Latest Breaking News

reACTIONary

(7,261 posts)

6. "If the system is supporting and protecting people...

Thu Apr 30, 2026, 10:27 AM

15 hrs ago

... pretending to give medical advice or opinions"

Whether that is the case or not hasn't been decided as of yet. That is what the trial is about.

What is "fascist" is using the power of the state to harass people who are exercising their first amendment rights. That may or may not be so in this case, but that is what the trial and the challenge to the subpoena are aimed at determining.

I put "fascist" in scare quotes because this whole "you're the fascist - no YOU'RE the fascist" back and forth is pretty much bullshit. IMHO.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

22 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court Sides With Anti-Abortion Clinic in Fight Over Donor Records [View all] Polybius Wednesday OP

SCOTUS angrychair Wednesday #1

Nine to Zero... reACTIONary Wednesday #3

It is fascist angrychair 15 hrs ago #4

"If the system is supporting and protecting people... reACTIONary 15 hrs ago #6

This case angrychair 13 hrs ago #7

The most recent example is... reACTIONary 13 hrs ago #9

As I said in post 19... pat_k 5 hrs ago #20

Regarding unanimous decisions... Polybius 6 hrs ago #17

I did angrychair 6 hrs ago #18

9-0 eggplant Wednesday #2

It likely does not angrychair 13 hrs ago #8

Since the 1950s.... reACTIONary 13 hrs ago #10

Courts are for people that can afford it angrychair 12 hrs ago #12

As a person who pursued a pro se case for more than five years against the servicer and noteholder of two mortgages pat_k 2 hrs ago #22

That is clearly Gorsuch's Christian nationalist agenda -- i.e., declare it "constitutional" to impose PERSONAL religious pat_k 4 hrs ago #21

**********THIS IS A 9-0 RULING*************** Prairie Gates 15 hrs ago #5

The court asks us to just ask ourselves... reACTIONary 13 hrs ago #11

As I just posted a second ago angrychair 12 hrs ago #13

I don't understand this. I think you are maintaining that.... reACTIONary 12 hrs ago #14

I think you are missing my point angrychair 11 hrs ago #15

So you want the Supreme court to undo a precedent.... reACTIONary 9 hrs ago #16

Not a bad decision. They can challenge. Doesn't mean they'll win. pat_k 5 hrs ago #19