Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram Live Sex ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

OA27: Abortion and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Part 1 (Patreon)

Published:
2016-12-14 05:35:17
Imported:
2022-10

Content

In this week's episode, we return to the subject of abortion and pick up with a cliffhanger from way back in episode #11, where Thomas was asked how he would have handled what became the Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).  We talk about that landmark decision, how it changed the law fom Roe v. Wade, and what its implications are on today's efforts to protect (and curtail) abortion rights.

However, we begin with the moment you've all been waiting for:  the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam!, Question #1.  Did Thomas get it right?  Is he on his way to an honorary law degree, or will he become the first associate in the history of the Firm to fail the bar exam?

After that, we tackle a listener question from Paul, one of our patrons, who asks about retroactivity and the potential for Trump's appointee(s) to the Supreme Court to overturn Casey and Roe and make abortion illegal.

Then, "Breakin' Down the Law!" returns with a discussion of exactly what it means to bring a class action lawsuit.

And all of this goodness comes to a close with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam! Question #2.  Remember that you too can play along on Twitter!

Show Notes & Links

  1. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
  2. An example of how the Casey "undue burden" test is still in operation today is the recent Supreme Court decision striking down Texas statutes imposing strict requirements on abortion providers in the state.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Files

OA27: Abortion and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Part 1 - Opening Arguments

In this week's episode, we return to the subject of abortion and pick up with a cliffhanger from way back in episode #11, where Thomas was asked how he would have handled what became the Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

Comments

Anonymous

Related to the Class Action discussion you started... I'm curious about something, and maybe you can shed some light on it for me? So, Ford KNOWINGLY - and with CLEAR THOUGHT - decided to allow a deadly design to be sold. They KNEW people were going to be injured and killed, right? Now, imagine somebody who's NOT thinking clearly. Imagine somebody who's thinking is deranged...and they decide they're going to go out and start killing people. The public wants the serial killer to get "the chair", but nobody seems to want anybody at Ford to get the chair. What's the difference? I mean... they BOTH knowingly decided to kill people...one of them for profit and the other for personal reasons... but the profit driven model gets a much easier go of it... Yet they are the one's who very coolly and clearly killed people. I'm just not sure I can wrap my head around it.

Anonymous

So when you design things for public use, you have to consider it's misuse. When you design a complex and expensive item, you can not fully anticipate all consequences. You must measure level of risk. People die in an industrial facility setting. You try and design safeguards, but everything breaks down over time and humans are involved. Mistakes cause engineering solutions. You must always evaluate risk and loss. Actively going out and killing someone it completely different than thousands of people using products that fail. The companies are responsible for warning users, testing products, but there is inherent risk in everything. So the solution is change the formula. Human loss of life = $ x axis based on a scale of acceptable risk y axis activity. That will drive the behavior. So, when someone is liable, do you destroy that company and change the industry? Why didn't we let bankers following the laws that caused the housing crisis fail? What was the projected societal or additional cost to the overall economy? Look at how they imperially determined structural steel's limits in boilers. Absolutely deplorable but it drove the field of mechanics of materials. When you push products to new uses, you will encounter unexpected failures.

Anonymous
>>3319151

But when you know for a fact that there's a fixable fatal problem (Seatbelt on Dodge Neon) but you decide profit is more re important than fatalities, I don't see the difference. If your design surprises you with unexpected fatal problems, that's one thing and it's totally understandable. But when you are aware of a fatal flaw, and you have the opportunity to fix it, but with clear thought choose not to, I don't think that's anything short of killing people for profit. To me, that is worse than an arguably unclear person doing bad things.

Anonymous
>>3311525

I'm sure the show will get to the issue of murder eventually. As any "Law & Order" fan knows, a manufacturer or merchant can be charged with murder or manslaughter if their product kills someone. There are significant causation and state of mind hurdles, but I can think of at least one conviction offhand. Regarding the Pinto, I am guessing that there was not enough evidence against any particular individual to make a murder charge stick.