https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25178647/georgia-abortion-law-ruling-sept-30-2024.pdf

McBurney is also the presiding judge in the Fulton County case against Trump.

That was one of the most beautifully written Court Decisions I have ever read. (I have read hundreds, if not thousands, in my lifetime.)

Finally, a judge laying it all out. What a hero. And saying that, it’s sad that people who recognize basic human rights could be considered hero’s in the 21st fucking century.

That took some courage. Now come the death threats. The judge really has a way with words.

the right to bodily autonomy.

I really want to see what would happen if we forced right wing judges to simply donate blood once a month. Since they mostly could not be bothered to wear a mask to not kill their neighbor, I have little doubt blood donation would be a horrible ordeal for all of them.

This judge just made my day.

It was beginning to concern me that right wing judges were nonchalantly turning living breathing female folks into chattel simply because of our reproductive organs and no-one responded that hey, women are not property !!

when the looming threat of dictatorial terror by a cult of madmen...was crushed by the rise of courageous women and men who respected them.

Please?

Kamala will nominate him. I would bet on it.

Awesome explainer. But it baffles me that this needs to be explained at all. Just mind-numbingly crazy that we are here.

Is a right with a deadline truly a right?

Especially that "Roe was the floor."

Viability means the fetus can survive outside the womb.

This is Roe v. Wade language.

Our founders would have allowed abortion later, though. They believed abortion was allowed until quickening, which happens when the fetus moves.

The so-called originalists on our Supreme Court ignored our founders entirely. Instead our “honorable” originalists reached way back to the Long Parliament to quote a religious zealot who burned “heretics” for a living.

In a not so strange twist, the same “originalist” justices of our Supreme Court ignored the England’s Long Parliament to grant Mr. Trump immunity for his multitudinous law-breaking.

Oliver Cromwell and the Long Parliament disagreed vehemently with that immunity decision. How could I possibly know that? They cut off Charles II’s head for his many crimes against them.

The Supreme Court originalists are picky about their legal theories. They begin with their desired outcome and then hunt for their authority.

Especially since “originalism” is a relatively recent phenomenon pushed by Bork among others.

Jefferson said that expecting a constitution to not consider the times would be like expecting a man to wear the same jacket that fit him as a boy.

Originalism is bullshit.

Robert Bork wanted to rationalize his decision to fire Archibald Cox.

We are living in Robert Bork’s guilt ridden ruined brain pan. The Supreme Court just rounded the circle by reversing the unanimous Nixon v. U.S. without having the guts to actually do so.

Robert Bork was a brilliant man who was so subservient to Richard Nixon he truly did forget he was an American man.

The baby can survive outside the uterus so there’s no reason not to choose that.
Most if not all late term abortions are due to some abnormality in the baby that is incompatible with life.

If there's no reason to "choose that," we don't need a law preventing it. Defining a situation that requires exceptions only creates barriers.

..there needed to be an ultra sound to determine if she was over 5 mos.

what I've been feeling. K and R.

A commie judge takin' away our incubators! Just when I was going through my stepdaughters junior high school yearbook pickin' out my perfect baby mama"...said the captain of the Georgia proud boys in mtg's district.

McBurney needs to be on the short list. He is a jurist - not a witch burner (I'm talking to you Sam).

Handmaidens Tale Commander! Ha!

This is awesome!

A judge who follows the Constitution (and the state’s), science and common sense, instead of an ideology rooted in oppression.

I really like the way he brought in what has been happening in SCOTUS and other courts today. There is so much in this order that makes common sense of issues that the forced birth people have muddied with their words and religious ideas. That is one area I didn't see the judge address, and I do ding him for that. He even quotes the bible passage that the forced birthers used to justify the Act, but doesn't mention anything about the separation of church and state.

But that is really the only "ding" I can see in this. His language is clear, the footnotes, especially, are extremely valuable. In considering the equal protection clause, I hadn't thought of pregnant vs non-pregnant women as the two classes due equal protection. I'd always just reverted to the male vs female classes, and wondered how you could consider equal protection between those two classes, when men cannot give birth.

Oh, that we would have more judges on the bench like this one! This is a carefully considered judgement, easy to read, and wise in the way Reality actually works. Not according to some Sky God, but according to the state's constitutions and its versions. How so much better a reading than Sam Alito's denial of our rights based on a 16th century witch hunting monk. I think Alito could take some remedial classes from this judge! And to think, this judge is MALE.

with a person peeking into a baby carriage and asking "Is it a boy? Or property of the state?"

That prompted me to think - presuming the state* does have an interest in reproductive activities, at what age do they take ownership of little girls? Immediately at birth? (since baby girls have all the eggs they will ever have when they're at about 20 wks gestation in their mothers' wombs) Or is it just when a girl has her first period? (and is, presumably, capable of bearing children). Or is it when she becomes sexually active? (and therefore a potential forced incubator.)

* "the state" seems to mean "our society" to some and "the economy" to others. Even taking it to mean "our society" (the more Democratic viewpoint, I believe), does not mean society's interest overrides the individual's rights. I find the "forced kidney donation" example from the opinion to be an interesting gender-neutral example here.

harks back to when we were arguing about this in the early days -- that corpses have more rights now than living, breathing women. You cannot take organs from a corpse or do anything to the corpse, unless paperwork has been filed prior to death. Women... not so much any more.

Thank you Judge McBurney!

A reasoned judge who lives in this century and doesn’t view women as glorified chattel. This post made my day!

I know there are others. However, Judge McBurney’s choice of language was especially meaningful.

magas are forever claiming that Democrats are nazis because they are socialist which is supposedly the guiding principle of the National Socialist Party (of 1930s Germany and beyond). "socialist", hence equivalent to communist which is a word they use interchangeably as if it were a synonym.

magas and Cons like Vance want to increase white baby production to counteract the Great Replacement they fear is being accomplished by immigration; hence "Take back my country!".

Of course, Cons and magas never support pre-natal care, nor early childhood care. That costs money. They only support births and manufactured "rights" of embryos and fetuses, especially white ones.

Rec

Brought me to tears.

Man makes sense. Federalist Society wouldn't like him.