What goes around comes around (Abortion, Guns, Vigilantism)
Be careful what you wish for!
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Photo: An important-looking building in Washington. The Guardian
California Gov. Gavin Newsom expressed his “outrage” Saturday at a Supreme Court decision to allow the Texas six-week abortion ban to remain in effect and said he would use similar legal tactics to tackle gun control in his state.
I am outraged by yesterday’s US Supreme Court decision allowing Texas’s ban on most abortion services to remain in place, and largely endorsing Texas’s scheme to insulate its law from the fundamental protections of Roe v. Wade,” Newsom said in a statement .
“But if states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives, then California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way,” the statement continued.
The Friday ruling from the Supreme Court allowed Texas’ abortion law that bars the procedure after the first six weeks of pregnancy to remain in place but said abortion providers have the right to challenge the law in federal court. However, the ruling limits which state officials can be sued by the abortion providers, which could make it difficult for them to resume providing abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy.
That is due to the law’s novel enforcement mechanism, which allows private citizens — from anywhere in the country — to bring civil suits against anyone who assists a pregnant person seeking an abortion in violation of the law.
Tags
Who is online
71 visitors
“I am outraged by yesterday’s US Supreme Court decision allowing Texas’s ban on most abortion services to remain in place, and largely endorsing Texas’s scheme to insulate its law from the fundamental protections of Roe v. Wade,” Newsom said in a statement .
“But if states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives, then California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way,” the statement continued.
The Friday ruling from the Supreme Court allowed Texas’ abortion law that bars the procedure after the first six weeks of pregnancy to remain in place but said abortion providers have the right to challenge the law in federal court. However, the ruling limits which state officials can be sued by the abortion providers, which could make it difficult for them to resume providing abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy.
In other words . . . "vigilante justice".
California Gov. Gavin Newsom expressed his “outrage” Saturday at a Supreme Court decision to allow the Texas six-week abortion ban to remain in effect and said he would use similar legal tactics to tackle gun control in his state.
The New York State Attorney General has just announced she will be using the same method as Texas uses..having their citizens tattling on others to "the authorities'.
(And no doubt other states will follow Texas' lead (paying vigilantes to spy on, and report on, their fellow citizens)
Welcome, America, to your STAR CHAMBER COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCCOTUS). But keep blaming other countries for their human rights abuses, because it can make people look elsewhere.
What infuriates me more than anything is that the well-published anti-abortion zealot did not recuse herself in the matter. Your SCOTUS is now a sham, and as I just said, welcome to the middle ages and the Star Chamber court. The human rights of Texas's women have been demolished, and no doubt this will spread throughout the USA - maybe we should just call what is going to result from this decision a GENOCIDE.
Going to go into the wire hanger business. Will set up my ad shortly. Choose your colour.
I was always under the impression that a "star chamber " type court or tribunal was one that was held in secret , away from public discourse or viewing and usually held by those that were never elected or voted for by those that had been elected and voted for by the general populus ...
(chuckles ) no less or more of a sham than it would become under a court packing scheme , want the court to loose all respect , then i say make them as ineffective as the executive and the legislative appear to many now .
remember its not just winning elections that puts these people in power , it is the over all consent of those they are elected to serve , people are under no obligation to follow those they do not agree with .
but hey , by whatever means right? more than one way to skin a cat .
If I've appeared harsh, maybe it's because I come from Canada where the laws concerning abortion are sensible, medically valid, respect the rights of women, and are not controlled by a religion. I would like to see Amy Barrett spend a week taking care of the monster babies that women should have but didn't abort, located on the top floor of Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children. Some of them only last a few days, so she wouldn't get attached to them. Look forward to those starting to be born in Texas in greater numbers than the present. Some get born with no brains, so they should fit right in. If they survive, they can always become vigilantes, wearing their pistols on their hips.
I think she should have but only if the pro-abortion zealots also recused themselves. Let's face it we know where she stands on the issue, but we know where the leftists stand so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Were the leftist justices such zealots, or did they agree with the constitution and the precedents, and did not publish essays on the topic? It doesn't take much to establish that Barrett is known to be an anti-Abortion zealot.
Everyone knows how the liberal judges will vote because the left never appoints anyone who isn't a dyed in the wool leftist. Liberal Judges never swing right ever, the only swing votes come from republican appointed Justices and it's been that way for decades. As far as Barrett's essays they are no worse than Sotomayor's recent pro-abortion statements but like many on the Left you don't recognize Bias as long as it aligns with your own beliefs. The left's anger at their loss of the long standing liberal majority in SCOTUS is proof that they knew how their appointees would vote long before the cases came up, there's no surer bet than how a liberal judge will vote. The Left believes that SCOTUS having a conservative majority is somehow corrupt so their solution is to demand court packing to get Liberals back in the majority, it's just so hypocritical.
No worries , everyone has their own perspective and believe what their life experiences lead them to , and each is an individual view , and no one is expected to agree with anothers view and that can go for anything under the sun .
Way i see it ? is this can end up one of three ways .
roe can get "gutted "and states are allowed to place their restrictions with no judicial review .
another is that there will be no restrictions allowed again with no judicial review meaning the court washes it hands of the matter , which happen if the latter happens as well .
the third and most likely is that the court can decide that the state can place some restrictions dependant on what the people of the jurisdiction want ., the so called compromise , which is what has been going on since roe was first decided . and keeping a thumbnail so to speak on the issue so they can have a say it what is and is not allowed .
No one has asked me where i stand on the matter , but i am from a time where as a male , i was and have been told i have no say . and there is a certain amount of agreement with that position , but not for the reasons usually used .
When was the last time cameras were allowed the USSC while court was in progress? I would love to see the pics. Tell me again about an open court. Additionally why doesn't the USSC operate along the lines of a normal court? Cases aren't argued before the court, only its merits are argued.
no arguments from me , but i also understand that each court can decide for itself , what they will allow inside while proceedings are in session , so what you bring up to what i said , is to me a wild goose chase , red herring or strawman ,deflection , and since most federal courts disallow cameras , its to be expected .
and since the court decides , thats likely why we have those crummy court room sketch artists .
Yeah, you're right. Maybe it's because the liberal judges are living in the present time and not the Middle Ages. Hey, but even I wish I could be beamed back to the early 1950s, so I guess lots of people feel there are benefits to living in the past rather than these days.
Jesus .... Newsome is such a tool.
And all the hives worker drones scarf down his nonsense with a huge serving spoon ......
It was going to happen. It was only a matter of time. It's a ploy to point out the absurdity of the Tx abortion law mechanism.
None of these laws, including the Tx one, will likely stand as is. So rather than get our panties in a bunch, I'll just watch the circus play itself out.
The only bunched up panties i see around here are on the left side of the aisle.
In fact, many appear to be chronically knotted up all the time
I wasn't speaking specifically of you... LOL! Twisted knickers is a partisan issue - not a specific single party - and is a result of how social media has evolved than anything else.
Didn't think you were ...... just pointing out a reality of the situation at hand.
Yes, that typically is the case....
(Not surprising in the least )
Hey Krish....What's up???
All I have to say is that I am so tired of fighting this same fight. My new saying is going to be "keep your nose out of my crotch".
Good luck, the short one's are always sticking their nose into another's business and the tall ones are always sticking their business into another's nose.
I'm getting tired of it as well.
That's why I've decided to take long breaks from the craziness.
I cannot blame you in the least.
What's Gov. Newsom outraged about? Assault rifles are already banned in California. And that ban has already been upheld in Federal courts.
Lol, fair is fair.