APP - What if Texas just ignores the Supreme Court?

C

canceled.2021.3

Former Vice President
What can the Supreme Court do? Nothing right? The Supreme Court has no means to enforce any of its rulings.

The recent abortion ruling was as bogus as it gets for a number of reasons. The plaintiffs did not prove that it would be a burden. Abortion is a surgical procedure, so how did putting safeguards into the process all of a sudden be "anti abortion"? It is like saying regulations on dentists are "anti dentist".

Additionally, the pro baby killing left love to tell us that Planned Parenthood provides "vital health services". Well, why don't they want them treated like any other entity providing health services? Are baby killing clinics allowed to operate above the law? Are we to have more Kermit Gosnell's?

And what is most interesting about the decision was this passage by Stephen Breyer addressing the Kermit Gosenell's of the world

Gosnell’s behavior was terribly wrong. But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations.

So it sounds like Breyer is making an argument against gun control
 
The burdon was on the provider not the girl and they are allowing planned murderhood to ignore risk because it costs a little more.
 
interesting, to say the least, that the pro choice folks found these regulations intolerable as it restricted access to services for a 'right', but see no issue with other regulations that would restrict the right to keep and bear arms.........

things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm
 
It's a big stretch really, the sticking point is requiring the provider to have admitting rights (in case they muck something up and have to escalate care RIGHT NOW before the patient bleeds out.
Does nothing to require more from the girl.
The entire objection was based on the clinic having its providers get this privilege.
But roe v wade was a terrible decolision too. They just can't see clearly on this subject.
 
Celticguy said:
It's a big stretch really, the sticking point is requiring the provider to have admitting rights (in case they muck something up and have to escalate care RIGHT NOW before the patient bleeds out.
Does nothing to require more from the girl.
The entire objection was based on the clinic having its providers get this privilege.
But roe v wade was a terrible decolision too. They just can't see clearly on this subject.
Click to expand...

Exactly, this did nothing to burden the woman wanting to murder her baby. Physicians get admitting privileges all the time. There is nothing onerous at all about it. But maybe the left really wants more Kermit Gosnell's?

:dunno:

I think even the lefties know this decision was weak, because they aren't crowing that much about it. Of course it could be that they are so consumed with BREXIT?
 
islam stinks said:
Exactly, this did nothing to burden the woman wanting to murder her baby. Physicians get admitting privileges all the time. There is nothing onerous at all about it. But maybe the left really wants more Kermit Gosnell's?

:dunno:

I think even the lefties know this decision was weak, because they aren't crowing that much about it. Of course it could be that they are so consumed with BREXIT?
Click to expand...

It's not onerous but it is not just there for the asking either. This is where the patient safety comes in. Docs have to maintain certifications and the hospital will want some business out of the relationship. If all these guys do is run the shop vac on euteri then that will be hard to do. Why ? These guys do little or no other doctoring. It's easy money for them and that's why they took the gig.

When you think about it, why would a girl accept that risk ? But all they really want is to get back to copulatable and they don't care how.
 
IF Texas ignored the ruling the President would have to send in the National Guard to keep the clinics open and escort women in and out.
 
Jarod said:
The authority Johnson used when he did it, look it up.
Click to expand...

What authority was that? You brought it up, please elaborate

What about this

Sec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
 
islam stinks said:
What authority was that? You brought it up, please elaborate

What about this

Sec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Click to expand...

The national guard is not exactly the army.
It is more common that the governors direct their actions but not unheard of.
That said, not sure how they could "enforce" this. For LBJ it was crowd control for a march. Some guy in a uniform can't make someone do something they don't want to do (break the law).
 
Interesting question....

“The decision of the Supreme court has fell still born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.”
―Andrew Jackson
Read more at http://izquotes.com/quote/239910

My guess is the obama admin would do nothing radical (troops etc)..

WHAT WOULD A trump ADMIN DO ABOUT INSUBORDINATION???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top