Discussion
  • Read More
    phunkshunGabrielle Bluestone
    6/27/16 10:44am

    I hate to say it because I don’t like disrespecting the dead...but Scalia dying is probably the best thing that’s happened in the last 12 months as far as functioning government is concerned.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Hip Brooklyn Stereotypephunkshun
      6/27/16 10:46am

      Hey, when you’re right, you’re right.

      No disrespect in being correct.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      MBCockphunkshun
      6/27/16 10:47am

      And it is going to suck for the conservatives once Hillary is the Prez. Is the GOP sure they don’t want to approve Merrick Garland for Scalia’s seat?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    MiniatureamericanflagsforothersGabrielle Bluestone
    6/27/16 10:45am

    “Supreme Court Rejects Concern Troll Legislation”

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      yoshinoyaMiniatureamericanflagsforothers
      6/27/16 10:47am

      You have the best screenname for this story. Bravo.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Snowballyoshinoya
      6/27/16 10:53am
      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    det-devil-ailsGabrielle Bluestone
    6/27/16 10:47am

    ... and passing a new, completely unconstitutional, law in 3, 2, 1...

    The culture warriors figured out 30 years ago that in order to maintain their power all they need to do is keeping passing bullshit laws. It’ll take a few years for the SCOTUS to strike them down, and they’ll have another one ready to go they moment it’s declared unconstitutional. Repeat as necessary, ad infinitum.

    Abortion can remain effectively illegal (or so onerous as to be out-of-reach) indefinitely under this game plan.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      WHOLESICKCREWdet-devil-ails
      6/27/16 10:55am

      Meh, that’s a pretty bad strategy. The more bullshit they pass, the stronger and more muscular the case law gets against them. Abortion rights are stronger today than they were yesterday. It may raise campaign funds, but it is not an effective way to end abortion, if that in fact is their goal.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      benjaminalloverdet-devil-ails
      6/27/16 10:56am

      But this ruling rested on how an “undue burden” is defined, and going forward states will not be able to enact abortion laws which restrict access and/or are medically unnecessary. That severely limits them.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ReverandRichardWayneGaryWayneGabrielle Bluestone
    6/27/16 10:53am

    So real talk. If Hillary wins but the GOP keeps the Senate, does anyone actually expect the GOP to confirm any nominee?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Armageddon T. ThunderbirdReverandRichardWayneGaryWayne
      6/27/16 11:02am

      I suspect Merrick Garland will be approved in the very near future. Better to grab the centrist now then try to fend off the parade of Clinton nominees.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ReverandRichardWayneGaryWayneArmageddon T. Thunderbird
      6/27/16 11:12am

      No way, the party will come apart at the seams if they do this in the wake of this decision.

      The GOP plan had been to sit on Garland until after the election, then try to confirm him in the actual lame duck session (not the bullshit lame duck year). But I think Obama has said he’d pull Garland’s nomination after the election to let Hillary nominiate her own pick.

      Hence, we will never get back to 9 justices. If you have told your people the end of the world is coming if Hillary gets to pick justices, how do you ever walk that back?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    benjaminalloverGabrielle Bluestone
    6/27/16 10:45am

    Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Tennessee, Oklahoma; we’re coming for your specious anti-abortion laws too.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      TimTom13benjaminallover
      6/27/16 10:47am

      Don’t forget Florida!

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      benjaminalloverTimTom13
      6/27/16 10:50am

      Oh ya, Florida. Rick Scott can suck it.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    JVBaseballSuperstarGabrielle Bluestone
    6/27/16 10:44am

    Texit! Texit!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      direunicornJVBaseballSuperstar
      6/27/16 11:46am

      If not for Texas women’s health advocates, we would not have had the huge abortion rights victory we had today. If not for the University of Texas, we would have had no idea of the statistical evidence that this law resulted in a reduction of safe, legal abortion, and an increase in DIY abortions for Texas women.

      But go ahead and use this opportunity to run Texas down. I can tell it’s hugely satisfying to you, and I don’t begrudge your your small pleasures.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      JVBaseballSuperstardireunicorn
      6/27/16 12:04pm

      If not for Texas we wouldn’t have had these discussions in the first place by them introducing these laws.

      Others states that followed would not have had a model. If they passed similar laws it would have mobilized women’s health care advocates in those states.

      The university of Texas is far from the only college studying the statistical evidence of anti-abortion laws.

      I’m glad you’re proud to be from there, but don’t act like this was some kind of unique victory for Texas, the state with the lowest percentage of high school graduates, the lowest percentage of people (and children) with health insurance, with the highest levels carbon dioxide emissions, and many people opening clamoring for them to secede from the union.

      Good people clearly come from the state, but the state itself is an embarrassment.

      EDIT- This sounds a lot more mean-spirited than I intended, I apologized. My only point is this is not something that I would take pride in as a state... You had to go to the federal government to get them to overturn the law. I know it’s not everyone’s fault too. But clearly this is something the state believed in.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Armageddon T. ThunderbirdGabrielle Bluestone
    6/27/16 10:45am

    Gonna be a good Monday.

    [glances at stock markets]

    Shit.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Misteaks were madeArmageddon T. Thunderbird
      6/27/16 10:48am

      I don’t even want to to imagine the damage the chavs in the UK did to my 401K.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      MiniatureamericanflagsforothersMisteaks were made
      6/27/16 10:49am

      Remember, unless you’re retiring in the next five years, dontworryaboutit.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    KinjaNinjaOnABinjaGabrielle Bluestone
    6/27/16 11:07am

    Because let’s be honest. There is no such thing as a pro-life movement. There is only a pro-birth movement. Any pretense to the sanctity of life ends at birth. Support for single moms, WIC, any kind of family planning is non existent. Guns in every school, death penalty, mass extermination of Muslims, state-sanctioned murder of Black people - these are all just fine and dandy. Pro life my rear.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      RishaBreeKinjaNinjaOnABinja
      6/27/16 11:46am

      That’s why my go-to descriptor (barring times that it would be needlessly confusing) is “anti-choice”. Someone made the point a long time ago that allowing them to call themselves “pro-life” is allowing them to control the conversation, and I never forgot.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ad infinitumRishaBree
      6/27/16 2:19pm

      I like “pro forced birth,” personally.

      I’m actually not terribly fond of pro-choice or anti-choice — they both treat abortion as if it’s in a special category that no one actually thinks of as a good thing, but rather a necessary evil.

      I’m not “pro-choice” about abortion any more than I’m “pro-choice” about colonoscopies. Abortion is a medical procedure and an important facet of reproductive healthcare for women. I really wish we could all start speaking about it in those terms.

      (This isn’t meant as an attack on you at all, to be clear — “pro/anti choice” is the wording the “keep abortion legal” side has generally chosen to use, and that’s not going to change any time soon. It just bothers me somewhat that we’ve settled on language that is somewhat stigmatizing, even though it’s inadvertent.)

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    hntergrenGabrielle Bluestone
    6/27/16 11:21am

    Shaky on my Constitutional Law, but the undue burden on abortion paradigm is from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, not Roe, no?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      iElvis is Putting in a Bid for Gawker.comhntergren
      6/27/16 11:52am

      Correct, this decision turned on application of Casey. Even Thomas argued from that point.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      hntergreniElvis is Putting in a Bid for Gawker.com
      6/27/16 11:57am

      Yeah, upon rereading that sentence, it’s clear that the constitutional right is what is being referred to as having been delineated in Roe, not the standard.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    CommonVicesGabrielle Bluestone
    6/27/16 11:18am

    Gawker’s Monday morning items tend to lend themselves to the soul-crushing (“Four Toddlers Die in Kitten Fire”), and usually by about 10:30 a.m., I’m desperate to crawl back to the warm safety of the weekend, whimpering feebly to myself, so it’s a refreshing change to click on something like this on Monday morning and think, “Oh. That’s a good thing. A very good thing.”

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      caekislove-caekingitupCommonVices
      6/27/16 11:51am

      Don’t worry. HamNo is working on his stock market article, as we speak!

      Reply
      <