« Big Data: a Friday open thread | Main | Thinking About . . . Whatever »

September 03, 2021


Arguments for why the Supreme Court's ruling is the correct one for now.

"On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in a challenge to S.B. 8, Texas' new abortion law. This unique statute empowers private citizens to sue those who perform or facilitate abortions. President Biden ripped the 5-4 decision, charging that the conservative justices followed "procedural complexities" "rather than use its supreme authority to ensure justice."

Biden is wrong. The Court has no sweeping, majestic power to "ensure justice." Indeed, it is a myth that courts can "strike down" laws at all. Rather, judges have a very limited power: to enjoin specific government officials from enforcing laws against specific litigants. The judiciary cannot simply erase statutes from the book. And when the government plays no role at all in enforcing a statute—as with S.B. 8—courts cannot "block" that law from going into effect.

In future cases, the courts can assess the constitutionality of S.B. 8. For now, the Supreme Court was right to reject the premature challenge."

The Supreme Court Could Not "Block" Texas's Fetal Heartbeat Law: President Biden is wrong: The Supreme Court lacks the “supreme authority to ensure justice could be fairly sought.”

of course the idea wasn't that SCOTUS would "block" the law permanently, it's that they would stop it while suits against it were in progress.

but leave it to Reason to defend a law that is going to wreak utter havoc on TX women, and TX courts, as sheep-dipped, goggle-eyed, bounty hunters start sticking their snouts into places they don't belong.

Yet, somehow, making kids wear masks in school during a pandemic is tyranny. (Pants are fine.) People have strange notions of what rights mean in this country.

but leave it to Reason to defend a law that is going to wreak utter havoc on TX women, ...

Reason had nothing to do with it. The Volokh Conspiracy is a separate entity hosted by Reason. I thought about linking directly to the article in Newsweek, that rightwing publication. That way you wouldn't know that the author was in any way associated with those crazy libertarians.

Unlike the unreasonable outrage at a few of the voting laws, I fully agree with any level of outrage at this abortion law.

It is not only wrong on principle, it is ludicrous in implementation.

While legally it could be reasonable to not block it from implementation, morally and from any common sense point of view this should be overturned.

Doing ridiculous things just because you can seems to have become the wave of the future.

It's a clear violation of a precedent the very same court used just recently and that has nothing to do with abortion at all.
It's about standing. It's the court's firm position (please try not to laugh!) that standing cannot be expanded lightly, in particluar not to those that cannot prove that they are personally affected.
The main (actual) purpose is of course to shield corporations from litigation or federal regulation and to allow state authorities to limit the franchise (you can't sue until AFTER you (and only you as an indiviudal) got prevented from casting your legal ballot on election day)).
But its own lofty rhetorics (if sincere) would have compelled the court to at least grant the injunction, if not strike the law down instantly for said violation.
The dissenters say as much.
Additionally it should have struck down with prejudice the decision of the 5th circuit to not even allow to hold a hearing on the case (even cancelling an already set date or that).
So, independent of any merit of the case itelf, the action of SCOTUS is gross dereliction of duty and bordering on perversion of justice (again, the dissenters say as much).

Reason had nothing to do with it.

you're right.

Josh Blackman is actually a writer for Cato, not Reason.

A question for any lawyers here - is the article Charles quoted accurate in terms of law to any extent ?
I have to confess I am ignorant as to the availability of and boundaries to the remedies available to the SC with respect to state legislation.

The law seems to me plainly unconstitutional both because it disregards completely the settled precedent of Roe, and more broadly as the manner in which it does so would seem blatantly to violate the due process clause.

Is Charles correct in claiming that they nonetheless can't easily do anything about it, or is that just special pleading ?
If the majority had been minded to stay the law, pending a full hearing of the merits, how would they have gone about it ?

Also, it's good to agree with Marty.

More links
Nina Totenberg

Chief Justice John Roberts, who has dissented from almost every decision upholding expansive abortion rights, disagreed this time. He called the Texas law unprecedented because it not only bans abortions after roughly six weeks, but delegates enforcement powers not to state officials but to the general "populace at large." Roberts noted that the law appears to be deliberately structured to prevent courts from being able to promptly consider the constitutionality of the law.

Must feel shitty losing a grip like that.

Boston Globe with links to the full dissents

Adam Serwer, who echoes Marty

The Sotomayor dissent.
She left out the traditional word "respectfully" before "dissent" — a telltale sign that a justice is livid.

Charles Pierce

Also, it's good to agree with Marty.


With the exception of the first part of his first sentence. And in all fairness, I am not familiar with every provision of every state's proposed voting law changes. However, in the hyper-partisan aftermath of an election where all the evidence points to near-zero electoral fraud, despite widespread claims of election-rigging, and where the losing party's state legislatures are proposing changes, I see any such proposed change as inherently highly suspicious and almost certainly of nefarious and illicit intent unless compelling evidence is provided to the contrary.

Surely a law that openly encourages (with cash prizes for all the lucky winners) Texans to stalk and surveil their fellow citizens couldn't possibly lead to any unfortunate outcomes, right?

sadly, the bounty-hunter website [ https://prolifewhistleblower.com ] is apparently non-functional. because i was going to spend my day submitting garbage 'tips'.

She left out the traditional word "respectfully" before "dissent"...

As did Breyer.
Roberts doesn't appear to have used the word dissent at all, despite dissenting.

Roberts provides possible answer to Charles' point:
...The State defendants argue that they cannot be restrained from enforcing their rules because they do not enforce them in the first place. I would grant preliminary relief to preserve the status quo ante—before the law went into effect—so that the courts may consider whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws in such a manner. Defendants argue that existing doctrines preclude judicial intervention, and they may be correct. See California v. Texas, 593 U. S. _ (2021) (slip op., at 8). But the consequences of approving the state action, both in this particular case and as a model for action in other areas, counsel at least preliminary judicial consideration before the program devised by the State takes effect.
We are at this point asked to resolve these novel questions—at least preliminarily—in the first instance, in the course of two days, without the benefit of consideration by the District Court or Court of Appeals. We are also asked to do so without ordinary merits briefing and without oral argument. These questions are particularly difficult, including for example whether the exception to sovereign immunity recognized in Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), should extend to state court judges in circumstances such as these.
I would accordingly preclude enforcement of S.B.8 by the respondents to afford the District Court and the Court of Appeals the opportunity to consider the propriety of judicial action and preliminary relief pending consideration of the plaintiffs’ claims…

Imagine a statute that "empowers private citizens to sue those who perform or facilitate" tax evasion.

Imagine what the Christianist wing of the SCOTUS would have to say about that.


The Texas Legislature passes two laws on the same day that appear to contradict each other.

"Bad Texas regulations could be at odds with each other. The new Texas abortion ban may contradict the mandates of social media regulation passed by the Texas Legislature. Under the mandates of the two statutes, social media platforms could be required to both take down and leave up information about abortion, Techdirt's Mike Masnick points out.

The social media law—House Bill 20—was passed by the Texas Senate on Wednesday (the same day Texas' new abortion law took effect)."
Texas Abortion and Social Media Laws Are a 'Contradictory Mess'


Texas’s law delegates to private individuals the power to prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion during the first stage of pregnancy. But a woman has a federal constitutional right to obtain an abortion dur- ing that first stage. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 846 (1992); Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 164 (1973). And a “State cannot delegate . . . a veto power [over the right to obtain an abortion] which the state itself is absolutely and totally prohibited from exercis- ing during the first trimester of pregnancy.” Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, 69 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, we have made clear that “since the State cannot regulate or pro- scribe abortion during the first stage . . . the State cannot delegate authority to any particular person . . . to prevent abortion during that same period.” Ibid. The applicants persuasively argue that Texas’s law does precisely that.

…I recognize that Texas’s law delegates the State’s power to prevent abortions not to one person (such as a district attorney) or to a few persons (such as a group of government officials or private citizens) but to any person. But I do not see why that fact should make a critical legal difference. That delegation still threatens to invade a constitutional right, and the coming into effect of that delegation still threatens imminent harm. Normally, where a legal right is “ ‘invaded,’ ” the law provides “ ‘a legal remedy by suit or ac- tion at law.’ ” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163 (1803) (quoting 3 W. Blackstone Commentaries *23). It should prove possible to apply procedures adequate to that task here, perhaps by permitting lawsuits against a subset of delegatees (say, those particularly likely to exercise the delegated powers), or perhaps by permitting lawsuits against officials whose actions are necessary to implement the statute’s enforcement powers. There may be other not-very- new procedural bottles that can also adequately hold what is, in essence, very old and very important legal wine: The ability to ask the Judiciary to protect an individual from the invasion of a constitutional right—an invasion that threat- ens immediate and serious injury.

His point is particularly persuasive regarding Charle's argument.
A temporary stay which potentially threatened action against state courts, or "officials whose actions are necessary to implement the statute’s enforcement powers", even if the precise nature of that threat was uncertain, would almost certainly discourage their taking cases until the substantive case was heard by the Supreme Court.

That the majority weren't prepared to go down the road of a temporary stay, given the actions open to them, makes a complete mockery of their claim to be somehow acting neutrally with regard to the constitutional issue.
Alito, Kavanaugh, Thomas, Gorsuch and Barrett have once again shown themselves as utterly disingenuous.

The Atlantic makes a similar point:

…The justices who allowed Texas’s law to go into effect hardly seem to love the thought of that backlash. Their order tried to reassure the public by spelling out what was not being decided—and tried to signal that the Court takes all of this very seriously. And even before this particular question arose, during their confirmation hearings, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett repeated that when it came to Roe, they would keep an open mind. After all, they are neutral arbiters of the law, not pre-committed ideologues.

The justices desperately want the public to believe that is true, even though similar procedural hurdles did not stop the Court from blocking COVID-19 stay-at-home orders that affected in-person worship, and even though the Court’s overnight order made a laughingstock of what is still supposedly a constitutional right. The message was clear: Texas wanted to pass a legal-consequence-free abortion ban, and the Supreme Court wanted to find a political-consequence-free way to uphold one…

thanks you, TX, for lowering the bottom of the barrel and letting NC once again seem sane by comparison.

"Your Texas abortion thread"

Wait, we can have Texas aborted?

I hear that horse-dewormer can be used for this.

Lousiana may be feeling relief since its traditional role has been to make Texas appear civilized...

This is also relevant.

"Unlike the unreasonable outrage at a few of the voting laws,"

Well, the perfectly reasonable outrage at (A few? Which ones?) new voting restrictions is because, for example, in Texas, for example, the new voting restrictions are targeted at (Everyone is affected we are told by the purposefully, but perhaps criminally naive. Stalin's voting laws applied to all of the Soviet citizenry, as well) those who will now struggle to find their way to fewer voting opportunities in future elections in order to vote out the right-wing republican scum who are passing laws such as strict abortion restrictions and no restrictions on weaponry carried in public in the presence of fetuses and their mothers.

So while I agree with Marty by degrees that abortion should be safe, legal and rare, I don't agree with his opinion, expressed here in the past that access to the polls should be made more difficult and cumbersome than it already is in many jurisdictions.

Safe and legal, sure, but THIS hound from Hell, despite his probably feigned resistance to Trump's blatant and criminal attempts to steal the election in Georgia last year, looks like he may be enlisting, Texas-style, the citizenry to turn in his enemies .... those attempting to make voting easier, not to mention more safe, and more legal for those targeted:


All these issues go hand-in-hand, the timing and implementation (their legal cadres are a half dozen chess moves ahead of anyone to their Left, particularly moderates, who make shit up, case by case, as they go along) with this monstrous political movement. All of these moves by the malignant rightwing in America are interlocking, well-thought-out pieces of a well-funded machine to enable a minority political party and race and political class to run the show in perpetuity, at all levels of government.

Restricting access to the polls is the li(y)nchpin to the entire movement. Ask some of the dead republicans who put this shit into motion 40 or more years ago.

Keep it up. They are summoning the apocalypse upon themselves.

As I've repeated ad nauseum, please arm us and then make us beg to vote. Please arm us and then prevent us by every hook and crook from any meaningful governance EVEN when we win elections.

Brilliant strategy!

Not unlike the strategy of brainwashing their righteous base to ignore all pandemic protocols and vaccine regimens, so their voters die and rot, at our great expense, leaving their children without parents and perhaps killing the latter as well.

But a minority fascist rump, viciously and ruthlessly dedicated to monopolizing rule, can last longer than a largely complacent public can imagine, if they even bother to exercise their imaginations.

No one is going to like what is coming, including me.

Frum in the Atlantic as well:


In the off-year elections of 2014, Republicans won a huge victory. In 2018, they suffered a huge defeat. The crucial difference was turnout: 2014 saw the lowest turnout since 1942; 2018 saw the highest in a nonpresidential year since before World War I. The moral of the story would seem to be that Republicans do best when the electorate is satisfied and quiet; they face disaster when the electorate is mobilized and angry. Texas Republicans have just bet their political future in a rapidly diversifying and urbanizing state on a gambit: cultural reaction plus voter suppression. The eyes of Texas will be upon them indeed. The eyes of the nation will be upon them too.

The Politico article in the Original Post seems way off base.

there is good reason to question the notion that the Republican embrace of hard-line anti-abortion politics will hurt their political prospects. Back in 1980, the Republican National Convention discarded its “we respect both sides” stance and embraced a plank essentially banning abortion for any reason at all. Further, it endorsed a “Human Life Amendment” to the Constitution which would in effect have banned all abortions nationwide. Some in the party saw this as a political disaster. In a fiery speech at the Republican National Committee, GOP co-chair Mary Crisp denounced the abortion plank (and the abandonment of support for the Equal Rights Amendment), saying the move “could prevent the party from electing the next president of the United States.”

Spoiler Alert: Reagan won 44 states, a 10-point poplar vote plurality and 489 electoral votes.

There is a world of difference between trying to motivate voters based on something that might, but probably won't, happen. And, indeed, for decades after an antiabortion plank was added to their platform, nothing did happen. (Because everybody knew the Supreme Court would block it.)

But now, we're no longer faced with a hypothetical. The deed is done, and the Court refuses to lift a finger. It's no longer possible to say "It can't happen here," because it has. That is a whole different kettle of fish when it comes to motivating voters.

Unlike the unreasonable outrage at a few of the voting laws,

The difference is that the (anti)voting laws carefully target those who would be unlikely to vote Republican. Those who will, or might, are largely unaffected. (Well, except for seniors and mail ballots. That could be interesting.)

But this issue has a far broader reach. Including to folks, e.g. those in the suburbs, that the GOP can't win without in most states.

I suspect that the lack of instant outrage in some quarters has a lot to do with a) difficulty in recognizing that it's finally happened, and b) failure, pending a few actual cases, to recognize what the new reality will mean.

Here's an intetesting thought from Erwin Chemerinsk, dean and Jesse H. Choper distinguished professor at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law:

If you follow Sotomayor’s point to its logical conclusion, states could undermine any constitutional right — the right to bear arms or the right to same-sex marriage — by attempting to revoke those constitutional rights and authorizing, even encouraging, any private citizen to sue anyone who exercises those rights.
Another state passing a similar vigilante law, but attacking the 2nd Amendment, might concentrate some of the Justices' minds.

i'm so old i remember when the GOP would pretend to be The Rule Of Law party.

now they're just the Rule Of Id party.

now they're just the Rule Of Id party

Closer to the party of "Might Makes Right -- As Long as We're the Ones with the Might". Any pretense of Rule of Law, even among their Supreme Court Justices, is gone.

Another state passing a similar vigilante law, but attacking the 2nd Amendment, might concentrate some of the Justices' minds.

That's based on the assumption that they give a half-solid digestive final product about consistency. I see no reason to consider that assumption still valid (for a majority of the Court. Roberts is imo mainly thinking about his legacy and that keeps him from going the same way - mostly)

Yes, it would be 5/4 the other way round.

Really, Nigel? Are you confident Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer are that hypocritical?


What goes around, comes around, according some "highly respected" USSC justice.

Really, Nigel? Are you confident Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer are that hypocritical?

You have a point.

Any pretense of Rule of Law, even among their Supreme Court Justices, is gone.

this shouldn't be surprising when two of them, Kavanaugh and Barrett, are veterans of the 2000 Recount Heist.

the GOP has been making it up as they go along for decades.

"carefully target"

No, they don't. They target a miniscule to nonexistent group of fraudulent voters. There is almost nothing in them that restricts anyone's ability to vote. The outrage is political, the laws are pretty unnecessary. They don't approach the importance of this bill.

They target a miniscule to nonexistent group of fraudulent voters,

Now, why would their proposers be doing that?

Now, why would their proposers be doing that?

if i had to guess, that would be a really smart strategy to use if you thought the next election could be really close. so maybe shaving a half a percent here or there without looking too obvious about it would be just enough to put things back in your favor.

like, it wouldn't make any sense to try in a state where you're gonna blow your opponent out of the water. but if things are going to be close, getting a few thousand people to stay home? smart.


There is almost nothing in them that restricts anyone's ability to vote.

Restricting voting hours? Requiring street addresses for mail-in ballots (which some places, e.g. the typical Indian reservation, simply don't have)? Cutting the number of polling places (or drop boxes) is some neighborhoods (which already have long lines due to insufficient voting machines, etc.)? The list goes on and on.

Sure, it doesn't restrict you if you are an upper middle class individual with good personal transportation and a flexible schedule. But that isn't everybody now, is it?

the law applies to everybody equally*! the fact that it makes life just a tiny bit harder for a small group of people# is not relevant because the people we do want to vote are also affected%!

it only looks like we're targeting a specific group^!

* and equally pointlessly
# who we would prefer to have not vote at all
% though not in any way that has ever mattered to them
^because we are

Your 06,.28 is very generous, cleek, but my question was not meant seriously, prompted as it was by the presence of the bolded words a miniscule to nonexistent group of fraudulent voters.

In this, as in so much else, Occam's Razor is the answer. In the wake of the most stringently fair of elections by every reliable account, the proposers of these new laws are very clearly choosing to do this at this particular point in history to try and ensure that their opponents' voters are discouraged from voting. Possibly, indeed, in small numbers which might just swing it. But unmistakably to target even legitimate voters of the opponents of the party proposing the changes.

I agree with wj about the Politico article. People talk about Roe being overturned but it’s like talking about global warming in, say, 2018. It still seemed like an abstraction. Now we have unprecedented climate related disasters and an anti- abortion law that deputizes ordinary people to sue other people who drive women to abortion clinics.

One other oddity occurs. If you are in a panic about the increasing portion of the population who is something other than evangelical WASPs, why are you pushing a law which has, as a significant effect, reducing the number of births into that worrisome demographic?

Interesting thought in a comment over at 538's podcast on the situation in Texas.

When Prohibition was passed, it looked like a big victory for the Drys. But in fact it led to more, not less, drinking. And more deaths from drinking (due to poor to non-existent quality control). Not to mention more underage drinking -- since who bothers to check IDs when serving everybody is illegal.

Since I put the Politico article in the OP, I guess I should say what I was thinking. To my mind, hoping that this event, as opposed to any other of the previous events that could be attributed to the Republican party's machinations, would make them say 'gee, maybe we've gone too far', seems to be a tad optimistic. Even if it were just actions related to the SC, so not letting Obama get his pick, then putting Kavanaugh there, then letting Barrett ascend seems to be pretty telling. That doesn't even get to trying to connect it to things like the constant drumbeat of things like voter id laws and gerrymandering.

Like climate change. Ahh, this hurricane will change minds.


You'd think that this means they are all running off a cliff, but it doesn't seem to slow them down.

It would be nice to think that this is the final straw, but honestly, if the COVID response wasn't, I wonder how this can be. This may just me as Eyore, but there have been several articles (which I can't find, so if I'm just imagining this, let me know), pointing out that the Dems will probably lose the House in the mid-terms. Everyone has this idea that TX will turn blue, but it never happens. I would love to be wrong about this, but I'm not optimistic.

I do see a connection with the US current situation with COVID. There seems to be little to no understanding that background choices by a small energetic minority that feel they are being put upon can make such an impact. And for those that do understand that, the only thing we have is the blunt instrument of public revulsion, which just seems to make them more convinced. With COVID, we don't even have the comforting fiction that it is something that only happens to people who are somehow lazy. There is a desire to reduce all this to a single premise, which would then allow the 'reasonable majority' to finally assert their opinion.

The prohibition example is interesting. It took 13 years before the US wised up enough to repeal it. So this decision, which is obfuscated so it is less a decision and more a fait accompli going to take an equal amount of time? And the major reason it was repealed was because government needed the money that was being lost because prohibition meant it couldn't be taxed. So if this is like Prohibition, what other things are going to have to happen in the next 13 years? That's why I included the politico link.

To my mind, hoping that this event, as opposed to any other of the previous events that could be attributed to the Republican party's machinations, would make them say 'gee, maybe we've gone too far', seems to be a tad optimistic.

Make them say 'gee, maybe we've gone too far'? Not going to happen. The lunatics have gotten effectively complete control of the asylum that it today's GOP.

But drive away enough voters that even vote restrictions and gerrymandering won't keep them in power? That doesn't seem like that much of a stretch. By no means a sure thing, but my sense is it's more likely than not. Provided, of course, that the Democrats refrain from shooting themselves in the foot.

Provided, of course, that the Democrats refrain from shooting themselves in the foot.

With gun and bullets supplied by Manchin and Sinema, who are committed to preserving the filibuster.

To those who say, "Well, but if we eliminate the filibuster, the GOP will use that next time they're in power to pass an agenda most of the country opposes," let me say this:

What's to stop them from ending the filibuster even if the Democrats don't? What "most of the country" does or doesn't support doesn't seem to be a thing the GOP cares about. Insofar as the GOP cares about anything other than grifting, they care about their donor class, which consists of about 1-10% of the population.

And: The filibuster is holding up, among other things, new Voting Rights legislation. The most pernicious elements of the anti-voting laws enacted in GOP-controlled states include clauses that allow their states to throw out election results altogether if they don't like the way it went, and substitute their own slate of electors.

With gun and bullets supplied by Manchin and Sinema, who are committed to preserving the filibuster.

That's one of two obvious ways. Possibly the most likely, but only by a little.

The other is if they end up, in purple stayes and districts, running candidates beloved by the center of the national party, but unable to win in the specific district. Given the way the Senate is apportioned, that's a serious problem. And while Sinema might be successfully replaced with a (slightly) more liberal Democrat, Manchin can't be. Try it, and you'll have to pick up a currently Republican seat somewhere else to keep McConnell out of power.

Similarly in the House, of course. Although I don't follow the details there as closely, I'm aware that upcoming gerrymandering means some electable candidates will be desperately needed there, too.

Not that there aren't opportunities out there. For example, Kevin McCarthy's district is already majority minority. That may change with redistricting, but could go either way. No gerrymandering opportunity in California. But our lost House seat has to come from somewhere, and it could by a Republican seat that's lost.

The proposers are doing that because their base perceives that something unethical happened, so they pass away to ensure it doesn't really happen.

Most of the voting hours stuff is just bs.

And, GftNC, the perception that somehow this election was "stringently fair" as opposed to any of our other elections is just spin. It was an election, some mistakes were made, some votes miscounted, mostly just fine like every other election.

Imagine a statute that "empowers private citizens to sue those who perform or facilitate" tax evasion.

Tony P., you forgot "or intend to".

The Democratic foot is always already shot in the minds of the people who are still sniping at the left while their own house is on fire.

Motes and beams.

Their skittishness is what has allowed the right to keep their momentum as they prepared for this rush to the precipice.

The bullshit that is Haidt's moral foundations theory is wearing thin. That whole group-binding focus of loyalty/sanctity/authority is just putting a moral bow on identity politics. And note that the liberal side *does not strongly feature* the group-binding focus. The conservative moral foundation *is* identity politics.

That's how we got here.

Dalia Lithwick

Marty: Most of the voting hours stuff is just bs.

WTF is Marty saying here?


Most of the voting hours stuff is just bs.

I'm not clear on this either. Just for openers, On whose part?

I didn't see a link to Haidt, which could be my fault, reading about all this is rather eye-glazing, but here are a couple of links


and there's this, supporting his co-authored book

I find myself not impressed when he puts up clips with him on Bill Maher and Joe Rogan

But he has given four TED talks! Wow!!!

Put him and JD Vance in the same remainder cart.

The outrage is political

The laws, likewise.

(R)’s don’t want people who don’t for them to vote at all. So they will make it marginally harder for them to do so.

What part of any of that is not political?

What part of any of that is not political?


You have to understand, there have been no "reasonable Republicans" since the Great Compromise of 1877 when they sold out to the racist never-enders for political power.

On prohibition: Let's not forget that government even actively participated in getting poisoned booze on the market as a deterrent.
It worked in getting more people killed but had no significant effect on alcohol consumption (to my knowledge).

Cynical me cannot put away the thought that some on the anti-abortion side could try to come up with something similar/equivalent.

Could also be very lucrative to pose as a back alley abortion doctor to entrap women and then to extort..I mean legally sue..them (actually their associates) for the bounty.
It worked for blackmailing gays*, so why not here?

Btw, is a mere attempt to get an illegal abortion treated the same by the law as an actual one? (this would be a pre-requisite for such schemes)

*not just in the US. Europe has a bad tradition there too



These same two filth, both Second Amendment fuckers, are making it impossible to counter their "policies" via normal electoral channels.

Savagely violent civil war in inevitable in America.



The conservative movement is piling up the bodies of America's children and teachers against the doors of American education to kill what they hate inside.

Oh, hey, look here, we fucking conservatives reserved by constitutional right all hospital emergency room and ICU beds in the country to staunch the bleeding of Second Amendment fetishist post-fetal victims in perpetuity.

Seems like the murdered victims of conservatives' beloved American sovereign freedom/death cult virus should await their turn to use these facilities.

Get in line! Or is lining up now considered an infringement of deeply felt sovereign dog shit conservative principle?


Heck, even the CCP have tried their best to not encourage and enable, supply even, gunshot wounds among their citizenry so their hospitals can handle the Covid pandemic inflow.

Republicans: The Body Bag Caucus and Murder Syndicate

… Whether a federal court can enjoin a state judge from overseeing a state civil trial based on state law is a complicated legal question. States themselves are immune from suit under the 11th Amendment, but in 1908 the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff could get an injunction against an enforcing state officer when that person was violating the U.S. Constitution. The question for the Supreme Court was: Are state judges the enforcers of the Texas law?…


Let the ultimate tributes commence:


Who is closing all of the comments all of a sudden? Seems to me someone is running from a fight.

This is my comment to GFTNC that was refused on two other threads:

GFTNC, I was going to address this:

In other words, you did not answer my question then and you are not doing so now, even after my note of 9/2/21. Perhaps nothing more needs to be said about the terms on which you are prepared to engage. I have a very difficult week (and month) ahead, so I'm stepping back now.

But, *someone* suddenly closed the comments. As you pointed out to me, it is polite to respond to others' questions. I have a number of questions pending to our more prominent interlocutors. Too bad that we won't get an answer.

Your second comment met my point. As for the CV piece of it, my take-away is that there is alleged to be some kind of systemic bias in the STEM academy based on a study (or maybe more than one study). I've been giving this some thought because the claim is thate both male and female academics are biased in favor of men. I think it would be interesting to know whether the women in question are of child-bearing age and whether they have children. Obviously, either they do or they do not. In the former instance, there may be a subtle negative imputed to the distractions of being a mother. In the latter, a common experience in the private sector is young women getting pregnant, taking maternity leave and then quitting after the baby is born. It's an expensive proposition for small operations. I have no idea how it plays out at the college and university level.

This three decade old essay on abortion by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan holds up very well.

And includes a Martin Luther quote I hadn’t come across.
“ If they become tired or even die through bearing children, that does not matter. Let them die through fruitfulness — that is why they are there.”

a common experience in the private sector is young women getting pregnant, taking maternity leave and then quitting after the baby is born.

A common experience in the technology sector (for several decades now) is people getting hired, acquiring further training/experience, and then leaving for another (usually, but not always, higher paying) job. Taking the training their previous employer paid for with them. Happens with both large and small companies. Gender doesn't seem to be a big factor. If anything, my impression is that women tend to change jobs somewhat less.

A certain amusement from this suggestion to use the Ku Klux Klab Act to stop this generation's vigilantes.

a common experience in the private sector is young women getting pregnant, taking maternity leave and then quitting after the baby is born.

my experience in the private sector is: get hired, company gets bought, then restructured, then you get laid-off and go somewhere else.

i work with a lot of women, young and old, who have kids.


Imagine a male Texas conservative republican entering a woman's rest room, the former dressed as a woman (there are rape compulsions ... and then there are ideological compulsions), entering the stall next to a seated woman, who is seven weeks pregnant in the adjacent stall, and listening in, while taking notes, as the latter, who was raped by a male relative ... indeed, this latter dressed as a man ... talks to a friend or abortion provider on her cellphone regarding the scheduling of an abortion in the near future.

The mansplainer in the dress, after returning to his car, then calls an activist, pro-life, out-of-state law firm and commences now legal extortionist proceedings against the pregnant woman for the payment of a minimum of ten thousand dollars from not just the pregnant woman, but the party on the other end of the line as well.

Makes a person want to give it up and just piss in the woods.

In five years, or sooner, there will be a front-page post on OBWI entitled "Your 50-state Abortion is Completely Illegal Thread".


The malignant minority conservative movement will take all it, on every issue, unless it is violently wiped off the face of the Earth.

My private thoughts regarding abortion and its limits are irrelevant.

I dare a conservative to tax me even one cent for any of your fascist governance.

You'd better being every weapon you own to collect.

You'd better being every weapon you own to collect.

Well, it seems to have worked OK for the Bundys.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Blog powered by Typepad