LOL. Said no judge EVER. You are out of your league. Lawyers make arguments on the evidence presented in order to get the trier of fact to interpret the evidence the way they want. More often than not, the argument decides the case, not the unadulterated facts. That is what makes a lawyer a lawyer.
choice has no real meaning unless you identify the 2 or more ideas/events/etc you are considering. When you identify yourself as “pro choice” what are the 2 or more considerations which factor into the adoption of that moniker? What is the person choosing?
I only practiced in Federal Court my first 3-4 years of practice. I handled §1983 cases and some related tort immunity cases. Had only a few federal cases after I opened my own firm. Because I was a member of the trial bar, I also got assigned several prisoner cases over the years by the District Court/judges. Why do you ask?
Yet everyone who uses or hears the terms "pro life" and "pro choice" to sum up their sides understands exactly what they mean ... except you ... I guess.
I ask because in my experience, Federal courts are more formal and more strict. I've heard of lawyers arguing with state court judges and daring them to hold them in contempt, though it hasn't happened in any of my cases. I have never even heard about lawyers doing that in Federal court. Not saying it hasn't though.
Actually the amendments have nothing to do with Congress. Both proposed amendments originated with Ohio lawmakers, the first being a likely enacted amendment that would have enshrined the right to an abortion in the State Constitution was supported by Ohio Democrats; the second one (actually first in time since it's up for a vote today) would raise the bar from a 50% majority to a 60% majority to enact constitutional amendments was introduced by Ohio Republicans who saw the proverbial writing on the wall. A heavily gerrymandered Republican state legislature trying to block the will of the people, who would have thought? By the way if Republicans were able to do so they would try enacting a nationwide abortion ban.
I argue for contempt in state court to get an immediate appeal on discovery issues. I consider it a badge of honor if you can get it. Fed court is much more formal as you say…however.. I have story that will make you doubt my honesty. Around 1999, when cell phones turned from bricks to pocket size, I had an argument in the 7th Circuit. The plaintiff was the appellant. He was 5 minutes into his argument and his phone goes off in his pocket. Holy shit! I was stunned, but then the unthinkable happened….he answered the phone, had a 15 second conversation, hung up and then kept going. The panel didn’t know what to do. Pocket phones were too new.
If that's how you want to put it, the country is overwhelmingly pro abortion and the Ohio amendment will pass easily.
Partial Chronology from Kevin Drum Here is your super short guide to tomorrow's election in Ohio: December: Ohio abolishes August elections because they are wasteful and attract low turnouts. February: Two pro-choice groups submit language for a referendum in November to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. May: In a turnaround, Republicans vote for one last August election this year. After 111 years of referendums needing 50% of the vote to pass, they suddenly decide it's urgent to ask voters to increase this to 60%. Tuesday's vote is explicitly about making it harder for the November abortion referendum to pass. It almost certainly has majority support in the state, so Republicans are looking for a way to allow a minority to keep abortion restrictions in place. A very brief guide to Tuesday’s election in Ohio - Kevin Drum
But you have no evidence for your suggestion the election was not legal or fair. So maybe you get in a courtroom to make the suggestion, though I suspect not even that is likely given motions for summary judgment. If you don't have the facts or law on your side, the judge says you lose.
I asked this in another thread and still haven't had any of the "Pro Abortion" folks give me an answer. If you claim it is a woman's body, it is her choice then you are claiming that she has the right to abort even after her water breaks. If that is the not the case, then you are claiming pro-choice with the restrictions that you decide so therefore it is really not prochoice it is pro-abortion. I struggle with where I land on this issue, because I believe there should be exceptions and the right to terminate the pregnancy early on should be allowed. But if you are in the camp of restrictions after certain period, logically you can't call your position prochoice.
One way to look at it this if issue 1 is really about abortion and if it passes today and if that prevents abortion from passing in November, then the people have spoken.
I guess that's one way to look at it. As someone who worked a lot on voting rights, I really don't like predictions of popular mandate based on outcomes when you deliberately scheduled stuff during low turnout, such that you previously made the decision not to hold, and then you change election locations just before the election. That stuff really gets to me, and undercuts any argument that the outcome should be viewed as a popular mandate, unless he goes the other way, meaning they overcame significant obstacles deliberately put in the way and still won.
I have zero issue with that. We live in an awesome country when people let the system work as designed.
