General Discussion

onenote

(46,148 posts)

77. You seem surprised. Had you not noticed the lawsuits being filed against new abortion

Reply to B.See (Reply #76)

Tue Jul 4, 2023, 11:19 PM

Jul 2023

restrictions and bans on gender affirming care before those laws go into effect?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

79 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How did the "fake" case even get to the SC? [View all] Ferrets are Cool Jul 2023 OP

How did the plaintiff have standing.? prodigitalson Jul 2023 #1

Plaintiff had no standing, to the best of my understanding EYESORE 9001 Jul 2023 #4

ok I am now for expaning the court prodigitalson Jul 2023 #11

How will you get rid of Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson? Effete Snob Jul 2023 #22

Did they find standing, or was standing assumed because it reached the SC? JHB Jul 2023 #58

Let me ask you this first Effete Snob Jul 2023 #60

If Sotomayor found standing, then please elaborate. If not, then please answer my queastiion. JHB Jul 2023 #63

Why should they do your research for you? AZSkiffyGeek Jul 2023 #64

Well, a cheery good morning to you too. JHB Jul 2023 #68

. Effete Snob Jul 2023 #65

This is also helpful Effete Snob Jul 2023 #67

Thank you for those JHB Jul 2023 #71

Your understanding is a misunderstanding. onenote Jul 2023 #57

It almost seems as if all four of these "landmark" cases are bogus Walleye Jul 2023 #2

Yes, they're not using logic, they're ruling on faith and feelings as if they are a religion bucolic_frolic Jul 2023 #3

+1 2naSalit Jul 2023 #14

There are no such things as miracles, at least in the religious sense. Sibelius Fan Jul 2023 #43

The simple answer is you are being misled Effete Snob Jul 2023 #5

Thank you and K&R Raven Jul 2023 #8

Thank you malaise Jul 2023 #12

Thank you! I hadn't had a chance to read the opinion when this item surfaced, Ocelot II Jul 2023 #16

This one is going to be a fixed star in the universe of "nonsense people believe" Effete Snob Jul 2023 #19

This should be an OP. There's too much misleading nonsense floating around. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #24

Yeah, well Effete Snob Jul 2023 #28

I posted one, I'm ready for the hits. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #29

Thanks for mentioning 1800s case headnote re precedent for Citizens United. John1956PA Jul 2023 #36

Thanks for the extensive answer. I don't quite understand it all, but TY nonetheless. Ferrets are Cool Jul 2023 #17

Thank you for very useful synopsis. . . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2023 #21

Here's another question: OneGrassRoot Jul 2023 #25

The truth is frequently boring Effete Snob Jul 2023 #27

My mistake is that I view them... OneGrassRoot Jul 2023 #33

Remember Trump's tax returns? Effete Snob Jul 2023 #50

Because inthewind21 Jul 2023 #39

+1 Effete Snob Jul 2023 #51

"reasonable apprehension of prosecution" could a person bring a case against a PD that would ... uponit7771 Jul 2023 #30

No... but if they changed the law to say that couldn't vote until you paid... FBaggins Jul 2023 #34

got it uponit7771 Jul 2023 #35

Yeah, no one got an abortion in Roe v. Wade because it was fucking illegal. W_HAMILTON Jul 2023 #42

You got it! Effete Snob Jul 2023 #47

Was it fast tracked? Baitball Blogger Jul 2023 #6

It began in 2016 FBaggins Jul 2023 #10

Does this look fast? Effete Snob Jul 2023 #13

I wonder how many people here are really going to go through this timeline of the case? JohnSJ Jul 2023 #18

Probably zero Effete Snob Jul 2023 #20

We desperately ForgedCrank Jul 2023 #23

I appreciate what you are doing JohnSJ Jul 2023 #38

Actually, a couple of us have done so. onenote Jul 2023 #59

That makes this all the more unacceptable. Baitball Blogger Jul 2023 #40

Everybody knew it was a hypothetical Shrek Jul 2023 #44

Because you have a load of incorrect "facts" Effete Snob Jul 2023 #46

No one? inthewind21 Jul 2023 #52

Josh Hayley's lawyer wife, Erin, was involved. Quakerfriend Jul 2023 #7

+1 2naSalit Jul 2023 #15

I want to hear more from Neal Katyal malaise Jul 2023 #31

What did he say malaise? I'm no lawyer, but if the ruling is based on phony Greybnk48 Jul 2023 #70

See the link on this thread at #13 malaise Jul 2023 #72

The DOJ? inthewind21 Jul 2023 #53

Lawyers like straining at a gnat and swallowing camels LiberalArkie Jul 2023 #9

Didn't anyone thing to depose the supposed 2 males subjects... Historic NY Jul 2023 #26

*sigh* Because the fake web inquiry was never submitted as evidence in the case. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #32

Minor point Effete Snob Jul 2023 #61

Yes, I should have said it was submitted but was quickly determined to be irrelevant, Ocelot II Jul 2023 #62

Like many things nowadays, they start making a bit more sense after a few days reflection. Silent Type Jul 2023 #37

You realize that the decisions from the lower courts were appealed and reversed by the SC, right? W_HAMILTON Jul 2023 #41

No, I did not. Thank you!! Ferrets are Cool Jul 2023 #49

It can be summed up in two words: some bullshit. Initech Jul 2023 #45

Corruption NotVeryImportant Jul 2023 #48

This inthewind21 Jul 2023 #55

With a little effort, we can keep rehashing this story till the end of the week... brooklynite Jul 2023 #54

Possibly inthewind21 Jul 2023 #56

And Robert Reich's YouTube video.... AZSkiffyGeek Jul 2023 #66

How? The same way a George Santos can make it to Congress B.See Jul 2023 #69

I don't understand the analogy at all. brooklynite Jul 2023 #73

The analogy is the propensity for those of the RIGHT to conveniently ignore and/or EMBRACE B.See Jul 2023 #74

But, as has been endlessly pointed out, there was no fabrication in the Court case brooklynite Jul 2023 #75

Well, at any rate, it's nice to know I can go out and SUE on the basis of what MIGHT happen B.See Jul 2023 #76

You seem surprised. Had you not noticed the lawsuits being filed against new abortion onenote Jul 2023 #77

I think most people can tell the difference between a legitimate concern B.See Jul 2023 #78

Most people who read the actual decision will understand that the "fake document" didn't play onenote Jul 2023 #79