[Tanada]

Prosecutors ask U.S. Supreme Court to overturn ruling that freed Bill Cosby

Nov 29 (Reuters) - Pennsylvania prosecutors on Monday said they have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to toss out the state court decision that overturned Bill Cosby's sexual assault conviction earlier this year.

The 84-year-old comedian and actor was set free from state prison in June, three years after a jury found him guilty of drugging and molesting Andrea Constand, a former employee of his alma mater Temple University, at his home in 2004.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded in a split decision that Cosby should never have faced charges after striking a non-prosecution agreement with a previous district attorney more than a decade before his arrest.

The decision, which reversed the first high-profile criminal conviction since the #MeToo movement began exposing sexual misconduct among powerful men, angered sexual assault victims and their advocates.

Cosby was once known as "America's Dad," largely due to his longtime role as the lovable father in the sitcom "The Cosby Show." But his family-friendly reputation was destroyed after more than 50 women accused him of multiple sexual assaults going back five decades.

Constand's allegations were the only ones that were not too old to permit criminal prosecution.

Cosby's attorneys had argued that the Montgomery County district attorney, Bruce Castor, promised in 2005 that he would not pursue criminal charges. Though no written agreement exists, Castor released a statement at the time announcing no charges would be filed.

Absent prosecution, Cosby was unable to avoid testifying as part of a civil lawsuit that Constand filed against him; he eventually settled the case with a multimillion-dollar payment.

The current district attorney, Kevin Steele, later charged Cosby in 2015 based in part on that testimony, in which Cosby acknowledged giving sedatives to women.

The trial court ruled that no binding non-prosecution agreement had ever been reached. But the state Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that Cosby had relied on Castor's representation and that Steele's prosecution violated Cosby's rights.

In a press release on Monday, Steele said the ruling, if left untouched, would set a dangerous precedent "that prosecutors' statements in press releases now seemingly create immunity."

A spokesperson for Cosby, Andrew Wyatt, called the petition a "pathetic last-ditch effort."

"In short, the Montgomery County D.A. asks the United States Supreme Court to throw the Constitution out the window, as it did, to satisfy the #MeToo mob," Wyatt said in a statement.

The petition appears to be a long shot. The U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear only a small fraction of cases every year, and the Cosby case took place in state court, rather than federal court.

Reporting by Joseph Ax; Editing by Leslie Adler

REUTERS

[careinke]

Well now!! This should kick off another long and unending discussion. I look forward to it. Let the crying begin.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/02/us/roe-v-wade-abortion-supreme-court

It has not been voted on yet, but the leak of the draft ruling seems to be authentic. The leak probably came from a dissenting judge. I understand the Supreme Court has NEVER had a leak like this, so it is another "Historic" moment.

Although I have always believed abortion rights should be a State not Federal issue, I was semi OK with the decision as far as timing when an abortion could be performed. I just would have preferred the States to make those kinds of decisions.

Peace

[Tanada]

Well now!! This should kick off another long and unending discussion. I look forward to it. Let the crying begin.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/02/us/roe-v-wade-abortion-supreme-court

It has not been voted on yet, but the leak of the draft ruling seems to be authentic. The leak probably came from a dissenting judge. I understand the Supreme Court has NEVER had a leak like this, so it is another "Historic" moment.

Although I have always believed abortion rights should be a State not Federal issue, I was semi OK with the decision as far as timing when an abortion could be performed. I just would have preferred the States to make those kinds of decisions.

Peace

IMO not that anyone cares, it should have never moved from the state level to the federal level in the first place. D.C. has been gathering more and more of these kind of powers for nearly two centuries and as far as I can tell we are no better off than we were before.

In European nations Abortion is rare, legal and safe but compared to American federal law almost every EU country has restrictions on abortion that would be called "right wing madness" in California or NY. In general those European laws are at the state level, what goes for legal in France is different than Poland or Italy. In that sense the EU is more like what the USA started out as than the USA of today.

[Doly]

I have always believed abortion rights should be a State not Federal issue

That's much like saying that middle-class women should find it easy to get an abortion if they wish, wherever they live in the US, but poor women can only get an abortion if they happen to live in the right place. Newsflash: Poor women need abortions more often.

Oh, but abortion is a theological issue and maybe states should have a right to pick their own theological issues. Well, my opinion on that matter is that, first of all, FUCK ABORTION as a theological issue!!! It doesn't have to be one.

Second, I fail to see why states should be able to pick their own theological issues, though I admit that theology isn't my strong suit. I was raised Catholic and if I remember my angels right, all people living in the same country live under the same Principality angel, and there are a few other angels above that level, so theological issues exist that go above country level, and abortion has always been one of the biggies, so I'd expect it to go above Principality? But as I say, theology not my strong suit.

[jedrider]

We have minority rule and this is what is causing the problem.

The Democrats need an issue badly. Maybe this is the one.

[vtsnowedin]

The cynic in me sees this as a trial balloon purposely released to measure public sentiment and to distract from the Biden's administration failures.
A very effective tactic as it will move millions of women of child bearing age into the Democrat column come election day.
I have my own, I think well reasoned, opinions on the subject but my wife and three grown daughters care not one wit what those opinions might be.

[Plantagenet]

This is another case where the world is changing due to new technology and these changes are making the whole abortion issue obsolete and irrelevant.

The new technology is abortion pills.

Now that abortion pills offer a way for women to have safe abortions without having to visit an abortion clinic or even see a doctor who does the abortion, its no longer possible for governments to outlaw abortion.

Every state that outlaws abortion will only be able to outlaw abortion clinics and abortion doctors.

Meanwhile, abortions will still be available to those WOMEN who want abortions by simply taking an abortion pill that will arrive in the mail in an unmarked package after they order it over the internet.


The availability of abortion pills on the internet means it is now impossible to ban abortions.

--------------------------------

PS: It would normally be hard to find anything funny in this sad abortion controversy, but somehow the Ds are saying funny things. The Ds are reluctant to talk about women giving birth, because they support trans-women (ie. men pretending to be women) and trans-woman can't give birth. This bizarre anti-scientific hesitancy of Ds to talk about woman and about mothers is now showing up in their discussion of the abortion issue. I just watched a D on the PBS newshour talk over and over again about "people who give birth" because she couldn't bear to say the word "women".....and a state D legislator in Wisconsin just tweeted about "birthing bodies".....again because "progressive" Ds are uncomfortable talking about women who give birth lest they give offense to trans "women" who can't give birth.

[vtsnowedin]

This is another case where the world is changing due to new technology and these changes are making the whole abortion issue obsolete and irrelevant.

The new technology is abortion pills.

Now that abortion pills offer a way for women to have safe abortions without having to visit an abortion clinic or even see a doctor who does the abortion, its no longer possible for governments to outlaw abortion.

Every state that outlaws abortion will only be able to outlaw abortion clinics and abortion doctors.

Meanwhile, abortions will still be available to those WOMEN who want abortions by simply taking an abortion pill that will arrive in the mail in an unmarked package after they order it over the internet.


The availability of abortion pills on the internet means it is now impossible to ban abortions.

--------------------------------

PS: It would normally be hard to find anything funny in this sad abortion controversy, but somehow the Ds are saying funny things. The Ds are reluctant to talk about women giving birth, because they support trans-women (ie. men pretending to be women) and trans-woman can't give birth. This bizarre anti-scientific hesitancy of Ds to talk about woman and about mothers is now showing up in their discussion of the abortion issue. I just watched a D on the PBS newshour talk over and over again about "people who give birth" because she couldn't bear to say the word "women".....and a state D legislator in Wisconsin just tweeted about "birthing bodies".....again because "progressive" Ds are uncomfortable talking about women who give birth lest they give offense to trans "women" who can't give birth.

You would think that but many on the far right conservative/ religious wing of the Republican party want to outlaw those plan B pills as well. People that will write an abortion restriction law that does not include exceptions for rape ,incest and the health of the mother will not stop until they have their way totally.
Some Republicans are already drafting bills to codify a nationwide ban on all abortions of any type and will introduce them the first day of a Republican majority congress.
This is the stupidest thing they could want to do and may well cost them that majority that was pretty much in the bag if they could just leave well enough alone.
As long as every Republican woman is free to not have an abortion forced on her why should she or her family care if other people chose to reduce their presence in the gene pool?

[careinke]

Some Republicans are already drafting bills to codify a nationwide ban on all abortions of any type and will introduce them the first day of a Republican majority congress.
This is the stupidest thing they could want to do and may well cost them that majority that was pretty much in the bag if they could just leave well enough alone.

I would hope they do not try that, and leave it up to the States. Seems like if Roe V Wade is being overturned because the whole issue not the Feds business, it should work both ways.

Plant brings up a good point about the morning after pills. You may not know if you're pregnant that early, but you sure as heck should know if you have been FUC#D without birth control.

As far as being discriminatory to poor women, some Blue States are already planning ways to help women in pro life states travel to and receive abortions as late as they like. Win/Win, Pro life States don't have to pay for practices they find morally repugnant, Pro Choice States can stand vanguard ensuring all Birthing Peoples have the right to control what's in their own bodies.

Peace

[evilgenius]

Well now!! This should kick off another long and unending discussion. I look forward to it. Let the crying begin.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/02/us/roe-v-wade-abortion-supreme-court

It has not been voted on yet, but the leak of the draft ruling seems to be authentic. The leak probably came from a dissenting judge. I understand the Supreme Court has NEVER had a leak like this, so it is another "Historic" moment.

Although I have always believed abortion rights should be a State not Federal issue, I was semi OK with the decision as far as timing when an abortion could be performed. I just would have preferred the States to make those kinds of decisions.

Peace

IMO not that anyone cares, it should have never moved from the state level to the federal level in the first place. D.C. has been gathering more and more of these kind of powers for nearly two centuries and as far as I can tell we are no better off than we were before.

In European nations Abortion is rare, legal and safe but compared to American federal law almost every EU country has restrictions on abortion that would be called "right wing madness" in California or NY. In general those European laws are at the state level, what goes for legal in France is different than Poland or Italy. In that sense the EU is more like what the USA started out as than the USA of today.

That's an interesting thing to say. How is a group that can't receive justice at the state level going to get redress of grievances? The Bill of Rights does not exist on a state level. It exists on a Federal level. It does so for a reason. That reason has to do with our collective understanding of what constitutes a rich life. If we didn't want any sort of life that was beyond what we can grovel and scratch for in the dirt, then leaving it to the states would be ok!

[jedrider]

That's an interesting thing to say. How is a group that can't receive justice at the state level going to get redress of grievances? The Bill of Rights does not exist on a state level. It exists on a Federal level. It does so for a reason. That reason has to do with our collective understanding of what constitutes a rich life. If we didn't want any sort of life that was beyond what we can grovel and scratch for in the dirt, then leaving it to the states would be ok!

It's clear that to put the issue on the state level is to 'fuck' up our system. The SC is taking a sure path to that as if that is their purpose, to 'fuck' up our system, to reduce the U.S. to squabbling statehoods so that corporations can run rampant over us.

[AdamB]

The cynic in me sees this as a trial balloon purposely released to measure public sentiment and to distract from the Biden's administration failures.

The MAGA enthusiast in you maybe, you haven't been particularly conspiratorial during your posting career otherwise, as best I can tell. The Supreme's have tried pretty hard to not be political, but that appears to have changed over the last decade. Arriving apparently in June for sure should they vote as the leak seems to indicate.

This article making a case for it being an outcome of minority rule.

[vtsnowedin]

The MAGA enthusiast in you maybe,

You are confused about my positions. I have never been pro Trump or MAGA. America has never been un great so did not need to be great again.
Trump won because he was not Hillary. While he was in the Republican establishment put in place conservative polices that worked and Trump did not stop them which was probably because he did not understand what they were doing. The idea that the GOP tax cut is a Trump tax cut is laughable considering he can not even do his own taxes much less draft tax law.
Now we have Biden winning because he is not Trump and we have jumped out of the frying pan into the fire.
I look at a Trump run in 2024 as a disaster the GOP should avoid at all cost.

[Tanada]

That's an interesting thing to say. How is a group that can't receive justice at the state level going to get redress of grievances? The Bill of Rights does not exist on a state level. It exists on a Federal level. It does so for a reason. That reason has to do with our collective understanding of what constitutes a rich life. If we didn't want any sort of life that was beyond what we can grovel and scratch for in the dirt, then leaving it to the states would be ok!

You may not be aware but back in 1973 before Roe vs Wade became federal mandate thanks to the activist court of the day Abortion was a state by state issue and something like 15 states already had 'safe legal' abortion on their books. The trend had been growing for half a century with state by state legalizing the activity before the SC short circuited the representative law making process by declaring that no state could have a law forbidding abortion from taking place. I have no doubt that if Roe vs Wade had simply ruled that Abortion was a state matter and left things alone that at least 40 of the 50 states would have legal abortion today and the rest would have activists who would transport pregnant needy women to nearby states for abortions if that was their desire.

Any time the SC takes a legal process that is supposed to be determined by the people through their legislative representatives away it weakens our form of government by making it more authoritarian and federally focused. That diminishes us all and it doesn't matter if the issue if drivers licensees or abortion, if the constitution doesn't specify that it is a federal matter it should be decided by the state and/or local authorities.

[Newfie]

Just my humble opinion …. BUT as far as I can tell a persons position on abortion is a religious based opinion. Different religious groups (Jewish, muslim eg.) have different concepts of when a fetus becomes a human.

So it strikes me that passing a law in abortion is very much passing a religious law. While everyone has an opinion about when life begins it is merely a religious opinion. Legislating the definition then breaches the constitutional barrier between law and religion. All people are, or should be, free to practice their own religion.

I don’t know if this theory has ever been tested before the Courts. If not it would be interesting to see the outcome.

In short, abortion should be considered a religious issue outside the bounds of law. Leave it to the priests, doctors and other magicians.

[vtsnowedin]

An interesting point of view. From the point of view of the fetus that might have been conceived under the wrong religion I expect there is some discomfort.

[Newfie]

VT,

You expect life without discomfort?

How do you evaluate discomfort? Does a 2nd trimester aborted fetus have more or less discomfort than a 12 yo living in a crack ghetto or orphanage or foster home or street?

Another humble opinion….if a Mother declares she does not want a baby does the government then have the right or MEANS to force her to properly raise, care for and love that infant? Or will the child be the victim of the Mothers hatred and resentment? Who wants to grow up in that environment? So if a woman request an abortion, and is denied, then (IMHO) the interceding government should become the de facto foster parent and he required to set aside sufficient funds properly raise said infant to adult hood. And what is that these days, perhaps a million considering all care takers will receive minimum wage for 18 years of near 24x7x365x18 coverage.

We, all of us, have most probably enjoyed the most comfortable life span in the history of our entire species.

I’ve been reading history again. We are all just so lucky.

[vtsnowedin]

VT,

You expect life without discomfort?

How do you evaluate discomfort?

You are twisting my comment more then a bit.
Much of what you say further down is valid. I know of no position that would be exceptable to all sides.

[Plantagenet]

The Ds control the house and the Senate and the White House right now.

Its a golden opportunity for the Ds to actually do something for a change.

I suggest the Ds immediately pass a law to establish a right to abortion nationwide......


Come on Ds ---- enough with all the empty talk. Its time to do something....time to do the right thing.....all you Ds have to do is just do one right thing and you can put an end to this whole ridiculous controversy.

Cheers!

[vtsnowedin]

Even if the Democrats could get a pro abortion law passed through the Senate ,which they cannot without ending the filibuster, it would be repealed as soon as the next GOP controlled congress was sworn in.
The best they can do is to keep the filibuster rule in place and use it next year to keep the GOP from passing a Nationwide pro life law to keep abortion legal in those states that want it.