From Kacsmaryk to James Ho's Fifth Circuit to our new and definitely not improved SCOTUS: the judicial nightmare Trump built will long outlive him no matter whether he wins or loses this November. Which makes all the more important to elect Democrats who will strengthen the laws these rabid wing nuts have to work with, because that's our best and only shot.
It's certainly been a historical trend that whenever you try to prohibit something people really want, a black market always opens up to take advantage of that desire.
It won't matter to Alito who doesn't care how unpopular he is or how stupid he looks so you might as well skip writing those nean opeds about him , not that he cares, really.
Sadistic Sam will just consult with 'Theodoric of York-Medieval Barber' for some obscure text from the "Book of All Knowledge" and extrapolate that into the 21st century.....
Hey, look, if the Bible, Agrippa, the Constitution or the back of his cereal box didn’t mention abortion pills by name brand AND medical name, then it’s not Constitutional. It’s a very simple test!
JFC, I've worked on editorial review boards and our basic fucking job was to make sure of stuff like "the referee wasn't also the author's graduate advisor" and "the referee isn't the author's current romantic partner" (and so on). Now you're supposed to disclose raging conflicts of interest when you peer review something -- usually followed by politely declining to do so -- but in those instances a review board is supposed to be on the lookout for this kind of stuff. Like one of the referees belonging to the same ideologically-slanted institute as the article's authors. Christ on a cracker, how did no one catch this?
Fair point, but I'd think that if someone had reported to the editors that there was a massive conflict of interest somewhere in the review process and they went ahead and published it anyway, word would have gotten out about there being something rotten in Denmark, as it were. No idea if that happened in this case. Maybe that's how they were busted. I don't know the scuttlebutt around this particular article, though.
"Sure, the product has sailed through multiple clinical studies and was found to be incredibly effective and safe. But can you get it by Judge Winston? Head's up -- he's a huge Scientologist and has already thrown out five similar-class psychiatric drugs..."
The major questions doctrine, like originalism, belongs between horoscopes and numerology in the section of your local paper that also contains the comics or on a little strip of paper wedged inside a stale vaguely cookie flavored envelope in the bottom of the bag that contained your quart of beef and broccoli.
All of these right wing legal theories like originalism, textualism, and major questions are sort of like "woke" or pornography. They can't define it but will know it when they see it. Even if no one else sees it. It will be whatever they want it to be when they need it to justify an unjustifiable decision then be ignored when a case where it might finally apply, like kicking Trump off the ballot for being an insurrectionist, claiming they have never heard of that theory before. Or possibly bail on the whole thing like they did with partisan gerrymandering (but only after stalling for years until wavering justice Kennedy retired) and say it's not a judicial issue, it's a political issue. And only Congress can straighten it out.
For what it's worth, the same thing happens in My Less and Less Fair City, which continues to have a totally undeserved lefty reputation. In our case, of course, it's studies related to development, not women's bodily autonomy, so there's that. I figured this out when part of my neighborhood was being "studied" in order to justify yet another million square feet of labs and such. Property owners immediately started filing upzoning petitions (so as to avoid the Christmas rush, I guess), and the outside "consultant" running the "study" opined that the petitions were in line with what the "study" was going to recommend, once they did the "study". And people wonder why I'm cynical. And bitter.
'Acetaminophen toxicity is the second most common cause of liver transplantation worldwide and the most common cause of liver transplantation in the US. It is responsible for 56,000 emergency department visits, 2,600 hospitalizations, and 500 deaths per year in the United States'
Yeah, it does absolutely nothing for me. When someone tells me to take some for pain, I tell them I use it only when my liver's been too healthy lately.
Eh, blue states should simply just ignore SCOTUS if they ban it. Texas has so far proven that they don't have any enforcement arm when you defy them, so bullshit rulings beget bullshit responses.
They only appear consistent when you realize that their guiding principal is "GOP wins". They SAY other things like "states rights" or "local government" or "parental rights" ... but they've proven time and again that they are lying about their reasoning. It's only "my side wins" that they care about.
What’s funny (though typical) is that when actual statisticians examined the results, the data produced findings that indicated the opposite of the conclusions drawn by the authors. It’s like somebody determined bumblebees can’t fly while busily swatting them away.
From Kacsmaryk to James Ho's Fifth Circuit to our new and definitely not improved SCOTUS: the judicial nightmare Trump built will long outlive him no matter whether he wins or loses this November. Which makes all the more important to elect Democrats who will strengthen the laws these rabid wing nuts have to work with, because that's our best and only shot.
Again with the shit and ice cream combinations. Please stop, what has delicious creamy icy treat ever done to you!?
In every state where abortion has made the ballot, it's won.
Please to make abortion a heavy issue in the upcoming election.
I predict that drug cartels will get into the abortion pill business and make serious $$$$
It's certainly been a historical trend that whenever you try to prohibit something people really want, a black market always opens up to take advantage of that desire.
Unfortunately, they have a history of contaminating their product with fentanyl.
Quality control is always a concern when getting something from the black market.
It won't matter to Alito who doesn't care how unpopular he is or how stupid he looks so you might as well skip writing those nean opeds about him , not that he cares, really.
Sadistic Sam will just consult with 'Theodoric of York-Medieval Barber' for some obscure text from the "Book of All Knowledge" and extrapolate that into the 21st century.....
Hey, look, if the Bible, Agrippa, the Constitution or the back of his cereal box didn’t mention abortion pills by name brand AND medical name, then it’s not Constitutional. It’s a very simple test!
JFC, I've worked on editorial review boards and our basic fucking job was to make sure of stuff like "the referee wasn't also the author's graduate advisor" and "the referee isn't the author's current romantic partner" (and so on). Now you're supposed to disclose raging conflicts of interest when you peer review something -- usually followed by politely declining to do so -- but in those instances a review board is supposed to be on the lookout for this kind of stuff. Like one of the referees belonging to the same ideologically-slanted institute as the article's authors. Christ on a cracker, how did no one catch this?
Who says they DIDN'T catch this?
Fair point, but I'd think that if someone had reported to the editors that there was a massive conflict of interest somewhere in the review process and they went ahead and published it anyway, word would have gotten out about there being something rotten in Denmark, as it were. No idea if that happened in this case. Maybe that's how they were busted. I don't know the scuttlebutt around this particular article, though.
I first saw Alan Tudyk in "Epic Proportions" on Broadway with Kristin Chenoweth; in love ever since. I'd prefer his legal expertise over fist-face.
I am a leaf on the wind.
I love Alan too. Resident Alien was (is?) a gear show and he played the alien perfectly.
If SCOTUS over rules FDA authority on this, there's an entire multibillion dollar pharmaceutical industry that will be flushed down the toilet.
"Sure, the product has sailed through multiple clinical studies and was found to be incredibly effective and safe. But can you get it by Judge Winston? Head's up -- he's a huge Scientologist and has already thrown out five similar-class psychiatric drugs..."
Not surprising unfortunately.
The major questions doctrine, like originalism, belongs between horoscopes and numerology in the section of your local paper that also contains the comics or on a little strip of paper wedged inside a stale vaguely cookie flavored envelope in the bottom of the bag that contained your quart of beef and broccoli.
Basically the conservatives employ the legal equivalent of phrenology.
All of these right wing legal theories like originalism, textualism, and major questions are sort of like "woke" or pornography. They can't define it but will know it when they see it. Even if no one else sees it. It will be whatever they want it to be when they need it to justify an unjustifiable decision then be ignored when a case where it might finally apply, like kicking Trump off the ballot for being an insurrectionist, claiming they have never heard of that theory before. Or possibly bail on the whole thing like they did with partisan gerrymandering (but only after stalling for years until wavering justice Kennedy retired) and say it's not a judicial issue, it's a political issue. And only Congress can straighten it out.
Republicans: What do the studies say?
Answer: What do you want them to say.
For what it's worth, the same thing happens in My Less and Less Fair City, which continues to have a totally undeserved lefty reputation. In our case, of course, it's studies related to development, not women's bodily autonomy, so there's that. I figured this out when part of my neighborhood was being "studied" in order to justify yet another million square feet of labs and such. Property owners immediately started filing upzoning petitions (so as to avoid the Christmas rush, I guess), and the outside "consultant" running the "study" opined that the petitions were in line with what the "study" was going to recommend, once they did the "study". And people wonder why I'm cynical. And bitter.
Lol, yes. Who is cranking out these studies suggesting the answer to everything is ugly, expensive studio apartments?
Ban Paracetamol first:
'Acetaminophen toxicity is the second most common cause of liver transplantation worldwide and the most common cause of liver transplantation in the US. It is responsible for 56,000 emergency department visits, 2,600 hospitalizations, and 500 deaths per year in the United States'
Yeah, it does absolutely nothing for me. When someone tells me to take some for pain, I tell them I use it only when my liver's been too healthy lately.
> federal judge and Evil Alan Tudyk Matthew Kacsmaryk
Huh? Dude doesn’t look anything like Alan Tudyk…?
Eh, blue states should simply just ignore SCOTUS if they ban it. Texas has so far proven that they don't have any enforcement arm when you defy them, so bullshit rulings beget bullshit responses.
What’s good for the goose-stepping is good for the take-a-gander at these assholes.
Supreme Court, just the other day:
" We CAN'T let one state determine policy for the whole country!!!"
Was that about Dobbs?
That was about Colorado knocking Trump off the ballot.
But it also applies to Dobbs
Well, i wish they’d make up their minds. What’s it gonna be? States decide or what?
They only appear consistent when you realize that their guiding principal is "GOP wins". They SAY other things like "states rights" or "local government" or "parental rights" ... but they've proven time and again that they are lying about their reasoning. It's only "my side wins" that they care about.
What’s funny (though typical) is that when actual statisticians examined the results, the data produced findings that indicated the opposite of the conclusions drawn by the authors. It’s like somebody determined bumblebees can’t fly while busily swatting them away.
What journal and who was the editor, cuz they have some splaining to do.
I forget, but they retracted it and apologized. The authors also weren’t entirely truthful when they said they didn’t have a conflict of interest.
Shocking, but it’s what desperate people do when they’re, you know, fucking liars.