Texas had a rapidly developing tech economy. They just lost it. And they have always worried about the brown take over. They just ensured that it is going to happen. But never let anyone say conservatives in Texas aren't the dumbest motherfuckers on Earth.
Caught this on the news tonight. Horrifying. No exemption for rape or incest? What the fuck, America. No doubt the new Afghan government would approve (edit: ^precisely).
How did I miss this thread? Before, I found OF disgusting, but I thought there was a speck of humanity in there that was pitiable, but now I hate his fucking guts. I hope you're dead, oldfella. Be dead.
It's not like OF is alone in basically wanting to have it both ways that abortion is murder and there should be laws against people who have or perform abortions, but those laws shouldn't exactly punish them the same ways that laws punish murderers...yet.
Yes, this will be copied in other red states. The issue I have is that they have enacted so many (hundreds) of anti-abortion laws as a way of overwhelming the judicial system. We’re to the point now that anything SCOTUS decides that preserves Roe will be summarily ignored by these Republican legislatures and governors.
I predict lots of pedantic hairsplitting. "Did Roe v. Wade get overturned, yes or no? Did Roe v. Wade get overturned, yes or no?"
Just want to point out that SCOTUS can neither propose nor enact legislation. They rule on the constitutionality of proposed or operative legislation. Nothing more. You want different laws, work thru the legislature. You don't like a SCOTUS decision, amend the Constitution. But this bellyaching about SCOTUS being some kind of unaccountable superpowered democracy killer is just abject nonsense. Y'all need to just come out and admit that you want single-party rule masquerading as direct democracy, under the mistaken assumption that you'll always be part of the majority.
The Texas abortion law is clearly contrary to the Roe v. Wade decision and interpretation of a woman's constitutional rights. If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the challenge, why even have a Supreme Court?
No one is claiming that SCOTUS can propose or enact legislation. But it can -- and does -- overrule legislation and read into the Constitution legal standards that ordinary legislation literally cannot surmount. Sometimes that is great, or at least widely accepted. Most of us are probably cool with such things as public schools no longer being able to discriminate by race, the right to counsel in criminal cases, anti-sodomy laws being unconstitutional. It is singularly difficult to pass a constitutional amendment. So just shrugging and saying "If you don't like what SCOTUS does, pass a constitutional amendment" is short-sighted at best. I tend to doubt that anyone here wants single-party rule. I would welcome Republicans in the mode of years past (McCain, either Bushes, and even Reagan) where there were certainly spirited disagreements about government philosophy and logistics, but there was never a doubt that the majority of the opposition still wanted what was best for the country and were worth working with and coming to compromises with.
Polls consistently show that between 60% and 70% of Americans support Roe v. Wade. But any attempt to ensure its continued existence by "just amending the constitution" can and will be blocked by the following 12 states: Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Utah, representing just under 7% of the total population.
In fairness to SCOTUS, the case before them was not to decide "Is this law unconstitutional" but rather "Should the enforcement of the law be stayed while the courts decide on whether it is unconstitutional?" This may not seem like a big difference, particularly when it seems likely that the five justices who voted to not stay enforcement of the law will eventually vote to overturn or at least severely handicap Roe. But it is a difference worth mentioning. Usually, the Supreme Court decides things only after a lengthy record has developed. It apparently has not in this case. There are technical hoops that need to be jumped through to ask for an injunction, among them that there needs to be a specific person or body to order to not do something. The majority claims that the hoops haven't been jumped through, and it's at least unclear who they could order to not do something. Typically, it would be an arm of government. But the crafty/nefarious/fill-in-the-blank thing about this law is the state isn't doing any enforcing. It has set up a system in which private citizens would do the enforcing. Is it unconstitutional for a state to create a system that effectively outsources actions that would be unconstitutional if the state did it? I would think so, but that is not a question that has precedent, apparently.
Turning neighbor against neighbor and making Texas one big snitch society couldn’t possibly end poorly. Amiright? Expanding the Supreme Court to make it more representative of mainstream constitutional principles is the only solution. It’s not like Biden is going to get three or four nominations.
Republicans: You can’t ask me about my vaccination status cuz HIPAA! Also Republicans: If you suspect a woman *thinking* about abortion, turn her in to our Medical Police!
The way it is set up, any random yahoo can also sue people for helping a woman travel to a less oppressive state to get an abortion. Which should make one of the law's main purposes immediately obvious: any well-off woman will have no trouble getting to, say, New Mexico or California on her own. It's low-income women who will need help. And now, anyone who helps them will be subject to targeted legal harassment.
Time to set up a script that submits the entire Texas legislature and executive branch to the informant website for funding roads in Texas. Need a directory of all the construction companies and workers involved, submit all their managers and employees. That should only be about, what, 10,000 tips? They continue to fund and build roads every day? Goodness, we'll need to submit 10,000 tips a day indefinitely. But I'm not the only one who realizes this. Surely we should all do our part to report these evil bastards who are facilitating abortions for Texas women?
The purpose of the law is clear. Whether the law should ultimately be found unconstitutional IMO is also clear. But there's not a clear precedent that holds any of the following things that would allow SCOTUS to intervene at this stage: 1. SCOTUS can block lower courts from allowing private parties from enforcing a state law that has not been held unconstitutional or otherwise problematic. 2. SCOTUS can block enforcement of a law when there is no specific party who has said they plan to enforce it. 3. A law allowing private parties to take actions that would be unconstitutional if the state did it would also be unconstitutional. Now of course, SCOTUS ultimately can do largely what it wants, so it is disingenuous to say "Gosh, we don't know if we have the power so we're staying out of this for now" is somewhat disingenous. One can bet if someone set up a system like this to pursue some liberal agenda (say, a law that allowed people to sue over spreading lies about election results or harming democracy), suddenly SCOTUS would step up.
So anyone can sue a woman for attempting to get an abortion, right? How would any court find standing for the case?
Let's say generously it will take the courts a couple years to sort this out. In that time, the majority of women seeking abortions in Texas will be greatly burdened. I would imagine that the first lawsuits by private citizens seeking to name people as abortion providers or seekers will be filed by the end of next week, if not sooner.
Once someone tries to sue using the law, various courts would have jurisdiction to stop the private person from enforcing the Texas law. There would then be an actual person the court could say "Don't do that" to.
Standing is not a concept with a single, inherent definition. Texas would likely argue that this law defines standing in cases dealing with abortion.
Roe V Wade is not legislation. The 1973 ruling was that the Due Process clause (14th Amendment) provides a right to privacy that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose. Sorry, not sorry, but, you're wrong again.
