this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
1024 points (98.0% liked)

News

23276 readers
3448 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Lubbock County, Texas, joins a group of other rural Texas counties that have voted to ban women from using their roads to seek abortions.

This comes after six cities and counties in Texas have passed abortion-related bans, out of nine that have considered them. However, this ordinance makes Lubbock the biggest jurisdiction yet to pass restrictions on abortion-related transportation.

During Monday's meeting, the Lubbock County Commissioners Court passed an ordinance banning abortion, abortion-inducing drugs and travel for abortion in the unincorporated areas of Lubbock County, declaring Lubbock County a "Sanctuary County for the Unborn."

The ordinance is part of a continued strategy by conservative activists to further restrict abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade as the ordinances are meant to bolster Texas' existing abortion ban, which allows private citizens to sue anyone who provides or "aids or abets" an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.

The ordinance, which was introduced to the court last Wednesday, was passed by a vote of 3-0 with commissioners Terence Kovar, Jason Corley and Jordan Rackler, all Republicans, voting to pass the legislation while County Judge Curtis Parrish, Republican, and Commissioner Gilbert Flores, Democrat, abstained from the vote.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rothaine@lemm.ee 58 points 1 year ago (1 children)

was settled by the courts in 1824.

Nothing is "settled" with the current Supreme Court.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Commerce Clause is about as settled as it can get, though. Especially with a Court so enamoured with Founders Intent. Gibbons v Ogden is probably only behind Marbury v Madison in sacred status to this Court.

[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's cute that you still have faith in conservatives doing anything consistently

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Overturning Gibbons would do more harm to the conservative cause than good.

The entire West Coast is liberal-controlled states. They could legally tax or simply cut off any goods or services bound for conservative states originating from or passing through their states.

All to defend a law that's essentially unenforceable from a practical standpoint.

[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Again, you're assuming conservatives have any sort of consistency or logic. They'll just make up some BS that keeps things moving the way they want.

[–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even they have limits they won't pass because it would blow everything up.

[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I remember when I was this naive

[–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I remember when people had nice conversations on the internet that didn't involve unnecessary one-line insults.

[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe instead of being insulted by being aware of your incorrect beliefs you could educate yourself? Just a thought.

[–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

LOL as if there is something objectively true here. You cannot use the word "incorrect" in this conversation, but you know that and spread misinformation anyway. Everything we're talking about is fully subjective, conjecture, and whataboutism. Time to get off your "look at me I'm so cool" soapbox.

[–] I_DONT_RAPE_KITTEHS@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

"Sorry, but after the gutting of Roe, stare decisis only applies to things conservatives and/or billionaire overlords approve of" -- SCOTUS

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Conservatives and billionaires absolutely approve of the Commerce Clause.

Overturning Gibbons would allow California to tax all internet traffic coming through LA from the rest of the world, or allow liberal states to seize high-capacity magazines being shipped across state lines.

Imagine Facebook having to pay import/export taxes every time someone accessed their account.

It would be the most impactful SCOTUS decision of all time, and would be absolutely ruinous to the business interests of the wealthy.

[–] SheDiceToday@eslemmy.es 2 points 1 year ago

Stare decisis has only ever applied to things the justices approve of. It's just that this may be the most fucked up group we've ever had. If all the former judges were also lovers of stare decisis, most of our civil rights would not be here, because many of those have been when previous judgements were overturned. Just think about the segregation of schools. Was Brown v The Board of Education not a reversal of Plessy v Ferguson?

The concept has always been about a bullshit homage that lawyers and judges dance around.