|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Roberts doesn't have to eat a big hit to the reputation of the Court, 
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 19:40 |
|
|
One weird trick to avoid judicial review! Liberals hate it!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 13:46
|
|
|
Zeeman posted:One weird trick to avoid judicial review! Liberals hate it! This, except actually the real law now, for real In a sense I appreciate the honesty of it. The legal system has always been a half step away from letters of marque and reprisal anyway, this is just ripping off the veneer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 13:57
|
|
|
It's wild that the official stance of SCOTUS appears to be that civil law is just calvinball and states can do whatever they want including overturning established constitutional rights as long as they make them civil offences instead of criminal ones. Might as well write a law banning all non-Republicans from voting, the Supreme Court says it isn't against the law as long as you only make it a civil offence where anyone can sue non-Republican voters for a billion dollars and not a criminal offence enforced by the police!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 14:01
|
|
|
Oh hey, we're on page 666 now. Seems fitting, seeing how things are going.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 14:18
|
|
|
Mikl posted:Oh hey, we're on page 666 now. Seems fitting, seeing how things are going.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 14:35
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Is there a chance that this gets blocked by a lower court? Not in Texas. A big part of why the GOP pushes out these kinds of laws in that region is because the 5th circuit is extremely conservative even compared to the rest of the right wing judiciary. morothar posted:Ladies and gentlemen, behold RBG’s true legacy. All because she was too selfish and stubborn to retire as an 80 year old woman who'd (barely) survived multiple bouts of cancer. At least Breyer's making indications he might retire before the midterms, though that still means a replacement has to get past the dual stupidity of Manchin and Sinema who'll cry about anyone too progressive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 14:36
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:All because she was too selfish and stubborn to retire as an 80 year old woman who'd (barely) survived multiple bouts of cancer. At least Breyer's making indications he might retire before the midterms, though that still means a replacement has to get past the dual stupidity of Manchin and Sinema who'll cry about anyone too progressive. On our timeline? Either he isn’t retiring - or, for maximum laughs, he’ll retire, and Manchin dies of COVID before the senate can vote, galvanizing Republican voters for 2024 with the new open slot, and allowing Trump or DeSantis 2024 to fill it with an ultra-chud.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 14:43
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Not in Texas. A big part of why the GOP pushes out these kinds of laws in that region is because the 5th circuit is extremely conservative even compared to the rest of the right wing judiciary. It's funny because the 5th is a federal circuit so there's no reason it should be more conservative than any other federal circuit because it's appointed and confirmed by the same people as any other circuit. The only reason it should differ is by chance on when seats open up. So why is it. Because Democrats just unilaterally promised Republicans they wouldn't appoint any liberals to the 5th and then didn't. E: but I'm sure they got a lot of political capital in exchange VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Sep 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 14:44
|
|
|
If the main question is "who do we enjoin to prevent this law from taking effect?" can we sue the clerks of court to enjoin them from accepting civil actions based on this law or something like that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 14:45
|
|
|
This is the equivalent of sovereign citizens trying to find that one way of doing things that works as a legal cheat code but in this case it actually worked. Saying they’re suing the wrong party without giving guidance as to who they can sue in a preliminary injunction is just absolute bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 14:51
|
|
|
Jethro posted:If the main question is "who do we enjoin to prevent this law from taking effect?" can we sue the clerks of court to enjoin them from accepting civil actions based on this law or something like that? I’m feeling like folks get too hung up too far downstream, when it should be a basic question of jurisprudence. The correct answer should be along the lines of: “Did you fuckers not pay attention? Abortion is a right; any law that’s passed that tries to restrict that right in a way that can’t be justified relative to other rights and interests is unconstitutional and gets struck” Philosophically, a law that’s passed in the full knowledge that it’s not constitutional is fundamentally null and void, regardless of implementation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 15:01
|
|
|
So since this law is all "one weird trick," could someone explain how this:quote:Notwithstanding any other law, a court may not award
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 15:05
|
|
|
morothar posted:Ladies and gentlemen, behold RBG’s true legacy. Quoting for page 666. GIRL BOSS, GIRL POWER, YOU CAN'T MAKE HER RESIGN OR LEAVE
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 15:06
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:So since this law is all "one weird trick," could someone explain how this:
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 15:08
|
|
|
Jethro posted:If the main question is "who do we enjoin to prevent this law from taking effect?" can we sue the clerks of court to enjoin them from accepting civil actions based on this law or something like that? That is exactly the action that triggered this kerfuffle. It still might (lol) succeed on the merits, but SCOTUS was the last chance to issue a preliminary injunction, and they didn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 15:16
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Almost like they started with a conclusion in both cases and then picked contradictory rationalizations as convenient.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 15:24
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:So since this law is all "one weird trick," could someone explain how this: I suspect you could be countersued under the same statute if it was determined you were attempting to influence, aid, or abet anyone to procure an unlawful abortion. Or under a different cause of action, abuse of process or something like that if such a cause of action exists in Texas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 15:25
|
|
|
Jethro posted:If the main question is "who do we enjoin to prevent this law from taking effect?" can we sue the clerks of court to enjoin them from accepting civil actions based on this law or something like that? One of the lawsuits attempted to do that and actually named every judge and every court clerk in the entire state as defendants. The appeals court basically said "lol that is stupid, they are not defendants, you cant do that". Which in a normal, sane world is right. Except as Roberts wrote, this is a novel unprecedented situation where the state is deliberately trying to evade responsibility for their own laws, so a novel unprecedented solution should have been considered.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 15:36
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:I suspect you could be countersued under the same statute if it was determined you were attempting to influence, aid, or abet anyone to procure an unlawful abortion. Or under a different cause of action, abuse of process or something like that if such a cause of action exists in Texas. And yeah, I guess that's the question, are there any other sanctions beyond those prohibited by what I quoted to prevent that. You obviously can't commit perjury in your filing, but the text is very broad, "intent to aid and abet" an abortion seems like something that you could file against anyone without lying to the court, certainly against government figures who don't prosecute abortions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 15:41
|
|
|
You can plead just about anything “on information and belief”, one weird trick to get to discovery
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
SCOTUS 2021: Rejoice, No More Roe v. Wade Scares
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 15:58
|
|
|
Look, participating in interstate commerce probably aids or abets some abortion, somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's funny because the 5th is a federal circuit so there's no reason it should be more conservative than any other federal circuit because it's appointed and confirmed by the same people as any other circuit. The only reason it should differ is by chance on when seats open up. That is not a thing they promised, and seems to be a wholly invented claim. Why do you believe this is true? The Fifth circuit is conservative because a larger portion of its membership has been nominated under Republican administrations. Democrat appointed: 5 Republican appointed: 12 The Ninth circuit is more liberal because a larger portion of its membership has been nominated under Democratic administrations (though Trump closed the gap substantially). Democrat appointed: 16 Republican appointed: 13 It really is as simple as that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Look, participating in interstate commerce probably aids or abets some abortion, somewhere. I fully expect people to start suing Google, Facebook, and so on, because being able to find information on the internet aids and abets access to abortion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
LegendaryFrog posted:That is not a thing they promised, and seems to be a wholly invented claim. Why do you believe this is true? Nope, while childishly simple explanations may satisfy some, I'd advise you look into why Democratic presidents curiosity appointed so few judges to the fifth circuit. Different circuits didn't have different presidents at the same time. quote:In 2012, Fifth Circuit Judge Emilio Garza took “senior status,” a kind of semi-retirement that opened up a vacancy on the Fifth Circuit that Obama could have filled. The next year, Garza’s colleague Judge Carolyn Dineen King did the same. Chaser: quote:Three years later, in a move that pretty much everyone on the planet who is not named “Patrick Leahy” knew would inevitably play out, now-Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has decided that Democrats who object to a Trump judicial nominee can go beat eggs. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Sep 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Look, participating in interstate commerce probably aids or abets some abortion, somewhere. They'd probably make that case about, say, selling general medical place cleanliness supplies to Planned Parenthood, yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 16:17
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:So since this law is all "one weird trick," could someone explain how this: Yes that's the point. The law was passed so that right wingers could engage in more state-sponsored terrorism against those people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 16:21
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Look, participating in interstate commerce probably aids or abets some abortion, somewhere. If von Metternich is right that it’s ex post facto, sue every current and former member of the Texas government for every abortion that’s happened since Roe
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 16:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nope, while childishly simple explanations may satisfy some, I'd advise you look into why Democratic presidents curiosity appointed so few judges to the fifth circuit. Different circuits didn't have different presidents at the same time. So what you actually meant by "Democrats just unilaterally promised Republicans they wouldn't appoint any liberals to the 5th" was "Republicans blocked democrats from appointing judges"... an entirely different claim, and something anyone with a pulse during the Obama years is well aware of. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 16:25
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Yes that's the point. The law was passed so that right wingers could engage in more state-sponsored terrorism against those people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:But what limits it to being used against those people, is my question? I know that's the intent, but there's no escape valve to limit who its used against. Judges’ discretion and the fact that you need a fair bit of money to either launch a lawsuit or make it go away
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 16:29
|
|
|
LegendaryFrog posted:So what you actually meant by "Democrats just unilaterally promised Republicans they wouldn't appoint any liberals to the 5th" was "Republicans blocked democrats from appointing judges"... an entirely different claim, and something anyone with a pulse during the Obama years is well aware of. You can't be this illiterate, but okay if you want to pretend to be, I will spoon-feed you more from that article quote:
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Sep 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 16:39
|
|
|
I mean it’s probably less than $500 to file one suit pro se. You are painting a target on your pocketbook though for counterclaims.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 16:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No. yeah but Vermont kept reelecting him so the can's got more road for the kicking here
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I fully expect people to start suing Google, Facebook, and so on, because being able to find information on the internet aids and abets access to abortion. You jest but with the way things are going, this could backfire and cause those companies to start censoring anything related to reproductive rights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 16:48
|
|
|
Sue Georgia-Pacific and Uline for selling supplies lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 16:51
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:You jest but with the way things are going, this could backfire and cause those companies to start censoring anything related to reproductive rights. It's not a joke, I honestly expect Texans to start suing internet companies for allowing other Texans to access information about abortion. For example, you could sue Google Maps for allowing someone to get directions from their house to the nearest out-of-state abortion clinic. Probably also textbook companies, medical publishers, and anyone who promotes sex education other than abstinence and marital sex for procreation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:It's not a joke, I honestly expect Texans to start suing internet companies for allowing other Texans to access information about abortion. For example, you could sue Google Maps for allowing someone to get directions from their house to the nearest out-of-state abortion clinic. Probably also textbook companies, medical publishers, and anyone who promotes sex education other than abstinence and marital sex for procreation. Medium-term solution: move ops out of the state. What’s TX going to do?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 19:40 |
|
|
morothar posted:Medium-term solution: move ops out of the state. What’s TX going to do? That's what my sister is doing and it sucks but I don't blame her. Not strictly because of this (she made the decision months ago) but because of an endless avalanche of poo poo like this. The blizzard was the last straw but she was already considering it because of all the ways the state government is always loving with people from weed to women's bodies. She's married and she doesn't want kids and now if her birth control fails she'd have to get a loving flight to New Mexico to take care of it VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Sep 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 17:14
|
|