comment: >
  
  The whole thing?
context: “ The clinic will serve anyone 17 years or older in New Mexico at the time of the visit, and patients must be no more than 11 weeks pregnant, according to the website.
  Services include financial assistance, emotional support, chemical abortions and religious support, as well as contraceptives.”
  Not too shabby. >
  
  This is also genius. When they get into the inevitably lawsuits - and I'll make a considerable donation to boost this - it could conceivably go to SCOTUS.
  How can the dude the place is named for not recuse? >
  
  
  How can the dude the place is named for not recuse?
  
  I don't think he has to, an antagonistic name isn't like a get out of supreme court free card.
  Like if Florida made a "Sotomayor book ban" that she had nothing to do with, would you expect her to recuse herself and let the other justices continue their agenda?
  I completely support the satanic temple's work and cheekiness here, but I don't think a cute loophole in having the whole supreme court interpret the constitution is going to work out well for anyone.
  Besides, I'm not sure I see a supreme-court worthy case here. They're following state abortion law which is what the supreme court just ruled. >
  
  Of course he should recuse himself. I swear there’s no standards anymore. 
  Since there’s a clear reason why he’d be personally grieved by the name, we can’t expect him, or any person in the same position (under the same circumstances) to do the case w/o bias.
  If anyone cares about democracy, this is a no brainer. This is exactly why judges should recuse themselves from a case. One reason anyway.
  EDIT: Even if the name of the place was referring to another Sam elite-o, and everyone knew it, the Sam elite-o on SCOTUS should recuse himself. 
  I’m not sure how it works in these cases, but there’s a clear reason why a person might be biased if their name is in the title of the case. >
  
  So you think this is a new loophole to completely sidestep supreme court judicial review? Florida can just name their bill "The Sotomayor Kagan Breyer Stop Woke Act" and suddenly it's only the conservative justices ruling on it? >
  
  There’s an obvious issue. I’m just saying that it could likely create a bias. I’m not sue if it’s been used as a strategy before or how they dealt with it if it has. I’m just saying that we have judges recuse themselves when there’s a likely bias. 
  It doesn’t sound like you know either, but if you do I’d love to know. Thanks in advance. >
  
  You're right, I don't know for sure either. 
  But if the case were about the constitutionality of providing women's healthcare, it seems like the name can easily be ignored. I don't think so poorly of even Alito to think that he would just ignore the constitution and precedent and just be vindictive about the name specifically. 
  Besides, especially conservative justices have a history of not recusing themselves even when they really should, for reasons directly related to the case. >
  
  Cool… I get that we’ve let our standards go when it comes to ethics. I think it’s a big problem.
  One other thing… bias is an insidious thing. It shouldn’t ever be looked at as a failing of the person recusing themselves, or even when being ordered to stand down by others). 
  We’re human. We know that bias can seep its way in, in funny ways. 
  I don’t mean to besmirch eliteo, though I might besmirch him for other reasons.
  We need to understand our own frailty and limitations. This especially goes for people with power. >
  
  
  I get that we’ve let our standards go when it comes to ethics. I think it’s a big problem.
  
  I think the integrity of the entire judicial system and by extension the entire constitution is more important than avoiding the appearance of a possible conflict of interest. 
  I think it would be foolish to allow such a blatant exploit to eliminate the balance of the highest court in the land. >
  
  My favorite part about free speech is how funny it gets lmaoooo >
  
  Those totalitarian countries don't know what they are missing. >
  
  Eh, they can’t complain >
  
  
  Erin Helian, executive director of campaigns and religious reproductive rights director at TST, told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the name of the clinic will serve as a reminder.
  “Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”
  
  Holy shit, that's a burn >
  
  The Satanic Temple's social media frequently burns and wrecks a lot of things. >
  
  God bless The Satanic Temple >
  
  Something about that strikes me as somewhat ironic.  Not quite sure why. >
  
  Jesus, what are you talking about? >
  
  I don’t know why but the LIKELY in
  “The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Abortion Clinic” likely in reference to Supreme Court Justice Alito”
  absolutely killed me >
  
  “Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”
  That part is great too. >
  
  The Hitler Paradox? >
  
  No clue what the Jehova's witness is going on about. The Hitler paradox asks, "You have time traveled and are presented with the opportunity to kill baby Adolf Hitler. Is it morally right to kill a baby that hasn't done anything bad yet or is it morally right to let him grow up and start the holocaust?" >
  
  Why not just steal baby Hitler and send him to be raised by a loving family in, I dunno, America or Africa or someplace? Why do people jump straight to infanticide? >
  
  Also this whole thought experiment ignores the fact that Hitler was just a symptom of a sickness in German and European society. Kinda like we have right now in USA. If it wasn't Hitler, it easily could've been someone else spreading fascism and horror. >
  
  Hitler was a pretty terrible wartime leader and really did a lot to hamper his military. If the Nazis had an effective wartime leader at the helm, if some time traveler killed Hitler, things could have turned out far worse for the rest of the world. >
  
  Imagine if a non meth addicted leader ruled a fascist Germany. >
  
  Sucking as a leader and being generally incompetent are caused by fascism because of the anti-empirical and egotistical mindset required to embrace fascism in the first place. It is fairly likely that another person leading nazi Germany would have been equally incompetent. >
  
  I heard they have a 2 for 1 going on for their opening - with every abortion you get a leaked future court opinion >
  
  The asterisk in that deal, hidden in small size 6 font, is you must buy a $10,000.00 plate dinner for the Justices to leak on you. >
  
  
  for the Justices to leak on you.
  
  Trump would love this >
  
  It's not that kind of leak. Conservative Justices have standards, after all!
  Alito won't piss for less than 20 and you still need to buy him dinner. >
  
  He raised his prices then, last I heard he'd do it for a $20 and a bump of brown crack. >
  
  Damn he can't even get the beige shit >
  
  “Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. In 1950, Samuel Alito’s mother did not have options,” Helian said. “The clinic’s name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the potential ramifications of losing that right.”
  Holeeeeeeee Fuck!!!! >
  
  For anyone that doesn't get it...Samuel Alito is one of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to repeal Roe V Wade. They're saying his mother should have had the option to abort him.  
  Brutal and fucking amazing at the same time. I love it. >
  
  Next one should be named after the corrupt chief Justice. He deserves a full court press. >
  
  Which one?  There's a few. >
  
  I think there's only one chief justice >
  
  Ope, yep.  My brain a word when reading sometimes. >
  
  I accidentally a Coca-Cola bottle when I read that comment.