Federal Judge Blocks Mississippi Abortion Law

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/24/politics/mississippi-abortion-law-federal-judge/index.html

Washington (CNN)A federal judge blocked a Mississippi law on Friday that forbids abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

In issuing a preliminary injunction, Judge Carlton Reeves said the law "threatens immediate harm to women's rights, especially considering most women do not seek abortions services until after six weeks."
"Allowing the law to take effect would force the clinic to stop providing most abortion care," wrote Reeves, adding that "by banning abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, the law prevents a woman's free choice, which is central to personal dignity and autonomy."
The law was set to take effect in July.

And so the legal challenges begin... with predictable results.

Thoughts?
 

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,654
12,107
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,977.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I think it has a ways to go before being ruled on by a pro-life leaning SCOTUS.

True -- but doesn't that mean that if the lower courts continue to rule against the Abortion ban, you're rooting for judicial activism by SCOTUS?
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,654
12,107
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,977.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
True -- but doesn't that mean that if the lower courts continue to rule against the Abortion ban, you're rooting for judicial activism by SCOTUS?

Judicial activism? LOL :)
When Roe VS. Wade was upheld by them, it was referred to as "The law of the land". If they strike it down, you call it "judicial activism". You'd better decide if the SCOTUS is the entity you really want to worship as the decider of morality before this case gets to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Acts2:38
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Judicial activism? LOL :)
When Roe VS. Wade was upheld by them, it was referred to as "The law of the land". If they strike it down, you call it "judicial activism". You'd better decide if the SCOTUS is the entity you really want to worship as the decider of morality before this case gets to them.

This isn't about Roe v Wade... it's about all the lower courts ruling one way, and your hopes that a pro-life leaning SCOTUS will rule the other way because... reasons?
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,654
12,107
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,977.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
This isn't about Roe v Wade... it's about all the lower courts ruling one way, and your hopes that a pro-life leaning SCOTUS will rule the other way because... reasons?

We don't yet know if it will be ALL the lower courts ruling one way. Even all these different states voting for these anti-abortion measures have a process to go through before their governor signs the measures into law, so it's certainly not clear that all the lower courts leading up to the SCOTUS will vote a certain way. All we know now is that one federal judge has blocked one state's law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Acts2:38
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
This isn't about Roe v Wade... it's about all the lower courts ruling one way, and your hopes that a pro-life leaning SCOTUS will rule the other way because... reasons?

But but but.. that was the only reason they elected Trump. To get pro-life activist judges on SCOTUS to overturn Roe. All of their eggs are in that basket.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
We don't yet know if it will be ALL the lower courts ruling one way. Even all these different states

Right now we're talking about this case, this court, and the Mississippi law. It's been blocked.


voting for these anti-abortion measures have a process to go through before their governor signs the measures into law, so it's certainly not clear that all the lower courts leading up to the SCOTUS will vote a certain way.

That doesn't follow. Every law goes through the same process... and having them get laughed out of one court after another (especially when they have a transparent political agenda that disregards, you know, the law) is hardly an uncommon phenomenon.

All we know now is that one federal judge has blocked one state's law.

We also know that the pro-birth crowd will appeal, but they're going to have to show some sort of legal error on the part of the previous judge.

Care to speculate on what that legal error may be?
 
Upvote 0

Nithavela

our world is happy and mundane
Apr 14, 2007
27,997
19,443
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟489,034.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,390
11,318
✟433,509.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/24/politics/mississippi-abortion-law-federal-judge/index.html



And so the legal challenges begin... with predictable results.

Thoughts?

This is pretty much what everyone expected I think....

Which points to a considerable flaw in our legislative process. When politicians are writing and passing laws they know won't stand....I think they should be removed from office. They're wasting time, effort, and taxpayer money just so they can do some grandstanding for their constituents.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
This is pretty much what everyone expected I think....

Which points to a considerable flaw in our legislative process. When politicians are writing and passing laws they know won't stand....I think they should be removed from office. They're wasting time, effort, and taxpayer money just so they can do some grandstanding for their constituents.

That might be a tad excessive. Consider: An ordinary citizen can perform an act of civil disobedience -- breaking a law they feel is unjust in order to draw attention to the injustice of the law itself. This is simply the legislative version of that: writing a law that they know will run afoul of a higher law for the exact same purpose.

That said, knowing that those who commit civil disobedience accept the consequences of their actions, I too think that politicians to engage in these act should be ousted... by the voters. If one were to write a law removing them from office, I doubt such a law would pass Constitutional muster (let the irony of that sink in).

Besides, if we removed every politician who wasted time and money to grandstand for their constituents, the US would fall into anarchy in short order... which, granted, may be an improvement (let the irony of that sink in...).
 
Upvote 0

Desk trauma

Front row at the dumpster fire of the republic
Supporter
Dec 1, 2011
20,193
16,172
✟1,173,411.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
That said, knowing that those who commit civil disobedience accept the consequences of their actions, I too think that politicians to engage in these act should be ousted... by the voters.
I would add to that, they should also cover the lawyer fees and court costs their laws incur.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I would add to that, they should also cover the lawyer fees and court costs their laws incur.

Impractical... they'd just be paying with our tax money anyway.

Besides, who exactly would pay? The legislator who introduced the bill, the other legislators who voted for it, the executive who signed it into law.... who? They're all equally responsible, aren't they?
 
Upvote 0

Desk trauma

Front row at the dumpster fire of the republic
Supporter
Dec 1, 2011
20,193
16,172
✟1,173,411.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Impractical... they'd just be paying with our tax money anyway.

I am not familiar with how much Alabama pays their state legislators but if it’s anything like my state the majority of their income is from sources as their pay is equivalent to a part job.

Besides, who exactly would pay? The legislator who introduced the bill, the other legislators who voted for it, the executive who signed it into law.... who? They're all equally responsible, aren't they?

Yes, and they should all have an equal bill sent to them for passing blatantly unconstitutional legislation that will only create legal bills and be laughed out of court.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,654
12,107
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,977.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Right now we're talking about this case, this court, and the Mississippi law. It's been blocked.

Until it gets appealed.

That doesn't follow. Every law goes through the same process... and having them get laughed out of one court after another (especially when they have a transparent political agenda that disregards, you know, the law) is hardly an uncommon phenomenon.

What does getting laughed out of one court after another have to do with this case? It's only been blocked by a single judge in a single court so far. Remember, "we're talking about this case, this court, and the Mississippi law. It's been blocked." I'm simply pointing out that appeals are ahead, so this isn't the end of the story.

We also know that the pro-birth crowd will appeal, but they're going to have to show some sort of legal error on the part of the previous judge.

Care to speculate on what that legal error may be?

I'll let the lawyers worry about that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Until it gets appealed.

Unless it gets successfully appealed, you mean...

That's going to require showing a legal error on the part of the first judge.

What does getting laughed out of one court after another have to do with this case? It's only been blocked by a single judge in a single court so far. Remember, "we're talking about this case, this court, and the Mississippi law. It's been blocked." I'm simply pointing out that appeals are ahead, so this isn't the end of the story.

Agreed... but you seemed to imply that the fact that this was voted on by the Mississippi legislature somehow made it special.

It's not, of course. And whether its appeal is granted or denied, it will never be special.

I'll let the lawyers worry about that.

Fair enough.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,654
12,107
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,977.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Unless it gets successfully appealed, you mean...

That's going to require showing a legal error on the part of the first judge.

Yes, successfully. However, there have been plenty of cases where appeals win and lose for both sides several times as it goes through the process before it gets to the SCOTUS, and we know which way the SCOTUS leans at this time.

Agreed... but you seemed to imply that the fact that this was voted on by the Mississippi legislature somehow made it special.

It's not, of course. And whether its appeal is granted or denied, it will never be special.

I never implied anything about it being special, but rather that it had made it through the legislative process, which indicates that the majority were in favor of it. The idea that the majority of legislators in this case are in favor of it, while the majority of judges will be against it is not likely.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Yes, successfully. However, there have been plenty of cases where appeals win and lose for both sides several times as it goes through the process before it gets to the SCOTUS, and we know which way the SCOTUS leans at this time.


I would hope it leans on the side of law, Constitution, and legal precedent... and not on the side of political activism.

We have two new SCOTUS justices since the last time: Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

Gorsuch: 'I would have walked out the door' if asked to overturn Roe v. Wade - CNNPolitics

Kavanaugh is a different matter, but Roberts is turning out to be a bit of a wild card...

Worst case scenario -- people have one more reason to leave Mississippi... but personally, I don't think it'll come to that.

Just a hunch.

I never implied anything about it being special, but rather that it had made it through the legislative process, which indicates that the majority were in favor of it. The idea that the majority of legislators in this case are in favor of it, while the majority of judges will be against it is not likely.

The majority of legislators are in favor of every law... that's how they become laws in the first place... don't you think?

And yet, laws do get overturned... in spite of a majority of legislators supporting it.

Your point?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,654
12,107
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,977.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I would hope it leans on the side of law, Constitution, and legal precedent... and not on the side of political activism.

The law forbids taking a life without just cause.
The Constitution is the basis of law
Legal precedent does not dictate future laws. It's only a guideline.

The majority of legislators are in favor of every law... that's how they become laws in the first place... don't you think?

And yet, laws do get overturned... in spite of a majority of legislators supporting it.

Your point?

Which is why going to courts to overturn those laws is not a slam-dunk.
 
Upvote 0