- Quickdraw McLaw
- 66 Comments
- 219 Views
This is a legal blog. We invite your astute legal opinions and analysis about the United Supreme Court’s monumental opinion issued today in Dobbs v. Jackson Womsn’s Health Organization.
This is not a post for political rhetoric or an invitation to debate the merits of abortion; it is an opportunity to discuss the legal opinion, concurrence, and dissents. We look forward to a civil discussion.
Once again unto the breach dear friends.
I want to personally thank mr/ms dawg for allowing this conversation and I pledge to remain civil about this emotional topic
8:05 here I hit enter too soon, as lawyers, no matter our opinions, can we pledge to tell people that the decision does not outlaw abortion but simply sends it back to the states saying it is not a right
Are you arguing that Dobbs gives states the authority to legalize euthanize teenagers? Please elaborate.
*legally
As the parent of teenagers, I also seek this elucidation, pretty please!
12:02 has been hitting the crack pipe.
This too might be hyperbole. Try looking closer, 134 and 247.
There is a difference between hyperbole and gibberish nonsense
I am just trying to give the benefit of the doubt.
scotus be like: keep your guns close, and your legs closer
The gun rights case is more significant. The abortion case sent it back to the states and nothing will change in Nevada and in most states. But the gun case is huge. How can they criminalize carrying a pistol (a constitutional right) requiring a permit and making it a crime. May not change in Nevada because we are a "shall issue" state. But having to go get a permit to carry concealed is ridiculous. The anti gun folks (mostly the Dems) will be looking to ban open carry which will put everyone into a permit. We need constitutional carry here in Nevada. Crime is so bad. Carry a gun when you need it for protection.
Nothing in the decision "sends it back to the states." Rather, it wipes out constitutional standing for the right to privacy. Some are already calling for a national abortion ban. So I disagree that it is not significant. Most states already allow concealed carry.
The statement "nothing will change in Nevada and in most states" is fundamentally incorrect. Abortion will disappear and be outlawed in around one-third of all states in the next year. Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio have abortion restrictions/bans that are likely to be repealed in light of this ruling that have remained on the books in case this day came. "Abortion tourism" has become a thing again ("What happens in Las Vegas stays on your medical records subject to HIPAA in Vegas"). Yes the world is changing.
And while it may not change in Nevada, many other states are sure to enact more strict prohibitions. I'd wager over 50% of the states, although by population 1/3 might be about right. For someone living in the heart of the south, I doubt there will be an abortion provider within at least 500 miles.
Add Dick's Sporting Goods to this list.
I think Starbucks too.
I am the @realThhwwwaaacckkguy and I am taking the day off from my usual self appointed duties. Copy and Paste guy can take the lead today.
No. I am the REAL Thhwwwaaacckkguy! @9:37, again, is attempting to usurp my Thwack! Do not fall for his ruse.
╭∩╮(-_-)╭∩╮ Double Kickstands to your face, fake Thwacker!
— Signed @originalThhwaaack
Keep copying and pasting.
#HeyDoYouHaveAFormForThisMotion
1) No need to copy and paste to type a simple Thhwwwaaacckk
2) I am OG Thwack!
3) Questioning my Thwackness is racist.
Don’t be gender biased – it’s ThwackX
This is repetitive, not witty and not amusing
Its the copy and paste guy.
This is going to create tremendous strain on medical resources here in Las Vegas, at least in the short term. Women from neighboring states like Utah, Idaho and Arizona will travel here for abortions.
Hyperbole.
I believe this is not a political issue. I believe it is between a woman, her doctor, and the woman's conscience. There will be so many unintended consequences. Back alley procedures, unwanted children, more poverty, more crime, etc. We don't even know what the future holds…
That's a pretty tenuous concern you have re: overturning of Roe vs. Wade. Idahoans will likely travel to the communist state of Oregon rather than traveling to Las Vegas. It's closer and they will certainly have drive through abortion clinics available and set up to operate 24/7. Utahans in SLC could travel as close as Grand Junction, CO. I don't expect Arizona to impose a full ban on abortion – only a reasonable one – up to the fourth month of pregnancy.
Best thing to come from this decision, child sex traffickers will have fewer states where they can take their victims to Planned Parenthood.
Arizona already has a full ban on the books, from its territorial days. It may spring back to life, but it's actually unclear what the state of the law in Arizona is now that there is also a 15-week ban on the books, much more recently enacted. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2022/06/23/arizona-abortion-law-what-know-if-roe-v-wade-overturned/7688816001/
Amen.
"The dissent has much to say about the effects of pregnancy on women,
the burdens of motherhood, and the difficulties faced by
poor women. These are important concerns. However, the
dissent evinces no similar regard for a State’s interest in
protecting prenatal life. "
I suspect this phrase is going to come back to haunt Alito.
That's so weak. There are so many government programs to help those in need, both baby and mother.
2:16 has clearly never been on government assistance. There is NOT help for those in need. There is NO way to survive on government assistance. Stop drinking the 80s koolaid and educate yourself.
IDK 243. I have seen countless EBT cards pulled out at the grocery store with at least one kid in $150 Jordan's in tow.
You have been deemed an appendage and will be disposed of accordingly
You are confusing consequences and reality with constitutional interpretation – morally believe what u want – but legally so what? People speak bad and lie but we have 1st amend, they shoot themsrlves so what we have 2nd amend, all they said was there’s no right to it – u wanna suck the brains out via abortion go live in a state with like minded people – be a lawyer my man – think
What it really boils down to is that stare decisis is dead, there are four supreme court justices who lied to the senate and the American people, and Ginni Thomas is a seditious cow. Interestingly, Clarence didn't mention Loving when he said we should reconsider all of the Court's substantive due process precedents. Hmmmm
Hahaha! Well maybe not ALL of them.
Hahahaha stare decises dead hahahaha u ever read a history book or law book – decisions are made to be overturned – did u think it was forever? That’s so cute
As a former fetus, I support today's SCOTUS decision.
Regardless of the many and varied opinions on this subject which are strongly held across the spectrum, may I respectfully suggest that we might get more consensus (I hope) regarding the judicial infrastructure of the court that has brought us to this point.
I would contend that the current SCOTUS is too small to have so much power over decisions that effect well over a quarter of a billion people. At the same time no one wants to be accused of packing the court.
I would propose fixing the size of the court at a Chief Justice and one Associate Justice for each Article III Court of Appeals. This would give the size of SCOTUS at least a little more relationship to its workload as well as parcel out this power a bit more from which there is in many cases little or no appeal from.
To avoid court packing accusations, I would propose adding one new seat each presidential term until the full allocation is appointed. So the change (assuming no new circuits) would take place over a quarter of a decade and five presidential elections. Equitable and measured change.
Maybe others have suggestions to improve the infrastructure or process of the SCOTUS relevant to this issue, but one in which we might see some useful – and civil – comments.
Here we go with the "Expand the Court" gut reaction to a ruling someone disagrees with. How about Blowing up the Filibuster to accomplish that? Let's make DC and Puerto Rico a state so one side gets 4 more senators and can lock in a majority in perpetuity. OR, here's an idea, if you don't want a baby, don't have sex, or if you want to have sex, use protection (pill, condom, etc…) Abortions aren't a form of birth control, which a lot of people use it for nowadays.
Mr. Ross has offered some thoughtful analysis and suggestions relative to this matter, and those suggestions have some arguable merit on their face.
On the other hand, 1:02 is quite correct that most arguments to expand a court are motivated out of displeasure with the decisions being issued from such court. And expanding a court, to address such dynamic, is seldom a panacea, as all you often wind up with is more judges signing on to decisions we disagree with. If there is a court I don't like, and the judges are expanded form 7 to 12, that corrects nothing. It does not mean adding those five judges balances out the decisions and moves them more to the center of the political spectrum. That can happen(depending on the political leanings of the appointing individual or appointing agency), but it is just as likely to eventually make matters worse from our perspective.
Plus, the measured, almost mathematical and evolutionary approach offered by Mr. Ross is not how these things really develop. It simply will not work to say we now have a democrat president, so let that president appoint two judges, then when we have a republican president let them appoint two new judges and so on. There's a gazillion real life variables that would destroy such structure, no matter how well-intended and fair are the motivations of those who suggested the approach.
There is no reason to add additional supreme court justices other than partisan politics. Roe v Wade was fundamentally wrong. it is that simple of an issue.
June 24, 2022 at 1:27 PM – All very fair and, if I may say, civil criticisms. I would point out the dynamic of moving past more than 12 people does make a difference. This is why most parliamentary rules relax the formality of board and committee meetings but only if the body has fewer than 12 members. I do stand by the idea; assembling a majority would take considerably more consensus. But I will take your comments to heart and consider where I might compromise. Thank you.
There is certainly no reason to "pack" the court. However, Mr. Ross, as usual proposes at least an objectively reasonable proposal. I disagree with the premise that 9 justices can't adequately serve 330MM people. However, I am willing to entertain a discussion that details something along the lines of one new justice each presidential term. I would still likely oppose expansion, but I am willing to hear it out and analyze it.
Sincere thanks Jordan. You continue to grace us with your un-anonymous presence.
Sorry, quarter of a century, not decade.
If men were the gender to carry pregnancies abortions would be legal, cheap and after every 10 you'd get one free.
Get a clue. Anyone can go to any planned Parenthood. They charge based on income. And even if you afford to pay, they'll ask you how much you want to pay and you can say $0. That's how I got birth control pills during undergrad and law school. All no cost to me.
Planned Parenthood doesn't even do abortions in most states. They don't do them here. The one by my undergrad didn't do them. 2:23 has apparently been to Planned Parenthood and still doesn't know what she's talking about.
I believe I read in nevada current omething to the effect that attorney general candidate sigal chattah has expressed favor for prosecuting abortions as a criminal sentencing enhancent.
Sigal denied that on Twitter recently.
Pretty sure that is an egregious mischaracterization of what she actually said. But thanks for playing.
2:50 I’m “pretty sure” you are wrong. She literally said Aaron Ford should be hung from a crane.
3:45, 3:44 here. I am not the person who made the initial comment you responded to. Aaron Ford is a black man, thus that part of the statement is accurate. The definition of “lynch” according to dictionary.com is “to put to death, especially by hanging, by mob action and without legal authority.” So saying he should be hung from a crane is the same as advocating lynching a black man. The original poster did not say they were quoting her words verbatim but that is absolutely accurate paraphrasing.
Yes! Lips please
Are we at 110 comments yet? I have work to do.
Many attorneys consider running for office–not just judgeships but other public offices. Therefore, a few lessons can be gleaned from the unsuccessful re-election attempt by Rob Telles, Public Administrator. I like him quite a bit(both as a person and as an attorney), but some lessons should presumably be quite clear to him by now:
1. When confronted with something that the media or public might find juicy and would be quite interested in(like supposed marital infidelity of a public official), if it is untrue deny it outright and directly.
The media confronted him with the grainy footage which purported to represent the married Telles being physical/romantic with a subordinate employee. If it was not him on the video, he should have immediately and strongly denied it was him. Instead, he offered a vague, general statement to the effect that his political foes lie about him and that the truth will come out eventually (which it seldom does).
2. Never declare war on the reporter tasked with covering the story.
3. Don't release muddled, conflicting statements which makes the official sound really nervous, desperate, vulnerable, lacking in sufficient confidence, etc.
He first insisted that the right-wing local newspaper was targeting him, and then he turned around and insisted that there was a left-wing conspiracy against him mounted by his political foes.
4.When achieving a political position wherein one will need to be re-elected each cycle, don't come into office as a hurricane with a lot of immediate, major sweeping changes(no matter how seemingly justified). Long-term, complacent, entitled employees may well band against you.
I hope returning to private practice, and a far more quiet non-public life, really agrees with him, that he does real well and achieves happiness–which is often difficult to find in the really public, pollical arena.
All good points, but especially number four.
I don't have the stats in front of me, but Rob made significant progress in reducing the amount of time the office took to administer an estate. The PA's office was coasting under the last few years of John Cahill. Rob increased productivity and efficiency. At the same time, he cut the overtime. Some of the government employees disliked this. They liked to work part-time and still receive overtime pay. The bemoaned, crying the classic, "that's not how we do things," nonsense. They were hunting for any foothold to take Rob down and return to a more leisurely pace of work. Unfortunately, Rob gave them a foothold as shown by the grainy video (which doesn't actually show any improper act).
So Rita Reid will now be the PA because this is a blue county. She will be able to restore "the way we do things" in the PA's office, which is a much slower pace than Rob had them running.
Hooray for democracy.
3:35 I was with you until the snide “blue” remark. I am “blue” and voted for Telles being fully aware of the video. What does red or blue have to do with it?
2:59, all fair points, with one qualifier: I believe he did deny that he was romantically involved with the employee. I think he explained that it may in fact be him on the grainy video because a couple times they exchanged information and documents while seated in her car.
But, problem is, if this car is parked in the employee parking lot adjoining the building they both worked at(which seems to be the case), then why conduct business in the cramped back seat of a vehicle when they can simply walk up to large, air-cooled offices and spread the documents out across a large table, etc.
I guess what I'm suggesting is that if this "conducting business in the vehicle" explanation seems to stretch credulity, that he then would have been far better served by not granting an interview on the subject of the video, and what it supposedly represents.
SCOTUS Iis making ninth circuit court look good right now.
Hyperbole
If he ain’t smart enough not to get in a car alone with a bird then ‘e ain’t smart enough for the job
Either way on this issue, I'm pro vagina. Always leaned hard that way. Is it 5:00 yet?