The other issue is how the LAW also already states that it's LEGAL to terminate a pregnancy up to about 22 or 23 WEEKS.
So passing another STATE LAW that says it's ILLEGAL to terminate a pregnancy after 6 WEEKS is obviously also NOT LEGAL.
Because that also assumes that a STATE LAW takes precedence over FEDERAL LAW (which makes it that much more CURIOUS that the "so called" SUPREME COURT of the land wouldn't OBJECT to it.
IN the NEWS CONFERENCE that is still taking place now (at 2pm CST), this is also what GARLAND pointed out to us, is that STATE LAW doesn't TRUMP FEDERAL LAW.
But of course that COURT is also PACKED now with people who SHOULD NOT even be there (due to the way MOSCOW MITCH refused to let the POTUS chose the man who is now HEAD of the DOJ to be one of the JUSTICES on the SC).
So now the guy (GARLAND) who wasn't permitted to be a JUSTICE is also the HEAD of the JUSTICE DEPT., which also makes the matter than much more interesting.
Imo, what needs to be done is to ADD still MORE JUSTICES to this SUPREMELY CORRUPTED COURT (which is now full of RIGHT WING EXTREMIST), and to SET TERM LIMITS on them, so that we don't have another one like RUTH remaining there for longer than she should have (especially when she also knew how serious the CANCER was that KILLED HER). But her EGO got pumped up, and now look at the BIG MESS we're in because she refused to STEP DOWN.
Have all of the EMOLUMENTS CASES been thrown out now???
Don't worry. There are plenty more cases still BREWING against the SCAM MAN who ran the FAKE UNIVERSITY and the FAKE CHARITY.
Since the FAKE UNIVERSITY CASE also RULED against him and ordered him to PAY BACK his VICTIMS, there's no reason to doubt that he also won't be ordered to PAY BACK the INCOME TAXES he owes, or PAY BACK the BANKS that he's LIED TO (when he applied for LOANS with them and LIED about how much the property was worth that he owned).
reply
share
[deleted]
3 years ago
They are trying to argue that by making it so that the people involved in the abortion are being brought to a civil court by private citizens, government officials aren't involved, or they aren't involved in a way that violated other laws or supreme court precedents. Something like that. It's not true and it makes no sense, but I think that's the gist of it. I'm not a lawyer, and when I've come across people trying to explain it, the explanation sounded so mad hatter logic absurd that all I could do is go, huh?My guess is that the conservative justices will go with it though, uphold it or just refuse to hear a case, with the possible exception of Roberts.
reply
share
joi2049 (5624)
3 years ago
An ATTONEY from HARVARD and others have explained how it's basically the same as the KKK LAWS that allowed FREED SLAVES to be HUNTED DOWN by others who would CHASE then into other states, and then bring them back again to the state that allows SLAVERY.
In other words, TEXAS has also made ordinary CITIZENS (of any STATE) BOUNTY HUNTERS now, by promising them $10,000 for their efforts to ARREST and SUE other people like an UBER DRIVER if they take a woman to a CLINIC.
And that is also NOT LEGAL either.
The HAVARD guy also explained how the CATHOLIC CHURCH also tried to keep a BUSINESS from having a LIQUOR LICENSE, but he also got the SUPREME COURT to OVER RULE that LAW. And he also explained why this case is also similar to that other one.
There's just so many ways that this TEXAS LAW is ILLEGAL that it completely BOGGLES one's mind that the SUPREMELY CORRUPTED COURT chose to LOOK the other way and DO NOTHING about it.
🙄
reply
share
[deleted]
3 years ago
Why don't you just cite the source instead of putting your spin on it? I cannot take the word of someone who doesn't know that the KKK follows the end of legal slavery in the United States... and this is not to even say anything about the poor formatting of the "information" you've provided. At best most of your writings could be described as cumbersome and ambiguous.
reply
share