- Quickdraw McLaw
- 110 Comments
- 297 Views
As you all know by now thanks to Politico, a U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade has been leaked. Here’s your chance to civilly discuss it with your fellow members of the Las Vegas legal community. You guys know the drill, if the comments get out of control, they’ll get deleted and/or the post will get locked. (Pro tip: if a offensive comment is part of a reply chain, the only way to get rid of it is to delete the whole chain, so if you have a comment you don’t wanted deleted as collateral damage, make it as a separate comment and not a reply.)
Nevada wont likely change anything.
My vote changed from Chattah to Aron Ford.
My vote changed to Laxalt and Lombardo
Nevada can't change anything. (https://www.nevadacurrent.com/blog/abortion-will-remain-a-right-in-nevada/),except maybe the promotions it offers for abortion vacations (not intended to be derogatory – reference to medical trips where folks go to other countries to get procedures they can't get or afford in the U.S.).
This month is women's history month. Let's honor courts who honor and celebrate women. Go:
May is not women's history month…
Every month is women's history month.
May is women's history alliance month. same thing
Lol. If only that were true. Clearly women's history is not such a high priority in this country, however, or we would not be at this juncture.
To look up "women's history alliance month" being in May as a way to try to correct an error of May being women's history month is such an attorney thing to do, may I just say.
I did not correct anything. Just looked it up to see it is correct post is fine.
It's birthing person history alliance month
Isn't it "women's herstory" ??
SCOTUS and Sidney White, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the biggest joke going. If they overturn Roe v. Wade, you will have protests and voter turn out like you have never seen before.
How is Merrick Garland allowing Roe v. Wade to be overturned?
Nah, the Fifth Circuit is the biggest joke, and it isn't even close. The Ninth is huge, with many justices. As a result, the variety of the panels gives you mostly decent law coming out of there. The Fifth Circuit is smaller, and stuffed with incompetent Trump nominees. It's where the law goes to die.
And yet, the 5th Circuit COA, that bastion of Trump appointed incompetence, is in the process of being overruled in its upholding of Roe v Wade. You, like many, make zero sense in your bashing. TDS alive and well.
(Peace out! to anything resembling your credibility.)
Reading a rogue ninth circuit appeal where a judgment is confirmed by nv federal judge. 95 percent of the law ignored. Like SCOTUS, state decisis no longer exists
Stare
Where are Joe Biden, Kamala, and the ACLU?
Nevada won't likely change anything, but we will be impacted by Utah. Utah already sends police officers to liquor store and firework parking lots in Wyoming to identify Utahns purchasing illegal alcohol. They then radio the plates, and when the driver crosses the border, they are pulled over. I suspect that Utah will make it a crime to assist anyone to travel to get an abortion, or similar laws that would make traveling to Nevada for an abortion a crime. We may very well end up with Utah law enforcement officers, undercover, monitoring Nevada abortion clinics for people arriving from Utah.
On top of all that, I don't think we have the infrastructure to service all of Utah's abortions. It seems like there are going to need to be some major things addressed as a result of this SCOTUS decision, even if the law here doesn't change.
Utah cant make wholesale changes with their current governor. Also, Utah eliminated the beer restrictions in 2019 so residents aren't really travelling to other states anymore.
Don't forget about Utah's intrepid AG who came to Nevada to help Laxalt try to overturn the election!
And Utah's legislature wouldn't hesitate to veto the Governor Cox, just like they did a couple months ago on the transgender law.
947am here: Perhaps. But I am of the opinion that a veto override isnt a "wholesale change".
@ 947am – well done in deciphering my poorly written "veto the Governor Cox" phrase. Of course I meant that the legislature would not hesitate to override the governor's veto. My understanding is there was no trouble at all getting the votes to override Cox's veto.
Also, what would you consider "wholesale change" to be? It seems that Utah is veering to the Trump path over what I would consider a more reasonable Romney path. I actually saw an article about how Romney disguises himself in Utah to limit the harassment he gets from Republicans.
@947 here. I would love to see that article. FYI, I caucused for Romney in 2012, after meeting him at a 2006 Election Day breakfast prior to his 2008 run. Personally, I feel like I was hoodwinked, bamboozled and run amok. He is not and has never been the conservative he held himself out to be. He isnt reasonable, IMHO because he lied to his constituents to get elected. He is finished in politics with the end of his current term, unless he changes to D and moves to Colorado or similar.
As far as a "wholesale change", I see that as a quickly passed bill, ratified by both houses of a state legislature (if there are two) and quickly signed by the Gov. Not unlike what we are seeing with the changes in law in Florida these days.
9:37 here. Utah is one of thirteen states with a trigger law already in place. That is, the moment Roe is overturned, abortion is illegal in Utah. This is absolutely going to affect Nevada. Right now, if my understanding is correct, the only abortion clinics are in Las Vegas, is a 5-6 hour drive from Utah's main population center along the Wasatch Front. In the immediate term, I would expect most women from that area to come to Vegas for their abortions now. More longer term, it will be interesting to see if abortion clinics pop up in Wendover, a town whose economy thrives on Utah regulating morality. To me, however, that seems unlikely as Elko County is red and I am sure would do everything possible to stop that. So, most likely, we'll see Las Vegas service abortions for most of Utah and probably a big chunk of Arizona. It seems like that could create a serious strain on those providers and resources.
And Utah will absolutely send people to monitor the parking lots. Count on it. If they are willing to do it for alcohol and fireworks, they will absolutely do it for abortion. It will be interesting to see how Nevada responds. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, out-of-state surveillance is totally inappropriate.
I am of the opinion that you can't "import" an abortion like alcohol or fireworks so the idea of parking lot attendant cops is pretty absurd.
I am also of the opinion that its exceptionally unlikely (I haven't read the Utah "trigger" law) that there are criminal or otherwise penalties for a woman that gets an abortion. That said, she isn't breaking Utah law by going out of state to obtain an abortion. Constitutional FF&C ensures that.
Try again. I can do this all day.
Abortion "out of state surveillance" As if that actually was a thing…..
You underestimate the creativity of politicians, 2:37 PM. No, Utah can't make it illegal to travel to Nevada for an abortion. However, they could make it illegal to provide any kind of assistance, including financial, to help someone obtain an abortion. That would include travel costs. Give a friend a ride from Payson to Las Vegas to get an abortion? Crime.
And yes, it is absurd, but I can promise you that Utah Legislators will not simply be content with ceding to Carson City control over of how Utahns get abortions. There will be creative attempts to stop Utahns from obtaining out-of-state abortions and some of those creative attempts will stand.
@237 here. I respectfully disagree with you @256. Time will tell.
Well, the leaker should definitely be identified and go to prison.
Go to prison for breaking what law, exactly?
I want to thank the leaker. A true American. ACLU and Planned Parenthood, where the fuck were you????
Maybe 18 U.S.C. 641
50 years and this stupid court tosses out a vital health care right like precedent means nothing. Maybe now the 18-30 year olds will get out and vote.
Which "right" are you referring to exactly? Can you direct me to where this "right" to abortion is enumerated or implied? Also, 50 years ago the "stupid court" tossed out precedent like it meant nothing (although it was in your favor, so that gets a pass).
Article ???, Section ??? Of the US Constitution??
Should be fun for the family law practitioners to start filing all those child support cases. Has someone warned the GOP bros that they are going to have to start paying for all that ?
Wow, great try on your "gotcha" moment. Too bad the majority of conservatives support the idea that a man should support their child, even while in the womb. Nice try.
I've always thought that the people who love abortion love it too much and the people who hate abortion hate it too much. Due more to this single issue than any other, American politics has become nasty, polarized, and even fractured. I don't get it. Folks need to get past this nonsense.
There something chilling about the words abortion and nonsense in the same paragraph. Life is nonsense. Well, I guess sometimes it is, but the vulnerable, unborn should have a chance to experience the nonsensical.
11:13, you think that forcing women to give birth is going to be some nirvana for these unwanted children? Studies show child abuse rates go down when abortion is legal and up when it is not. And you're just forgetting about the cycle of poverty these kids will be born into? Oh, and let's not forget the women who will be maimed and worse due to unsafe abortions. You'll never stop abortion. You'll stop poor women from accessing safe abortion. The rich will still get their safe abortions.
@11:38 why can't the poor, as you say, just use birth control or condoms or abstain from sex until they're in a better position in life?
Oh my god, 12:36. Welcome, it's 2022 and that logic expired decades ago. "The poor" do not have equal access to health care, where they would get birth control. Condoms are also not accessible to them. So you can feel free to abstain from sex until you have a better, more realistic sense of the world.
OMG @ 12:42, I know it's 2022, I'm living in it. The poor have plenty of access to health care. They can go to Planned Parenthood and get free birth control and free condoms. Heck, in some cities, they can get free heroine needles if they want them. I think you're the one living in the past if you think condoms are so out of reach for poor people. Homeless people have cell phones and you're telling me poor people can't get a condom?
12:36, just use birth control because birth control is 100%. Abstinence works? No, abstinence only education is a total failure. Rape? Incest? The SCOTUS decision strikes down Roe entirely without regard to rape or incest and some of the states who have these laws don't have exclusions for rape or incest. Fetal abnormalities? It's God's will you have this baby who will suffer a horrible death after birth. Women's health is at risk? The fetus is worth more than them. Just say you want to punish women for having sex. It's a lot more accurate.
@1:11 Uh…abstinence does work? I think in the history of the world, only 1 person got pregnant without intercourse. Her name was Mary. If you can't afford to raise a baby, don't engage in adult relations then. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
@111 forgive me is I try to sift through your emotion riddled post. But, if you read the opinion (I did. All 98 pages), you would realize that overturning Roe as seems inevitable at this point**, has nothing whatsoever to do with rape or incest.
FN** As you may or may not know, the opinion is a "DRAFT" from February and isnt effective until signed and filed by the SCOTUS.
The states are free to enact the laws they can, which range from total bans with zero exceptions to total freedom without limitation. Your beef is with a particular legislature, not SCOTUS who simply seems to be planning to eliminate a poorly reasoned example of 1973 Judicial Activism. Read the opinion with your (presumably) lawyers eye and see what reality is.
@1:11 here's the stats on abortion
.001% The pregnancy resulted from incestuous relationship
.065% The woman's life was endangered by the pregnancy
.085% The woman was raped
.288% The woman's physical health was threatened by the pregnancy
.294% The woman's psychological health was threatened by the pregnancy
.667% There was a serious fetal abnormality
6.268% The woman aborted for social or economic reasons
92.330% No reason (elective).
I remember when weed was illegal and abortions were legal.
1:30 has failed to bring their partner to orgasm 100% of the time. Prove those stats wrong.
Who gives a toot about a woman's orgasm? A useless Matriarchal construct meant to enslave men to useless endeavors of no social value. Moderator: delete this filth!
@1:30 I saw a different statistic than those unsourced ones you published. Mine is unsourced too, but I am confident in the accuracy of the statistic:
100% – none of your business
Gotta' hand it to McConnel and Trump. They served their constituency. Somewhere, Merrick Garland is spinning; Cavanaugh is a USSC justice and he isn't.
Isn't it grand?!?!! I personally love it when the Republicans grow a spine.
As a woman, a mother to daughters, a biological and honorary aunt to many girls, and a friend to many young women, I am devastated. I cried last night when I heard. There will be many more tears today and in the days to come. For me, this is not about abortion per se. It is about bodily autonomy and privacy for women. And the opening of the door to the loss of other hard-won human rights opposed by the religious conservatives. This is a sad, sad day for American women and for those men who stand with them.
I have donated money. Now, I will look forward to what I can do as an individual citizen and a voter. I urge you to do the same.
Then lobby the relevant legislatures to pass the laws that you like. The court was never authorized to do what it did in Roe. This is righting a legal wrong not a moral one.
That's cool, there are lots of "wrong" decisions I'd like to have revisited and now it would appear anytime a judge disagrees with a prior decision they are fully authorized to change it.
Stare Decisis was NEVER meant to be locked in stone forever, only followed in "most instances".
–Law School Day 1
We have long recognized, however, that stare decisis is
“not an inexorable command,” Pearson v. Callahan, 555
U.S. 223, 233 (2009)
@10:37 Not "a judge" that disagrees. This is the supreme court of the land.
Why was my birthing person comment deleted? That is the correct terminology to use in 2022. How can that possibly be offensive? It's on the CDC and Dept. of Health website
No tongue in cheek / sarcasm allowed on this page!
@1:07 I know right. Only the viewpoints that align with the blogmasters may remain alive. Contrary viewpoints must be terminated at all costs, lest others learn a differing view and may rise up against their overlords.
107 Here.
That was me being ironic….or was I?
Op. Thanks for the laugh. Dramatic much? What about all the females (or those who would have identified as female) who never had a chance to live? Do those females matter to you? Apparently not.
I am TRAPPED in front of a Senior Judge who is a very nice man but has lost his judicial marbles and it is costing alot of people their entire mornings. To those of you who have lost your mornings in Department 5, my shared condolences.
Which senior judge? Isn't Barker covering Department 5 right now?
Charles McGee
Looks like a fulltime job for the moderators today. Lets keep it civil, ya'll.
Massachusetts AG Maura Healy told me client that Massachusetts does not prosecute sexual assault cases, and she is running for governor of Massachusetts,
my
Why in the world would you believe this to be true? I don't know the relevance to Las Vegas but it took Google .000032 seconds to find this: https://www.mass.gov/news/bryon-hefner-pleads-guilty-to-charges-of-sexual-assault-and-distributing-nude-photos-without-consent
And this: https://www.mass.gov/news/nursing-assistant-charged-with-sexually-assaulting-two-elderly-nursing-home-residents
No one said it was true. Just posting what my client was told by Maura Healey, Massachusetts AG's office.
Your client lies.
Yeah, um, no they don't
You're posting what your client says Maura Healey said she said. And it's clear that your client is either lying or entirely misunderstood what she said. Also, most sexual assaults are tried by county DAs, not the AG's office.
No, but keep assuming things.
Excuse me, her office.
What would happen if the federal government withholds funding from any state that passes a law prohibiting one of its citizens from undergoing a medical procedure that is allowed and covered by the Affordable Care Act? So if a state outlaws abortion, maybe the ACA will no longer cover Viagra there? Every one of the red states that want to outlaw abortion receives far more federal money than it contributes. You wanna the pizza pie? You gotta the pizza pie!
I agree. Revoke the affordable care act too!
Why stop there? If a state outlaws abortions, then no more Medicare-funded Viagra pills. It sure would clean up places like The Villages.
Not sure why the leftist retort is always Viagra. So what, get rid of Viagra. The less government involvement the better.
I pay cash for mine. Insurance is so damn dumb. These pills are so expensive [awesome] !!
You say less government involvement is better, yet you support government control over a woman's body?
IDK about the rest of you. But, I support the states making the call. Not some poorly reasoned example of 1973 Judicial Activism.
Yeah….I am not certain that a state law that outlaws certain behavior constitutes "government control over a woman's body". Proving a negative is a losing battle.
#freethelogic
@2:25 I am certain that when a state law seeks to prevent a certain behavior (one that is exclusive to a woman's body) and the state law criminalizes or financially punishes that behavior to keep the woman from engaging in that behavior (to her body), that constitutes an attempt to exercise "government control over a women's body." This is not an exercise in proving a negative either. "You keep using that word, I don't think you know what it means." #freebetterreasoning
You mean #freeyourreasoning #agreewithmeorperish
In a lighter vein, it appears that no one is going to apply for the dept 9 seat? I guess being able to call yourself the incumbent for 5 months is not worth the scrutiny that comes with the application process.
Maria Gall has announced she is applying for Department 9 and is actively campaigning for it.
On a more interesting note – I went to a strip club and saw some boobies
Paid for them. At least should be allowed to drive them around the block.
Only the block? Should be able to motorboat them, bill
I "knew" a dancer once and she said she knew soooo many lawyers hahahah – no way to know if it was true but the way she said it was funny
Watch SCOTUS implode in 321…..
Wait, does this mean Covid and Ukraine are over? Thank Spaghetti Monster!
The leaking of this opinion is definitely designed to distract us from something else going on.
Well, no one is talking about Ukraine today.
e.g. Whether Zelensky is actually IN Ukraine or hanging out in Poland? Check the flight tracking on recent US Diplomatic visits.
We are not flying our diplomats into Ukraine and running the risk of them being shot down. They are moving into Ukraine on the ground as they would in times like these.
Not to post off topic but for something a little lighter and more hopeful– who would you refer an adoption case to?
Many of my clients have drug issues. I privately joke "better living through modern chemistry." Now it's not such a joke. Chemical abortions are available, the meds can be ordered on line and delivered by the U.S. Postal Service.
I'm comment 100 yayyyyy – and yes, I still saw some boobies
Now I am 100!
Justice Thomas wrote a dissent a few years back outlining the eugenic beginnings of abortion. Good read for those who scream their support for abortion. You might want to check your racism.
While it's true that it was meant to cull certain groups from the herd that does not address the fundamental right of a woman to choose. I have had friends justify access to abortion on racial grounds, environmental grounds, overpopulation grounds, economic grounds, and so on, but the basis for abortion should, I think, originate in some variation of privacy and autonomy.
#freeroevwade
#freebonniebulla
#freemaurahealy