Both deplorable and appalling.
11 Likes
Holy shit! How hard is this. If a pregnant woman wants an abortion, it"s her business, not the business of legislatures or courts. It’s her business and her decision! I love how the born again assholes are all for fetuses, but could give a shit less for the baby after it’s out of the chute. Once again, it’s nobody’s business, and it’s the woman’s decision!
19 Likes
It’s more feature than bug of the modern rightwing American Gileadans.
It’s not real Power if you can’t make somebody suffer arbitrarily.
And it’s the first brick of the wall they are looking to dismantle.
13 Likes
I am so eff’ing mad at Republicans over this. They have this idea that all women are hussies and need to be controlled. They want control. They do not care about the life of the mother. To not care for the life of the mother is to also not care about children and babies. They would rather a pregnant women die and leave children without a parent.
23 Likes
The foundation of that corrupt two-bit intellect Alito’s beliefs is that women are not human, particularly if they are pregnant. There’s a lot of garbage religion that gets mixed in but basically it’s misogyny - a pure unadulterated hatred of women.
20 Likes
* 
6 Likes
If it’s a patient under a doctor’s care and died because treatment was withheld, the doctor could plausibly be charged with negligent homicide.
21 Likes
From the Christian point of view, Christ bled out on the cross, on His way to Eternity at God’s right hand. Why shouldn’t women bleed out, too? It’s not, in the end, about life in this world, but the place they will earn in Heaven.
Note: No one with beliefs like this should hold any position in the judiciary. These people are not sane.
13 Likes
At the back of these redneck SCOTUS’ minds is: how can we help Trump here? or, How can we minimize the damage to Trump?
ACB made it a point at a speech to deny being a political hack. She’s smart enough to contort her self-logic into not believing it. But the fact that she spent any time at all thinking about it, much less denying it, makes it highly likely that she is indeed a political hack.
The view of SCOTUS justices putting the law paramount, using all their spare time to study the law and history, is, of course, shattered when we think about these hacks. It’s a mess and high time people who go that route promise not to accept any favors and live an ascetic life devoted to the law.
11 Likes
Excellent writing from Kate Riga - the righteous anger comes through.
But her emails.
21 Likes
If withholding treatment to save life, seems that is straight “homocide”.
You’re the lawyer, but colloquially, “Negligent” seems off… as withholding treatment is an active choice.
If a Doctor refused to defib someone, is that negligence?
4 Likes
Manslaughter is killing someone without malice aforethought or in the course of committing an unlawful act. A decision to withhold treatment under the mistaken belief that they were not yet dying is negligent, not deliberate and not unlawful.
14 Likes
Question about your last line about negligent…not unlawful. In the previous post by @jonney_5 your quote allows for negligent homicide. Are you referring to two different standards in those quotes?
1 Like
It continues to astonish me that we have allowed the determination of the outlines, approaches, and applications of care to be mandated by a douchenozzle in a black robe with the same comprehension of health care as a baby vole. And yet here we are.
Justices - even the non-evil, non-insane ones - are quite ill placed to be making determinations of critical care. Or frankly any medical care.
13 Likes
Texas already proved what happens when states “allow” exceptions. They set women up to be literally judged, by a judge, to reapply for the abortion-lottery: where the prize is limited sovereignty over their own internal organs.
15 Likes
Scalia thought he knew more about evolution than evolutionary scientists and could never get at the difference between the study of the origin of life and evolution and confused the two.
Scalia’s opinion, joined only by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, drew a pained response from the Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould. “I regret to say that Justice Scalia does not understand the subject matter of evolutionary biology,” Gould wrote in a natural-history journal. “We are not blessed with absolute certainty about any fact of nature, but evolution is as well confirmed as anything we know.” Scalia, a conservative Catholic, defined evolution, like the creation story in Genesis, as a means to discover “the origin of life.” But scientists don’t try to reach that ultimate answer, Gould wrote. “We know that we can’t, and we do not even consider such a question as part of science.”
A skeptic about science who no doubt owned a telephone, drove a car and flew in airplanes.
25 Likes
Negligent homicide = Not intending to get anyone killed, but acting so negligently/recklessly that someone gets killed anyway.
Voluntary manslaughter = Intending to get someone kill, but only forming that intent in the moment.
Involuntary manslaughter = Getting someone killed unintentionally in the course of committing some other unlawful act.
16 Likes
After Dobbs, conservatives be like the dog who caught the car. Now what? And they haven’t got a clue. They thought pro-choice advocates were all sluts and that this would be easy. They had no idea the kind of hell they unleashed. This will cost them.
11 Likes
It has nothing to do with the law. They are twisting the law to conform to their personal beliefs.
14 Likes
“You have been presented here today with very quick summaries of cases and asked to provide a snap judgment about what would be appropriate,” he said.
Welcome to emergency medicine, Trolito
None of this “expedited” means briefs are due in seven days, then a hearing the week after, then a decision when i feel like it, nonsense. Emergency rooms need to make decisions in a hurry, with incomplete knowledge, based on the odds of the situation worsening.
34 Likes