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
― criminally negligible (harbl), Thursday, 2 September 2021 16:06 (two years ago) link
zomg
Statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland pic.twitter.com/r2LrUTGvD1— Anthony Coley (@AnthonyColeyDOJ) September 2, 2021
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 2 September 2021 16:19 (two years ago) link
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.
― it is to laugh, like so, ha! (Aimless), Thursday, 2 September 2021 16:32 (two years ago) link
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
― Lavator Shemmelpennick, Thursday, 2 September 2021 16:34 (two years ago) link
anyway I think we all agree the safeguards on the process are not respected equally by all sides
new USA motto
― a (waterface), Thursday, 2 September 2021 16:37 (two years ago) link
now it is the Supreme Court that is doing precisely that
xxp
― Mr. Cacciatore (Moodles), Thursday, 2 September 2021 16:39 (two years ago) link
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.
― Duke Detain (Neanderthal), Thursday, 2 September 2021 16:41 (two years ago) link
it'd be fine, the justice department could just counter-sue the hundreds/thousand of individual people/militias that sue them
― professional anti- (Karl Malone), Thursday, 2 September 2021 16:42 (two years ago) link
DOJ's gonna submit one hell of an amicus brief on the court challenge to this law.
― it is to laugh, like so, ha! (Aimless), Thursday, 2 September 2021 16:52 (two years ago) link
what do you suggest the DOJ and president do in this situation?
― Mr. Cacciatore (Moodles), Thursday, 2 September 2021 16:55 (two years ago) link
A lot of furrowing?
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 2 September 2021 16:59 (two years ago) link
I would advise them to abolish the filibuster.
― it is to laugh, like so, ha! (Aimless), Thursday, 2 September 2021 16:59 (two years ago) link
the DOJ?
― Mr. Cacciatore (Moodles), Thursday, 2 September 2021 17:00 (two years ago) link
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
― Duke Detain (Neanderthal), Thursday, 2 September 2021 17:04 (two years ago) link
Not suggesting anything in particular, but here's a list of all of the pro-life OB/GYNs in Texashttps://aaplog.org/find-a-pro-life-obgyn-search/?frm_search=Texas&show_view=yes
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, 2 September 2021 18:48 (two years ago) link
btw this thing operates on some kind of anonymous tip website. Crazy.
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, 2 September 2021 18:53 (two years ago) link
― 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
― xyzzzz__, Thursday, 2 September 2021 19:05 (two years ago) link
I would put Manchin’s daughter in jail and dare him to cry about it
― caddy lac brougham? (will), Thursday, 2 September 2021 19:07 (two years ago) link
Like how much under-the-table bank is Manchin making off of GOP donors or whoever, seriously
― Marty J. Bilge (Old Lunch), Thursday, 2 September 2021 19:08 (two years ago) link
also put that heart attack gun on Breyer like yesterday
― caddy lac brougham? (will), Thursday, 2 September 2021 19:10 (two years ago) link
Yep, because when the Senate flips in 2022, Moscow Mitch will make sure no Biden nominee gets confirmed.
― a superficial sheeb of intelligence (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 2 September 2021 19:15 (two years ago) link
― caddy lac brougham? (will), Thursday, 2 September 2021 19:16 (two years ago) link
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.
― Taliban! (PBKR), Thursday, 2 September 2021 19:18 (two years ago) link
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.
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, 2 September 2021 19:21 (two years ago) link
can’t wait to see the 40 year old psychopath they nominate to replace Breyer
― caddy lac brougham? (will), Thursday, 2 September 2021 19:28 (two years ago) link
It'll be fucking Charlie Kirk.
― a superficial sheeb of intelligence (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 2 September 2021 19:29 (two years ago) link
― 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.
― Duke Detain (Neanderthal), Thursday, 2 September 2021 19:42 (two years ago) link
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.
― Duke Detain (Neanderthal), Thursday, 2 September 2021 19:44 (two years ago) link
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.
― Duke Detain (Neanderthal), Thursday, 2 September 2021 19:47 (two years ago) link
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.
― Kind regards, Anus (the table is the table), Thursday, 2 September 2021 19:48 (two years ago) link
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.
― Duke Detain (Neanderthal), Thursday, 2 September 2021 19:51 (two years ago) link
lol yeah sorry was being needlessly flippant on a thread that doesn’t need it
― caddy lac brougham? (will), Thursday, 2 September 2021 19:55 (two years ago) link
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.
― it is to laugh, like so, ha! (Aimless), Thursday, 2 September 2021 20:00 (two years ago) link
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?
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, 2 September 2021 21:06 (two years ago) link
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.
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, 2 September 2021 21:08 (two years ago) link
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, 2 September 2021 21:19 (two years ago) link
"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.
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Thursday, 2 September 2021 21:19 (two years ago) link
― 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.
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, 2 September 2021 21:47 (two years ago) link
Time to retire, BreyerIt's time to leave, SteveThere 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)
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, 2 September 2021 21:59 (two years ago) link
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.
― criminally negligible (harbl), Thursday, 2 September 2021 22:27 (two years ago) link
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.
― criminally negligible (harbl), Thursday, 2 September 2021 22:30 (two years ago) link
the
― criminally negligible (harbl), Thursday, 2 September 2021 22:31 (two years ago) link
And that hot mess is what the justices in their wisdom chose not to issue an injunction to prevent?! Christ on a cracker, they're sending in the clowns.
― it is to laugh, like so, ha! (Aimless), Thursday, 2 September 2021 22:32 (two years ago) link
ty harbl
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, 2 September 2021 22:35 (two years ago) link
but what damages could a court assess, if the plaintiff was never damaged? how can standing be conjured out of nothing?
― it is to laugh, like so, ha! (Aimless), Thursday, 2 September 2021 22:40 (two years ago) link
a statute can be written to give a person standing, probably a more appropriate phrase is enforcement authority or right of action, because it doesn't require the enforcing person to be harmed. another way it's not like the ADA where (as far as i know) you have to include in your initial pleading that you are the person harmed.
― criminally negligible (harbl), Thursday, 2 September 2021 22:47 (two years ago) link
Sen. Susan Collins emerged from her face-to-face meeting with then-Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh in August 2018 insisting that he had reassured her that Roe v. Wade was settled law.Two months later, Collins (R-Maine), who supports abortion rights, declared in a lengthy Senate floor speech that Kavanaugh had a “record of judicial independence” and dismissed the notion that he might overturn precedent. She later would vote to confirm him to the lifetime post.Collins’s past assertions came into sharp relief Wednesday as Kavanaugh joined four of his fellow conservatives on the court in declining to block one of the country’s most restrictive abortion laws, a Texas statute that bans the procedure as early as six weeks into pregnancy with no exception for rape or incest. The court’s action stands as the most serious threat to the landmark ruling establishing a woman’s right to abortion in nearly 50 years.Collins’s support for Kavanaugh — and her insistence that he would uphold Roe — was crucial in installing then-President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court as the Senate confirmed him by one of the narrowest margins in history, a near party-line 50-to-48 vote.His decision late Wednesday night revives questions of whether Collins was misled by the nominee or whether she was intent on supporting him no matter his views on abortion rights. Collins’s full-throated endorsement of Kavanaugh and her swing vote means she will always be associated with this Supreme Court justice, winning praise from conservatives and widespread criticism from liberals.
Two months later, Collins (R-Maine), who supports abortion rights, declared in a lengthy Senate floor speech that Kavanaugh had a “record of judicial independence” and dismissed the notion that he might overturn precedent. She later would vote to confirm him to the lifetime post.
Collins’s past assertions came into sharp relief Wednesday as Kavanaugh joined four of his fellow conservatives on the court in declining to block one of the country’s most restrictive abortion laws, a Texas statute that bans the procedure as early as six weeks into pregnancy with no exception for rape or incest. The court’s action stands as the most serious threat to the landmark ruling establishing a woman’s right to abortion in nearly 50 years.
Collins’s support for Kavanaugh — and her insistence that he would uphold Roe — was crucial in installing then-President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court as the Senate confirmed him by one of the narrowest margins in history, a near party-line 50-to-48 vote.
His decision late Wednesday night revives questions of whether Collins was misled by the nominee or whether she was intent on supporting him no matter his views on abortion rights. Collins’s full-throated endorsement of Kavanaugh and her swing vote means she will always be associated with this Supreme Court justice, winning praise from conservatives and widespread criticism from liberals.
geeeeee what could it be? it couldn't be both that's for sure!
― professional anti- (Karl Malone), Thursday, 2 September 2021 23:09 (two years ago) link
Q. Could you grant a private right of action to citizens to sue any provider of religious services for $1M? Asking for a friend.
― Taliban! (PBKR), Thursday, 2 September 2021 23:10 (two years ago) link