5 ms·

Not to mention that its legality is based off a novel mechanism of crowd sourcing enforcement. In other words roe v wade is the law of the land, so they make a

Not to mention that its legality is based off a novel mechanism of crowd sourcing enforcement. In other words roe v wade is the law of the land, so they make a law that’s clearly in violation of it, but with a novel enforcement mechanism. Now the issue is challenging this in court, which is strange and weird because of the enforcement mechanism. Put another way, let’s say California passes a law banning the purchasing of guns, but enforces that law by allowing neighbors to bring suit and shielding defendants from collecting legal fees if they prevail. You can pretty much use this technique for anything if it’s allowed. Basically it’s opening a legal Pandora’s box.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
The piece I've yet to fully understand is how the state manages to absolve itself of enforcement. That is, they created the law which criminalizes it (or at least makes it some odd criminal-civil hybrid statute). They then set up a reporting system, which itself places them squarely in the process. And, following a report, they would presumably do something. I don't see how they can reasonably claim they are not involved with enforcement.
- whymauri 5y ago
  They can do whatever they want. It is no longer a matter of legal technicality, but of whether or not your friends in robes happen to agree with you.
- asimpletune 5y ago
  It will probably not stand up to serious legal scrutiny, simply due to the implications. Part of me wonders if they were inspired by the Obama care rulings. Basically the enforcement mechanism was taken away, so removing the law was seen as moot, however the plaintiffs wanted to see Obamacare dismantled. The truth is even without enforcement people use it voluntarily. It’s sort of like a twisted revenge to use the same concept, but in such a new and nefarious way.
- notahacker 5y ago
  The tendentious legal argument is the dispute is between two private parties, and the state's only involvement is providing the dispute-resolution mechanism (a bit hard to swallow when they've stacked the deck in favour of the claimant and not exactly hidden why). The Supreme Court's decision rests on the even thinner ground that there are no grounds for ruling on the constitutionality of the law until a case has been brought and enforcement attempted. (It's feasible they might even rule the other way if and when cases are actually brought, but we shall see. A head on challenge to Roe vs Wade would have fewer side effects) In the mean time, a very obvious route to create chaos has been opened up for any state government of any political inclination that wants to deter any constitutionally-protected behaviour whatsoever ...
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    >a bit hard to swallow when they've stacked the deck Yeah, it's the reasonableness standard that doesn't seem to fly. I mean I get that they're making a claim about who's enforcing, but all of these people declaring that the claim creates some grand legal crisis is what I'm not getting. It just seems so patently clear what's going on here that the claim is absurd on its face. I assume part of the reason for blowing it up though, is that it is such an egregious violation that even the attempt should be characterized as serious and dangerous. >on the constitutionality of the law until a case has been brought and enforcement attempted. Yeah this is head exploding. I don't know what the precedent is here, but it seems there's some standard or mechanism for SCOTUS getting involved pre-harm. I mean, if the law legalized murder... And, at a minimum that's what injunctions are for--avoiding potentially irreparable harms before matters can be fully adjudicated. Denying an abortion is certainly irreparable. That's why their refusal to grant a stay feels as ominous as it does.
jaldhar 5y ago
We crowd source law enforcement all the time. See my other comment about tip lines. The places your typical American considers exemplars of Social Democracy such as the Scandinavian countries are literally entire nations of Karens. That’s the only way a liberal society can actually function.
- danShumway 5y ago
  We're not talking about theory here or even about people turning each other in to the police, California could literally pass a law banning guns, and as long as they copied Texas's framework for enforcement, the Supreme Court's ruling means that nobody would have the ability to proactively sue the state. People really haven't grasped what this law enables. You're arguing about Karens, we're arguing about the ability of a State to ban pretty much any constitutionally protected activity they want in a way that prevents citizens from having the ability to sue to block those laws.
  - jaldhar 5y ago
    No actually I’m arguing that “crowd sourcing law enforcement” isn’t a novel government tactic at all. Argue for or against this law on its merits but it hasn’t enabled anything that wasn’t already a problem.
    - danShumway 5y ago
      > No actually I’m arguing that “crowd sourcing law enforcement” isn’t a novel government tactic at all Yeah, which is a completely separate conversation. The biggest problem with this bill isn't that it crowdsources law enforcement, it's that in crowdsourcing law enforcement it provides a novel mechanism for passing laws that can't be preemptively challenged by citizens in front of the Supreme Court. That is a novel issue. Citizens reporting people to the police, or even citizens collectively attacking, shunning, or boycotting socially unacceptable behaviors is not new. Citizens having standing under the law to sue each other over unconstitutional laws is a new thing. Cancel culture doesn't give random people standing to claim damages against anyone they want in a courtroom. This law does. > but it hasn’t enabled anything that wasn’t already a problem. So California already gave citizens standing to sue each other over owning any gun? It already allowed citizens to sue each other going out in public without a mask? People can be sued by anyone in the state if they go to church and they're not vaccinated? And it removed limits on the number of lawsuits so that citizens could sue the same companies/people multiple times? Remind me, after Apple refused to decrypt the San Bernadino phone, were they flooded with multiple lawsuits from ordinary citizens that couldn't be dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws, where citizens didn't need to prove standing for the lawsuit, and where Apple was barred from collecting attorney fees even if they won? People cancelling each other on Twitter, or submitting tips to law enforcement, or even getting people fired over their political beliefs is not the same thing as the Supreme Court signing off on a legal framework for passing unconstitutional laws.

unclebucknasty 5y ago

The piece I've yet to fully understand is how the state manages to absolve itself of enforcement. That is, they created the law which criminalizes it (or at least makes it some odd criminal-civil hybrid statute). They then set up a reporting system, which itself places them squarely in the process. And, following a report, they would presumably do something. I don't see how they can reasonably claim they are not involved with enforcement.

whymauri 5y ago
They can do whatever they want. It is no longer a matter of legal technicality, but of whether or not your friends in robes happen to agree with you.
asimpletune 5y ago
It will probably not stand up to serious legal scrutiny, simply due to the implications. Part of me wonders if they were inspired by the Obama care rulings. Basically the enforcement mechanism was taken away, so removing the law was seen as moot, however the plaintiffs wanted to see Obamacare dismantled. The truth is even without enforcement people use it voluntarily. It’s sort of like a twisted revenge to use the same concept, but in such a new and nefarious way.
notahacker 5y ago
The tendentious legal argument is the dispute is between two private parties, and the state's only involvement is providing the dispute-resolution mechanism (a bit hard to swallow when they've stacked the deck in favour of the claimant and not exactly hidden why). The Supreme Court's decision rests on the even thinner ground that there are no grounds for ruling on the constitutionality of the law until a case has been brought and enforcement attempted. (It's feasible they might even rule the other way if and when cases are actually brought, but we shall see. A head on challenge to Roe vs Wade would have fewer side effects) In the mean time, a very obvious route to create chaos has been opened up for any state government of any political inclination that wants to deter any constitutionally-protected behaviour whatsoever ...
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >a bit hard to swallow when they've stacked the deck Yeah, it's the reasonableness standard that doesn't seem to fly. I mean I get that they're making a claim about who's enforcing, but all of these people declaring that the claim creates some grand legal crisis is what I'm not getting. It just seems so patently clear what's going on here that the claim is absurd on its face. I assume part of the reason for blowing it up though, is that it is such an egregious violation that even the attempt should be characterized as serious and dangerous. >on the constitutionality of the law until a case has been brought and enforcement attempted. Yeah this is head exploding. I don't know what the precedent is here, but it seems there's some standard or mechanism for SCOTUS getting involved pre-harm. I mean, if the law legalized murder... And, at a minimum that's what injunctions are for--avoiding potentially irreparable harms before matters can be fully adjudicated. Denying an abortion is certainly irreparable. That's why their refusal to grant a stay feels as ominous as it does.

jaldhar 5y ago

We crowd source law enforcement all the time. See my other comment about tip lines. The places your typical American considers exemplars of Social Democracy such as the Scandinavian countries are literally entire nations of Karens. That’s the only way a liberal society can actually function.

danShumway 5y ago
We're not talking about theory here or even about people turning each other in to the police, California could literally pass a law banning guns, and as long as they copied Texas's framework for enforcement, the Supreme Court's ruling means that nobody would have the ability to proactively sue the state. People really haven't grasped what this law enables. You're arguing about Karens, we're arguing about the ability of a State to ban pretty much any constitutionally protected activity they want in a way that prevents citizens from having the ability to sue to block those laws.
- jaldhar 5y ago
  No actually I’m arguing that “crowd sourcing law enforcement” isn’t a novel government tactic at all. Argue for or against this law on its merits but it hasn’t enabled anything that wasn’t already a problem.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    > No actually I’m arguing that “crowd sourcing law enforcement” isn’t a novel government tactic at all Yeah, which is a completely separate conversation. The biggest problem with this bill isn't that it crowdsources law enforcement, it's that in crowdsourcing law enforcement it provides a novel mechanism for passing laws that can't be preemptively challenged by citizens in front of the Supreme Court. That is a novel issue. Citizens reporting people to the police, or even citizens collectively attacking, shunning, or boycotting socially unacceptable behaviors is not new. Citizens having standing under the law to sue each other over unconstitutional laws is a new thing. Cancel culture doesn't give random people standing to claim damages against anyone they want in a courtroom. This law does. > but it hasn’t enabled anything that wasn’t already a problem. So California already gave citizens standing to sue each other over owning any gun? It already allowed citizens to sue each other going out in public without a mask? People can be sued by anyone in the state if they go to church and they're not vaccinated? And it removed limits on the number of lawsuits so that citizens could sue the same companies/people multiple times? Remind me, after Apple refused to decrypt the San Bernadino phone, were they flooded with multiple lawsuits from ordinary citizens that couldn't be dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws, where citizens didn't need to prove standing for the lawsuit, and where Apple was barred from collecting attorney fees even if they won? People cancelling each other on Twitter, or submitting tips to law enforcement, or even getting people fired over their political beliefs is not the same thing as the Supreme Court signing off on a legal framework for passing unconstitutional laws.