|
tecnocrat posted:Hell, the state just said that they can make these kinds of private enforcement laws that are ex post facto, and go back as far as they want to punish people monetarily.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
Assume SCOTUS gives the Texas law a pass. What's to stop another state, say, California, from passing a similar law that allows individuals to sue persons who sued an abortion recipient for double the fine they were trying to receive in Texas? So, if you sue someone who got an abortion and try to win $10,000 you'll be turned right around and find you owe someone in California $20,000. IANAL, but if the Texas law stands it seems like this law would too? Despite this being an obviously bonkers state of affairs which could result in knock-on-effect laws triggering all over the country every time you do... anything? I may not be a fancy law talker guy, but I don't think this Texas law is a good law!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
Chimp_On_Stilts posted:Assume SCOTUS gives the Texas law a pass. The difference is SCOTUS is anti abortion so they wouldn't allow that. Allowing this law to stay in existence is obviously stupid and insane and even a moderately competent court that wanted to ban abortion would see that the easy answer if you hate abortion is to throw this out on the nonsensical enforcement part and just use the normal law banning abortion case you already have scheduled to rule in next year, but they took this case now so it is once again blatantly obvious that there are a bunch of shitheads who give zero fucks about how the actual legal system is supposed to work and are just rubberstamping whatever bullshit falls in line with their conservative garbage beliefs
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
Nothing. If the Supreme Court declares that this one weird trick actually works, that's the end of the United States as a contiguous jurisdiction and interstate travel becomes extremely risky. vvvvvv Who needs jurisdictional limitations when you can declare that your citizens have the right to ruin each others' lives for any bullshit reason and the courts can't stop them? haveblue fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Nov 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
Chimp_On_Stilts posted:Assume SCOTUS gives the Texas law a pass. Actions in Texas are probably outside Californian jurisdiction, in the same way Texas can't fine people for abortions in California.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Actions in Texas are probably outside Californian jurisdiction, in the same way Texas can't fine people for abortions in California. The Texas law allows people from outside the state to sue people in Texas for getting abortions, just let Californians sue Texans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 18:11
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:Then the laws will go after people who leave the state to have an abortion and return to the state. Which is also extremely Unconstitutional but the people they target will largely be those without the resources to fight against it. Chimp_On_Stilts posted:Assume SCOTUS gives the Texas law a pass. Nothing*. There's also nothing stopping CA from passing a law that targets guns** in various ways. The fact that the law wasn't immediately killed with a 9-0 ruling shows just how batshit insane the conservatives on the bench are and it's a really good indicator of how extremely beyond hosed the world is when they take back control of the government thanks to Dems being largely incompetent and people like Biden being apathetic about everything. If by some chance they actually decide that the Texas law is perfectly valid then to say the US is past the point of no return would be putting things mildly. An actual leader would directly challenge the court's legitimacy in such a case (and many others, including Shelby County) but we have Biden instead so that won't happen. * The SCOTUS has repeatedly shown it cares only for its own desires and not consistency or legitimacy. ** The SCOTUS would say that guns get special treatment and so these laws can't be made to target guns because gently caress you only our views matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:or some state/federal governments just outright refuse to abide by it which is even less likely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Is there any supremacy clause stuff for it? California has passed some watered down reform (more aggressive reform has stalled for now, but doesn't seem impossible to pass). State legislatures removing it from state police seems possible, especially because it is theoretically deriving from the state's immunity, not federal immunity QI was created out of nothing by the Federal courts so I'm sure there's the general "we're the Federal judiciary and you will obey us" aspect of the Supremacy Clause that'd come into play if a state decides to abolish QI and actually hold cops (and ideally, judges) accountable for flagrant abuses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 19:25
|
|
|
I cannot imagine that, if they unhold it, they don't pull the "this ruling is specific to the exact facts of this case please do not cite it elsewhere" bullshit. "Parties with no stake can sue for punitive damages" as a doctrine has way too many opportunities to backfire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
Piell posted:The Texas law allows people from outside the state to sue people in Texas for getting abortions, just let Californians sue Texans. A state saying others can sue its people is different than a state saying you can sue other states. To sue somebody from another state you need to have something tieing you to the state youre being sued in, generally the car wreck, business office etc in question. A California law saying a Californian can sue someone using the Texas law would be immediately knocked down by a state appeals court or the 9th circuit for the jurisdiction issue
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
Oops made it legal for randos to sue Californians who don't vaccinate their kids.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 19:50
|
|
|
tecnocrat posted:Hell, the state just said that they can make these kinds of private enforcement laws that are ex post facto, and go back as far as they want to punish people monetarily. Like, if I didn't know that these monsters expect this court to give them the nod on every idiot thing they think of so they can impose their laws-for-thee supremacist ethnostate, I would honestly think this lawyer is trying to tank his own law if he just came out and said it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Oops made it legal for randos to sue Californians who don't vaccinate their kids. Oops made it legal for randos to sue Californians who own guns, oops made it legal for randos to sue Californians for being Republican, etc etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
Congress can create federal causes of action, so that could let anyone sue Texans. (more likely we'll just get Federal SB 8 after 2024)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I cannot imagine that, if they unhold it, they don't pull the "this ruling is specific to the exact facts of this case please do not cite it elsewhere" bullshit. "Parties with no stake can sue for punitive damages" as a doctrine has way too many opportunities to backfire. If the supreme court ends up pulling a Bush v. Gore 2 I may actually go bald from anger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 20:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JenAFifield/status/1455253402980474882?s=20 I guess we're going to enjoy these theatrics for decades to come. Ridiculous. This has been broadcast and telegraphed near and far, yet here we are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
JordanKai posted:If the supreme court ends up pulling a Bush v. Gore 2 I may actually go bald from anger. that was actually one of sandra day o'connor's very favorite moves - she wasn't an especially big-c conservative justice but she very much enjoyed the "THIS DECISION HAS NO RAMIFICATIONS FOR ANY OTHER COURT CASES, GOODBYE" which is a crummy thing for scotus to do
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 02:00
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:that was actually one of sandra day o'connor's very favorite moves - she wasn't an especially big-c conservative justice but she very much enjoyed the "THIS DECISION HAS NO RAMIFICATIONS FOR ANY OTHER COURT CASES, GOODBYE" which is a crummy thing for scotus to do Which, of course, every later court promptly ignores if they want to anyway. There's no such thing as an unpublished supreme court decision, even if there is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 02:37
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Which, of course, every later court promptly ignores if they want to anyway. There's no such thing as an unpublished supreme court decision, even if there is. Only until construction is completed on the Supreme Court Antimemetics Chamber. A law clerk goes in, reads the ruling, copies just the remedy to a new sheet of paper, and emerges having totally forgotten the nonprecedential holding.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 02:53
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:QI is only getting revisited when Congress passes a law stating that QI was judicial overreach and does not exist in any form, period (lol), or some state/federal governments just outright refuse to abide by it which is even less likely. Didn't Colorado repeal QI? https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksi...sh=762d9c6f378a
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 03:15
|
|
|
JordanKai posted:If the supreme court ends up pulling a Bush v. Gore 2 I may actually go bald from anger. This court is going to hand down rulings that make Bush v. Gore look quaint. Considering they just handed down a ruling that said "QI means cops can knowingly and intentionally violate your rights and you have no legal recourse" you should prepare for the worst possible outcomes and abortion is only going to be the beginning of it. I know people think that outlawing abortion will drive a ton of Dem voters to the polls but that's why the GOP has been spending literally decades rolling back voting rights in every state they get power in even briefly, with their recent AZ and GA loses causing them to go into overdrive while people like Manchin and Sinema sit back and watch the world burn. Charlz Guybon posted:Didn't Colorado repeal QI? Has Colorado's law been challenged yet? States can pass anything they want but that doesn't mean it'll survive the courts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 05:15
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:Alito just comes across as an idiot in what I've read today. He's the dumbest person to ever serve on the Court so that makes sense. Chimp_On_Stilts posted:Assume SCOTUS gives the Texas law a pass. The Supreme Court said it was ok for states to force doctors to give false information to women seeking abortions but then struck down a CA law that made "crisis pregnancy centers" (places purposely designed to fool women into thinking they were health clinics) give women information on where they could receive actual reproductive care. I think the only time the "by your own logic" stuff worked was Bostock where Gorsuch correctly applied textualism and conservatives had a meltdown over it to the point Josh Hawley called it to the death of the conservative legal movement. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Nov 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 14:13
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:So in addition to this court trying to revive Nullification, they're also going to break the spine of the Federal government's ability to actually execute laws. between this and the crypto stuff replaying Albania, the situation is ripe for that at this point, yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:between this and the crypto stuff replaying Albania, the situation is ripe for that at this point, yes. Ripe for what? What is replaying Albania?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 22:50
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Ripe for what? What is replaying Albania? The financial house of cards that came crashing down before the Albanian civil war
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 22:54
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:The financial house of cards that came crashing down before the Albanian civil war The two stand to be a lethal tag team, far more effective then either individually would be, I suspect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 00:20
|
|
|
lol yeah totally this is Albania 2.0 no doubt about it
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 00:51
|
|
|
Crypto is not enough of the economy to matter, worry about the nullification
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 01:32
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Crypto is not enough of the economy to matter, worry about the nullification That poo poo is metastasizing faster then you'd think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1455918193944317956?s=20
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 21:14
|
|
|
People are already allowed to carry guns when they go to bars and get shitfaced so while I'm sure things will get much worse I'm not sure to what extent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 22:18
|
|
|
The 5th circuit stayed the OHSA vaccination rules for companies with more than 100 employees. They cited “grave constitutional and statutory issues” with the rule. Not surprisingly, they did not see those issues with the Texas abortion ban.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 14:11
|
|
|
To the contrary, they explicitly said that Texas’ scheme raised grave concerns but prevented the district court from enjoining the law nevertheless. It was the exact same panel of judges. They also did not make any of the findings they’re supposed to make when issuing a stay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 14:42
|
|
|
Seems like an easy order to ignore, given that it lacks any explanation. The Republican media machine would have a field day with this poo poo, while the dems seem content to shrug. No real basis to defend dem inaction on this front - they hsd better do something significant soon. Grip it and rip it fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Nov 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Seems like an easy order to ignore, given that it lacks any explanation. The Republican media machine would have a field day with this poo poo, while the dems seem content to shrug.  They're gonna immediately appeal to SCOTUS who will probably side with the fifth. Biden's response will be nothing because there's nothing he can do to change anything. The judiciary is completely compromised as is the senate. Biden's friends in the senate are actively hostile to him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 17:42
|
|
|
The Supreme Court is addicted to all the content being generated on r/HermanCainAwards, the mandate is dead
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:
This SCOTUS has been weirdly strong on protecting vaccine mandates, as if they actually care that this is completely settled law and the government's authority here is beyond question. Even Barrett, the loving cultist, didn't give bullshit religious exemptions when she could have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:This SCOTUS has been weirdly strong on protecting vaccine mandates, as if they actually care that this is completely settled law and the government's authority here is beyond question. Even Barrett, the loving cultist, didn't give bullshit religious exemptions when she could have. I hope you're right and Alito immediately overturn's the fifth's stay, but I am not hopeful. I expect to see a denial line item that says "the request to vacate the stay pending appeal is denied." with no opinion and a dissent attached from Breyer yelling about procedure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I hope you're right and Alito immediately overturn's the fifth's stay, but I am not hopeful. I expect to see a denial line item that says "the request to vacate the stay pending appeal is denied." with no opinion and a dissent attached from Breyer yelling about procedure. SCOTUS has been slapping down vaccine mandate cases 6-3 in favor of the mandate, I wouldn't be super worried about this
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 18:47
|
|