3 ms·

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

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.

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.