texas is not outlawing abortion.

But it could be argued that this law deputises all citizens to enforce the law and that, therefore, it is STILL the state of TX that is making abortion too difficult per Roe V Wade

The whole "giving anyone the ability to file lawsuits against anyone facilitating an abortion" is a novel part of this whole situation, but I suspect if the court does strike down the law it will be on the grounds they've struck down similar laws. e.g. the fact that it deprives women of reasonable access to abortion. This is something the court has done before, by referring to Roe v/s Wade.

That said, this could be a monumental precedent if they do decide to write an opinion on citizen enforcement. Not only is it a novel legal tool, it seems to be without precedent in front of the court. It will depend on how any challenges to the law are written when they reach the Supreme Court. If the challenge isn't written to specifically address the citizen enforcement I suspect the court will punt on the issue and leave it to a later court. But that's just a guess.

[Runswift9]

But the test is not how difficult it is.

Actually, yes it is. There are already limitations under Roe and this law violates them, but they think by not making it the "state" doing the "enforcement" they are getting around that. I think it can be argued they are making ALL citizens deputies of the state, and therefore it IS the state limiting abortion outside the bounds of Roe.

[Mike]

In the pre-trump Court, that might have been part of the test. That’s no longer the case. Heck, there are five votes sitting there today that would overturn Roe should a case come along, and there’s one on its way in Mississippi that might do just that.

[Z is for Zangie]

I can't wait for the verbal and legal gymnastics that the conservative members of the Supreme Court use to defend their positions when the Texas abortion law finally is argued before them.

Dollars to donuts the law gets struck down.

On what basis?

I ask because they seem to have devised a good end-run around Roe. Texas is not outlawing abortion. Any timeframe could be argued on various merits, including scientific…. and I myself have in the past stated that a fetal heartbeat framework would not be scientifically unsound, as it is also at that time that a neural network begins to develop.

One could rationally argue that it is incumbent on women who screw during their ovulation to be diligent about checking their status.

Actually, I have read it is unconstitutional due to the private citizens can sue part, who aren't interested parties, and don't have standing...procedural as opposed to the merits of the rest of the law

And btw, why is birth control, or at least confirming the woman is using it, not also the responsibility of the man? They are always left out of this conservation like these are all virgin births...and the woman gets all the blame and responsibility, and shaming...not to mention I know of women who were bullied, threatened, coerced into it by the father saying they would be no help of any kind in raising the child.

[Mike]

Dollars to donuts the law gets struck down.

On what basis?

I ask because they seem to have devised a good end-run around Roe. Texas is not outlawing abortion. Any timeframe could be argued on various merits, including scientific…. and I myself have in the past stated that a fetal heartbeat framework would not be scientifically unsound, as it is also at that time that a neural network begins to develop.

One could rationally argue that it is incumbent on women who screw during their ovulation to be diligent about checking their status.

Actually, I have read it is unconstitutional due to the private citizens can sue part, who aren't interested parties, and don't have standing...procedural as opposed to the merits of the rest of the law

And btw, why is birth control, or at least confirming the woman is using it, not also the responsibility of the man? They are always left out of this conservation like these are all virgin births...and the woman gets all the blame and responsibility, and shaming...not to mention I know of women who were bullied, threatened, coerced into it by the father saying they would be no help of any kind in raising the child.

The “men’s rights” movement would respond that men bear the brunt of financial responsibility in separation/divorce cases where child support is concerned.

[Runswift9]

The “men’s rights” movement would respond that men bear the brunt of financial responsibility in separation/divorce cases where child support is concerned.

Well, after all they DID contribute to the creation of the child/children. Getting divorced doesn't eliminate that responsibility. But I can agree they do get screwed too often. I knew a guy who went through a bitter divorce and what he did was borrow a million dollars and set it up as a trust fund to pay his child support. He said he would find it hard to pay it directly to his ex-wife, but he knew he would repay the loan.

[Z is for Zangie]

On what basis?

I ask because they seem to have devised a good end-run around Roe. Texas is not outlawing abortion. Any timeframe could be argued on various merits, including scientific…. and I myself have in the past stated that a fetal heartbeat framework would not be scientifically unsound, as it is also at that time that a neural network begins to develop.

One could rationally argue that it is incumbent on women who screw during their ovulation to be diligent about checking their status.

Actually, I have read it is unconstitutional due to the private citizens can sue part, who aren't interested parties, and don't have standing...procedural as opposed to the merits of the rest of the law

And btw, why is birth control, or at least confirming the woman is using it, not also the responsibility of the man? They are always left out of this conservation like these are all virgin births...and the woman gets all the blame and responsibility, and shaming...not to mention I know of women who were bullied, threatened, coerced into it by the father saying they would be no help of any kind in raising the child.

The “men’s rights” movement would respond that men bear the brunt of financial responsibility in separation/divorce cases where child support is concerned.

Not the same issue...and where I live, that has changed a lot, and in other places...one of the partners actually helped write the laws here to make it more equitable,plus, we had many cases where the woman was actually the primary breadwinner and she paid the child support...and quite a few where the parents were reasonable and agreed on good terms for both, and put their child(ren) first

[Mike]

I agree with Donald trump. How about that?

He blasted George W Bush for comments made on 9/11. Bush said something about domestic terrorism being a graver threat than external. Trump wonders why Bush, if that’s the case, sent our forces into two wars that ripped the world apart to go after the external threat… and didn’t bother to win either war,

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

I also have a tendency to believe you meant "Roberts" since I don't think Steve or Fred are on the court.

Yes. Thank you.

We know that Amy Coney Barrett is staunchly anti-abortion.

We know she is in her personal life. I have no idea how she will vote in the court. Can she put her personal views aside and vote the law? I don't know. Her lack of experience also means we don't have much to judge her on. I wouldn't say her vote is a sure thing, but if I had to pick I'd guess she sides with Texas.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

And btw, why is birth control, or at least confirming the woman is using it, not also the responsibility of the man? They are always left out of this conservation like these are all virgin births...and the woman gets all the blame and responsibility, and shaming...not to mention I know of women who were bullied, threatened, coerced into it by the father saying they would be no help of any kind in raising the child.

Men get left out of these discussion because they are legal discussions and men have no legal standing to decide. They may or may not influence, but from a legal perspective the woman has the right to chose and that is the right that is being interfere with. Men are irreverent in this discussion.

[Tarmaque]

We know she is in her personal life. I have no idea how she will vote in the court. Can she put her personal views aside and vote the law? I don't know. Her lack of experience also means we don't have much to judge her on. I wouldn't say her vote is a sure thing, but if I had to pick I'd guess she sides with Texas.

How do you know you can trust someone who loudly expresses their moral opinions for most of their life, then claims they can put that aside in order to decide cases based on law? Particularly in a case like this that is so politically fraught? This has never been a completely religious issue since the Bible doesn't even mention abortion. It's entirely a matter of dogma, not scripture.

Since she always frames this as a moral issue I don't see how she can put that aside and decide this based entirely on law. I would be shocked if she did so.

But who knows? I've been wrong before. Today. Multiple times. I think the first one was getting out of bed. That's the big difference between me and her: I know how to admit that I've made mistakes. Her past seems to indicate that she does not.

[Z is for Zangie]

And btw, why is birth control, or at least confirming the woman is using it, not also the responsibility of the man? They are always left out of this conservation like these are all virgin births...and the woman gets all the blame and responsibility, and shaming...not to mention I know of women who were bullied, threatened, coerced into it by the father saying they would be no help of any kind in raising the child.

Men get left out of these discussion because they are legal discussions and men have no legal standing to decide. They may or may not influence, but from a legal perspective the woman has the right to chose and that is the right that is being interfere with. Men are irreverent in this discussion.

I am talking more about the social shaming and blaming it all ( getting pregnant) on women, and also, the absent potential fathers who are numerous...sure some men don't want an abortion, but, I know a lot more who do and even encouraged the abortion part, or abandoned the women to begin with, yet the responsibility is all on the woman, for it happening and having to make the decision on her own...the thing you are talking about is different from my concerns...how pregnant women are treated as if this is all her fault and responsibility, and called trash.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

ow do you know you can trust someone who loudly expresses their moral opinions for most of their life,

I don't trust her. I have no idea.