Texas doctor says he violated nation's most restrictive antiabortion law to challenge it

And this after I so helpfully allayed your anxiety by pointing out what would occur and you so blithely claimed you'd respect my opinion for the day. One might almost think you were a dishonest sort of person with behavior like that. For shame.

They changed the definition of racism too a few years ago, that doesn't mean ethnic minorities can't be racist.
Take the lawyer's word about a term that grew up in the 30s under FDRs plan to add as many justices as there were current justices over a certain age to "help with the workload " which even his own party who pretty much thought he could do no wrong said "**** off" to.


If he didn't have the votes and enough wanted to see Garland they could've gotten it in anyway. There's plenty of procedural motions a majority of the body can make to move things along if they are so inclined.
The fact that he said he wasn't shifting it to a vote and nothing happened but wailing and gnashing of teeth from a group without the votes is your dead giveaway.

 

We are CREATED EQUAL.

 

Define viability and where does science say that is what determines human life.

 

The SCOTUS nominees MUST come out of the Senate Judiciary with a majority and the D's didn't have it... To indicate "they could've gotten it in anyway" is just garbage... If the D's could have gotten it to a 100 member vote, they would have...

SNIP
The 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter saying they had no intention of consenting to any nominee from Obama. No proceedings of any kind were held on Garland's appointment.
ENDSNIP

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/6244...errick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now

Simple as that...

I'll give you more credit for abortion lawsuits than SCOTUS procedures on this one...

Also, in no way did you "allay my anxiety" on anything... you had a clever idea that came to fruition... don't hurt yourself on the back patting...

 

Emphasis mine: So what you're saying is, they didn't have the votes to make it happen under the procedural rules the Senate has set for itself so.... it didn't happen. O the huge manatee!!!!!!!!

Your quote: Advice: No. Consent: Withheld. Constitutional function served.

As to back patting: Dude you went out of your way to thank me for it and outright voluntarily promised respect for the day which you then broke.
YOU did the back patting amigo. I'm simply pointing out you speak out of both sides of your mouth.

The abortion lawsuit *as it related to civil procedure regarding scotus cases*. Fixed that for you.

 

Well, gosh, just because someone claims to have committed any crime, it is not evidence a crime was committed.

Not to crush your ego, but perhaps you should first learn the difference between testimonial evidence and physical evidence.

 

Not crushed at all by that bit of naivete.. I assume you are aware 2 people filed the allowed lawsuits against the doctor on nothing more than his statement??

Filing the suit could allow you to get whatever physical evidence is out there, should either lawsuit go forward.

Without that, how would a private citizen get ahold of a pre-abortion heartbeat test or whatever else is needed to win the suit??

 

Now here's a unique method to try to punish the doctor by recommending the Texas Medical Board remove his license. This isn't a monetary lawsuit, so this one won't be going to a court UNLESS the board does something to his license, then he could sue the board (which is state government) and that would be a lawsuit which would end up covering the Texiban law...

https://www.operationrescue.org/wp-...Narrative-Alan-Braid-9-20-2021-Letterhead.pdf

 

Pile of messy verbal diarrhea, but just out of curiosity, what "doctors" are going to file either of those motions?? There's only 1 doctor involved in this, and he's welcoming all of these lawsuits...

I suggest you stop copy and pasting from whatever Texas law site you stumbled across and read how the actual story is progressing...

 

Here's a humorous, yet legal, take on the 2 current lawsuits and the 2 strange litigants behind them...

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...doctor-could-hasten-new-statute-s-ncna1279723

I think it's pretty appropriate that clowns would file clownish lawsuits against a clown law... all we need is some Rudy hair dye and Judge Judy and we have ourselves a party!

 

In other words, you have no understanding of things-legal. We got that.

Civil courts do not and cannot issue search warrants.

Not only are you ignorant of HIPAA, you don't understand doctor-patient privilege, and you didn't read Texas Rules of Evidence Rule 509 (which is pretty much the same for all States since nearly all States except Louisiana adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence wholesale.) You need the patient's written consent to release medical records.

It's highly unlikely any patient would give the Plaintiffs consent to examine their medical records.

I would discuss the Elements of Proof necessary to sustain a verdict in either criminal or civil court, but obviously, half of it would go over your head and the other half would go way, way over your head.

This isn't the 1970s when reporters actually had majors or minors in the fields which they covered and wrote news stories. You know, economic correspondents majored/minored in economics, legal correspondents majored/minored in pre-law (and some were attorneys), medical correspondents majored/minored in pre-med or nursing, foreign affairs majored/minored in political science or international relations, like that.

I mention that, because the good news is the people writing those news stories today know even less than you know.

 

Wow... that was messier than the first post... and that was no high bar...

The SINGLE defendant is not going to file to dismiss or for summary judgement... rinse and repeat...

 

Recycling my own Texiban thread for breaking news... no surprise the law fails the first REAL judicial review

SNIP
A federal judge on Wednesday ordered Texas to suspend the most restrictive abortion law in the U.S., which since September has banned most abortions in the nation's second-most populous state.

Texas officials are likely to seek a swift reversal from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously allowed the restrictions to take effect.
ENDSNIP

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-orders-texas-suspend-law-005401686.html