June 29, 2015 By: Juanita Jean Herownself Category: Uncategorized
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused on Monday to allow Texas to enforce restrictions that would force 10 abortion clinics to close.
The justices voted 5-4 to grant an emergency appeal from the clinics after a federal appeals court upheld new regulations and refused to keep them on hold while the clinics appealed to the Supreme Court.
This means the court will take up abortion in the fall, at the start of the presidential race.
Welcome to The World's Most Dangerous Beauty Salon, Inc.
My name is Susan DuQuesnay Bankston. I live in Richmond, Texas, in the heart of Tom DeLay's old district. It's nuttier than squirrel poop here.
I am honored and privileged to know Miss Juanita Jean Herownself, hairdresser extraordinary and political maven. Since she does not have time to fiddle with this internet stuff, I type her website for her and you can read it if you want to. If you don't, she truly does not give a big bear's butt.
A lot of what I post here has to do with local politics, but you probably have the same folks in your local government.
This ain't a blog. Blogs are way too trendy for me. This is a professional political organization.
Wow, the SCOTUS is now 4 for 4.
Both wonderful and kinda scary. I’m not ready for the End Times.
1This is warding the end times off, I think!
2They did not rule in favor of the EPA rules though, and climate change is looking pretty damn scary! Ask India and Pakistan how they feel about it!
3Still way too many 5-4 decisions, in both directions. Get out the vote for another Democratic President! Asking voters who they want to decide on the Supreme Court justices can help them lean away from the right wing.
4“Ask India and Pakistan how they feel about it!”
And Australia and the west coast and the east coast and the Pacific Islands and… the list is nearly endless.
5@Lunargent, I’d call it 4 for 5, since they shot down EPA clean water guidelines earlier today.
6RATS – Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia must go.
Rhea, in addition to a Democratic President, we need to give whoever becomes president a full Democratic Congress to assist with some sane legislation. Harry Reid is retiring. It would be a disaster, if Nevada went red.
7If we want more progressive Justices then we need to work on changing the makeup of Congress (and make sure we have a Dem President).
We need to start working right now on regaining control of state governments in 2020, when the census will be taken and redistricting will occur. Since 2020 is a Presidential election year we will likely have higher Dem turnout than in 2010, but that won’t be enough. In 2014 Dems won 1 1/2 million more overall votes in the House, but the Repubs got 33 more seats. I know it seems early, but 2020 is vital. The Dems need to not only get to work, they need to be willing to fight.
8LynnN is right. We can’t start too soon. But we need better leadership and better messaging if we want Democrats to win.
9I agree, and am dismayed about the EPA ruling. Ask the people of the Marshall Islands about global warming … 2 degrees means the island is GONE! I am sure dangerous people like Santorum would have some pithy religiousy thing to pronounce about dominion over the earth.
10I’m Amazed by the decision.
115 for 7, I think. They allowed the Third Circuit’s refusal to grant religious exemptions in Pennsylvania for birth control to stand, providing a similar opt-out procedure, but they also upheld the use of midolozam in capital punishment on what seems like a technicality.
Abortion: win
12EPA: lose
Arizona: win
Marriage: win
Obamacare: win.
I am aware that SCOTUS does not function like a prosecutorial trial but somehow some way they have to hear about Mrs. Perry’s dog in the fight. I bet RATS will refuse to hear that stuff but I bet GSK plus one or two would find it damn interesting! The forced closures have nothing to do with operational criteria. Its all about $$$$.
13Hi GIndy, I just happened to be reading about some 3000+ people dead in a week in India and Pakistan. I know other places in the world are suffering too. I wonder if the extended drought in some of the African nations was the beginning of this cycle and we just couldn’t be bothered to care, or even notice?
14Hadn’t heard about the EPA decision – bummer.
But given the makeup of this court, this has been a pretty good session. Though I must admit, it has become tedious that, every time a ruling comes down, Anthony Kennedy is the single most influential person in the country.
15The EPA decision could have been worse. They didn’t say that the EPA *couldn’t* regulate mercury and other toxic emissions, only that they have to consider the costs. And SCOTUS didn’t say how. And a lot of electric plants have already worked on complying with the EPA standard. So it’s not good, but not as bad as it could have been. Some say it’s just a delay.
This is about mercury and toxins; not sure it involves climate change emissions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-strikes-down-obama-plan-to-control-toxic-emissions/2015/06/29/94cc26b2-1add-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html
16Please don’t call them “abortion clinics”! Planned Parenthood does so much more and hanging that singular label on them gives the appearance that abortions are all they do.
Planned Parenthood facilities, please!
17One wonders whether somebody pointed out the “undue burden” of filling out a tax form versus driving 100+ miles each way to see a doctor. Plus, what would constitute an “undue burden” on one’s Scond Amendment rights?
On a side note, I’d like to see Scalia on the wrong side of a 6/3 liberal/conservative court. The idea of more Scalia dissents to decisions quoting Scalia’s result-based analyses seems like something Gilbert & Sullivan’s Mikado would devise…
18@Alan – With all due respect, it is the legal provision of abortion services that the conservative-dominated Texas government has been trying to choke off. We don’t need to avoid the word. Substituting euphemisms only plays into the hands of those who are trying to onc
19e again outlaw this individual freedom.
(Sorry for the divided post.)
20UmptyDump, while I agree that abortion services are the main target, I believe that the radical right is very happy to deny all health care to women and the poor just for jollies.
21LynnN, UmptyDump, Alan…
Alan’s point is valid if we were talking about Planned Parenthood in general. In the case of these 10 facilities, it is the abortion services that have the extreme restrictions placed on them. And off-hand, I don’t know if all of them are Planned Parenthood.
I may not like using the term abortion clinic–because it focuses on using inflammatory word choice. Much like years ago the lingo of Anti-abortion and Pro-abortion got make-overs to pro-choice and pro-life. But in this particular news piece, the term seems appropriate.
22This is great news for Texas for the time being. But the crazies running the state will find a way to find another obstruction to throw at the providers. It is also a temporary decision and we shall see if they want to try to make this their big case to overthrow Roe V Wade. I still can not understand these people–everything for the fetus, but when the child is born, no help to feed, clothe or educate the child. These people with the anti government fervor, have no problem with government regulating the their most personal issues. In spite of this decision, I am cautiously optimistic. I just read the book “Injustices: The Supreme Court’s history of comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted”. I highly recommend it. We should not get too complacent with these favorable rulings, already Scalia is out there working up the base with his anger talk and jumble words.
23