|
Post by LFC on Jul 15, 2021 20:01:12 GMT
F***. Ginsburg's refusal to acknowledge the reality of her age gave us a wildly skewed SCOTUS. Breyer is willing to cement that even further. I can't even.
|
|
|
Post by LFC on Aug 31, 2021 19:48:57 GMT
Strap in. Right-wing SCOTUS might very well not only undercut abortion rights (I'd say that's a given eventually) but also allow laws to be passed with no reasonable path to be challenged until it's actually in force and acted upon. Here's Vox's explanation of the latter part. It's f***ing genius. Evil genius meant to end run the American judicial system but genius all the same.
|
|
jackd
Assistant Professor
Posts: 813
|
Post by jackd on Aug 31, 2021 20:05:11 GMT
How about a lawsuit asking the state courts to enjoin themselves from enforcing the statute?
|
|
|
Post by LFC on Aug 31, 2021 21:03:37 GMT
How about a lawsuit asking the state courts to enjoin themselves from enforcing the statute? I'm confused. I thought that's what the law did, prohibit the state from enforcing the law and instead handing it over to their vigilantes and the civil courts. Can you explain as if I wasn't a lawyer?
|
|
jackd
Assistant Professor
Posts: 813
|
Post by jackd on Aug 31, 2021 21:48:39 GMT
If I understand the statute correctly, it prohibits courts from allowing actions against government officials by private individuals and allows private individuals to sue abortion providers. Suits require court orders to be enforceable and only courts can enter those. In order to challenge the constitutionality of the statute I'm asking why can't the provider being sued sue the court seeking to enter an order to ask for an injunction against that court by another court. I agree it's bizarre but, then, we're talking Texas.
|
|
|
Post by LFC on Aug 31, 2021 21:54:23 GMT
If I understand the statute correctly, it prohibits courts from allowing actions against government officials by private individuals and allows private individuals to sue abortion providers. Suits require court orders to be enforceable and only courts can enter those. In order to challenge the constitutionality of the statute I'm asking why can't the provider being sued sue the court seeking to enter an order to ask for an injunction against that court by another court. I agree it's bizarre but, then, we're talking Texas. It still comes back to a major thrust from the piece and that's the fact that the law seemingly can't be challenged until an actual lawsuit is filed. Since anybody can file one to get a bounty you can expect hundreds if not thousands to be filed by the religious freaks. Sure they can ask for an injunction for any given case but the fact is that, as the article says, they're lined up for a $10,000 hit plus court costs even if they prevail. It sounds like the entire point to this is to allow vigilantes to crush them by overwhelming them with lawsuits.
|
|
|
Post by goldenvalley on Aug 31, 2021 22:43:55 GMT
If I understand the statute correctly, it prohibits courts from allowing actions against government officials by private individuals and allows private individuals to sue abortion providers. Suits require court orders to be enforceable and only courts can enter those. In order to challenge the constitutionality of the statute I'm asking why can't the provider being sued sue the court seeking to enter an order to ask for an injunction against that court by another court. I agree it's bizarre but, then, we're talking Texas. It still comes back to a major thrust from the piece and that's the fact that the law seemingly can't be challenged until an actual lawsuit is filed. Since anybody can file one to get a bounty you can expect hundreds if not thousands to be filed by the religious freaks. Sure they can ask for an injunction for any given case but the fact is that, as the article says, they're lined up for a $10,000 hit plus court costs even if they prevail. It sounds like the entire point to this is to allow vigilantes to crush them by overwhelming them with lawsuits. Yup.
|
|
jackd
Assistant Professor
Posts: 813
|
Post by jackd on Sept 1, 2021 0:05:27 GMT
I still like the Alice in Wonderland concept of a Texas court enjoining the entire Texas court system from "enforcing" this statute.
|
|
|
Post by LFC on Sept 1, 2021 2:34:23 GMT
I still like the Alice in Wonderland concept of a Texas court enjoining the entire Texas court system from "enforcing" this statute. "We're not in Kansas Missouri Florida any blue state anymore, Toto." If Texass rams this thru it will spread like wildfire across the red states.
|
|
jackd
Assistant Professor
Posts: 813
|
Post by jackd on Sept 1, 2021 2:57:08 GMT
Even the right wing federal courts might interrupt this denial of due process with a ruling based on due process; or maybe not.
|
|
jackd
Assistant Professor
Posts: 813
|
Post by jackd on Sept 1, 2021 12:16:11 GMT
Not the Supreme Court; at least not yet. It denied an application for stay of the Texas court's order.
|
|
|
Post by goldenvalley on Sept 1, 2021 15:45:32 GMT
Not the Supreme Court; at least not yet. It denied an application for stay of the Texas court's order. It has upheld the law without bothering to write an opinion to explain why it's constitutional. Snooping and tattle telling may begin!
|
|
|
Post by LFC on Sept 1, 2021 20:55:12 GMT
TPM has a string of coverage over the completely "unique" Texass civilian bounty law against people who perform abortions. As I said it's clear that this is simply meant to bury anybody who performs or assists in abortions in lawsuits. Moscow Mitch's minions in the judiciary have upended civil law in America. This is how democracy dies and fascism blooms. Republicans like Devin Nunes have been filing frivolous suits for ages to bury people they don't like. It's simply an extension of that.
Read how lawsuits can be filed 4 years after the fact and protects the lawsuit from being dismissed even if the 6 week abortion law gets overruled.
|
|
jackd
Assistant Professor
Posts: 813
|
Post by jackd on Sept 2, 2021 1:27:10 GMT
The court continues to give its enemies reasons to support packing if the Democratic majority is ever strong enough. Roberts claim of non politicization becomes more frivolous every day.
|
|
|
Post by goldenvalley on Sept 2, 2021 2:23:59 GMT
TPM has a string of coverage over the completely "unique" Texass civilian bounty law against people who perform abortions. As I said it's clear that this is simply meant to bury anybody who performs or assists in abortions in lawsuits. Moscow Mitch's minions in the judiciary have upended civil law in America. This is how democracy dies and fascism blooms. Republicans like Devin Nunes have been filing frivolous suits for ages to bury people they don't like. It's simply an extension of that.
Read how lawsuits can be filed 4 years after the fact and protects the lawsuit from being dismissed even if the 6 week abortion law gets overruled. This is not only an ending of abortion in Texas. It turns the rules governing civil cases inside out. No need for personal harm allegations; no restrictions on where the suit can be filed; a huge statute of limitations; and no way for a defendant who successfully defends to recover costs and fees from the plaintiff. It is also a big FU to the American legal system. First abortion, what next?
|
|
|
Post by LFC on Sept 2, 2021 14:27:11 GMT
First abortion, what next? Social media companies, media outlets, and election volunteers. A key maneuver in a fascist takeover is to destroy the judicial system so you can use it to attack your enemies. In these cases "enemies" are anybody who tells the truth.
|
|
|
Post by LFC on Sept 2, 2021 16:40:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by LFC on Sept 2, 2021 16:48:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by LFC on Sept 2, 2021 16:57:43 GMT
Texas created a thought crime classification. Apparently Fascist SCOTUS has no problem with that.
|
|
|
Post by Bact PhD on Sept 2, 2021 18:53:11 GMT
Texas created a thought crime classification. Apparently Fascist SCOTUS has no problem with that. These tactics, particularly the "get your neighbors to do the dirty work" aspect, strike me as worthy of the CCP.1 But it's all OK, 'cuz it's all for Jeebus, amirite? Don't the ends justify the means?
(ugh)
1Some years ago (and by that I'm thinking the mid-'90s-ish), as more and more US companies were doing business with mainland China, I remember hearing/reading the opinion that what mainland China was fast becoming was not so much Communist, but a sort of fascist state with a veneer of Marxism.
|
|
|
Post by LFC on Sept 2, 2021 19:10:08 GMT
|
|
jackd
Assistant Professor
Posts: 813
|
Post by jackd on Sept 2, 2021 19:10:12 GMT
Objective lawyers who believe in the rule of law despise this court. It is an embarrassment not to mention dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by LFC on Sept 2, 2021 19:12:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Bact PhD on Sept 2, 2021 19:18:44 GMT
Truly, "Judicial Activism" is in the eye of the beholder, as the current majority sees nothing wrong...
|
|
jackd
Assistant Professor
Posts: 813
|
Post by jackd on Sept 2, 2021 19:30:45 GMT
Got to agree about Breyer. Unfortunately that was also true of Ginsberg. Hubris.
|
|