Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34452
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Austin's own: https://camarasibley.com/bio/
  2. I think this is about right.
  3. And, as the scotx just pointed out, Ms. Cox shouldn't have needed to go to court, either.
  4. It does somewhat appear that Ms. Cox, with a bit more finessing of the paperwork and testimony, might have put herself within the exception to the statute. But I think that's wholly lost on people. The fact is that Texas has a barbaric abortion statute, one of several that theocrats have foisted on their states in the wake of Dobbs. This kind of thing, like Dobbs, may wake people the fuck up as to what they're letting happen in their states due to voter apathy and disengagement. Polling shows that people are heavily split on abortion itself, but I don't think a lot of them are really following what's going on here. That is, there may well be a majority, even nationwide, that favors more restriction on abortion, as a theoretical matter. But I highly doubt there is anything near a majority that favors outright bans except in the case of lethality to the mother, or what that really means in practical application.
  5. We have kind of "fraidy" cat that gets nervous when you put two hands on him (as if to pick him up, stuff him in a box and take him to the vet). So, he has never liked being given a pill and will eat around a pill in hamburger meat or whatever you put it in, and will not touch food that has had the powder mixed in with it. Smearing butter on him works. But, he's also pretty smart and knows or seems to understand that medications make him feel better and has mostly relented to having a pill poked in the side of his mouth every day (hyperthyroid). That took several days/weeks of attempts. There are also these things called "Greenies" that are a dry cat treat with a hollow in them. One of the things Gizmo skillfully eats leaving the pill.
  6. Well, over the history of the country, we haven't had to decide an issue like this because, heretofore, presidents have been mostly law-abiding. So, if the country were to somehow stick to something like the course of the last 250 years, the repercussions would be limited to Trump escaping criminal liability, if it were to be decided that he has immunity of some sort from criminal prosecution. Of course, if another lawless asshole were to be elected, s/he'd be more free to do crimes in office without fear of repercussion outside of political considerations. Again, if there is some degree of immunity for actions in office. On the other hand, if the president is found to have little or no immunity, that won't change much except perhaps to slightly constrain executive decisionmaking. We've had decisions like this before, mostly post-Nixon, resuming a bit with Clinton. Because the country has stayed the course for the last 50 years, these types of decisions are not significant on a daily or even decennial basis. But they are pretty fundamental to the operation of the country.
  7. One good way to "pill" a cat is to mix the meds with butter. Smear the mixture on the cat, but not on a paw or tail, s/he'll just sling it off. But make sure it's somewhere they can reach. They'll lick it off.
  8. Agreed. Although this Court seems to be a by-product of Dominionism and related concepts that are antithetical to democracy and pro-autocracy, the Court doesn't seem to have much taste for insulating Trump from himself, or the executive more broadly. Of course, accreting power to the executive is bound to decrease their own.
  9. I was responding to TexasHammer's mischaracterization of the law and facts based on Paxton's "advocacy." It does not actually appear that a serious effort was made here to comply with the statute. I have not read the pleadings, but this seems to be an appeal to the equities of a factual abomination more than a serious effort to invoke the medical exception. There may have been some "publicity stunt" aspects to it. ETA: and that's ok by me. Without bringing these court cases involving real situations, this runs the risk of being a bunch of gnarly anecdotes that are easily dismissed by those so inclined.
  10. The President is immune from criminal prosecution while in office, regardless of when the acts occurred. This has never been decided, but has been official DOJ policy for more than 50 years. It will never be tested. A President is immune from civil liability for acts occurring in office that are within the "outer perimeter of their presidential duties" What level of immunity from criminal prosecution a former President enjoys post-presidency is an open question. The reason for granting a president, or any governmental official various types of immunity (most of them have it), is that government would grind to a screeching halt if every decision could be challenged by a personal lawsuit or prosecution against the decision-maker.
  11. The one thing is, as noted upthread, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is very good with this political/constitutional stuff and usually refines whatever the district court decides, as it recently refined Mehta's decision on civil immunity in Blassingame. And that can insulate the decision from further review and/or fine tuning and/or reversal at Scotus. Going straight from Chutkan to Scotus leaves them a blanker slate to write on, and possibly what could be considered a more partisan opinion of the court below. It is faster, though. And I think Smith is relatively confident that not even this Supreme Court is going to find blanket immunity.
  12. Anyone who attended UT in the late 80s or otherwise had to endure the relentless shit talk during the brief period aggy dominated us will say they hate aggy the most. You could be talking about anything, your mother's cancer, and an aggy would walk up and whoop or scoreboard ro some kinda shit.
  13. No they're not. They're saying it's only permissible if the mother's life is in danger.
  14. Yeah and the statute doesn't require following the hospitals procedures. And this whole thing is fucking nasty. They are trying to force this woman to give birth to a stillborn infant and also to prosecute the hospital. Humanly indefensible.
  15. To be fair, there was quite a bit of concern over this from the other side of the aisle as well.
  16. Fuck you Donald, you lying sack of shit.
  17. Often true on the block. There have been some real stork stiffs on opponents that have given us trouble despite the combined height and athleticism of our hitters. Hitters with leaping ability can get away with less than towering height.
  18. Well, after putting down in writing my mild hostility for Madi Skinner, which I can't quite explain, I guess I have to retract it. Obviously, she is a massively talented hitter, and not hard on the eyes. I guess I resented her coming from UK a bit aaaand I felt like she ran a little hot and cold and initially was too much of an outsider to provide great leadership. But she turnt it up last night, big time bro. But let us not forget the block, Asjia, Molly and Bella. The block really turnt it up in that 4th set. Also, did anyone notice the big hug between Jenna and Jerritt? That seemed to reveal something in terms of both of them knowing she hadn't been playing to her potential. I think.
  19. Well, I would argue that they were more severely flawed w/r/to ds and to a lesser extent, setter. I have almost, almost forgotten what it's like to be all out-of-system all the time at this level of play.
  20. What the bloody fuck are you talking about? I made a statement, you posted something that verified my statement, and then went somewhere else altogether. Also, I don't think this case was really about attempting to satisfy the statute. I think it was an equitable and/or constitutional invocation of the authority of the court to put a halt to something fucking ghastly.
  21. No, that is exactly the set of facts here that Paxton argues is insufficient to invoke the exception.
  22. So, you actually think forcing a woman to carry an essentially dead baby to term is perfectly ok as long as her health is not endangered? Christ on a cracker.
  23. Well, the seeming actual answer is James Wesley Hendrix. who was a Trump appointee. But before that, he was an Obama appointee and, other than doing undergrad at Chicago, is not an obvious christofascist.
  24. Well, they tried to do something their "constituents" wanted them to do. If they had had eminent domain power at the outset, they might have succeeded. Sounds like ol Todd et fils gave Vistra a solid buttfucking and that probably wouldn't have happened had TPWD had eminent domain power.
  25. Well Hunter is an addict. That is a situation that initially deserves some pity or empathy. On the other hand, he has resources available to him that the vast majority of addicts do not and the way he lives out his addiction is fairly disgusting. If he did the crimes, he needs to do the time. But the fact remains that the heretofore underfunded IRS hasn't been investigating or prosecuting these types of crimes routinely and probably wouldn't be investigating or prosecuting Hunter if not for his last name.
×
×
  • Create New...