Texas judge suspends abortion pill approval

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Holy crap. This should be shouted from the rooftops.

JUDGE USED FAKE DATA IN RULING AGAINST ABORTION PILLS

He should be impeached.

He won't be. If democrats ever get senators who will vote like democrats, Amarillo needs a few more judges

There's only one court out there. It's not simply a matter of more judges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure these Fed Soc judges are trying to goad the Administration into ignoring judicial rulings, thereby setting the stage for a Biden impeachment.

Hmmmm

I think ignoring it would be entirely legitimate.
Didn't the Washington State ruling basically counter the Texas ruling?

I think FDA is well within its rights to state that conflicting opinions from equal federal courts exist and that they won't change their posture until the issue is definitively resolved. That's a completely legitimate position. I don't think the FDA or Biden administration should declare the ruling illegitimate and ignore it. If we need court reform then let's talk about court reform. But the federal judge in Texas was legitimately nominated and confirmed and has the authority to issue this ruling under our system.

Not really. They can’t whimsically stop the prescription of a safe, effective and legitimate drug because it hurts their fascist feelings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Holy crap. This should be shouted from the rooftops.

JUDGE USED FAKE DATA IN RULING AGAINST ABORTION PILLS

He should be impeached.

He won't be. If democrats ever get senators who will vote like democrats, Amarillo needs a few more judges

There's only one court out there. It's not simply a matter of more judges.

The number of judges assigned to a court house can be changed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure these Fed Soc judges are trying to goad the Administration into ignoring judicial rulings, thereby setting the stage for a Biden impeachment.

Hmmmm

I think ignoring it would be entirely legitimate.
Didn't the Washington State ruling basically counter the Texas ruling?

Of course it will be ignored. You think people are going to allow their loved ones that suffer a miscarriage to get substandard care because of one loony women-hating judge in Texas?

The doctors who need to prescribe this drug and the companies that manufacture, distribute and sell it are not in a position to ignore a ruling by a federal judge no matter how absurd it is. They all have lawyers and insurance policies that won’t let them.

If DOJ doesn't get a stay from either the Fifth or SCOTUS, the FDA will announce it is exercising enforcement discretion to not go after anyone selling the abortion pill. They will have to do this to comply with the WA injunction and doing that would not violate the TX order.

Does that make it fine for any MD to write a prescription for this medication?

FDA doesn't regulate MD's prescribing of any drug. It regulates what can be sold and dispensed, so the issue will be whether the pharmacy will dispense it and whether the drug companies will keep making it and selling it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Holy crap. This should be shouted from the rooftops.

JUDGE USED FAKE DATA IN RULING AGAINST ABORTION PILLS

He should be impeached.

He won't be. If democrats ever get senators who will vote like democrats, Amarillo needs a few more judges

There's only one court out there. It's not simply a matter of more judges.

The number of judges assigned to a court house can be changed

The district can also adopt different rules for assigning cases without even adding more judges. For example, randomly assign among all the district judges regardless of which courthouse the lawsuit is filed in. This district (ND Texas) did exactly that for patent cases a year or two ago because of judge shopping. Absolutely no reason to apply the same rule across the board to all civil cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Holy crap. This should be shouted from the rooftops.

JUDGE USED FAKE DATA IN RULING AGAINST ABORTION PILLS

He should be impeached.

He won't be. If democrats ever get senators who will vote like democrats, Amarillo needs a few more judges

There's only one court out there. It's not simply a matter of more judges.

The number of judges assigned to a court house can be changed

The district can also adopt different rules for assigning cases without even adding more judges. For example, randomly assign among all the district judges regardless of which courthouse the lawsuit is filed in. This district (ND Texas) did exactly that for patent cases a year or two ago because of judge shopping. Absolutely no reason to apply the same rule across the board to all civil cases.

This is a good idea.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Obviously. Their goal is Gilead, only I imagine their rape would be less ritualized.

[Anonymous]

The Fifth Circuit’s decision was absolute political trash.

The Supreme Court is about to sign its death warrant. Do you think they know it yet? Roberts is going down in history as the chief Justice that presided over the death of the rule of law. I’m looking forward to the eventual backlash that will end fundamentalist religion in America for good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Fifth Circuit’s decision was absolute political trash.

The Supreme Court is about to sign its death warrant. Do you think they know it yet? Roberts is going down in history as the chief Justice that presided over the death of the rule of law. I’m looking forward to the eventual backlash that will end fundamentalist religion in America for good.

+1. The order is a joke. Years of precedent on standing in Article III courts just tossed, or completely misinterpreted to reach a particular outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Fifth Circuit’s decision was absolute political trash.

The Supreme Court is about to sign its death warrant. Do you think they know it yet? Roberts is going down in history as the chief Justice that presided over the death of the rule of law. I’m looking forward to the eventual backlash that will end fundamentalist religion in America for good.

Jesus I hadn’t seen this yet. What did they throw this out at midnight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Fifth Circuit’s decision was absolute political trash.

The Supreme Court is about to sign its death warrant. Do you think they know it yet? Roberts is going down in history as the chief Justice that presided over the death of the rule of law. I’m looking forward to the eventual backlash that will end fundamentalist religion in America for good.

+1. The order is a joke. Years of precedent on standing in Article III courts just tossed, or completely misinterpreted to reach a particular outcome.

I'm struck by the reliance on interpretation of the Comstock Laws from 1873 when the rationale for parts of the Voting Rights from 1965 being struck down was that the justification was from too long ago to still be relevant.

[Anonymous]

Unelected bureaucrat imposes his religious practice on the nation. What happen to states right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Fifth Circuit’s decision was absolute political trash.

The Supreme Court is about to sign its death warrant. Do you think they know it yet? Roberts is going down in history as the chief Justice that presided over the death of the rule of law. I’m looking forward to the eventual backlash that will end fundamentalist religion in America for good.

+1. The order is a joke. Years of precedent on standing in Article III courts just tossed, or completely misinterpreted to reach a particular outcome.

I'm struck by the reliance on interpretation of the Comstock Laws from 1873 when the rationale for parts of the Voting Rights from 1965 being struck down was that the justification was from too long ago to still be relevant.

+1 yes, this too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unelected bureaucrat imposes his religious practice on the nation. What happen to states right?

+1. And WTF happened to the rights reserved to the people?