U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

????? like what is Biden actually suggesting here

Breaking from Biden:

"I am directing that Council and the Office of the WH Counsel to launch a whole-of-government effort to respond to this decision, looking … to see what steps the Federal Gov't can take to ensure that women in Texas have access to safe and legal abortions."

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) September 2, 2021

...move to a different country?

Council and Counsel launching effort to look at steps! Watch out everyone!

Airlifting women from Texas to states that are marginally less hellish.

is there an actual chance of this being blocked at the 5th Circuit Court and then SCOTUS abdicating to hear any appeal due to wanting to appear impartial?

really just trying to figure out what the path forward is (besides the obvious court packing and filibuster abolition, which I don't see Biden trying w/ his approval ratings declining, even though it's the right thing to do)

harbl answered some of my questions above, and obviously it all hinges on a SCOTUS that doesn't respect precedent, but when it comes to the law, I'm terribly lost.

if they had any interest in not appearing impartial you would know by now

tbh while i am a lawyer i avoid paying too much attention to the supreme court because i hate it so i'm not an expert, but whatever happens in the 5th circuit they will take the case

zomg

Statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland pic.twitter.com/r2LrUTGvD1

— Anthony Coley (@AnthonyColeyDOJ) September 2, 2021

Council and Counsel launching effort to look at steps! Watch out everyone!

It's all so much simpler when the Supreme Leader can just make the rules and everyone either has to follow them or else be disappeared in the night.

c'mon, I wasn't criticizing them for not taking a more decisive action, just general handwringing about the situation. anyway I think we all agree the safeguards on the process are not respected equally by all sides

anyway I think we all agree the safeguards on the process are not respected equally by all sides

new USA motto

now it is the Supreme Court that is doing precisely that

xxp

I mean I guess the Judicial department *can* look at legal remedies, SCOTUS didn't make a final ruling or anything.

but short of creating a federal abortion center that visits Texas and basically dares civilians to sue them, idk what they could possibly do.

it'd be fine, the justice department could just counter-sue the hundreds/thousand of individual people/militias that sue them

DOJ's gonna submit one hell of an amicus brief on the court challenge to this law.

what do you suggest the DOJ and president do in this situation?

A lot of furrowing?

I would advise them to abolish the filibuster.

the DOJ?

Biden should send hire doctors under federal authority and send them to Texas to protect constitutional medical services at least until the Supreme Court bothers to figure out what the law may or may not be regarding BOUNTIES.

— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) September 2, 2021

Not suggesting anything in particular, but here's a list of all of the pro-life OB/GYNs in Texas
https://aaplog.org/find-a-pro-life-obgyn-search/?frm_search=Texas&show_view=yes

btw this thing operates on some kind of anonymous tip website. Crazy.

I would advise them to abolish the filibuster.

― it is to laugh, like so, ha! (Aimless), Thursday, 2 September 2021 bookmarkflaglink

48 Democratic senators have signed onto this bill. The only holdouts: Joe Manchin and Bob Casey https://t.co/CHapZSQOCd

— Andrew Perez (@andrewperezdc) September 2, 2021

I would put Manchin’s daughter in jail and dare him to cry about it

Like how much under-the-table bank is Manchin making off of GOP donors or whoever, seriously

also put that heart attack gun on Breyer like yesterday

Yep, because when the Senate flips in 2022, Moscow Mitch will make sure no Biden nominee gets confirmed.

Like how much under-the-table bank is Manchin making off of GOP donors or whoever, seriously

When the senate flips Biden is getting impeached AND removed

What should also happen is that out-of-state abortion providers should refuse to provide services to all registered republicans.

Given the chances that the Senate flips AND the unlikelihood of a democrat winning in 2024, I think there's a good chance we wind up with a 7-2 court.

can’t wait to see the 40 year old psychopath they nominate to replace Breyer

It'll be fucking Charlie Kirk.

When the senate flips Biden is getting impeached AND removed

― caddy lac brougham? (will), Thursday, September 2, 2021 3:16 PM bookmarkflaglink

no, this is not happening.

the GOP would have to win 31 of 34 Senate races in 2022 to have the 67 votes to convict, and 8 of them are likely slam dunks already for the Dems.

actually, no, it's not even possible. most seats they could have is 64 and that's if they run the table and take all 34.

as far as flipping, well....

it is a worry. Rs are defending more seats, but most of them tend to be in safer states than Ds. Idk that there's more than 2-3 Ds could flip if they lost any incumbent blue seats.

I'm still just completely dumbfounded by this law. There is no way that this sort of thing passes legal muster.

Next thing you know, half the states will go back to having tip lines about people fornicating or engaging in sodomy.

It would all be tragic if it weren't so stupid, absurdly horrifying.

the "testing the mechanism by passing other reduction ad absurdum laws with civilians as the chief arm of enforcement" might be its eventual undoing, but does anyyyybody really wanna get to that place?

I don't get the impression that SCOTUS wouldn't have blocked a more conservative law using this same mechanism though, obviously.

lol yeah sorry was being needlessly flippant on a thread that doesn’t need it

now, how does Justice Candace Owens strike y’all

The Texas Legislature knows the law couldn't possibly stand scrutiny under the present standards set by SCOTUS decisions. This was a political slam dunk for them and an outside chance that the SCOTUS will take it up and carry them to victory, now that they have 5 ultra-conservatives to nullify Roberts' swing vote.

Con law is mostly far afield from what I do but I’ve been trying to remember if there’s any other legislation that grants standing to someone to sue private individuals by whom they have not even plausibly been harmed. Like even taking Roe out of this, could the NY legislature, say, grant me standing to sue anyone who I believed had violated a copyright, although I had no interest or ownership in the copyright? Could they give me the right to sue someone for trespassing on someone else’s land?

I mean there are whistleblower statutes I guess (closest thing I can think of), but there’s at least a connection to the whistleblower plaintiff there, and also I think the government is typically harmed in those situations. Eg a whistleblower can sue for Medicare fraud that defrauds the government. I can’t just randomly bring a lawsuit against a doctor for Medicare fraud.

A court can always strike down one provision of a law while retaining those parts not dependent upon the part declared void. The six week restriction does not depend on the right to sue, which seems like it was just thrown in there to create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty.

"Here is federal legislation that would invalidate the Texas abortion law and enshrine Roe v Wade as law of the land."

this might buy some time but it's magical thinking that it would "enshrine" anything given the current SCOTUS.

A court can always strike down one provision of a law while retaining those parts not dependent upon the part declared void. The six week restriction does not depend on the right to sue, which seems like it was just thrown in there to create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty.

― it is to laugh, like so, ha! (Aimless), Thursday, September 2, 2021 4:19 PM (twenty-five minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Certainly true (not always true but here I think it would be the case), just wondering whether there is also, separate from Roe, a constitutional basis to invalidate the enforcement part of the law, which is creepy and has even broader implications.

Time to retire, Breyer
It's time to leave, Steve
There must be 50 ways to leave your judgeship

― Robert Cray-Cray (Ye Mad Puffin), Thursday, 2 September 2021 19:46 (two hours ago) link

no need to discuss much!

― sleeve, Thursday, 2 September 2021 19:49 (two hours ago) link

Just stick it to Gorsuch!

― Guayaquil (eephus!), Thursday, 2 September 2021 19:50 (two hours ago) link

You're looking long in the tooth, Ruth (sorry)

for this particular statute the six week restriction does depend on the private right of action. one of the things it's trying to do is say that this isn't unconstitutional because there's no state action involved:

Sec. 171.207. LIMITATIONS ON PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Notwithstanding Section 171.005 or any other law, the
requirements of this subchapter shall be enforced exclusively
through the private civil actions described in Section 171.208. No
enforcement of this subchapter, and no enforcement of Chapters 19
and 22, Penal Code, in response to violations of this subchapter,
may be taken or threatened by this state, a political subdivision, a
district or county attorney, or an executive or administrative
officer or employee of this state or a political subdivision
against any person, except as provided in Section 171.208.

which is partially why the supreme court wouldn't hear it. they would not enjoin the court that would ultimately hear the case, and there is no the attorney general or a law enforcement entity to enjoin.