4 ms·

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 lea

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.

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.