Discussion for article #228823
Enjoy, Texas. Those of you vote for him, deserve it. To those who vote for Wendy Davis, my condolences.
7 Likes
"Abbott wrote that as long as it’s rational to believe that a law will further the state’s interests, it does not matter if it actually does. "
Has to be one of the finest examples of circular logic and doublethink I’ve seen in the past year or so.
Hey, TX, you fucking imbeciles, here’s a giant fucking hint:
Believing that X benefits the state and society when all evidence shows that it actually doesn’t is, by definition, IRRATIONAL.
16 Likes
Texas shouldn’t secede from the Union. It should be evicted.
16 Likes
Wow, really? is that a coherent legal theory? Lawyers, weigh in here please.
To me, that makes no sense at all.
3 Likes
That’s uh, actually repeatedly been upheld by various justices on the SCOTUS. I don’t care for it, but Abbott’s not out in left-field here, legally; you basically have to be spouting gibberish before you cannot defend something on rational-basis review, assuming that that is the correct standard for the case.
Many of the same-sex marriage cases have hinged upon arguing a heightened scrutiny is involved, at which point that is no longer a suitable defense.
3 Likes
As a Texan, I agree with you completely. I despair for our state.
2 Likes
Is it wrong of me to have an impulse to push his wheelchair off a cliff?
7 Likes
Okay then. Still seems nonsensical to me. Because I think laws actually should have some basis in real world actions. Call me crazy.
Saying, “we believe this will work, even though we know it actually doesn’t” is fucking insane.
1 Like
Not really. I’ve met him, and he’s charming in person, but I still want to slap him.
3 Likes
If the goal is to prevent out of wedlock children, Texas should be expanding access to womens’ health services, which means expanding Medicaid under Obamacare, as well as NOT passing laws that close clinics that serve women.
10 Likes
A same-sex marriage ban would encourage straight couples to have more kids? And discourage unmarried straight couples from having kids out of wedlock?
That makes absolutely no sense to me.
10 Likes
He said that the same-sex marriage ban furthers the state’s interest in encouraging couples of the opposite sex to have children.
Really?
Do straight couples really decide on whether they bang each other and procreate by what gay people do?
Wow.
“Hey honey, let’s screw.”
“Not tonight dear, Steve and Bob down the street are happily married, and so I’ve lost interest in having sex and children with you.”
19 Likes
The principle is something to the effect of “the Constitution does not stop a legislature from passing stupid laws.”
The legal counterargument has therefore been, “this is more than stupid, this is depriving a less powerful minority of essential rights”, pushing it up to a higher level of scrutiny. Once you get to the higher levels of scrutiny, you have to start being able to back up your assertions.
3 Likes
His argument is based on sheer bigotry. Nothing in his conclusion has any basis in fact or can be backed by any empirical evidence. Ergo, he makes his beliefs the basis for his argument. His personal beliefs are not a viable reason to sustain this ban. If he wasn’t such a mental midget he would already know this.
7 Likes
The reason Abbott is in that wheelchair is not that oak tree that fell on him, it’s his lifelong preferred position on all social and political matters…very hard on the spine and thought process:
2 Likes
I think it fell on his fucking head.
Edit: Or…your conclusion works just as well.
1 Like
I am not a f^cking imbecile Sniffy.
I’m sometimes slow on the uptake, but hey-- guess what?!
I AM surrounded by f^cking imbeciles.
So. There is that.
jw1
7 Likes
TEA/Fundy conservatism is all about feelings. Screw logic, scoff at logic, as long as their boy can imitate that Reagan glow that is all that matters.
Abbott’s “theory” has been rejected by federal courts over and over and over again.
1 Like