Link to Supreme Court opinion - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-7_n6io.pdf
You are very smart. I still don't have a good grasp of it but I put the SupCt's summary in a comment, if you want to give it a read. I had no idea what the tweet was even talking about.
I was confused what the hell this tweet meant so I looked up the case.
Here is the first paragraph which clarifies what the hell this case was all about:
Louisiana’s Act 620, which is almost word-for-word identical to the Texas “admitting privileges” law at issue in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U. S. ___, requires any doctor who performs abortions to hold “active admitting privileges at a hospital . . . located not further than thirty miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced,” and defines “active admitting privileges” as being “a member in good standing” of the hospital’s “medical staff . . . with the ability to admit a patient and to provide diagnostic and surgical services to such patient.”
So Basically the law at issue restricted the providing of abortions to only those doctors that currently possess "admitting privileges" (not all doctors do) at an abortion clinic that was within 30 miles of the hospital that that doctor has the admitting privileges.
The rest of the Supreme Court opinion summary is the following:
In these consolidated cases, five abortion clinics and four abortion providers challenged Act 620 before it was to take effect, alleging that it was unconstitutional because (among other things) it imposed an undue burden on the right of their patients to obtain an abortion. The plaintiffs asked for a temporary restraining order (TRO), followed by a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect. The defendant (State) opposed the TRO request but also urged the court not to delay ruling on the preliminary injunction motion, asserting that there was no doubt about the physicians’ standing. Rather than staying the Act’s effective date, the District Court provisionally forbade the State to enforce the Act’s penalties, while directing the plaintiff doctors to continue to seek privileges and to keep the court apprised of their progress. Several months later, after a 6-day bench trial, the District Court declared Act 620 unconstitutional on its face and preliminarily enjoined its enforcement. On remand in light of Whole Woman’s Health, the District Court ruled favorably on the plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction on the basis of the record previously developed, finding, among other things, that the law offers no significant health benefit; that conditions on admitting privileges common to hospitals throughout the State have made and will continue to make it impossible for abortion providers to obtain conforming privileges for reasons that have nothing to do with the State’s asserted interests in promoting women’s health and safety; and that this inability places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking an abortion. The court concluded that the law imposes an undue burden and is thus unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit reversed, agreeing with the District Court’s interpretation of the standards that apply to abortion regulations, but disagreeing with nearly every one of the District Court’s factual findings. Held: The judgment is reversed.
Don't worry. Its very backed up.
Great job. I can tell that the site you used got its info from my list (which I'm very happy with) because I wrote the all headlines.
When I get some free time I'm going to put your video into the rotation of header videos I use.
Wow. Who made this?
Its just sad.
I made the site https://www.AttacksOnTrumpSupporters.com and it looks like the creator of this video used the information I compiled, which makes the 500+ hours I've put into it worth it.
I might put this as the header.
Thanks. I'm constantly updating/upgrading it so let me know if something is missing or broken.
Share! Share! Share!
I'm an attorney but I'm willing to admit that I'm not an expert in this area.
But my first reaction is that this could be a good clause because it somewhat disincentivizes people from suing Parler for the purpose of bankrupting them with frivolously lawsuits.
Otherwise soros/dems will create a thousand fake accounts, say bad illegal things about himself, and then sue Parler.
This doesnt completely protect parler but its an interesting step.
And to some extent this doesnt matter, because Parler is covered under 230, so as long as its a platform, then you cant sue Parler for the things its users say anyways.
Just my first thoughts. I'd like to hear other takes from lawyers. But most of the other stuff posted here is just ignorant people screeching.
You don't have standing to sue. I think there shouldn't be a standing requirement but the court have decided that it exists.
Apologize? I hope the people forcing you to use Parler are arrested.
I disagree with your last point. I think it's important to give raw data to the autists out there. JW can't figure it all put on their own. But they can help get us more info to piece things together. I agree that the headline is overly sensational and no dots have been connected yet.
I know. But now we have to tear him to shreds since those are the rules he plays by.
The US justice system is obviously extremely corrupt.
I cant wait for the corporate media to scream about the attack on the press. Oh right they wont.
This was all part of the plan.
Bolton got is $2 million book advance from the democrat book publisher, they knew it would be challenged in court, and they knew they would leak the book filled with lies to try to influence the election.
This is extremely important! Good job!
What actions from ordinary citizens, if any, do you think has the greatest positive impact?
Thanks for elaborating.
What if the Fed wont allow paypal competitors any access to the financial system if they wont censor Laura Loomer...would you then support regulations allowing access to all law abiding citizens and businesses?
Because Paypal and all Banks only exists because they have the connection to the Fed to transfer funds between each other.
Would you still think the best way to deal with this problem is just for conservatives to step up and create competition?
Bitchute is a competitor to youtube but if every payment processor that is approved by the Fed refuses to do business with them, what do you propose bitchute do?
I'm not saying that I have the evidence what the Fed is definitely doing or not but I have my suspicions.
I agree overall with your points.
I think though that we have collusion between banking companies and tech companies. I think we will find that the Fed was not approving new financial institutions that sign up to their hidden leftist agends, which include supressing and debanking people like Laura Loomer and it will keep increasing. The Fed must be force to allow access to their US dollar systems for all american engaging in legal activities. If the corrupt left has invaded every other institution in our country they surely have invaded the Fed.
I know in theory they are not governmental but in reality they are quasi-governmental. Credit unions must use the Feds systems for transferring money to other banks.
No. I don't think you understand the details of the first steps act.
If you want to learn about it check out this blog https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/first-step-act-and-its-implementation/
Here is an example I just found - https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-young-663
A 72 year old Vietnam vet became addicted to crack in the mid-90s when he was 50 and robbed some banks to support his habit. He didn't cause physical harm to anyone while committing those terrible crimes. He was arrested in 1998 and sentenced to 92.25 years. He has been in jail for almost 20 years.
This guys Motion for Sentence Reduction Under the First Step Act was granted, and the court is scheduling a hearing at where the parties will present argument regarding what they believe would be an appropriate sentence.
This is what the first step act was made for and a good start to fixing our broken criminal justice system.