Nah, you’re only responsible for your own statements, not their inactivity.
What the hell are you even talking about?
I fail to see why that statement raised your hackles. The court could have predicted pretty easily that this would be a burden on women and their families if it went into effect, so I think they should have put a stay on it with the stipulation that they would take it up if someone could explain to the court how the vigilante lawsuits would work. IOW, “I don’t understand how it works, so you can’t do it until you can explain it” makes a lot more sense than “I don’t understand how it works, so go ahead even though we can see that it will fuck over a lot of people in the meantime.”
It seems you have no idea how appellate courts work. They don’t just use whatever case happens to come before them to dispense summary justice however they see fit. Suffice to say that what you are hypothesizing is not possible.
Seems you’re not really addressing what he is saying.
- Federal district court enjoins SB8 enforcement.
- Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacates district court’s order.
- U.S. Supreme Court declines to reinstate injunction, remands to Fifth Circuit for further consideration on narrow question whether certain state officials can be enjoined.
- Fifth Circuit punts certified question to Supreme Court of Texas.
- Supreme Court of Texas sua sponte ignores the certified question, annoints itself with original jurisdiction, issues stay on matters that are in no way actually before it, and orders briefing on whether vigilante standing is a thing.
Item no. 5 is not the way things work,
A stay is not summary justice because it isn’t a final decision - it’s a chance to get more information, which would be appropriate when there are serious questions about how a legal mechanism would work and given that letting it proceed would predictably have severe consequences for, I believe the legal term is, a shitload of people. Also,I was under the impression that a court could rule on well established precedent (eg, plaintiff standing) even if that particular issue was not raised in the filing, but I could be wrong about that.
My man, get this through your head: That ain’t something SCOTX can do on a certified question from the Fifth Circuit. Really. It cannot do the the thing you are complaining about it not having done.
1 Like
I will certainly admit to having missed something. I was referring to the SCOTUS ruling, not SCOTX.
1 Like
And I was talking about a test case in state court, which would ultimately be appealed to SCOTX.
2 Likes
Just a couple of points. According to Google"s FBI data,from 2009 to 2020, 1,363 people were killed in "mass shootings in the US. During 2020 and 2021, 4,580 were murdered in 5 Democrat controlled cities (Detroit, Baltimore, Los Angeles, New York , and Chicago). Now any murder is one too many, but when a “mass shooting” occurs, one would think that everywhere else in the country is in a “Leave it to Beaver” episode.
Why doesn’t the mainstream media report the daily body count (a’la Vietnam), of cities like those above, Since most of these deaths are drug related and black-on-black violence, you would think this was big news It seems to be just swept under the rug, because the politicians in cities like these don’t want to put pressure on their drug related constituents, since they make campaign gifts.
I know I’ll be called a racist over this post, but it seems to me that Democrat controlled cities like these are the best example available of institutionalized and structural racism. Sad!
Can’t wait to see what’s in the Greenberg grill burgers…
Some historian on MSNBC said this replacement theory is not new. Mussolini pushed it in the early 30s. Then it was the Jews and Africans replacing white Christian Europeans. Later, Nazis picked it up. The Frechman Camus (not the writer Camus) resurrected it. Then Americans found it useful to stir up the ignorant. Nothing new under the sun.
3 Likes
Thought experiment: Imagine these cities you cite with Democrats heading city govnt were changed to GOP mayors, city councils, police chief, etc, overnight.
Do you think it would make any substantive change in the crime stats,-- assuming those stats were not cooked?
ETA: Factors correlated with crime are broad and complex. Always have been.
You predicted you’d be called a racist so here’s the fulfillment of what you deliberately put out there - you’re a racist. Nothing you say is valid. It’s just racist.
3 Likes
Of course it would make a difference! Republicans are, and always have been, the “law and order” party, whereas the Democrat Party has always been the “soft on crime” party. If you’re incarcerated, your ability to engage in street crime is nil. That’s why the need for mandatory sentences (say, 20 years) for the use of a handgun in the commission of a crime, in addition to the normal criminal sentences. Also, we need to limit the appeal process for violent crime. Basically, lock 'em up, and throw away the key!
They need to relax. Jews won’t ever replace them.
Black women will : - )
4 Likes
Word!!! O word. hahahahahahahahahaha
2 Likes
Always?
2 Likes