
The Dobbs decision held only that the 14th amendment confers no right to abortion, but explicitly did not address any other section of the constitution. A federal judge has now implied this protection is likely and requested briefs on the issue by next month.
People are also trading
@RiverBellamy No this is about any federal court restoring abortion rights. It will resolve YES if it happens and I will create a new question at that time about an appeal.
The supreme court only hears about 1% of the cases people ask it to, so the final appeal would most likely be the circuit court. It is difficult to imagine any circuit court being dumb enough to protect abortion under any part of the constitution, so why would the supreme court bother to spend time on it?
Also, a district court cannot create precedent that is binding on anyone, so to say that a district court "restored" any rights is just not how language works.
It's also not very interesting whether some wacky district judge does something crazy like this. Who cares? It's not going to be a winning legal argument whether one lone judge buys into it or not.
In short, please be more careful, or learn a little more about the domain, before creating markets. This one is just dumb.
@RiverBellamy I would have said it dumb for the Supreme Court to take away abortion rights when not a single person capable of bearing a child has ever lived in a world without those rights. District courts do stupid things all the time.
I am stupid, so please explain why a judge cannot rule that restrictions to abortion are a violation of the 13th amendment?
@BTE Of course a judge can write that in an opinion, my point is that even if a district court does write that in an opinion, no other judge has to follow it. Any district court (including their own) is free to rule the other way the next day. Only circuit courts and the supreme court create binding precedent. This is law 101. If I have to explain this to you, then you should not be creating markets about legal questions. Please just stop.
@BTE Then leave the business of making markets about legal questions to people who did go to law school. This isn't a discussion forum to ask questions in areas you aren't qualified in. Creating markets where you don't know the basics of the subject matter just screws up the dynamics for those of us who do have some expertise in the topic. You made yourself the asshole by creating a bad market in an area that you don't know.
@RiverBellamy And nobody forced you to sell, so you lost on your own accord. All you had to do was wait a bit for someone who understands these things to come along and put you back into the money. How do you make any profit on here unless there are people willing to be wrong??
@RiverBellamy You obviously don't get the point of this site. I am happy to update the resolution criteria with input of experts. But I am going to continue making markets about whatever the fuck I want and you are free to not bet on them or MAKE YOUR OWN ALTERNATIVE. You are also free to be an asshole.
@RiverBellamy ask questions before buying things. If you're such a law talkin' guy maybe you have heard the phrase "caveat emptor"?
@RiverBellamy So can you explain to me why so many people seem to think this District court judge in Texas is going to ban one of the two drugs used for chemical abortions nationwide this week? I mean, if you are correct, everybody is losing there mind over nothing, right? /www.texastribune.org/2023/02/05/mifepristone-lawsuit-texas/