Liberals Now Like Texas Anti-Abortion Law Tactic?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Liberals have been circumventing the constitution for a looong time. Ridiculous for them to be all self righteous about the constitution now. The supreme court has sided with conservatives when it comes to roe v wade. Overturning roe v wade has nothing to do with the bill of rights like so called liberals want to dismantle. I guess I'm glad I finally left California for reasons like this. We'll probably see an exodus of actual freedom loving Americans from places like California and those states will be left to rot under extreme leftist governments.

"Freedom loving?"

And isn't the greatest freedom of all the freedom to tell other people what they must and mustn't do?

 

[F1fan]

Abortion isn't necessary for the economy.
It's a civil rights issue...bodily autonomy.

BTW, there's far more economic activity
generated by a baby (than by an aborted fetus).
Those things are really costly for at least 18 years!

If Texas has its way then there will be fewer women in the workforce with babies they can't afford to take care of, which means more aid from the state, which will need to taxes from workers, which won't be there....

I don't see how poor women being forced to give birth will help in the big picture. If you add more consumers with fewer workers the products have to be paid for some how.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Hah!
I knew it.
The left knows no ethics or rule of law.
Any tactic, no matter how wrong, is fair game.

There....I feel better now.

But isn't that what the right is doing in Texas (and SCOTUS)?

 

[F1fan]

That is bizarre. And as much as I'm fine with restricting access to guns in various ways, it's silly that Newsom would model our law on this weird, likely unconstitutional one in TX. Comes across as more of a "**** you" than a well thought-out policy.

I suspect the Newsom tactic is more illustrative than serious.

 

[Revoltingest]

If Texas has its way then there will be fewer women in the workforce with babies they can't afford to take care of, which means more aid from the state, which will need to taxes from workers, which won't be there....

I don't see how poor women being forced to give birth will help in the big picture. If you add more consumers with fewer workers the products have to be paid for some how.

It's a Bible thing for them....not about practicality of outcome.

 

[Revoltingest]

But isn't that what the right is doing in Texas (and SCOTUS)?

Exactly!
Tis as though the Dems & Pubs are in a race to the bottom.
All justified by pointing to the other's sins.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Liberals have been circumventing the constitution for a looong time. Ridiculous for them to be all self righteous about the constitution now. The supreme court has sided with conservatives when it comes to roe v wade. Overturning roe v wade has nothing to do with the bill of rights like so called liberals want to dismantle. I guess I'm glad I finally left California for reasons like this. We'll probably see an exodus of actual freedom loving Americans from places like California and those states will be left to rot under extreme leftist governments.

Those freedom-loving Americans in California who want their assault weapons vs those freedom-loving Americans in Texas who want freedom over their ability to make medical decisions?

I am not opposed to leaving things open to litigation as long as it is fairly done and with evidence of how it impacts the person persecuting. For instance, a person suing a person for making a medical decision that impacts only them vs. a person suing someone who shot up loved ones or property: which one has the bigger impact on personal freedom?

 

[Revoltingest]

For instance, a person suing a person for making a medical decision that impacts only them vs. a person suing someone who shot up loved ones or property: which one has the bigger impact on personal freedom?

But you're OK with someone suing me (with impunity)
simply because I own a gun not used in any wrongful way?
That's what's being proposed.

 

[sun rise]

Hah!
I knew it.
The left knows no ethics or rule of law.
Any tactic, no matter how wrong, is fair game.

There....I feel better now.

The right will stop at nothing. SCOTUS is now the rule of people not the rule of law. We have the law of the jungle.

When the right does this, to not respond is to lose

 

[sun rise]

But you're OK with someone suing me (with impunity)
simply because I own a gun not used in any wrongful way?
That's what's being proposed.

I'm not OK with the tactic but that's the way the USA is 12/2021.

 

[Revoltingest]

The right will stop at nothing. SCOTUS is now the rule of people not the rule of law. We have the law of the jungle.

When the right does this, to not respond is to lose

Well, at least you're becoming a gun nut.
That's progress (in CA).

 

[Quetzal]

Texas seeks to circumvent constitutional law (SCOTUS ruling).
Californiastan notices, & thinks....
"Great idea!"
"That damnable Constitution is so inconvenient."
In response to Texas abortion ban, Newsom calls for similar restrictions on assault weapons
Excerpted...
The Texas Heartbeat Act, also known as Senate Bill 8, declares that it is illegal to perform an abortion after about six weeks of a pregnancy but gives the state no direct role in enforcing that ban. Instead, it authorizes private lawsuits in state courts against doctors or clinic owners who violate its provisions.

The new California anti-gun effort, Newsom said, would function the same way. Newsom said he was directing his staff to work with the state Legislature and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta on a new law that would allow private citizens to sue manufacturers or distributors of assault weapons as well as ghost gun kits or parts.

"If the most efficient way to keep these devastating weapons off our streets is to add the threat of private lawsuits, we should do just that," Newsom said in the statement.

The governor's pledge to pass a law restricting assault weapons through private litigation is exactly the kind of legal gambit that constitutional scholars have predicted since the Supreme Court majority declined to block the Texas abortion law, said Khiara M. Bridges, a professor at UC Berkeley School of Law.

"Gov. Newsom is following through on the threat," Bridges said. "It’s just been academic up until now."

Ughhh... they are both wrong (Texas and California).

 

[sun rise]

I suspect the Newsom tactic is more illustrative than serious.

I hope not. CA needs to follow up with action unless SCOTUS gets the message fast.

 

[Quetzal]

But you're OK with someone suing me (with impunity)

I hope so, I have a theory that you have vast riches buried under your shack. I want in on that.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

But you're OK with someone suing me (with impunity)
simply because I own a gun not used in any wrongful way?
That's what's being proposed.

No. I was giving an example of how the two concepts might be different to a court. Both laws unfortunately appear to be offering litigation based on things that could happen but haven't yet, and if we litigate according to the things that could happen, it would make more sense that personal freedom is more impacted by someone else's choices with a weapon than by personal medical choices.

That's clear as mud, isn't it?

 

[Revoltingest]

I hope so, I have a theory that you have vast riches buried under your shack. I want in on that.

Shhhhhh!
Cops might be watching.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. I was giving an example of how the two concepts might be different to a court. Both laws unfortunately appear to be offering litigation based on things that could happen but haven't yet, and if we litigate according to the things that could happen, it would make more sense that personal freedom is more impacted by someone else's choices with a weapon than by personal medical choices.

That's clear as mud, isn't it?

Both laws attempt to ban things.
Abortion.
Gun ownership
(Mis-using guns isn't the point in CA.)

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Both laws attempt to ban things.
Abortion.
Gun ownership
(Mis-using guns isn't the point in CA.)

Sure, and I am against banning both those things.

 

[Lain]

Texas seeks to circumvent constitutional law (SCOTUS ruling).
Californiastan notices, & thinks....
"Great idea!"
"That damnable Constitution is so inconvenient."
In response to Texas abortion ban, Newsom calls for similar restrictions on assault weapons
Excerpted...
The Texas Heartbeat Act, also known as Senate Bill 8, declares that it is illegal to perform an abortion after about six weeks of a pregnancy but gives the state no direct role in enforcing that ban. Instead, it authorizes private lawsuits in state courts against doctors or clinic owners who violate its provisions.

The new California anti-gun effort, Newsom said, would function the same way. Newsom said he was directing his staff to work with the state Legislature and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta on a new law that would allow private citizens to sue manufacturers or distributors of assault weapons as well as ghost gun kits or parts.

"If the most efficient way to keep these devastating weapons off our streets is to add the threat of private lawsuits, we should do just that," Newsom said in the statement.

The governor's pledge to pass a law restricting assault weapons through private litigation is exactly the kind of legal gambit that constitutional scholars have predicted since the Supreme Court majority declined to block the Texas abortion law, said Khiara M. Bridges, a professor at UC Berkeley School of Law.

"Gov. Newsom is following through on the threat," Bridges said. "It’s just been academic up until now."

Seems like a normal thing to do to me. Any time you see any power gained in this nation (and I would suppose it to be true of all nations) expect it to become normal. The Constitution is updated at every power gain, this is just how it works.

 

[Valjean]

Is The Constitution our new Bible, now? Are we going to have a new series of religious wars based on interpretations and minute nuances?

I'd prefer placing the social or ecological consequences of a law above its correspondence with nuances of18th century legal documents.