Create new account | My Profile | My Account | My Bookmarks | My Inbox | Help | Log in

Google search

Advanced search

HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » BREAKING: SCOTUS Temporar...

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 04:01 PM

stevenleser (32,886 posts)

 

BREAKING: SCOTUS Temporarily blocks restrictive Texas law against abortion clinics!!!

Great news!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/29/texas-abortion-restrictions_n_7690656.html?ir=Politics&utm_campaign=062915&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-politics&utm_content=FullStory&ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

WASHINGTON, June 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to temporarily block parts of a strict new Texas abortion law.

The court granted a request by women's health providers, which had asked the court to temporarily put on hold a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from June 9. The groups asked the high court to put the provisions on hold until they can file a formal petition asking the justices to take the case. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

24 replies, 1927 views

Thread infoBookmark this threadTrash this thread

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply BREAKING: SCOTUS Temporarily blocks restrictive Texas law against abortion clinics!!! (Original post)
 stevenleser Jun 2015 OP
LineReply Excellent. Why does ANY restriction on this constitutional right exist in the first place?
 randys1 Jun 2015 #1
LineLineReply I fear the ACA will be going the way of
 riversedge Jun 2015 #4
LineLineLineReply I guess I am not understanding what Roe actually means. What restrictions did it allow?
 randys1 Jun 2015 #9
LineLineLineLineNew Reply Basically -- the Viability of the Fetus EOM
 Hepburn Jun 2015 #15
LineReply good news.
 riversedge Jun 2015 #2
LineReply Undue burden
 Prism Jun 2015 #3
LineReply Yay! n/t
 prayin4rain Jun 2015 #5
LineReply GOOD
 Angry Dragon Jun 2015 #6
LineReply Great news!
 CaliforniaPeggy Jun 2015 #7
LineReply Glad to hear it. (nt)
 Paladin Jun 2015 #8
LineReply Good news for the women of Texas!
 Glimmer of Hope Jun 2015 #10
LineReply What's with the Court all of a sudden? Has there been an outbreak of sanity?
 hobbit709 Jun 2015 #11
LineReply I am not so sure that this is great move.
 sadoldgirl Jun 2015 #12
LineReply This could potentially be the biggest abortion case before the SC in the past quarter of a century.
 herding cats Jun 2015 #13
LineReply KNR...N/T
 Hepburn Jun 2015 #14
LineNew Reply K&R all over the damn place!
 marym625 Jun 2015 #16
LineNew Reply The fact that SCOTUS granted the temporary injunction indicates SCOTUS thinks the clinics will win.
 SunSeeker Jun 2015 #17
LineLineNew Reply That is the way every temporary injunction I have seen works.
 hifiguy Jun 2015 #19
LineLineLineNew Reply Yeah, that's the way every TRO worked, except in Bush v. Gore
 SunSeeker Jun 2015 #20
LineLineLineLineNew Reply That case was a travesty of substance, procedure, and everything else.
 hifiguy Jun 2015 #21
LineLineLineLineLineNew Reply O'Connor expressed her regret over Bush v. Gore about 2 years ago.
 SunSeeker Jun 2015 #23
LineNew Reply Yay!
 libodem Jun 2015 #18
LineNew Reply FANTASTIC!
 MoonRiver Jun 2015 #22
LineNew Reply a small victory for women!
 niyad Jun 2015 #24

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 04:03 PM

randys1 (16,286 posts)

1. Excellent. Why does ANY restriction on this constitutional right exist in the first place?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to randys1 (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 04:06 PM

Star Member riversedge (65,412 posts)

4. I fear the ACA will be going the way of

Roe v Wade--Republicans chomping away at it like beavers--month after month--especially in the Red states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to riversedge (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 04:10 PM

randys1 (16,286 posts)

9. I guess I am not understanding what Roe actually means. What restrictions did it allow?

OK 24 weeks is the only caveat to the rule

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to randys1 (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 06:01 PM

Hepburn (21,054 posts)

15. Basically -- the Viability of the Fetus EOM

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 04:04 PM

Star Member riversedge (65,412 posts)

2. good news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 04:05 PM

Prism (5,815 posts)

3. Undue burden

 

I'd love to see how the Texas law passes muster under that guideline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 04:06 PM

prayin4rain (2,065 posts)

5. Yay! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 04:07 PM

Angry Dragon (36,693 posts)

6. GOOD

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 04:08 PM

Star Member CaliforniaPeggy (144,999 posts)

7. Great news!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 04:09 PM

Star Member Paladin (26,567 posts)

8. Glad to hear it. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 04:21 PM

Glimmer of Hope (5,823 posts)

10. Good news for the women of Texas!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 04:23 PM

hobbit709 (41,694 posts)

11. What's with the Court all of a sudden? Has there been an outbreak of sanity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 04:31 PM

sadoldgirl (3,431 posts)

12. I am not so sure that this is great move.

Remember how CU came uP? It was in the
beginning just about the movie about HRC and
its timing. Roberts told them to put this into
a bigger frame, and - guess what- out came CU.

If they do the same with the Texas law we are up
about a retrial of Roe vs Wade. I don't trust the
SCOTUS on this. I could be wrong, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 05:22 PM

Star Member herding cats (18,896 posts)

13. This could potentially be the biggest abortion case before the SC in the past quarter of a century.

While I'm thrilled for the women in Texas right now, I'm also somewhat scared of the final outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 06:01 PM

Hepburn (21,054 posts)

14. KNR...N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 06:34 PM

marym625 (17,997 posts)

16. K&R all over the damn place!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 06:39 PM

Star Member SunSeeker (49,133 posts)

17. The fact that SCOTUS granted the temporary injunction indicates SCOTUS thinks the clinics will win.

Usually, to get a temporary injunction, you have to show (1) irreparable harm and (2) likelihood to prevail in the case. Since 5 justices found that to be shown, it is likely those 5 will also later on rule in favor of the clinics on the case in chief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 06:51 PM

hifiguy (33,688 posts)

19. That is the way every temporary injunction I have seen works.

 

But it will all turn on Justice Kennedy. We know where Roberts and The Three Stooges are on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to hifiguy (Reply #19)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 07:02 PM

Star Member SunSeeker (49,133 posts)

20. Yeah, that's the way every TRO worked, except in Bush v. Gore

I have yet to see anyone explain how allowing a vote count to go forward can cause "irreparable harm."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 07:06 PM

hifiguy (33,688 posts)

21. That case was a travesty of substance, procedure, and everything else.

 

I have never seen a more pathetic, result-driven clusterfuck emerge from any American court. A SCOTUS case that cannot be cited as precedent?

I sometimes wonder if O'Connor wishes she had voted the other way and regrets her decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to hifiguy (Reply #21)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 07:14 PM

Star Member SunSeeker (49,133 posts)

23. O'Connor expressed her regret over Bush v. Gore about 2 years ago.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/justice-oconnor-regrets

She knows she fucked up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 06:46 PM

libodem (19,288 posts)

18. Yay!

Woo Hoo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 07:09 PM

MoonRiver (36,926 posts)

22. FANTASTIC!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to stevenleser (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 10:22 PM

Star Member niyad (98,859 posts)

24. a small victory for women!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread

General Discussion (Forum)
DU Home | Latest Threads | Greatest Threads | Forums & Groups | My Subscriptions | My Posts

About | Copyright | Privacy | Terms of service | Contact

In Memoriam

© 2001 - 2023 Democratic Underground, LLC. Thank you for visiting.