comment: >
  
  Those totalitarian countries don't know what they are missing.
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