U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

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.

the

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.

ty harbl

but what damages could a court assess, if the plaintiff was never damaged? how can standing be conjured out of nothing?

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.

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.

geeeeee what could it be? it couldn't be both that's for sure!

Q. Could you grant a private right of action to citizens to sue any provider of religious services for $1M? Asking for a friend.

oh man, that would be nice. there are a lot of church people i'd like to sue, including the people that forced me to attend

xposts oh and i meant to add that this statute establishes a $10,000 minimum penalty. it is not in any way damages under the normal definition of damages. it's a fine, just paid to the plaintiff.

right, so that would be like how my former pastor is going to pay me $10K once i prove his guilt

the music leader is, too. kevin. i don't care how consistent you were over the years, kevin, and how you combined bluegrass with southern gospel and korgs to mesmerize a generation of complete fucking dumbasses - you owe me $10K

i believe kevin belongs in jail!

I mean this shit wouldn't pass muster for two seconds, but I absolutely think the SC is going to let this go when they finally rule on the merits (if they even bother to).

it's just a bogus court now, if it wasn't already. i mean, its real -- this has real repercussions. but does anyone think this court is going to be helpful when the 2024 election is contested by republicans?

joke supreme court that's just for farts

very long night of the soul now for susan collins and lisa murkowski, not to mention jeff flake. they must be feeling it right now, wow

:)

Lol @Brad

dear journal.

this is it. truly, a long, dark night of the soul. i feel like may have earned it somehow, this time. maybe i am at partly at fault? i faced the golden boy across my desk in the back corner of my senatorial suite. "do you believe in abortion?" i asked? "excuse me", he parried. "i'm just kidding! who cares! just tell me what i need to hear!", i said. "what do you need to hear, Ms. Collins?" the golden boy asked, and i felt embarrassed at his youthful silliness. "tell me what you think about ABORTION, my dear kavanaugh!" i squeezed out of my dead face. "what do you want me to think..." i nodded along "yes i think that you will be very" "i will be so very" "practical" and "dispassionate" and "impartial" yes!, yes we will!

why did my dolls look back at me that way when i told the story of how it would be? because they feel emotions directly like daggers, they have no shield for them. they are just stupid plastic under the mess, to be thrown away when they're too dirty. i look at the golden boy and feel nothing at all for this disputable handsome mess of brown hair. he liked beer. we all did, in that time. we couldn't retrace the exact blocks to our college friends' houses...we all moved all of the time anyway.

any rate, too tired to worry about this any more. i look denial in the face and i say NO!
susan collins

Keep your farts off my body.

Texas is basically a small Soviet Republic at this point, with neighbors spying on neighbors, hoping to collect a cash bounty, in addition to being an apartheid state for nonwhite voters. What woman or POC could possibly feel safe there? To say nothing of the gun proliferation.

— Joy-Ann (Pro-Democracy) Reid 😷 (@JoyAnnReid) September 2, 2021

You would think companies like Apple would exert pressure by not putting offices in these states, but capitalism.

Lots of companies have put economic pressure on states like Georgia and North Carolina for (relatively) less, haven't they?

Actually, not even relatively less, I should have said relatively similar impositions. Let's see what happens in Texas, but I bet companies respond at least a little if the public pressure is enough.

ugh joy reid

I'm more surprised xyzz let a passing jab at a Soviet republic go unmentioned!

Wait is anything that Ms Reid said NOT true? Idgi

Anyway here's a Twitter thread about why calling for boycotts when Texas haven't (?) called for boycotts might be a bad idea.

Yes because people suddenly being unemployed will surely make the whole situation better you goddamned ghouls. https://t.co/RJAmDjZWDH

— 🚩Shepherd🏴 (@NeolithicSheep) September 2, 2021

You would think companies like Apple would exert pressure by not putting offices in these states, but capitalism.

I've been surprised to see quite a few twitter threads scolding people for stating that companies/productions should pull out of Texas. While I definitely agree that the, "fuck Texas, anyone that lives there deserves this shit" attitude is heinous, I don't really think it's at all bad to believe that one of the consequences of this bullshit should be seeing them take a massive financial hit.