Reply With Quote
The system is broken because it is fixed.
Isn't that better than the system being broken?
The system is broken because it is fixed.
Whoa! You just blew my mind.
Adios ABORTION, in a tiny bit of irony, you're ed.
Sorry, that's not going to happen.
I concur..even the staunchiest of conservatives knows that.
It could
It won't.
Well, no , anything COULD happen. We're talking probability, not possibility.
Why not
because the purpose of SCOTUS is not to overturn laws that they happen to disagree with politically.
I concur.
but, but, we conservatives don't like abortion...
I don't like it either but it is what it is.
then you just pack the court with like-minded conservatives and let them do the dirty work for you.
Well, I think the court-packing plan in is effect, but I don't think abortion will be affected.
me either. unless........
Interpretation of the cons ution is up for grabs, if it weren't we'd have fewer 5-4/6-3 decisions.
It's politically interpretated.
Vashner or Xray get nominated as justices....?
Dirty work is relative to which side of the political fence you're on.
I agree. I think the holdings of the Court will have a conservative slant, but Roe v. Wade has been the law for quite a while now.
true, but a number of factors must come together before a case will even make its way to SCOTUS. Then, each justice's interpretation of the const. will come into play along with other judicial considerations. I would say that overturning Roe v. Wade and its progeny (irony) would be unlikely.
The med mal thing is a scare tactic that worked -- sort of. Rick Perry is running ads pimping the business climate of Texas by saying that lawsuit reform has made for better health care in the state. But there's little or no corroboration for Perry's claim. A story in the January 23, 2006 edition of "Texas Lawyer" (a weekly newspaper-like periodical for lawyers) examined Perry's claims and showed that there was little connection.
For instance, proponents of the caps say that there were more doctors licensed after the caps were put in place than before. But the Texas Board of Medical Examiners' statistics show that there were 3,000 new doctors licensed between 2003-2005 (after the caps) and 3,000 new doctors licensed between 2001-2003 (before the caps). So lawsuit reform hasn't immediately produced more doctors in Texas. Likewise, those who argued for the caps said that the legislation would ensure more doctors (particularly OB/GYN) would serve in traditionally underserved areas, claiming for example that before the caps 60% of Texas counties had no OB/GYN services. Today, 60% of Texas counties have no OB/GYN services. Only major metropolitan areas are seeing any sort of increases in the rate of new doctor licensures. There's also been no apparent increase in the quality of emergency services: Texas got grades of D+ or lower in three of four categories in a report by the American College of Emergency Services, getting D+ in access to emergency care and care/patient safety; and getting a D in patient safety. The overall score for Texas was inflated by an A+ in medical liability reform.
Texas is last in the country in the overall rate of uninsured citizens, is 41st in state spending on hospital care, is 44th in certified ER docs, and is 48th in registered nurses.
About the only ones doing well with lawsuit reform in medical malpractice are doctors, whose negligence essentially goes unchecked except in the most egregious cases, and their insurers, who are coming to realize that medical malpractice cases are going the way of the buffalo.
You mean I can use your easy button to find my easy button?
*scratches head*
I wouldn't either, and they'll justify it by claiming states' rights. That's what they really want - take it back to the States and let them decide.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions