Guessing she will sue for breach of contract in 5… 4… 3…
had largely abandoned that posture by the time Hawley took the stand.
Blockquote
Small quibble here: Supreme Court litigators don’t “take the stand”; only witnesses testifying do.
Well, then, when the Democrats take over the whole Congress, which might even be before the November election, at the rate Republicans are resigning, they need to repeal the Comstock Act – the whole thing. If any parts are still worthwhile and are not covered by other laws, then pass a very limited replacement. Otherwise, repeal and done!
On a similar note, years before the Scotus voided Roe, the New Mexico legislature repealed the ancient laws prohibiting abortions, which had been mooted (is that right?) by Roe, due to the fear that a Republican administration might somehow get rid of it. So New Mexico has remained an oasis of women’s reproductive rights in a sea of intolerance.
Yes, she will, but she’ll have trouble ginning up any damages beyond the $300,000 contract fee, which NBC can pay out of pocket change.
NBC is under no obligation to put her on the air, but they probably do have to pay her so long as she’s still under contract. She might want to negotiate an exit that lets her go to a competitor, however.
In the 18th century, this man would be out picking cotton, living in a dank shack with a pit toilet out back, and watching his children being sold at auction. Ah, the good ol’ days at Uncle Clarence’s cabin.
“He (Thomas) started laying the groundwork for the next abortion challenge, signaling to mifepristone’s opponents that he’d be amenable to an argument against mailing the drug under the Comstock Act. It’s a 19th century anti-vice law that prohibits the mailing of abortifacients, dormant for decades until the anti-abortion movement’s recent efforts to revive it.”
Easy peasy to beat that one. Ship via UPS, FedEx, etc. That’s not mailing it. Fuck that bastard.
The case law is over a century old, but what largely hobbled Comstock was the principle that the defendant has to intend for the thing to be used illegally. And it’s fairly easy to CYA on that, even if you’re mailing abortion pills to an address in Texas.
Not to mention, the imaginary people who are harmed by current law; completely ignoring those who will actually be harmed by their fucking ideological bullshit.
I can’t fin a decent reference for this but will keep looking.
OT/This just in… she didn’t even last a demi-Scaramucci!
Great. Create another niche for drug trafficking. Worldwide cheap supply + high demand = profits.
Now they can cry censorship and liberal bias (not that they wouldn’t anyway). Much better to not step in shit in the first place then spend an hour trying to scrape it off your shoes.
Idiots.
Missouri has a law on the books that if a married woman is pregnant she can not get a divorce until after she delivers.
Mrs Gazebo informs me that Dan Rather has mentioned this also, so you keep good company.
Oooh, this could be fun.
What is this thing in the article about Alito “reverse engineering even doily-like arguments into his preferred outcome”? Was some word other than “doily” intended?
Alito, Gorsuch & Thomas will say FedEx, UPS and Amazon didn’t exist in 1798, so they will be forced out of business because deliveries of mail may only be done by USPS.
OT:
“Biden says he expects Congress to fully fund Baltimore bridge repair”
Speaker Johnson: “Hold my beer.”
The "Cancel Culture’ chorus has probably already begun and will continue for the foreseeable future.
It’s a good thing the House isn’t in session, lest there be a revocation of their airwave permissions… (LOL)…