Texas has a limit of twenty weeks. After that, not legal. Other states have different limits on term. It’s not legislation from the bench, it’s interpretation of legislation.
Conervatives believe in original intent, liberals more in interpretation given the times in which we live.
I think we’re basically saying the same thing, but neither of us are lawyers so we can’t talk like they do.
I don’t have a clue. That’s why we have a court system. Do you think “hate crime” is a legitimate cause of action in any case, or should it just be judged as assault and battery, attempted murder,manslaughter or murder, depending on the outcome of the action?
I’m guessing it’s already being tried in the court of public opinion, but that court has no legal standing. Good wedge issue, though.
I want to know why you think what I said is incorrect. A more conservative court is going to be more sympathetic to states’ rights than a liberal court. That means more leeway in enforcing federal law. I’m not talking politics here, I’m talking about the law and it’s interpretation.
Give more leeway is what I said, meaning where the Texas law was overturned by the previous court, the Louisiana law may not be by this new court. Did you just have to disagree because a liberal said it?
Louisiana is appealing a state law right now to the Supreme Court similar to the one Texas had overturned a year or two ago. States can set parameters, but they must pass constitutional muster as interpreted by the Supreme Court. I'm saying the new court will be more open to states' modifications of abortion policy.
Apparently you are the expert. School me with your knowledge. I’m guessing we’ll start with how all underlying data is fouled by the machinations of the deep state.
You guys need to lighten up. I heard about Portland, but didn’t pay it that much attention. The only right wing goons I pay attention to are the white supremacists. People on both sides have been raising hell as long as we’ve been a country. Ever see Gangs of New York? Division is what’s putting our country in peril.
What you missed is everyone has to have coverage. When the cost is spread across the entire population, healthy and unhealthy, it becomes more affordable for all. It’s a public/private partnership allowing competition within set parameters. That’s about the only way it could work here. I don’t think we’re going to see the nationalization of health insurers.
Why do you think if I’m a Democrat I have to be thinking one way and one way only?
I’m not qualified to be President, so no, I could not do better. That precludes me from having my own opinions?
Where in here can you find I condoned that language? You’re kind of perched up there on something looking down and judging me by some standard you hold for anyone taking a liberal position.
Okay Weisenheimer, I did a little research on my own. I admit to accepting the 97% without checking myself. But, I’ll still go with 80%. Note that research came from University of Houston Energy Fellows and Forbes did the article, not even hardly liberal sources.
[Hidden Content]
I’m not a scientist, but I side with the 95% of professionally trained who believe it.
You’re doing just what Russia wants - distrusting our government and other institutions.