468 Comments
⭠ Return to thread

I was heartened this evening by Rachel Maddow's interview with Laurence Tribe on how the Texas Vigilante Abortion bill could be stopped in the courts by case precedents that would apply to this horrendous law especially on dealing with the vigilante ploy that needs to be stopped here and now forever and ever.

Expand full comment

Oh don’t you know, Cathy. Gov made a speech yesterday and responded to no rape exception in new law. He said not necessary. Because Texas, under his leadership, will use every resource to get every rapist off the street so no woman, eh, person, has to experience rape ever again.

Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on CNN practically leapt through the screen to rip him a new one. Saying they will have to round up the close fam friend, the neighbor, the relative, the partner, the authority figure in charge…that more often will commit rape than a person from the streets. She literally called him grossly ignorant.

What is worse is how many people clapped after Abbott made the statement. They know how to stage a crowd, don’t they?

Expand full comment

Yeah, I heard that. Let me see.... rape is about power and control executed via a forced sexual act. Texas men love power and control, especially over their women. Ain't gonna happen, Governor. EVER. Until you get rid of the concept that men have the right and duty to exercise power over women (see: The Bible).

Expand full comment

... power over women, and children ... with parental rights predominating, and mens' rotary clubs in the weave of so-called child protective services, where are the exits in this theatre of the absurd?!

Expand full comment

Thank you AOC!!!

Expand full comment

AOC grew up in a neighborhood near mine, which had been segregated during my childhood. She knows how far we have come and how far to go.

Expand full comment

Gee whiz, golly gosh - why am I not reassured (re ass u red) ...?

Expand full comment

😂

Expand full comment

It came out that the Ppl that were in the Trump Towers when he announced his run for Pres.we’re pulled in off the sidewalk and paid. These are desperate times for many so you never know ?

Expand full comment

How much does pretending to think what a Repub politician said was worthy of approbation go for these days?

Expand full comment

$49.99 chance to listen to he and Jr commentate fight.

Expand full comment

Chances are they'll be issuing directives in code to their loyal followers to advance a new chapter of dysruption - authorities should listen in ....

Expand full comment

If I’m correct, one doesn’t become a rapist until he has raped. So will Abbott call on Tom Cruise to reprise his role in the Minority Report?

Expand full comment

"Never argue with stupid people, because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Mark Twain

Expand full comment

AOL knows that to get the rapists off the street they'd have to dragnet the lawmakers first.

I know AOC knows.

She's from The Bronx.

Expand full comment

I'm not convinced that rape and incest really exist in their. Nor does contraception ever fail. I wonder what color the sky is on their planet?

Expand full comment

!!!!!!!!!!!!

Expand full comment

The prisons will be full and lots of people will be surprised who is doing time.

Expand full comment

You are correct Cathy. Rachel interviewed, Prof, Lawrence Tribe about his successful case taken all they way to a winning (8-1) SCOTUS' ruling back in 1982. Larkin vs Grendel's Den 459 U.S. 116 (1982) Grendel's was & is a loved Cambridge Mass bar & get-together establishment. The state of Massachusetts had delegated the power to prevent the issuance of a liquor license to non-state Actors. Per the written opinion of then Chief Justice Warren Berger, such a delegation (now vigilante actors) is not permitted under the U.S. Constitution.

FYI, current U.S. Attorney General, Merrick Garland, is a former Harvard Law student of Prof. Tribe. Garland has many legal tools to address the Texas' unconstitutional conduct. Prof Tribe mentioned 42 USC 1983, a 1981 Civil Rights law, among others..

Expand full comment

It was heartening to hear that nearly 40 years ago Tribe successfully argued to the Supreme Court a case similar to the Texas case, though not involving abortion. Then again, the present court has gone renegade. (We have McConnell and Trump to thank.) I would love for HCR to educate us about how aberrant the court has become compared to others through the years.

Expand full comment

We are being educated about that every day.

Expand full comment

👍 No kidding right ?

Expand full comment

Doesn't this court's (in)decision invalidate it's own integrity?

"The court’s notorious five-justice majority, which included all three of Donald Trump’s nominees, suggested that the court hadn’t previously encountered legislative schemes that confer on private individuals the power to veto the provision of lawful services. It purported to be procedurally stymied from blocking the Texas law’s manifest goal of snuffing out abortion services and wrecking the lives of many women during the year or more it will take the court to ultimately strike the Texas law down or admit that it is jettisoning Roe v. Wade. Not true. And a Massachusetts case established the precedent."

If the highest court and supreme legal authority in the nation is so flawed, how can it be challenged and held accountable? World court?

Expand full comment

Quote from column in Boston Globe by Laurence H. Tribe and David Rosenberg:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/09/07/opinion/how-massachusetts-case-could-end-texas-abortion-law/

Expand full comment

This is the first I've heard of a retroactive element in the Texas anti-abortion law! "...the Texas abortion law delegates quintessentially governmental power to private parties — in Texas, to literally anyone on earth with an objection to abortion, giving that individual or organization the unilateral and unfettered power to inflict criminal punishment on whoever assisted a woman, within the past four years, to terminate a pregnancy without being able to prove that the fetus didn’t have detectable cardiac activity."

And I don't even understand the element "without being able to prove that the fetus didn't have detectable cardiac activity". How would it be possible for a bounty hunter to legally access such private medical information, either retroactively or going forward? Are they just allowed to assume that, because there was an abortion performed, the pregnancy had to have been post-6 weeks?

Expand full comment

Probably the best comment here. Yes they have no integrity, on any level. Horrifying. Hope that smarter legal minds can prevail.

Expand full comment

Yes, what good news. Really good news

Expand full comment

I did a search for a live link - nothing but old clips showed up ...

Expand full comment