Ya, I want the companies that are building relationships in the community with their customers and employees into the future to succeed, and not ones that are merely working on a quarterly basis.
The Daily covered the California governor recall situation this morning. That whole things is fascinating to me, from the fact that it even exists, to the idea that it could lead to an unelected Republican governor selecting a California senator. Wild.
Can someone explain to me if my understanding of the Texas abortion ban law is accurate? Because I keep looking at it and seeing the same crazy shit. A person in Texas can sue a doctor if they think they're performing illegal abortions (Standing?) and then collect a $10,000 reward and their lawyer's fees paid? Meanwhile, a doctor who is sued and wins does not get their lawyer's fees paid? A six weeks limit on the procedure (Which effectively bans it and good luck finding a doctor anyway for fear of some random lawsuit from a "concerned citizen".) and no consideration for rape or incest? How is this law standing up to legal scrutiny on a whole host of levels?
These debate points that get ignored are about to get very relevant for normal Americans now that it will be lucrative to turn in women who miscarry.
There's something extremely insidious about monetizing divisiveness. Set feelings on abortion aside. If this stands it's going to get very, very ugly and it will spread. The idea of creating a country of bounty hunters to end things with which we do not agree is chilling.
I keep hearing about "cancel culture" and taking of rights by leftists, but what I see are this Texas law where one can sue someone for performing an act protected by the Supreme Court for 5 decades even if their act affects you none, teachers losing their jobs over CRT freakout laws, voting laws passed in numerous states to restrict voting based upon mythical and unproven "voter fraud", the ranking GOP House member threatening telecommunications companies with retribution when they return to power for following a subpoena, and so on. Actual laws and actions affecting people. Am I still supposed to fear antifa or BLM?
Because the court is a majority of people who are quite happy to have Roe gutted without them being the ones reversing it. It's under Texas civil law and it's actually a fairly ingenious plan to avoid federal issues. It makes the people the providers deal with being private citizens, then provides all sorts of advantages to those private citizens and none to providers, further abetted by a cut off date of six weeks which almost guarantees to catch up 90% of potential abortions. I still don't know how they can get away with the issue of standing, but I bet we'll see similar laws dividing red states vs. blue states in the near future with this Texas law being the blueprint. The specter of citizens encouraged to spy and snitch on each other as an actual law is one of the most sinister things I've seen from a legislature in quite some time. I can't imagine the shit show which is about to occur. I suppose they are counting on this shit show to completely wipe away any clinics in short order. I do wonder if this can be applied to other guaranteed rights, too. Could New York pass a law allowing citizens to sue gun manufacturers in a similar manner? This article does a pretty good job of explaining the legalese. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/08/texas-abortion-supreme-court-roe-wade.html
some are planning on burying pro choice people in claims because there is no downside to being wrong.
The only thing I can see is legal fees if they lose cases. All you need, though, is a couple of like minded benefactors and you can go to town.
From what I’ve read/listened to, the silence is procedural, rather than ruling for or against the particular law. In other words, it will be brought to them to rule on it at some point, but that time has not come yet. I feel like I have a good understanding, based on what I’ve read, of why that is, but I don’t know that I can necessarily put it into words on here effectively. Basically, once someone actually sues someone for participating in an abortion, it will be able to begin the process to make it to the supreme court.
If you hate freedom and the first amendment, yes it looks like not bad move. Hope you never have a dissenting opinion.
Fully expect Dem states to do this exact same thing, but with guns. And then it will be viewed as “ok,” even though the 2nd amendment is significantly less shaky than Roe. I don’t like the idea of citizens being the ones who can sue, but I can also see how some pro-life people might say that if it wasn’t for the Supreme Court legislating when they shouldn’t have been, via Roe, we wouldn’t be at this point. I like the idea of limitations on abortion. I think we all need to find a way to agree on when a fetus becomes a human, and use that as the cut off. I don’t know that I agree that the 6 week period is the right cut off.
It won't be viewed as "ok," it will be viewed as it is, "if one, then the other," or put more simply, "all or none." The problem with the "guns" belief is that a state that is likely to implement something such as this would be low impact, since they're already probably pretty heavy handed on guns in general. It's not like a state with a large population of concealed carry is going to be in favor of drafting legislation that says the common citizen can sue a concealed carry permit holder for illegal carrying. And it isn't illegal to own a gun, so... what's the lawsuit? It would really only affect transport, which is just hunters.
Guy in front of me at the drive thru has a jacked up Jeep with a bunch of stickers, which if I recall correctly, IP says makes him a poor tipper, anyway... one of his stickers is "Birds aren't real." Which apparently is a conspiracy theory around birds and drones. But I'm not sure if this is one of those real things, or tongue in cheek things.
I had a co-worker that used to joke about not believing in birds. He was the most dead panned guy I ever met. Would just confuse people when messing with them.
