Current Events > Supreme Court may end EMTALA today or in the very near future

Topic List	Page List: 1
Kradek 04/24/24 3:27:09 PM #1:	https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-weighs-idahos-strict-abortion-ban-medical-emergencies-2024-04-24/ WASHINGTON, April 24 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices, wading back into the battle over abortion access, appeared divided on Wednesday in a case pitting Idaho's strict Republican-backed abortion ban against a federal law that ensures that patients can receive emergency care. The justices heard arguments in an appeal by Idaho officials of a lower court's ruling that found that the 1986 U.S. law at issue, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), supersedes the state's near-total ban in the relatively rare circumstances when the two conflict. President Joe Biden's administration, which sued Idaho over the abortion law, has urged the justices to uphold that ruling. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. No consensus seemed to emerge among the conservative justices, who expressed concerns including what protections federal law extends to "unborn children" and whether Congress had clearly spelled out that EMTALA can mandate abortion in certain emergency cases. Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the administration, to respond to Idaho's argument that EMTALA was meant to prevent emergency rooms from so-called patient dumping - turning away uninsured patients - instead of addressing "abortion or other specific kinds of care." Prelogar said Congress used EMTALA to set a "baseline national standard of care" to ensure urgent conditions are addressed. "Idaho cannot criminalize the essential care that EMTALA requires," Prelogar added. The case has led the Supreme Court to revisit the fraught legal landscape it created with its June 2022 decision overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide. Idaho is one of seven states to put in place in the past two years a near-total abortion ban with no exception to protect the health of pregnant patients, Prelogar said. Idaho's so-called abortion "trigger" law, adopted in 2020, automatically took effect upon Roe's reversal. The state law bans nearly all abortions unless needed to prevent a mother's death, threatening doctors who violate it with two to five years in prison and loss of their medical license. At the same time, EMTALA requires hospitals that receive funding under the federal Medicare program to "stabilize" patients with emergency medical conditions. Hospitals that violate EMTALA can face lawsuits by injured patients, civil fines and potentially the loss of Medicare funding. So basically, EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) makes it to where if a hospital wants to receive medicaid & medicare funding its emergency rooms are legally obligated to provide medical services and can't turn people away. Under the current wording, these hospitals are required to provide abortions if the health of the mother is at risk. Idaho's law conflicts with this as they want more dead women, so they think it should only be applied when the life of the mother is at risk. Predictably, Thomas and Alito side with more dead women and made that position known pretty early. --- My metal band, Ivory King, has 2 songs out now - allmylinks.com/ivorykingtx (all of our links there so you can choose which one you'd prefer to use) <cite>Kradek posted [p:980073459] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-weighs-idahos-strict-abortion-ban-medical-emergencies-2024-04-24/WASHINGTON, April 24 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices, wading back into the battle over abortion access, appeared divided on Wednesday in a case pitting Idaho's strict Republican-backed abortion ban against a federal law that ensures that patients can receive emergency care.The justices heard arguments in an appeal by Idaho officials of a lower court's ruling that found that the 1986 U.S. law at issue, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), supersedes the state's near-total ban in the relatively rare circumstances when the two conflict.President Joe Biden's administration, which sued Idaho over the abortion law, has urged the justices to uphold that ruling.The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. No consensus seemed to emerge among the conservative justices, who expressed concerns including what protections federal law extends to "unborn children" and whether Congress had clearly spelled out that EMTALA can mandate abortion in certain emergency cases.Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the administration, to respond to Idaho's argument that EMTALA was meant to prevent emergency rooms from so-called patient dumping - turning away uninsured patients - instead of addressing "abortion or other specific kinds of care."Prelogar said Congress used EMTALA to set a "baseline national standard of care" to ensure urgent conditions are addressed."Idaho cannot criminalize the essential care that EMTALA requires," Prelogar added.The case has led the Supreme Court to revisit the fraught legal landscape it created with its June 2022 decision overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide.Idaho is one of seven states to put in place in the past two years a near-total abortion ban with no exception to protect the health of pregnant patients, Prelogar said.Idaho's so-called abortion "trigger" law, adopted in 2020, automatically took effect upon Roe's reversal. The state law bans nearly all abortions unless needed to prevent a mother's death, threatening doctors who violate it with two to five years in prison and loss of their medical license.At the same time, EMTALA requires hospitals that receive funding under the federal Medicare program to "stabilize" patients with emergency medical conditions. Hospitals that violate EMTALA can face lawsuits by injured patients, civil fines and potentially the loss of Medicare funding.So basically, EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) makes it to where if a hospital wants to receive medicaid & medicare funding its emergency rooms are legally obligated to provide medical services and can't turn people away. Under the current wording, these hospitals are required to provide abortions if the health of the mother is at risk. Idaho's law conflicts with this as they want more dead women, so they think it should only be applied when the life of the mother is at risk. Predictably, Thomas and Alito side with more dead women and made that position known pretty early. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sir_Will 04/24/24 3:31:05 PM #2:	Republicans are evil. --- River Song: Well, I was off to this gay gypsy bar mitzvah for the disabled when I thought 'Gosh, the Third Reich's a bit rubbish, I think i'll kill the Fuhrer' <cite>Sir_Will posted [p:980073507] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>Republicans are evil. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Xatrion 04/24/24 4:01:01 PM #3:	Fuck the gop. --- Shut your BF28/9 sound hole and listen up. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice? Strike three. <cite>Xatrion posted [p:980073976] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>Fuck the gop. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DrizztLink 04/24/24 4:01:58 PM #4:	The Supreme Court is a failed institution. --- He/Him http://guidesmedia.ign.com/guides/9846/images/slowpoke.gif https://i.imgur.com/M8h2ATe.png https://i.imgur.com/6ezFwG1.png <cite>DrizztLink posted [p:980073985] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>The Supreme Court is a failed institution. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mystic_belmont 04/24/24 4:04:03 PM #5:	Don't worry, the USSC will rule that hospitals can turn away people for any reason they want. --- "Freedom was meaningless without ownership and control over one's own body" -Tera Hunter 'Joy My Freedom' [Evil Republican] 3DS FC: 5429-7297-4842 <cite>mystic_belmont posted [p:980074008] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>Don't worry, the USSC will rule that hospitals can turn away people for any reason they want. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ClayGuida 04/24/24 4:07:03 PM #6:	This is the rude awakening Americans need. Conservatives hate you and hope you die. --- lolAmerica <cite>ClayGuida posted [p:980074056] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>This is the rude awakening Americans need. Conservatives hate you and hope you die. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CyborgSage00x0 04/24/24 4:14:14 PM #7:	They are now facing the consequences of their own stupid actions. Not that it will matter. Alito and Thomas will rule against this, so it's +2 for the evil fucks out of the gates. It won't take much for the other fucks to twist this in a way that makes sense to them. Kav already is trying, with the "but was the bill originally passed for this intent?" That isn't how laws work. Only the actual language matters. If that was the case, then the 1st wouldn't protect non-18th century technology free speech, no one would have a right to a gun, etc. Not that hypocrisy has ever stood in the way of these idiots. Abortions are a legit medical procedure for emergency, life-saving needs. This isn't even an argument in a sane world. --- PotD's resident Film Expert. <cite>CyborgSage00x0 posted [p:980074157] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>They are now facing the consequences of their own stupid actions.Not that it will matter. Alito and Thomas will rule against this, so it's +2 for the evil fucks out of the gates. It won't take much for the other fucks to twist this in a way that makes sense to them. Kav already is trying, with the "but was the bill originally passed for this intent?"That isn't how laws work. Only the actual language matters. If that was the case, then the 1st wouldn't protect non-18th century technology free speech, no one would have a right to a gun, etc.Not that hypocrisy has ever stood in the way of these idiots. Abortions are a legit medical procedure for emergency, life-saving needs. This isn't even an argument in a sane world. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GeminiDeus 04/24/24 4:16:00 PM #8:	I like how none of the illegal shit that came to light last year about Thomas has ended in any kind of consequences. Good job, USA. --- Without truth, there is nothing. <cite>GeminiDeus posted [p:980074190] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>I like how none of the illegal shit that came to light last year about Thomas has ended in any kind of consequences. Good job, USA. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hyena_Of_Ice 04/24/24 4:22:28 PM #9:	They'll go with a "leave it up to the states" mandate. Gorsuch's main schtick is teh sakred free murketz. Alito and Thomas are religious extremists and far right. I can't remember what Kavanaugh's thing is, and I can't recall how ACAB always votes on these issues, except that she surprisingly doesn't adhere to her stereotype 100% of the time. BTW, I've noticed that the chuds don't like ACAB as much as they like Thomas and Alito. Of course, the core issue here is about medicare/medicaid funding. So I think the conservative justices are going to go the "give conscientious objector exemptions for pro-life medical staff" They may also go the dumb/loophole route and say "medicare/caid funds cannot go to these hospitals, but state-funded healthcare coverage plans funded by medicaid/medicare can, and it's up to the states if they want to do this" While likely obscuring or omitting the fact that state healthcare plans or hospital funding programs use medicare/medicaid funds. Not that it will matter. Alito and Thomas will rule against this, so it's +2 for the evil fucks out of the gates. It won't take much for the other fucks to twist this in a way that makes sense to them. Kav already is trying, with the "but was the bill originally passed for this intent?" That isn't how laws work. Only the actual language matters. If that was the case, then the 1st wouldn't protect non-18th century technology free speech, no one would have a right to a gun, etc. Actually, it does matter to some extent. E.g. if loophole abuse exists, IIRC the justices can add the closing of said loophole as a clause in their rulings, though usually there has to be some sort of precedent or constitutional logic for doing that. <cite>Hyena_Of_Ice posted [p:980074289] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>They'll go with a "leave it up to the states" mandate. Gorsuch's main schtick is teh sakred free murketz. Alito and Thomas are religious extremists and far right. I can't remember what Kavanaugh's thing is, and I can't recall how ACAB always votes on these issues, except that she surprisingly doesn't adhere to her stereotype 100% of the time.BTW, I've noticed that the chuds don't like ACAB as much as they like Thomas and Alito.Of course, the core issue here is about medicare/medicaid funding. So I think the conservative justices are going to go the "give conscientious objector exemptions for pro-life medical staff" They may also go the dumb/loophole route and say "medicare/caid funds cannot go to these hospitals, but state-funded healthcare coverage plans funded by medicaid/medicare can, and it's up to the states if they want to do this"While likely obscuring or omitting the fact that state healthcare plans or hospital funding programs use medicare/medicaid funds.Not that it will matter. Alito and Thomas will rule against this, so it's +2 for the evil fucks out of the gates. It won't take much for the other fucks to twist this in a way that makes sense to them. Kav already is trying, with the "but was the bill originally passed for this intent?"<quote>That isn't how laws work. Only the actual language matters. If that was the case, then the 1st wouldn't protect non-18th century technology free speech, no one would have a right to a gun, etc.</quote>Actually, it does matter to some extent. E.g. if loophole abuse exists, IIRC the justices can add the closing of said loophole as a clause in their rulings, though usually there has to be some sort of precedent or constitutional logic for doing that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kradek 04/24/24 4:32:10 PM #10:	Hyena_Of_Ice posted... and I can't recall how ACAB always votes on these issues, except that she surprisingly doesn't adhere to her stereotype 100% of the time. The person I was hearing about this from was saying it sounded like she was echoing Sotomayor's questioning and commented that it may be because she's a woman and as such they obviously see abortion/bodily autonomy rights, as well as the healthcare associated with it, very differently than men who think women should just be breeding sows and cooks. --- My metal band, Ivory King, has 2 songs out now - allmylinks.com/ivorykingtx (all of our links there so you can choose which one you'd prefer to use) <cite>Kradek posted [p:980074445] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>Hyena_Of_Ice posted... </cite><quote>and I can't recall how ACAB always votes on these issues, except that she surprisingly doesn't adhere to her stereotype 100% of the time.</quote>The person I was hearing about this from was saying it sounded like she was echoing Sotomayor's questioning and commented that it may be because she's a woman and as such they obviously see abortion/bodily autonomy rights, as well as the healthcare associated with it, very differently than men who think women should just be breeding sows and cooks. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hikewne 04/24/24 9:43:28 PM #11:	Kradek posted... The person I was hearing about this from was saying it sounded like she was echoing Sotomayor's questioning and commented that it may be because she's a woman and as such they obviously see abortion/bodily autonomy rights, as well as the healthcare associated with it, very differently than men who think women should just be breeding sows and cooks. She jumped in after a question from Sotomayor to Idaho and said Im kind of shockedyour own expert had said below that these kinds of cases were covered, and youre now saying theyre not?Well, youre hedgingJustice Sotomayor is asking you would this be covered or not, and it was my understanding that the legislators witnesses said that these would be coveredSome doctors might reach a contrary conclusionis what Justice Sotomayor is asking youWhat if a prosecutor thought differentlythat no good faith doctor could draw that conclusionwould that doctor be prosecuted? Later she said But why are you here? In response to Idahos argument that the federal law and Idahos law basically were not contradictory. Well, hold on a secondyoure here because there is an injunctionand if your law can fully operate because EMTALA doesnt curb Idahos authority to enforce its law It really was hard to follow Idahos legal argument here. It seemed to be far reaching to the point that they want to invalidate EMTALA, but then it somehow became Idahos law is compliant with EMTALA. Its not a surprise, but she also asked if Idaho has conscience exemptions for doctors who would not want to perform abortions, etc. --- What are you waiting for? You're free. <cite>Hikewne posted [p:980079337] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>Kradek posted... </cite><quote>The person I was hearing about this from was saying it sounded like she was echoing Sotomayor's questioning and commented that it may be because she's a woman and as such they obviously see abortion/bodily autonomy rights, as well as the healthcare associated with it, very differently than men who think women should just be breeding sows and cooks.</quote>She jumped in after a question from Sotomayor to Idaho and said Im kind of shockedyour own expert had said below that these kinds of cases were covered, and youre now saying theyre not?Well, youre hedgingJustice Sotomayor is asking you would this be covered or not, and it was my understanding that the legislators witnesses said that these would be coveredSome doctors might reach a contrary conclusionis what Justice Sotomayor is asking youWhat if a prosecutor thought differentlythat no good faith doctor could draw that conclusionwould that doctor be prosecuted?Later she said But why are you here? In response to Idahos argument that the federal law and Idahos law basically were not contradictory. Well, hold on a secondyoure here because there is an injunctionand if your law can fully operate because EMTALA doesnt curb Idahos authority to enforce its law It really was hard to follow Idahos legal argument here. It seemed to be far reaching to the point that they want to invalidate EMTALA, but then it somehow became Idahos law is compliant with EMTALA.Its not a surprise, but she also asked if Idaho has conscience exemptions for doctors who would not want to perform abortions, etc. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Horith 04/24/24 9:55:42 PM #12:	Hikewne posted... It really was hard to follow Idahos legal argument here. It seemed to be far reaching to the point that they want to invalidate EMTALA, but then it somehow became Idahos law is compliant with EMTALA. Since when did bad legal arguments get in the way of the SC gutting both legal protections for people and enforcement tools for the federal government? Kav asking about the intent of the law is a pretty strong signal hell twist himself into knots to support Idaho. Thomas and Alito dont give a fuck so long as they can screw the liberals over (and anyone else along with them is acceptable collateral damage). Roberts and Gorsuch dont have any need for maintaining the pretense that theyre fair-minded. And I believe ACB is leaning against Idaho as much as I believed she was being honest about respecting Roe as settled law. <cite>Horith posted [p:980079532] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>Hikewne posted... </cite><quote>It really was hard to follow Idahos legal argument here. It seemed to be far reaching to the point that they want to invalidate EMTALA, but then it somehow became Idahos law is compliant with EMTALA.</quote>Since when did bad legal arguments get in the way of the SC gutting both legal protections for people and enforcement tools for the federal government? Kav asking about the intent of the law is a pretty strong signal hell twist himself into knots to support Idaho. Thomas and Alito dont give a fuck so long as they can screw the liberals over (and anyone else along with them is acceptable collateral damage). Roberts and Gorsuch dont have any need for maintaining the pretense that theyre fair-minded. And I believe ACB is leaning against Idaho as much as I believed she was being honest about respecting Roe as settled law. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hikewne 04/24/24 10:06:44 PM #13:	Horith posted... Since when did bad legal arguments get in the way of the SC gutting both legal protections for people and enforcement tools for the federal government? Kav asking about the intent of the law is a pretty strong signal hell twist himself into knots to support Idaho. Thomas and Alito dont give a fuck so long as they can screw the liberals over (and anyone else along with them is acceptable collateral damage). Roberts and Gorsuch dont have any need for maintaining the pretense that theyre fair-minded. And I believe ACB is leaning against Idaho as much as I believed she was being honest about respecting Roe as settled law. You have a good point - with this court, it doesnt seem to matter what the legal arguments actually are or what the scope should be. They could very well declare EMTALA unconstitutional and it wouldnt surprise me. I listed things that ACB said during oral arguments today, I never made any claims as to how anyone would rule. --- What are you waiting for? You're free. <cite>Hikewne posted [p:980079717] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>Horith posted... </cite><quote>Since when did bad legal arguments get in the way of the SC gutting both legal protections for people and enforcement tools for the federal government? Kav asking about the intent of the law is a pretty strong signal hell twist himself into knots to support Idaho. Thomas and Alito dont give a fuck so long as they can screw the liberals over (and anyone else along with them is acceptable collateral damage). Roberts and Gorsuch dont have any need for maintaining the pretense that theyre fair-minded. And I believe ACB is leaning against Idaho as much as I believed she was being honest about respecting Roe as settled law.</quote>You have a good point - with this court, it doesnt seem to matter what the legal arguments actually are or what the scope should be. They could very well declare EMTALA unconstitutional and it wouldnt surprise me. I listed things that ACB said during oral arguments today, I never made any claims as to how anyone would rule. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CADE_FOSTER 04/24/24 10:14:01 PM #14:	Sir_Will posted... Republicans are evil. <cite>CADE_FOSTER posted [p:980079818] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>Sir_Will posted... </cite><quote>Republicans are evil.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DoesntMatter 04/24/24 10:30:55 PM #15:	yeah this is sadly not surprising. this illegitimate SCOTUS wants to turn the US into The Handmaid's Tale. --- It don't matter. None of this matters. he/him <cite>DoesntMatter posted [p:980080008] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>yeah this is sadly not surprising. this illegitimate SCOTUS wants to turn the US into The Handmaid's Tale. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RchHomieQuanChi 04/24/24 10:33:41 PM #16:	As a country, we should just collectively pretend like the Supreme Court doesn't exist. Fuck them. --- I have nothing else to say <cite>RchHomieQuanChi posted [p:980080045] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>As a country, we should just collectively pretend like the Supreme Court doesn't exist. Fuck them. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CADE_FOSTER 04/24/24 10:41:14 PM #17:	RchHomieQuanChi posted... As a country, we should just collectively pretend like the Supreme Court doesn't exist. Fuck them. Texas ignored the scotus why cant we <cite>CADE_FOSTER posted [p:980080132] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>RchHomieQuanChi posted... </cite><quote>As a country, we should just collectively pretend like the Supreme Court doesn't exist. Fuck them.</quote>Texas ignored the scotus why cant we</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kradek 04/24/24 10:44:34 PM #18:	Hikewne posted... She jumped in after a question from Sotomayor to Idaho and said Im kind of shockedyour own expert had said below that these kinds of cases were covered, and youre now saying theyre not?Well, youre hedgingJustice Sotomayor is asking you would this be covered or not, and it was my understanding that the legislators witnesses said that these would be coveredSome doctors might reach a contrary conclusionis what Justice Sotomayor is asking youWhat if a prosecutor thought differentlythat no good faith doctor could draw that conclusionwould that doctor be prosecuted? Later she said But why are you here? In response to Idahos argument that the federal law and Idahos law basically were not contradictory. Well, hold on a secondyoure here because there is an injunctionand if your law can fully operate because EMTALA doesnt curb Idahos authority to enforce its law It really was hard to follow Idahos legal argument here. It seemed to be far reaching to the point that they want to invalidate EMTALA, but then it somehow became Idahos law is compliant with EMTALA. Its not a surprise, but she also asked if Idaho has conscience exemptions for doctors who would not want to perform abortions, etc. Appreciate the clarification. It does seem like Idaho went into this with a "fuck the federal government only state rights on abortion matter!" and while there realized "oh shit, I forgot the Supremacy Clause exists, who can we still argue for this?" --- My metal band, Ivory King, has 2 songs out now - allmylinks.com/ivorykingtx (all of our links there so you can choose which one you'd prefer to use) <cite>Kradek posted [p:980080177] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>Hikewne posted... </cite><quote>She jumped in after a question from Sotomayor to Idaho and said Im kind of shockedyour own expert had said below that these kinds of cases were covered, and youre now saying theyre not?Well, youre hedgingJustice Sotomayor is asking you would this be covered or not, and it was my understanding that the legislators witnesses said that these would be coveredSome doctors might reach a contrary conclusionis what Justice Sotomayor is asking youWhat if a prosecutor thought differentlythat no good faith doctor could draw that conclusionwould that doctor be prosecuted?Later she said But why are you here? In response to Idahos argument that the federal law and Idahos law basically were not contradictory. Well, hold on a secondyoure here because there is an injunctionand if your law can fully operate because EMTALA doesnt curb Idahos authority to enforce its law It really was hard to follow Idahos legal argument here. It seemed to be far reaching to the point that they want to invalidate EMTALA, but then it somehow became Idahos law is compliant with EMTALA.Its not a surprise, but she also asked if Idaho has conscience exemptions for doctors who would not want to perform abortions, etc.</quote>Appreciate the clarification. It does seem like Idaho went into this with a "fuck the federal government only state rights on abortion matter!" and while there realized "oh shit, I forgot the Supremacy Clause exists, who can we still argue for this?" </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GrandConjuraton 04/24/24 10:45:43 PM #19:	DoesntMatter posted... yeah this is sadly not surprising. this illegitimate SCOTUS wants to turn the US into The Handmaid's Tale. --- When do we know how long we can break it? Where do we go to have some? https://imgur.com/o21DN7r <cite>GrandConjuraton posted [p:980080195] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>DoesntMatter posted... </cite><quote>yeah this is sadly not surprising. this illegitimate SCOTUS wants to turn the US into The Handmaid's Tale.</quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CommonStar 04/24/24 11:00:24 PM #20:	So when can we start expanding the court and packing it? Or are we still pretending that it's a slippery slope as if Republicans won't do it anyway when they get into power. <cite>CommonStar posted [p:980080389] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>So when can we start expanding the court and packing it? Or are we still pretending that it's a slippery slope as if Republicans won't do it anyway when they get into power.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Scardude 04/24/24 11:17:33 PM #21:	CommonStar posted... So when can we start expanding the court and packing it? Or are we still pretending that it's a slippery slope as if Republicans won't do it anyway when they get into power. They can wait until they are in office to do it again. Malice has patience. --- Above all things, never be afraid. The enemy who forces you to retreat is himself afraid of you at that very moment. <cite>Scardude posted [p:980080575] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>CommonStar posted... </cite><quote>So when can we start expanding the court and packing it? Or are we still pretending that it's a slippery slope as if Republicans won't do it anyway when they get into power.</quote>They can wait until they are in office to do it again. Malice has patience. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkace77450 04/24/24 11:41:11 PM #22:	CommonStar posted... So when can we start expanding the court and packing it? Or are we still pretending that it's a slippery slope as if Republicans won't do it anyway when they get into power. Packing the court to gain a political edge is unethical. Or at least thats what Republicans keep telling us. https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1777792000101687582 Then again, its always projection with Republicans and their objections should mean jack shit, so carry on. <cite>darkace77450 posted [p:980080839] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>CommonStar posted... </cite><quote>So when can we start expanding the court and packing it? Or are we still pretending that it's a slippery slope as if Republicans won't do it anyway when they get into power.</quote>Packing the court to gain a political edge is unethical. Or at least thats what Republicans keep telling us. https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1777792000101687582Then again, its always projection with Republicans and their objections should mean jack shit, so carry on. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kradek 04/24/24 11:56:06 PM #23:	darkace77450 posted... Packing the court to gain a political edge is unethical. Or at least thats what Republicans keep telling us. https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1777792000101687582 Then again, its always projection with Republicans and their objections should mean jack shit, so carry on. Yep, the fact that this is the reason that state is now suffering with an 1868 law being reinforced just makes it so much more apparent how Dems needs to do it as well, in the interest of preserving and/or expanding upon our freedoms. --- My metal band, Ivory King, has 2 songs out now - allmylinks.com/ivorykingtx (all of our links there so you can choose which one you'd prefer to use) <cite>Kradek posted [p:980081012] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>darkace77450 posted... </cite><quote>Packing the court to gain a political edge is unethical. Or at least thats what Republicans keep telling us. https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1777792000101687582Then again, its always projection with Republicans and their objections should mean jack shit, so carry on.</quote>Yep, the fact that this is the reason that state is now suffering with an 1868 law being reinforced just makes it so much more apparent how Dems needs to do it as well, in the interest of preserving and/or expanding upon our freedoms. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#24	Post #24 was unavailable or deleted.
ClayGuida 04/25/24 12:00:38 AM #25:	The fact that the court ruled on a hypothetical forever taints it. And it should forever end these judicial confirmation hearings where they refuse to answer hypothetical's. --- lolAmerica <cite>ClayGuida posted [p:980081069] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>The fact that the court ruled on a hypothetical forever taints it. And it should forever end these judicial confirmation hearings where they refuse to answer hypothetical's. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#26	Post #26 was unavailable or deleted.
Charismic_Zach_Gowen 04/26/24 3:15:01 PM #27:	Biden administration should strip the funding anyway. Let Roberts enforce it. --- In Brady We Trust. I've finally realized the secret to making a successful Mearn topic. Make it about CZG - Mearn <cite>Charismic_Zach_Gowen posted [p:980107890] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>Biden administration should strip the funding anyway. Let Roberts enforce it. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kradek 04/26/24 4:45:30 PM #28:	[LFAQs-redacted-quote] Too true. Thomas is the oldest at 77, I believe, so even if he stays as long as he can he's only got so long left. --- My metal band, Ivory King, has 2 songs out now - allmylinks.com/ivorykingtx (all of our links there so you can choose which one you'd prefer to use) <cite>Kradek posted [p:980109560] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote><cite>[LFAQs-redacted-quote]</cite> Too true. Thomas is the oldest at 77, I believe, so even if he stays as long as he can he's only got so long left. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
[deleted] 04/27/24 7:04:59 PM #30:	[deleted] <cite>[deleted] posted [p:980129219] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote>[deleted]</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#29	Post #29 was unavailable or deleted.
Kradek 04/28/24 12:47:56 AM #31:	[LFAQs-redacted-quote] Word, when I think about how people like Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell are still fucking in Congress it infuriates me. I guess channeling the dark side really does have longevity benefits. --- My metal band, Ivory King, has 2 songs out now - allmylinks.com/ivorykingtx (all of our links there so you can choose which one you'd prefer to use) <cite>Kradek posted [p:980131990] in Supreme Co... [t:80754644]...</cite> <quote><cite>[LFAQs-redacted-quote]</cite> Word, when I think about how people like Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell are still fucking in Congress it infuriates me. I guess channeling the dark side really does have longevity benefits. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#32	Post #32 was unavailable or deleted.
Topic List	Page List: 1

Current Events > Supreme Court may end EMTALA today or in the very near future (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Supreme Court may end EMTALA today or in the very near future