New York clerk again refuses to enforce Texas judgment against doctor who provided abortion pills
New York clerk again refuses to enforce Texas judgment against doctor who provided abortion pills
You're viewing a single thread.
To wit: there’s a NY state law that makes it illegal for state officials to help shit-ass states like Texas follow through on legal threats like this within the context of the NY legal system. This is that law working as intended.
Or more succinctly: lick my taint, Ken Paxton, you fucking imbecilic psychopath.
it's only a matter of time before the supreme court forces new york to comply; i hope that the doctor is prepared for this and finds another way to help with protecting themself.
when slavery was a thing, the shitty laws from shitty states to reclaim escaped slaves took primacy over laws from abolitionist states that would have protected them due to the supreme court and it took a war to overcome it.
i hope that the doctor is prepared for this and finds another way to help with protecting themself.
The airport code is YYZ but driving up from Buffalo is cool too.
The US Supreme Court can't currently do what you say without a law change at the federal level.
Also, the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery (mostly) was passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865 after the end of the US Civil War.
Do you think the actual law matters to the Supreme Court? They act more like priests now.
The supreme court wants some pretence of law otherwise their cushy jobs might be at risk. It's why the somewhat push back on Trump
I didn't think about what matters to SCOTUS at all.
The law still matters to people and that's what's important. Only after we, abandon the rule of law will there be a complete breakdown of society and a descent into chaos and anarchy.
I know from all the doom posting I see on Lemmy that many don't, but I still have hope.
We’ve been literally dismantling the first amendment (Establishment clause particularly). And the fourteenth (the whole fucking thing by EO).
I know from all the doom posting I see on Lemmy that many don't, but I still have hope.
Regarding your second paragraph:
Uh, yeah, that doesn't contradict what they said. They were referring to free states which had abolished slavery at the state level, which were forced by federal law to help southern states reclaim slaves that escaped north. It has nothing to do with the 13th Amendment.
And the Supreme Court of the United States rules based on federal law which, prior to the 13th, meant that under federal law slavery was not illegal and slaves were still considered property.
It's why the civil war was fought and then the amendment was passed. The victor makes the rules and since the United States beat the Confederate States, they made the rules.
It's not even an equal comparison, particularly because of the precedent set in Dobbs by SCOTUS establishing abortion protections as a state issue.
the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision upholding Mississippi’s law and overturning Roe v. Wade. With that ruling, the Court returned lawmaking decisions about abortion to the states.
The federal law protects states rights until the federal law directly overwrites it. Slavery wasn't federally legalized, was it(if the answer is yes, then THAT is what you should have said to them. Not a spiel about unrelated events that happened much later)? Similarly, abortion rights aren't federally legalized.
Again. The war and amendment do not come into play. They were talking about what was happening before those things took place.
That's… not how laws in the US work. I take it you're not familiar with the maxim "everything which is not forbidden is allowed". Abortion was never legalized by federal law in the US either yet they were still being performed.
The federal law protects states rights until the federal law directly overwrites it
Not exactly. State laws can be as, or more restrictive, than federal laws but they cannot be less. This means that if the federal government doesn't restrict it then states can be as restrictive as they want, as long as those restrictions aren't in opposition to existing federal laws.
Slavery wasn't federally legalized
Well…
This is all in any decent history about slavery in the US. In fact, slavery is still not completely illegal in the US. Remember the 13th amendment? It formally abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in the US, except as a punishment for a crime.
Then can you explain how Roe v Wade being overturned gave states the right to legislate abortion laws if they should have already had that right before?
That other stuff is fair, I'm simply saying that you should have started with that. Fair?
Roe v. Wade was a landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, based on the right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment
the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision upholding Mississippi’s law and overturning Roe v. Wade. With that ruling, the Court returned lawmaking decisions about abortion to the states.
The Roe decision folded abortion into the 14th Amendment until it was overturned in Dobbs returning legislation over it to the states.
That other stuff is fair, I’m simply saying that you should have started with that. Fair?
If you don't know what you are talking about then maybe you should not chime in and research the issue instead. This is all basic American history. Honestly, spoon feeding you things you could learn yourself to correct your wrongly made statements is exhausting. It's time for me to block you and move on.
You'd think a world-class corporate news organiztion like Associated Press would be able to shoehorn that into the title somehow. And yet.
It's literally the second paragraph of the article. You'd think a literate person with time to write inane comments would be able to read the article. And yet.
FYI, it seems like you are marked as a bot. You might want to change that (assuming you aren’t a bot)
Thanks I'm fairly certain that I'm a human.
No, but there's something with your profile on your instance server, where clients that can indicate bots with an icon cause your account to show that icon. So people will think you're a bot
We’re gonna do this again?
Hey! THE HEADLINE and THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE are two different things. Can you grasp the concept?? Does your inanity know no bounds?! Have you, at long last, no sense of decency, sir?!
Hey! THE HEADLINE and THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE are part of the same body of work. If you want all the context, read all of the work.
If they put all the context in the title, the title would just be the article and would need its own summary.
Indeed. The Title of the book and the Entirety of the Book are part of the same work! If you want to comment on the title of the book you MUST read the entirety of the book!
The trailer for the movie and the entire movie are part of the same body of work. If you want to comment on the trailer for the movie you must see the entire movie first.
The appetizer and the dinner are part of the same body of work if you want to comment on the appetizer you must eat the entire dinner first.
Etc, Etc.
If they put all the context in the title, the title would just be the article and would need its own summary.
The title HAS a context without anything else being done. That is the point. The title (while being part of the same body of work) is alone. And here's the thing: most people don't see the whole movie before taking something away from the trailer. (Super-seekrit PRO TIP: The people who create the trailers know this and use it to their advantage.)
Comparing a movie that takes an hour+ to watch to an article that it would take you 5 minutes to read tops to get enough context to not make dumb comments. Yeah, totally comparable.
People like you are why I have to send multiple work emails after I've already mentioned all the relevant details in the first message, all because I didn't put the whole gods damned message in the subject line.
Take a hooked on phonics course if reading is that hard for you.
FFS I’m not talking about the article for a reason. How (or why) you refuse to understand that is beyond me.
Yeah yeah hooked on phonics, ace repartee. Anyway.
If you’re not going to read the article or have any interest in it, why bother interacting on the subject at all? The fuck are you even talking about then?
I think you are ignoring point they are making. If the headline and article tell two different stories, those who just read the headline can come away with a different impression of what's happening. You can argue people that just read the headline shouldn't exist, but they do.
No, I get that that’s their point. I’m definitely making the argument that if all you’re going to read is the headline, then maybe don’t complain about missing out on the full context.
What are you talking about???
In journalism, headlines have always been used to try to entice people into reading the article. Not to give the entire story so that people won't need to read the article.
😐
That's a lot of information the shoe horn into the title when it seems perfectly reasonable just put it in the article itself. That's what articles are for after all, the context.
"as per NY law" ?
four words? none longer than three letters? That's a lot? Really?
No.
Man I don't think you understand what the point of a title is. It's not to give you all the information you need. That's what the article is for.
Does a title affect people? Just reading one sentence about something "newsworthy"? Do you think titles alone can have an effect on the political nature of a country, or a social group?
I don't think you understand what the point of a title is. Or what I'm talking about. Despite it being painfully obvious.
