Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor says a FETUS is the same as a BRAIN-DEAD Person.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

That would be like saying jussie's testimony was a part of the verdict.

Not exactly. The reference was part of the decision process of the Justices, not direct testimony. All opinions present the facts of the case, as well as the opinion of the majority opinion Justices as to why they are or are not applicable. That may not be a part of the actual ruling, but it is a part of the record and such references can, have, and are considered when the case is referenced in subsequent cases. It is precedent in that sense.

If we were talking direct testimony, your simile would be appropriate.

TheRedneck

This is what the American Bar Association has to say on this issue:

www.americanbar.org...

Syllabus
The syllabus appears first, before the main opinion. It is not part of the official opinion, but rather, a sum­mary added by the Court to help the reader better understand the case and the decision. The syllabus out­lines the facts of the case and the path that the case has taken to get to the Supreme Court. The last por­tion of the syllabus sometimes sum­marizes which justice authored the main opinion, which justices joined in the main opinion, and which jus­tices might have issued concurring or dissenting opinions.

Main Opinion
Following the syllabus is the main opinion. This is the Court’s offi­cial decision in the case. In legal terms, the opinion announces a decision and provides an explana­tion for the decision by articulating the legal rationale that the justices relied upon to reach the decision. The main opinion may take dif­ferent forms, depending on how the justices decide certain issues. Sometimes decisions are unani­mous—all of the justices agree and offer one rationale for their decision, so the Court issues one unanimous opinion. When more than half of the justices agree, the Court issues a majority opinion. Other times, there is no majority, but a plurality, so the Court issues a plurality opin­ion. Typically, one justice is identi­fied as the author of the main opin­ion. Per curiam opinions, however, do not identify any authors, and are simply, opinions of the Court

Only the the majority decision is the actual ruling.

a reply to: carewemust


I just went looking to see what pro abortion on demand at any time folks had to say about today's ruling, and found this official graphic from one of the largest of these democrat groups.






Here is their twitbrain link:

mobile.twitter.com...


It appears that they understand what just happened.

(From their posts, not their preexisting graphic)

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

The text you quoted is not a part of the rvw decision, it is part of the arguments from one side of the case.

It may not be part of the determination, but it is a part of the opinion. As such, it would be negligent to not acknowledge that fact at least.

 

Re: Texas law S.B.8:

I'm shocked as well. I just read the text of S.B.8, and it is clearly unconstitutional on several counts.

As I understand it (and please correct me if I am wrong; I am still reading), the challenge to S.B.8 is in the Texas District Court at this time. The Supreme Court seems to have refused to intervene at this time. I would guess that is because it appears the Texas courts will rule the law unconstitutional and save the Supreme Court the trouble.

I think they dismissed Biden's lawsuit as well for essentially the same reason.

TheRedneck

I can't find any remaining cases before the TX supreme court on this issue.

It appears that they are ok with this law.

At least for now.

The main case against it was biden's lawsuit, which was just shut down today.

Maybe there are cases I am missing?

Could be, but can't find anyone on the other side posting anything about such cases either.

The case scotus allowed to continue is in federal courts, so tx supremes will never be asked to rule on it.

These cases were in 5th circuit, which already ruled to allow this law, and passed the buck to scotus.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

I can't find any remaining cases before the TX supreme court on this issue.

It appears that they are ok with this law.

It looks like S.B.8 is already shut down. From NBC News:

A judge in Texas ruled on Thursday that a law prohibiting abortions after about six weeks violated the state's constitution because it allows private citizens to sue abortion providers.

There is no mention I have found about the TX Supreme Court hearing an appeal, and the US Supreme Court just refused to get involved as well. If not overruled by a higher court, Judge Peeples ruling stands: TX S.B.8 is unconstitutional. NBC goes on to report:

Abortion providers signaled that despite the ruling, they are unlikely to resume the procedure until an expected ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.

That came yesterday. No writ of certiorari; not gonna step in.

Looks like this one never got out of the gate good. After reading just the first half of it, I'd call that a good thing.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Does this change what you came up with?

This is what SCOTUS issued yesterday on SB8. They allowed parts of it to stand.

I have read at least one analysis where this ruling is potential bad news for the fate Roe v. Wade. They left it as they did because of that ruling to come.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

I can't find any remaining cases before the TX supreme court on this issue.

It appears that they are ok with this law.

It looks like S.B.8 is already shut down. From NBC News:

A judge in Texas ruled on Thursday that a law prohibiting abortions after about six weeks violated the state's constitution because it allows private citizens to sue abortion providers.

There is no mention I have found about the TX Supreme Court hearing an appeal, and the US Supreme Court just refused to get involved as well. If not overruled by a higher court, Judge Peeples ruling stands: TX S.B.8 is unconstitutional. NBC goes on to report:

Abortion providers signaled that despite the ruling, they are unlikely to resume the procedure until an expected ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.

That came yesterday. No writ of certiorari; not gonna step in.

Looks like this one never got out of the gate good. After reading just the first half of it, I'd call that a good thing.

TheRedneck

I think the part you may be overlooking is that the 5th circuit (which includes TX) has already, repeatedly, ruled against any such lawsuit at state and fed level that sought to prevent sb8 from being enforced.

So dems decided to file biden's lawsuit in dc district in hopes of deceiving scotus into taking the case. That deception failed on day 1.

So dems appealed to scotus, who declined the case. Essentially saying that they see no error in the 5ths decisions, or at least not one that they are willing to get involved with.

If 5th circuit changes it's rulings on the matter, then those other cases may have some kind of chance, but for now, dems appear to have no path in front of them.

Actually the best path for democrats is to pass the same sb8 law in one of their states that is outside the 5th and then file lawsuits against their own law.

Resolving the difference in rulings between 2 or districts might be the only way to get sb8 back to scotus.

a reply to: TheRedneck


The case you mentioned did NOT shut down sb8.

He intentionally neglected to block enforcement because 5th circuit has already ruled against him.

The case may someday be effective, but for now that tx judge has no path around the 5th circuit.

a reply to: ketsuko

To be honest, I'm not sure if it does or not. An earlier link showed that the Supreme Court refused to accept a writ of certiorare which indicates they were deciding not to involve themselves at this time. Your link says the opposite.

I still haven't found anything recent on the US 5th District ruling on SB 8. I found an article from October about them lifting a temporary stay, but that's not a decision... it's only applicable to the stay order. I'm still seeing where State Judge David Peeples declared SB 8 unconstitutional in Texas (based on the Texas Constitution, not the US Constitution) because it places enforcement on the people. Outside of the Supreme Court statements, I can find nothing else about Federal court decisions on SB 8.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Do you have a link to the 5th District ruling?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Do you have a link to the 5th District ruling?

TheRedneck

I've only had headlines and articles about their rulings over the past months, I'll see if I can find one of the actual rulings.

It may also be included in the scotus ruling from scotus on friday, in that first 'history of the case' section.

a reply to: TheRedneck


On a slightly different subject...

Are you feeling as uncomfortable about friday's decision as I am?

I've NEVER had any reason to even consider ANY of the left's abortion arguments in my entire life, because they have been 100% in the wrong for my entire life, but will be awfully tempted to agree with some of their arguments if friday's scotus decision stands.

The TX law is thermo nuclear war on democrats, when only standing firm with personal defensive weapons was called for imo.

a reply to: TheRedneck


This is a pdf of their Oct 9 ruling.

www.ca5.uscourts.gov...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TheRedneck

Does this change what you came up with?

This is what SCOTUS issued yesterday on SB8. They allowed parts of it to stand.

I have read at least one analysis where this ruling is potential bad news for the fate Roe v. Wade. They left it as they did because of that ruling to come.

Thank you Ket!

I found that article very helpful.

Though I do have even more questions AFTER reading it.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Are you feeling as uncomfortable about friday's decision as I am?

Probably moreso.

TX SB 8 is just bad law. I'm as pro-life as anyone, but there is a point where things can go too far. I ran across one claim from an opinion piece that suggested just driving a friend to get an abortion opened someone up to a $10,000 fine. At the time I thought it was BS, but after reading the actual text I no longer think that. A person may be sued for "aiding and abetting" an abortion under SB 8, which would certainly fall under "aiding and abetting" without a specific definition (which I never saw in the text), and the minimum award from a liable verdict is $10,000.

I also saw in the text where someone sued under SB 8 cannot recover legal fees, even if they win the case,

That's just too far, IMO.

It appears that is why Judge Peeples ruled it as unconstitutional: the TX Constitution does not allow for an otherwise criminally legal act to be litigated in civil court. I'm still reading, but so far that is where I am.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

This is a pdf of their Oct 9 ruling.

Ah! Thank you! I know what the problem was!

That was in reference to the 2017-2018 Texas SB 8 bill, which redefined "partial birth" abortion more broadly. As you probably know, there have been several attempts to get around a ban on "partial birth" abortion, most of which literally kill a living child after labor has begun but before the head emerges. This way, the child is not considered as in the process of being born and thus the procedure has been defined as simply removing dead tissue.

TX SB 8 from the 2016-2017 session was originally declared unconstitutional by the US 5th District. Your link is the decision from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, where they overturned that decision and allowed that SB 8 bill to stand (a good decision IMO).

But that is not the Texas "Heartbeat" law. That is TX SB 8 from the 2020-2021 session! A completely different bill.

Here is the text of the 2017 bill against partial birth abortion, which was allowed to stand by the US 5th District Court of Appeals.

Here is the text of the 2021 SB 8 bill, which is the "Texas Heartbeat" bill being considered by the Supreme Court.

Judge David Peeples, a Texas State District Judge, ruled the "Texas Heartbeat" law unconstitutional according to the Texas Constitution on Thursday, December 9, 2021.

Now I have to catch up on what the US Supreme Court said about that bill, now that I understand where the confusion is coming from.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck


Thank you Red!

I anxiously await your analysis.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Well, that didn't take long!

According to the official website, the only decision rendered on the Texas Heartbeat law is the following (and i this case, since it so short, this excerpt is the complete decision):

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
------------
No. 21–588 (21A85)
------------
UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. TEXAS, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

[December 10, 2021]

PER CURIAM.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. The application to vacate stay presented to JUSTICE ALITO and by him referred to the Court is denied.
It is so ordered.

A writ of certiorari is an order by the court for a lower court to rule, so the ordering court may then consider the lower court's ruling... in non-legaleeze it is sorta like "hurry up and rule; we want to look at this ourselves." The Supreme Court denied that writ, meaning they have no interest in taking the case up again at this time. I am not sure, but it may have been denied due to the writ being directed toward a lower state court instead of a Federal court. That would be jumping several "levels," which could explain the use of "improperly granted."

I'm decent with law (old hotrodder; we either had to learn the law or spend a lot of time behind bars), but this is getting a little out of my comfort zone.

They also denied the application to vacate stay. That means they are not going to overturn a stay on the law (was this from Biden?), which I can only presume is the stay ordered by Judge David Peeples. That would mean the Texas Heartbeat law has been struck down as unconstitutional. It never made it to the Supreme Court.

I found no other references to the 2021 TX SB 8 law on supremecourt.gov.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck


I think the case in your except was the biden lawsuit - United states vs...

It was permanently dismissed as improvidently granted, which is supreme speak for I don't know who let you in, please gtfoh.

Most of this is still over my head as well.

Just hoping we can put the pieces together.

What do you think of this article?

The nerds at National Review appear to think that the 6 week ban is still in effect, or am I reading it wrong?


www.nationalreview.com...

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

I think the case in your except was the biden lawsuit - United states vs...

It was permanently dismissed as improvidently granted, which is supreme speak for I don't know who let you in, please gtfoh.

Yeah, that sounds right to me.

Nice turn of phrase explaining the meaning, btw!

The nerds at National Review appear to think that the 6 week ban is still in effect, or am I reading it wrong?

This is what keeps confusing me... the link about Peeple's decision I posted earlier says the exact opposite: the law was already struck down as unconstitutional based on the method of enforcement (which was apparently written in to try and thwart Roe v Wade). That article did say that abortion providers in Texas are on hold anyway, because they want to know what the Supreme Court says before taking the chance to operate again.

Maybe that's what National Review is upset about?

I did catch this little snippet in your link:

The Supreme Court first rejected a challenge to the Texas law in a 5–4 vote last September

That much I can check. So I went back to supremecourt.gov and searched for opinions in September 2021... none, court must have been in recess. September 2020... same. September 2019... same. All the way back to the 2017 docket, there were no opinions listed in the month of September.

Maybe I don't know how to search so goodly, or maybe they just made a small mistake on the month, but something about this case isn't adding up. Too many different stories contradicting each other. I'm honestly starting to wonder if this isn't some kind of disinformation campaign designed to stir up public sentiment. The 2021 TX SB 8 law is pretty bad... maybe someone is trying to get people to rise up in the 2022 elections? Stirring up anger? Wouldn't be the first time.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck


I think we're pretty much on the same page.

Will just have to wait for more clear information on the status of that TX 6 week law.



And thanks, I was particularly proud of how that one came out. Sometimes I surprise myself.