Texas might checkmate abortion!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a federal law that is supposed to shield manufacturers, dealers and distributors from civil liability. How is the California law going to work around that?

Does injunctive relief or statutory damages imply civil liability?

….Not that it necessarily matters since the Court’s latest decision on TX suggest that federal laws are meaningless.

The more I think about that Texas law, the more I think it had nothing to do with abortion and more to do with breaking up the United States. They used abortion as the wedge but the end goal was to dismantle the federal government. This has been a GOP wet dream since Grover Northquest and his bathtub statement.

You know what? I (a dyed-in-the-wool liberal) am fine with that. The only hope for those of us on the left is to embrace a truly Federalist government, in which states control domestic policy and civil rights, while the Federal government is only responsible for national defense and interstate commerce. The idea that we progressives are somehow going to enshrine anti-racism, gender rights, and environmental action in the South via court order is a fantasy. All its done is to breed backlash. We need to let the former Confederacy make its own (backwards) domestic laws in exchange for freedom to pursue progressive policies in other parts of the country. I think a model for our country can be Spain, where autonomous cultural regions are given jurisdiction over most social policies. Is it perfect? No. But it's a much better choice than turning into Syria or Rwanda.

So just forget those folks in Red states? But there is part of me that agrees to STOP bailing out Red states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a federal law that is supposed to shield manufacturers, dealers and distributors from civil liability. How is the California law going to work around that?

That law has a "predicate exception" clause that allows states to subsequently enact predicate statues that will restore some liability. This law would fall within the predicate exception clause and allow California to do just that, enact a new statue that restores some civil liability. So, this law is actually covered and allowed within the 2005 law itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a federal law that is supposed to shield manufacturers, dealers and distributors from civil liability. How is the California law going to work around that?

Does injunctive relief or statutory damages imply civil liability?

….Not that it necessarily matters since the Court’s latest decision on TX suggest that federal laws are meaningless.

The more I think about that Texas law, the more I think it had nothing to do with abortion and more to do with breaking up the United States. They used abortion as the wedge but the end goal was to dismantle the federal government. This has been a GOP wet dream since Grover Northquest and his bathtub statement.

You know what? I (a dyed-in-the-wool liberal) am fine with that. The only hope for those of us on the left is to embrace a truly Federalist government, in which states control domestic policy and civil rights, while the Federal government is only responsible for national defense and interstate commerce. The idea that we progressives are somehow going to enshrine anti-racism, gender rights, and environmental action in the South via court order is a fantasy. All its done is to breed backlash. We need to let the former Confederacy make its own (backwards) domestic laws in exchange for freedom to pursue progressive policies in other parts of the country. I think a model for our country can be Spain, where autonomous cultural regions are given jurisdiction over most social policies. Is it perfect? No. But it's a much better choice than turning into Syria or Rwanda.

So just forget those folks in Red states? But there is part of me that agrees to STOP bailing out Red states.

In theory a state can restore slavery now.

[Anonymous]

You know what? I (a dyed-in-the-wool liberal) am fine with that. The only hope for those of us on the left is to embrace a truly Federalist government, in which states control domestic policy and civil rights, while the Federal government is only responsible for national defense and interstate commerce. The idea that we progressives are somehow going to enshrine anti-racism, gender rights, and environmental action in the South via court order is a fantasy. All its done is to breed backlash. We need to let the former Confederacy make its own (backwards) domestic laws in exchange for freedom to pursue progressive policies in other parts of the country. I think a model for our country can be Spain, where autonomous cultural regions are given jurisdiction over most social policies. Is it perfect? No. But it's a much better choice than turning into Syria or Rwanda.

I think I’m warming to this idea too. Instead of the United States of America, let’s just be the States of America. What works for Rhode Island doesn’t work for Mississippi and that’s ok. If you want easier access to guns and less restrictive gun laws, move to Montana. If you want all your neighbors to be pro-life, move to Alabama. If you’re gay, move to Vermont. Maybe that would create less strife/animosity. Opposite sides of these arguments will never convince the other side of anything, so let birds of a feather flock together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know what? I (a dyed-in-the-wool liberal) am fine with that. The only hope for those of us on the left is to embrace a truly Federalist government, in which states control domestic policy and civil rights, while the Federal government is only responsible for national defense and interstate commerce. The idea that we progressives are somehow going to enshrine anti-racism, gender rights, and environmental action in the South via court order is a fantasy. All its done is to breed backlash. We need to let the former Confederacy make its own (backwards) domestic laws in exchange for freedom to pursue progressive policies in other parts of the country. I think a model for our country can be Spain, where autonomous cultural regions are given jurisdiction over most social policies. Is it perfect? No. But it's a much better choice than turning into Syria or Rwanda.

This is the worst take. Screw every liberal who lives south of the Mason-Dixon? Screw every Black person? - because you know a return to Jim Crow if not outright slavery is what a significant chunk of the GOP is hoping for.

In a sane world, we’d be able to get a grip on right wing propaganda. That’s what’s really driving the “differences,” people being brainwashed. Those of us who actually interact with right wingers know that a particular look comes into the eyes of right wingers when they’re “talking politics,” and it’s not the look of someone who wants to engage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? I (a dyed-in-the-wool liberal) am fine with that. The only hope for those of us on the left is to embrace a truly Federalist government, in which states control domestic policy and civil rights, while the Federal government is only responsible for national defense and interstate commerce. The idea that we progressives are somehow going to enshrine anti-racism, gender rights, and environmental action in the South via court order is a fantasy. All its done is to breed backlash. We need to let the former Confederacy make its own (backwards) domestic laws in exchange for freedom to pursue progressive policies in other parts of the country. I think a model for our country can be Spain, where autonomous cultural regions are given jurisdiction over most social policies. Is it perfect? No. But it's a much better choice than turning into Syria or Rwanda.

This is the worst take. Screw every liberal who lives south of the Mason-Dixon? Screw every Black person? - because you know a return to Jim Crow if not outright slavery is what a significant chunk of the GOP is hoping for.

In a sane world, we’d be able to get a grip on right wing propaganda. That’s what’s really driving the “differences,” people being brainwashed. Those of us who actually interact with right wingers know that a particular look comes into the eyes of right wingers when they’re “talking politics,” and it’s not the look of someone who wants to engage.

Agree. I think PP doesn't understand how privileged he is to write something so egregious.

Let's find a way to shut down some of the white-wing media, Dems in power need to start getting tougher on voting rights, and get the Facebook whistleblower in to enact some policies with teeth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? I (a dyed-in-the-wool liberal) am fine with that. The only hope for those of us on the left is to embrace a truly Federalist government, in which states control domestic policy and civil rights, while the Federal government is only responsible for national defense and interstate commerce. The idea that we progressives are somehow going to enshrine anti-racism, gender rights, and environmental action in the South via court order is a fantasy. All its done is to breed backlash. We need to let the former Confederacy make its own (backwards) domestic laws in exchange for freedom to pursue progressive policies in other parts of the country. I think a model for our country can be Spain, where autonomous cultural regions are given jurisdiction over most social policies. Is it perfect? No. But it's a much better choice than turning into Syria or Rwanda.

This is the worst take. Screw every liberal who lives south of the Mason-Dixon? Screw every Black person? - because you know a return to Jim Crow if not outright slavery is what a significant chunk of the GOP is hoping for.

In a sane world, we’d be able to get a grip on right wing propaganda. That’s what’s really driving the “differences,” people being brainwashed. Those of us who actually interact with right wingers know that a particular look comes into the eyes of right wingers when they’re “talking politics,” and it’s not the look of someone who wants to engage.

Agree. I think PP doesn't understand how privileged he is to write something so egregious.

Let's find a way to shut down some of the white-wing media, Dems in power need to start getting tougher on voting rights, and get the Facebook whistleblower in to enact some policies with teeth.

PP here who is allegedly unconscious of my privilege.

First, do you really think that you're going to change hearts and minds in the South? If 150 years of post-slavery hasn't done it, I doubt another 150 years will.

Second, people are not plants. They can move for economic and political opportunity - and have many times in the past. Some of us believe the alternative is civil strife, in which case a great many of us would turn into refugees. Not such a great alternative - one way or another people will be on the move.

Finally, the US has productive relationships with a great many countries with whom we disagree on human rights and social policies. Mexico is one of our largest trading partners even though its income inequality and political corruption are off the map. I don't see any reason why states can't operate under the same philosophy of non-interference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a federal law that is supposed to shield manufacturers, dealers and distributors from civil liability. How is the California law going to work around that?

According to Texas, their law is not a state restriction on abortion, because claims by individuals are not state actions. Therefore, they say the state can’t be sued in federal court because it isn’t doing anything. It’s a dumb legal argument but because it is a dumb Republican argument, the Republican Supreme Court majority probably will pretend it makes sense. California is warning that they can use the same dumb argument to legalize individual actions for other purposes that would have the same pretend “exemption” from federal court jurisdiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a federal law that is supposed to shield manufacturers, dealers and distributors from civil liability. How is the California law going to work around that?

According to Texas, their law is not a state restriction on abortion, because claims by individuals are not state actions. Therefore, they say the state can’t be sued in federal court because it isn’t doing anything. It’s a dumb legal argument but because it is a dumb Republican argument, the Republican Supreme Court majority probably will pretend it makes sense. California is warning that they can use the same dumb argument to legalize individual actions for other purposes that would have the same pretend “exemption” from federal court jurisdiction.

The California will (might) eventually have the effect of, when being struck down, strike down the Texas law that the Supreme Court keeps declining to fully take up.

Maybe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a federal law that is supposed to shield manufacturers, dealers and distributors from civil liability. How is the California law going to work around that?

According to Texas, their law is not a state restriction on abortion, because claims by individuals are not state actions. Therefore, they say the state can’t be sued in federal court because it isn’t doing anything. It’s a dumb legal argument but because it is a dumb Republican argument, the Republican Supreme Court majority probably will pretend it makes sense. California is warning that they can use the same dumb argument to legalize individual actions for other purposes that would have the same pretend “exemption” from federal court jurisdiction.

This should also remove any barriers for:
suing predatory lenders
suing companies that use slave labor overseas
suing over climate change
suing any company whatsoever over things that caused you no direct personal harm but did harm others

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a federal law that is supposed to shield manufacturers, dealers and distributors from civil liability. How is the California law going to work around that?

According to Texas, their law is not a state restriction on abortion, because claims by individuals are not state actions. Therefore, they say the state can’t be sued in federal court because it isn’t doing anything. It’s a dumb legal argument but because it is a dumb Republican argument, the Republican Supreme Court majority probably will pretend it makes sense. California is warning that they can use the same dumb argument to legalize individual actions for other purposes that would have the same pretend “exemption” from federal court jurisdiction.

I get that, but there is a law that specifically says gunmakers, dealers and distributors can’t be sued for misuse if weapons.

The PP addressed this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a federal law that is supposed to shield manufacturers, dealers and distributors from civil liability. How is the California law going to work around that?

According to Texas, their law is not a state restriction on abortion, because claims by individuals are not state actions. Therefore, they say the state can’t be sued in federal court because it isn’t doing anything. It’s a dumb legal argument but because it is a dumb Republican argument, the Republican Supreme Court majority probably will pretend it makes sense. California is warning that they can use the same dumb argument to legalize individual actions for other purposes that would have the same pretend “exemption” from federal court jurisdiction.

I get that, but there is a law that specifically says gunmakers, dealers and distributors can’t be sued for misuse if weapons.

The PP addressed this.

DP. I responded to that. My quote above:

That law has a "predicate exception" clause that allows states to subsequently enact predicate statues that will restore some liability. This law would fall within the predicate exception clause and allow California to do just that, enact a new statue that restores some civil liability. So, this law is actually covered and allowed within the 2005 law itself.

According to the predicate exception clause, California can subsequently enact predicate statues that will restore some liability. The 2005 law does not bar a state from making future laws that enact liabilities. It only protects the gun manufacturers and dealers from liabilities based on current law. Additionally the law also allows for lawsuits based on negligent entrustment, which targets manufacturers or dealers who violated local statutes applicable to the sale of firearms. The law protects the manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits from victims of gun violence. However, the Texas law essentially says that citizens without standing can sue abortion rights providers. California is proposing a similar law on guns, allowing citizens without standing to sue gun manufacturers and dealers for the results of gun violence from a product that they have manufactured or sold. The 2005 law applies to victims with standing. The new law, which would be covered under the predicate exception would allow those without standing to sue. That is not covered by the 2005 law.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for explaining that!

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

exactly... that's what CA is doing.