Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (204675)	7/9/2021 4:08:47 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Recommended By bentway Respond to of 362824

...The provision passed the Texas State Legislature this spring as part of a bill that bans abortion after a doctor detects a fetal heartbeat, usually at about six weeks of pregnancy. Many states have passed such bans, but the law in Texas is different. Ordinarily, enforcement would be up to government officials, and if clinics wanted to challenge the law’s constitutionality, they would sue those officials in making their case. But the law in Texas prohibits officials from enforcing it. Instead, it takes the opposite approach, effectively deputizing ordinary citizens — including from outside Texas — to sue clinics and others who violate the law. It awards them at least $10,000 per illegal abortion if they are successful. “It’s completely inverting the legal system,” said Stephen Vladeck, a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “It says the state is not going to be the one to enforce this law. Your neighbors are.” The result is a law that is extremely difficult to challenge before it takes effect on Sept. 1, because it is hard to know whom to sue to block it, and lawyers for clinics are now wrestling with what to do about it. Six-week bans in other states have all been blocked as they make their way through the court system... ...Critics say the Texas law amounts to a kind of hack of the legal system. In an open letter this spring, more than 370 Texas lawyers, including Professor Vladeck, said a central flaw was its attempt to confer legal standing on abortion opponents who were not themselves injured. They called the law an “unprecedented abuse of civil litigation,” and said it could “have a destabilizing impact on the state’s legal infrastructure.” “If the barista at Starbucks overhears you talking about your abortion, and it was performed after six weeks, that barista is authorized to sue the clinic where you obtained the abortion and to sue any other person who helped you, like the Uber driver who took you there,” said Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University. Some statutes do authorize private citizens to sue to enforce a law even if they themselves are not harmed, for example California’s consumer protection law, which gives anyone in the state the right to sue a company for disseminating false information or engaging in other unfair business practices, said Howard M. Wasserman, a law professor at Florida International University in Miami. What’s different about Texas’ law, he said, is that private enforcement is not in support of state enforcement; it’s in lieu of it, a switch he said was not good for democracy... nytimes.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (204675)	7/9/2021 5:09:15 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 362824

>> What is the quality of the analysis that you think proves that conclusion? It is actually pretty simple: Blacks make up 13% of the population, yet commit 52% of murders (obviously, we're talking about violent crime overall, but in the context of death sentence we're discussing, pretty much, murders). Unless you just think there is widespread fraud in the legal process that yields a large percentage of false outcomes, it is hard to get past these numbers. I have on a couple of occasions (Donte Callen in Birmingham is one) seen episodes of First 48 where the guy clearly committed the murders but I thought he was likely incompetent -- yet they went for (and ultimately got) a death sentence. His crime was heinous, but this kind of thing I wonder about sometimes. In another state he would have gotten less. But I just don't see any evidence that racism is a factor here. At any rate, it is unreasonable to expect that American Whites are to be held hostage to the past of their lineal ancestors into perpetuity. It is entirely inconsistent with everything we know about the American Way. That's why I keep asking, if there is proof of racism, where is it? It is un-helpful to tell Black young people that they are owed something. First, because they're not, but secondly because that will only drag them down. I hope when Trump is re-elected, the first thing he says is that America is going back to work. Because there are a lot of people sitting around waiting to fall ass-backward into a big pile of money, and while some may accomplish that in life, counting on it isn't a very sensible plan.