|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yeah...that's a whole separate issue I’m very skeptical that “states get to do want they want” will extend to liberal institutions to anywhere near the degree it will be applied to conservative theocratic ideals.
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:03 |
|
|
Rigel posted:They can't really act until there is someone using this law to act against. The courts could act very quickly as soon as a clinic gets sued, but before that, the state isn't actually doing anything, so there's no government official to enjoin against enforcing the law. Before, when abortions were criminal, a clinic could ask the courts to instruct the government officials in charge of bringing criminal charges that they can't actually do that. In this case, there's no one to instruct, except maybe every private citizen in the entire state of Texas who may be dreaming of collecting a bounty. Texas passed the fetal heartbeat law and an enforcement mechanism. That would be enough to satisfy “doing something” for any court that isn’t full of insane theocratic fascists. You absolutely do not need to wait for laws to go into effect before requesting an injunction (and one was requested).
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 17:34
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Why would they not be able to act when the state is outlawing abortions at 6 weeks? Am I missing something? The state hasn’t outlawed abortion and there is no criminal or civil government action that can be taken under SB8. It provides a private right of action only. The state has argued in the SCOTUS that the case should be dismissed in part for that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Why would they not be able to act when the state is outlawing abortions at 6 weeks? Am I missing something? Who do you name in the lawsuit? You can't name the state because they aren't threatening to bring any actions against the clinic. If this law had criminal penalties you could enjoin the state from bringing criminal charges. The supreme court does not, as a general rule, just step out into the public square and announce that a new law is unconstitutional, without a real person or entity trying to use the unconstitutional law. The moment a clinic gets sued by some private nutjob citizen, the clinic can say the law is unconstitutional as a defense, and the courts could then act very quickly if they wanted to. I know a lot of people were rolling their eyes at this "one weird trick" that Texas was attempting as something that they expected the courts to just casually swat aside, but they probably should not have been so dismissive of this "one weird trick", because it really is a new situation. We don't often have laws that are intended to be enforced civilly by private citizens. I could see the courts maybe being forced to adapt to this down the road, if they care. Like, if most of the clinics in Texas had to shut down while a couple large clinics went through the hassle of fighting it for a few weeks and won, then Texas could say "hey, it didn't work, but we got most of the clinics shut down for a month", and if they then started playing whack a mole with new, slightly different civil bounty laws constantly passed every year, then at some point the courts should go "ok gently caress you, now we have to slightly adjust our customs and procedures to account for this civil bounty bullshit"
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
Stickman posted:before requesting an injunction An injunction against who? Every private citizen in the entire state of Texas?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 17:38
|
|
|
I don't understand how a preliminary injunction to the effect of "you cannot enforce criminal penalties with regards to this law" is valid but "you cannot enforce civil penalties with regards to this law" is not. Especially not with this insane idea that the plaintiff need not have any relationship to any of the parties involved in the abortion.Rigel posted:An injunction against who? Every private citizen in the entire state of Texas? Against the Texas civil court system, ordering them to not assess penalties for in cases deriving from that law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I don't understand how a preliminary injunction to the effect of "you cannot enforce criminal penalties with regards to this law" is valid but "you cannot enforce civil penalties with regards to this law" is not. Especially not with this insane idea that the plaintiff need not have any relationship to any of the parties involved in the abortion. In the former, they are looking at a government official or entity who has the responsibility to bring charges, and telling that person "you, person named in this complaint, can't bring charges". In the latter, they are shouting a declaration into the sky, which they currently do not do. Maybe they will eventually decide they have to do that, if this becomes a real ongoing annoyance for the courts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
I have a feeling that if New York passed a law along the lines of "gun ownership is banned in its entirety in the state of New York but there are no criminal penalties for owning a gun, on the other hand anyone in the United States can sue any gun owner in the state of New York for $10,000 per gun they own", the courts would allow an injunction so the law would never go into effect. When the courts want to do something they find a way to do it, even if it's in response to something they haven't seen before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
Rigel posted:In the former, they are looking at a government official or entity who has the responsibility to bring charges, and telling that person "you, person named in this complaint, can't bring charges". Why doesn't "you, the judicial branch of the state of Texas, are forbidden from awarding punitive damages to randos suing abortion providers" work? If they can provide an injunction against, say, the Texas Railroad Commission as an entity, why can't they do so against the court system?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 17:52
|
|
|
Rigel posted:In the former, they are looking at a government official or entity who has the responsibility to bring charges, and telling that person "you, person named in this complaint, can't bring charges". Marbury v. Madison: Shouting at the sky https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/954/facial-challenges
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 17:53
|
|
|
Rigel posted:An injunction against who? Every private citizen in the entire state of Texas? “Every private citizen in the state of Texas” only has the power to bring these specific suits because of the passage and enforcement of a law by the state of Texas. That involves 1) allowing standing for civil suits on the basis of the heartbeat law, and 2) provision of monetary compensation by the state. I’m shaky on the how standing works in civil suits so correct me if I’m wrong, but on the first point the injunction would be against the consideration of the modified legal framework in Texas civil courts (ie people can still sue for whatever they would like, but the courts cannot use the heartbeat law or standing modification in consideration of the case). On the second point, the injunction would be against implementation of the state’s bounty provision. Unless civil courts are a rights-less hellpit that States can shunt all their dirty work onto, I fail to see how this is a problem. And even then, the bounty provision is a clear ongoing state action. Stickman fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Sep 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
This is probably the best possible outcome for conservatives: there is no headline-grabbing ROE OVERTURNED decision for people to strongly react against, with our goldfish attention span, but SCOTUS has used lovely legalism to make it de facto illegal in red and purple states. Roberts doesn't have to eat a big hit to the reputation of the Court, and abortion gets to keep being a war drum for reactionary shitheads nationwide. Seems like a huge win for fascism in the US.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
Rigel posted:An injunction against who? Every private citizen in the entire state of Texas? How about who or whatever is going to pay out the bounty
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:How about who or whatever is going to pay out the bounty Those would be the abortion providers. My understanding is that the law allows literally anybody to sue them for punitive damages and pocket the money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Why doesn't "you, the judicial branch of the state of Texas, are forbidden from awarding punitive damages to randos suing abortion providers" work? If they can provide an injunction against, say, the Texas Railroad Commission as an entity, why can't they do so against the court system? As a general principal, the courts do not want to just rule a law unconstitutional unless they have a reason to do so, with two opposing sides in a real live controversy. Not a hypothetical conflict that could perhaps happen someday in the future. They do allow for injunctions against the government from bringing criminal or civil charges without waiting for someone to actually be charged, but they have not yet gone beyond that. Going to a lower court and pre-emptively telling them "if someone brings a lawsuit using this law, they should not win" is functionally the same as walking outside and shouting a declaration into the sky instead of at someone named in a complaint. The lower court is not bringing an action or threatening to do so, and the court does not (currently) want to rule on a motion in a case of "XYZ clinic vs. every private citizen in the entire state of Texas". Devor posted:Marbury v. Madison: Shouting at the sky The very first 2-3 words in this post were the two opposing sides of a live controversy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
Rigel posted:As a general principal, the courts do not want to just rule a law unconstitutional unless they have a reason to do so, with two opposing sides in a real live controversy. Not a hypothetical conflict that could perhaps happen someday in the future. They do allow for injunctions against the government from bringing criminal or civil charges without waiting for someone to actually be charged, but they have not yet gone beyond that. You keep saying things like "general principal", but this is a wholly unique case where the state has created a civil right of action to (arguably) evade facial review. If I pass a law that says anyone can sue people for posting, and get $10,000 per post, but no one has actually sued yet, how can it be challenged under your theory? There will be weeks or months where everyone is under the cloud of uncertainty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 18:23
|
|
|
Ok listen folks, the law says you can take an axe and cut off the head of any green eyed man, then ride off on their horses and hear the lamentation of their women. It seems a little Barbaric, but there’s just no one the court can enjoin here until we start to see piles of heads with green eyes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
Devor posted:You keep saying things like "general principal", but this is a wholly unique case where the state has created a civil right of action to (arguably) evade facial review. To be clear, I do believe that if the conservative states really latch on to this new "one weird trick" and start passing a lot of stupid civil bounty laws, then the courts should eventually take a step towards allowing injunctions to be possible without a clear opposing side, for this new bizarre category of law where the whole point was to just try to avoid an injunction for something clearly illegal by deputizing randos to collect bounties. But people probably shouldn't have been surprised that they didn't just instantaneously leap straight to that last night, without first seeing that this was going to be a real, time-consuming, and ongoing thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
How is this law fundamentally different from a law saying “______ people are not allowed in public and any citizen can sue a ______ person and we’ll pay them a bounty and cover their expenses”? Or “Democrats are not allowed to vote”? Or insert anything, really?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
A sane court would immediately enjoin and strike this down on the grounds that letters of marque and reprisal may only be issued by Congress
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
Devor posted:There will be weeks or months where everyone is under the cloud of uncertainty. That's the goal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
Rigel posted:To be clear, I do believe that if the conservative states really latch on to this new "one weird trick" and start passing a lot of stupid civil bounty laws, then the courts should eventually take a step towards allowing injunctions to be possible without a clear opposing side, for this new bizarre category of law where the whole point was to just try to avoid an injunction for something clearly illegal by deputizing randos to collect bounties. But people probably shouldn't have been surprised that they didn't just instantaneously leap straight to that last night, without first seeing that this was going to be a real, time-consuming, and ongoing thing. Your credulousness is why this has worked. I guess in 10 years the populace as a whole will understand that this was an intentional attack on abortion, mediated by SCOTUS' lack of action in the face of a clear attack. But until then, get used to people trying to explain why even one "one weird trick" law is a loving attack, and asking that you treat it like one. quote:without first seeing that this was going to be a real, time-consuming, and ongoing thing "Let's just wait and see if this law that was passed for the purpose of eliminating abortion is going to actually eliminate abortion", kindly gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
I’m shocked a group of woman hasn’t just started dealing with the bad judges. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 18:32
|
|
|
Acting like this is sensible business as usual when (nearly?) every other heartbeat law managed to have an injunction before implementation is 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 18:35
|
|
|
Stickman posted:How is this law fundamentally different from a law saying “______ people are not allowed in public and any citizen can sue a ______ person and we’ll pay them a bounty and cover their expenses”? Or “Democrats are not allowed to vote”? Or insert anything, really? It isn't. (edit: except the part where the state pays the bounty or covers expenses, the Texas law is not doing that. They want the state to be completely out of it so that there is no one to pre-emptively name in an injunction) As someone said earlier, a blue state could pass a law to say that it is not legal for a business to sell firearms to people who are not cops, but that the state will have no role whatsoever in bringing any charges or enforcing it, and instead any private citizen can sue that business to collect a bounty from that business. They probably should do exactly that. Rigel fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Sep 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
haveblue posted:A sane court would immediately enjoin and strike this down on the grounds that letters of marque and reprisal may only be issued by Congress That sounds good until we get a Republican House and suddenly there's a ten thousand dollar bounty for each case of "voter fraud" where "voter fraud" means "a black person was allowed to cast a vote"
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
Rigel posted:It isn't. (edit: except the part where the state pays the bounty or covers expenses, the Texas law is not doing that. They want the state to be completely out of it so that there is no one to pre-emptively name in an injunction) Your argued approach is relying on an Aaron Sorkian notion that if you can present the right "gotcha" to SCOTUS, they will have to correct their past mistake in order to avoid striking down the second amendment. This will never work. SCOTUS this term has used stare decisis as the reason to do heinous poo poo, and then in the very next case refuse to give any credence to stare decisis. The current SCOTUS uses its power as a cudgel and a shield to enact conservative policy preferences.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
Rigel do you know literally anything about how courts work in the US? Especially the current SCOTUS.Hieronymous Alloy posted:That sounds good until we get a Republican House and suddenly there's a ten thousand dollar bounty for each case of "voter fraud" where "voter fraud" means "a black person was allowed to cast a vote" Count yourself lucky if that's the worst they do after they retake Congress next year and possibly the WH in 2024 if the DNC is stupid enough to try and force Harris as the nominee (they are this stupid). The SCOTUS sure as gently caress isn't even pretending to care about the new Jim Crow laws that GOP-held states are aggressively passing to ensure Dems never win statewide elections there again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Devor posted:Your argued approach is relying on an Aaron Sorkian notion that if you can present the right "gotcha" to SCOTUS, they will have to correct their past mistake in order to avoid striking down the second amendment. This will never work. It can work with Gorsuch. That only gets you to 5-4 though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 19:10
|
|
|
Devor posted:Your argued approach is relying on an Aaron Sorkian notion that if you can present the right "gotcha" to SCOTUS, they will have to correct their past mistake in order to avoid striking down the second amendment. My 6 word sentence at the end was a silly throwaway line. Taking it seriously for a moment though, my guess is that what would likely happen is that the abortion bounty law may be defanged after going through the hassle of successfully defending an actual lawsuit, but the moment a gun store bounty law is passed, the supreme court will finally do something to make it possible to pre-emptively rule on bounty laws, saying "we were hoping the states would cut this out after the whole abortion thing didn't work, but apparently this is going to keep happening, so NOW we finally have to act".
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 19:32
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/texas-six-week-abortion-ban/2021/09/01/e53cf372-0a6b-11ec-a6dd-296ba7fb2dce_story.htmlquote:A divided Supreme Court late Wednesday refused to block one of the nation's most restrictive abortion laws, a unique Texas statute that bans the procedure as early as six weeks into pregnancy. I don’t know that this was unanticipated, but certainly not great news
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 06:44
|
|
|
Devor posted:Your credulousness is why this has worked. I guess in 10 years the populace as a whole will understand that this was an intentional attack on abortion, mediated by SCOTUS' lack of action in the face of a clear attack. But until then, get used to people trying to explain why even one "one weird trick" law is a loving attack, and asking that you treat it like one. I think the court can't duck citizen enforcement statutes designed to evade pre-enforcement review forever, and the sooner someone makes them poo poo or get off the pot, the better. VitalSigns posted:The argument as I understand it is that existing law already granted this emergency authority to the executive, and the court is disregarding the rule of law by saying it doesn't. Maybe that's right or wrong, but it's not the argument you claim is being made. Platystemon posted:Exactly, which is why the courts shouldn’t decide “oh, well, Congress didn’t really mean to give him the authority to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases, so we’re just going to take that back for them. You’re welcome, Congress.” Platystemon posted:It’s an effective measure against the worst pandemic in over a century. If the CDC’s hands are tied in this, what’s the point of the institution? Making slick posters to hang up in break rooms and tweet at each other? Groovelord Neato posted:Dead Reckoning's position is hilarious when Roberts gutted the VRA after it was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Evil Fluffy posted:It's almost as if they're intentionally posting in a certain way and ignoring things that don't fit their position. Platystemon posted:They gave the office discretion. If they had wanted to micromanage pandemic response, they could have.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 07:05
|
|
|
Is there a chance that this gets blocked by a lower court? My understanding is that SCOTUS just said "we're not saying this isn't unconstitutional, but we like the BS procedural stuff Texas came up with, so it's cool for now", but since the 5th Circuit is full of Federalist Society loonies, I don't see them blocking it either. At this point, I'd assume it's pretty safe to say that the Mississippi case is basically a done deal, and now it's just a matter of whether we get a 5-4 "Roe is totally overturned" or a 6-3 "banning abortion is fine, as long as you don't explicitly say that" next June. azflyboy fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Sep 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 07:05
|
|
|
There are several pro-abortion groups looking to moot the procedural issues by basically standing on the steps of the Texas capitol and screaming, "I will help anyone get an abortion, sue me you bastards!" so it may end up being an academic question. IIRC, Roberts' dissent actually does say that the 5th Cir. should consider "whether interim relief is appropriate should enforcement of the law be allowed below."
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 07:20
|
|
|
Now that it's in place, just set up an actual case where someone has an abortion and they have someone sue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 07:23
|
|
|
I went and read the law, wanted to highlight a few sections here.quote:SECTION 2. The legislature finds that the State of Texas HOO boy this is a good start. quote:(b) If a claimant prevails in an action brought under this I see a lot of people saying this is a $10,000 bounty. But there doesn't seem to be an upper limit at all here. Maybe it's $100,000?? Who knows??! quote:(e) Notwithstanding any other law, the following are not a This is verging on ex post facto poo poo, but because it's civil rather than criminal, it'll probably be allowed. But it's still in violation of every basic principle of the legal system. quote:Sec. 171.210. CIVIL LIABILITY: VENUE. So, you're free to sue someone across the state and haul them back to court over and over! It's like the waiting period for abortions except it could go on for years, hoo-ray! Long section about severability, including that they meant every single word to stand alone if necessary. Then: quote:(e) No court may decline to enforce the severability This is just putting stuff in a statute that should be in legislative comments, or in the introduction to the civil code or...not here. quote:SECTION 4. Chapter 30, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is quote:(c) Every statute that regulates or prohibits abortion is It's not just this about this law...now ALL anti-abortion laws are Superlaws that are almost impossible to challenge. There's just...so much...non-law....here. This isn't just a bad law, it's a violation of how laws are supposed to work. von Metternich fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Sep 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 08:44
|
|
|
von Metternich posted:I went and read the law, wanted to highlight a few sections here. Does it tell us who the bounty hunters who claim the rewards are? As in, if you report it, your name is in public record. Because a few of them having “accidents” in a row might help have there be less rats, hypothetically. (I’m not threatening anyone, just pointing out the most obvious plot for a show written by David E Kelly ever).
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 09:37
|
|
|
von Metternich posted:
And yet the right wing of the court doesn't give a poo poo because they were looking for any excuse they could to overturn Roe, and now they've got one They could find every portion of this messed up law unconstitutional, but they'll use it as an excuse to say "well actually abortion isn't a right at all"
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 10:41
|
|
|
Ladies and gentlemen, behold RBG’s true legacy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 12:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:03 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy/status/1433286483297935365?s=20
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 13:39
|
|
