Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In 1964 the Southern Democrats (read: conservatives) followed Strom Thurmond across the aisle to the republican side as a protest of Civil Rights Legislation and left the Liberals on the Democratic side.
Yep, all one of them...Albert Watson. He actually resigned before switching, then was elected as a Republican. The only other two were not actually elected officials at the point, but later became US senator (Thad Cochran, R-MS) and US representative (Dannemeyer, R-CA(39)), but neither was elected as Republican until the late 70s.
The real group of Dixiecrats who followed Thurmond across the aisle is exactly one guy, Albert Watson.
There was a smattering of state level officials, like a dozen, from all the state reps/senators/AGs/etc in the entire Southeast? I want to say it was all of like 12, maybe 13 people total? Out of several hundred?
But go ahead and keep making it like all racist Democrats just became Republicans in 1964. It's a widely accepted lie, and very few people are like me and will actually challenge it.
Now corporations are paying female employees to have abortions but the female employees that want to have a family, nothing. These corporations couldn't wait until the court decision settles down. They came out faster than a M-16 bullet offering their female employees to cover their abortions. Sad. Many up to $4,000 to each female employee. These people are nuts.
I haven't read their brief, so how would I know what they're basing it on? Maybe they're going to base it on the fact that the state has allowed abortion for 50 years and now they're triggering a ban. Who knows? I never said it was baseless. That's you wishing.
The ACLU and Planned Parenthood are also suing Utah and SD as we speak.
Unlike with members of the SCOTUS, some justices in state courts can be voted out.
The fact that a state was forced to do something once upon a time due to a SCOTUS ruling that has been struck down is not a basis for a lawsuit.
My point was that you had absolutely no clue what basis for a suit exists, you're just wishing there was one.
I then asked if a person in NY could sue the state because they are a "duty to retreat" state rather than a "stand your ground" state. It would be fundamentally the same thing. A person suing because the state doesn't have a policy they want them to. It's baseless.
The fact that a state was forced to do something once upon a time due to a SCOTUS ruling that has been struck down is not a basis for a lawsuit.
My point was that you had absolutely no clue what basis for a suit exists, you're just wishing there was one.
I then asked if a person in NY could sue the state because they are a "duty to retreat" state rather than a "stand your ground" state. It would be fundamentally the same thing. A person suing because the state doesn't have a policy they want them to. It's baseless.
All I know is there are lawsuits in the works as we speak. I'm not the one filing the suits. You'll have to take it up with the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. And currently a court in LA has stopped a trigger ban from going into effect. That's all I know for now, grasshopper.
All I know is there are lawsuits in the works as we speak. I'm not the one filing the suits. You'll have to take it up with the ACLU and Planned Parenthood.
Oh I don't doubt that suits will be filed based on the temper tantrum factor alone, the doubt comes when talking about if any of them are valid.
It is a bit of karma, or perhaps poetic justice, that the most powerful SC justice is now Clarence Thomas.
They both got floor votes did they not, I don't recall a Biden Rule or blocking out of committee. Remember when they claimed when Scalia died that the next president should choose the next president with 9 months remaining in Obama's term. Then when RBG died they confirmed Barrett while several million votes were cast 3 weeks before the election.
This is one more reason why this court is viewed as illegitimate.
Sure, in theory, but baseless lawsuits get tossed out....which is why I asked what the basis for the suit would be.
SCOTUS quite literally is the final word when it comes to the law....the highest court in the land. What they ruled was that there was no credible foundation to call abortion a right, thus the privilege of abortion is a state concern, not a federal concern.
What basis is there to sue a state for not allowing a certain privilege? Would people in New York have a valid basis to sue their state for being a "duty to retreat" state rather than a "stand your ground" state?
I am not familiar with the case being discussed, but every state has its own constitution. And a state's constitution can provide more rights than in the U.S. constitution. So it is conceivable that there are state laws that can be challenged under a state constitution and when it comes to state constitutional matters, it is the State Supreme Court, not the U.S. Supreme Court, that has the final say.
Oh I don't doubt that suits will be filed based on the temper tantrum factor alone, the doubt comes when talking about if any of them are valid.
I've yet to hear of any valid basis for a suit.
Remember this post when lawsuits unfold across the nation. Many of these states have laws on the books that they neglected to correct after 1972, Wisconsin is a perfect example.
And you wouldn't hear. The lawsuit isn't coming to you.
You fail to understand what I'm saying. I hear people talk about how lawsuits are coming....but then when you ask about the basis for such suit those same people just stare blankly. Typically I can tell you the basis for lawsuits when an obvious one exists. No obvious basis for a lawsuit exists when it comes to suing a state for not having a policy someone wants. I guess Planned Parenthood could sue and say that a ban on abortion harms their bottom line....but I don't think that would really be valid.
No right is being infringed on, so it's difficult to figure out what they'd base a suit on....since you were talking about it and getting your hopes up about it, I figured you'd have some idea what they'd base the suits on. I guess it was just blind hope.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
