4 ms·

The fact the Texas legislature came up with that completely ridiculous scheme is not that surprising. They just aren't that good at making laws and have electe

The fact the Texas legislature came up with that completely ridiculous scheme is not that surprising. They just aren't that good at making laws and have elected a number of people who show no concern with the general welfare of their constituents. That the Supreme Court basically rubber stamped it is absolutely insane. Even operating on the assumption that the conservative majority on the court wanted to overturn Roe without having big headlines saying "Roe Overturned" choosing this absolutely insane law to do it is not going to do them any favors in the long term. The chance of this backfiring is so high that it's hard to imagine anybody looking at it and saying it was a good idea. How can they not be feeling like Roger Taney after Dred Scott right now? This could be the beginning of the end for restrictive abortion laws nationwide, to so decisively win a battle that costs you the war. Edit: Wow, this is getting downvoted fast. I'm leaving it up so history can be the judge. I'm feeling confident that effectively issuing a Letter of Marque to every single US citizen on their own constituents is will turn out badly. This law is only going to be abused, and severely, unless the sensible minds in the courts wake up and put it on hold.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> the Supreme Court basically rubber stamped it The Court rejected an emergency stay. It did not uphold the law. That will come after hearings next year.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Who will SCOTUS hand the bill to for the unplanned and unwanted children who are carried to term in the meantime by women who could not get access to healthcare until hearings are held [1]? Who should these women sue for damages due to defective statute and who have been harmed by the state of Texas? [1] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-6-week-abortion-ban-prevent https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-6-week-abortion-ban-p... (However, preliminary estimates suggest that the law could prevent roughly 132 procedures per day, or 4,009 per month.)
- watwut 5y ago
  Yeah, causing damage in between. But that is what selecting justices was all about anyway last years.
- jandrese 5y ago
  The damage is already done. This galaxy brain legislation is being picked up by 6 other states[1] and growing. By the time the Supreme Court gets back to it there will be at least a dozen other implementations to consider as well. If they opt for a narrow ruling the whole case could drag out for a decade or more. Meanwhile legal bounty hunters get to make claims with little to no merit on the hopes of getting some $10,000 payouts and with little risk--the abortion providers pay the court costs win or lose. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/03/texas-abortion-republicans-six-states-arkansas-florida-indiana-mississippi-north-south-dakota https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/03/texas-abortion...
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > the abortion providers pay the court costs win or lose Wait, so if I had even a thin basis for a suspicion, I could file cases against the legislators who voted for the bull?
    - jandrese 5y ago
      If you lose you have to pay your own court costs, but the abortion provider pays their own costs regardless. If you win the abortion provider also pays your court costs. From what I’ve read there is nothing preventing you from filing frivolous suits against the legislators. They have to defend themselves or face a summary judgement. The law as written is wide open for abuse. This could be amended with a provision that excludes legislators and rich politically connected people.
    - jcranmer 5y ago
      Even better, you could do so in courts that are inconvenient for them (read: other end of the state), without any allegations that it's a proper venue for the case at all, and they couldn't move to place it in a more reasonable jurisdiction. Granted, that provision is probably unconstitutional by itself, but it just goes to show you that the banning abortion part of the law is the least problematic part of the entire thing.
- babyblueblanket 5y ago
  Between the time the court rejected a stay and the hearings next year, a constitutional right will be denied to countless people.
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    >a constitutional right Exactly, just because it isn't specified or enumerated as a right in the constitution, doesn't mean it's not a right... right?
kodah 5y ago
You're probably getting downvoted for this attitude: > The fact the Texas legislature came up with that completely ridiculous scheme is not that surprising. People on this site tend to downvote if you talk based on perceived state attitudes. The same thing happens if you make blanket statements about California, it's citizens, or electorate.
- hnaccy 5y ago
  It's not a blanket statement about a state but the legislature which is much smaller group of people.
  - kodah 5y ago
    Unfortunately it's a small jump to thinking, "somebody elected these people" and then projecting those sentiments widely. Anyway, that's what I've learned about talking about Texas and California broadly. I've lived in both states and have both negative and positive things to say about each, but when I criticize them I've figured out I have to be very concise about describing with who and what I find wrong in order to have my opinion heard and respected.
- crazy_horse 5y ago
  No downvote here but it's that. We're used to people talking about a place that doesn't exist usually so we're touchy about it. But the law is crazy, unconstitutional and would start a tit-for-tat form of legislating that would completely delegitimize whatever legitimacy the government has left. Note, the legislature is weird. It meets every other year, is basically a second job. Not sure Cali's professionalization of politics is better, but something has to give.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Note, the legislature is weird. It meets every other year, is basically a second job. IIRC, biennial sessions used to be extremely common.
    - 5y ago
bryanlarsen 5y ago
This is not a "completely ridiculous scheme". This is a loophole in the constitution that Texas is employing. IANAL, but this is how I understand it. The supreme court does not strike down laws in a preliminary injunction, it just prevents the attorney-general or other applicable officials from enforcing it. This law is written so that the attorney general has no part in enforcing the law, so the supreme court can't do a preliminary injunction. It can only strike down the law once somebody tries to use the law and it bubbles its way up the court system. But of course if everybody is too afraid to break the law, the law has effect without ever being applied. The best suggestion I heard on how to get rid of it would be to have Massachusetts ban handguns using the same loophole. Somehow I think that this stacked court will come to its senses when it is the 2nd amendment being threatened rather than the 14th.
- benmmurphy 5y ago
  texas probably got the idea from civil liability laws that were used being used against gun manufacturers prior to the federal immunity law. gun control organisations were using the court system to bankrupt manufacturers as a backdoor to banning guns.
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    I don't think that's a similar situation, really; those allowed injured parties to sue the manufacturers who made the dangerous device. In the US gun manufacturers are generally special-cased here; they have unusual protections that you wouldn't have if you, say, manufactured a defective water heater. In this case totally _unrelated_ parties can sue, which seems entirely different.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The fact the Texas legislature came up with that completely ridiculous scheme is not that surprising. They just aren't that good at making laws They are very good at making laws to do what they want (in this case, leverage precdent to ensure that that wfeffoets to block the law before it went into effect did not succeed, maximizing the chilling effect on abortion provision). > That the Supreme Court basically rubber stamped it is absolutely insane. The Supreme Court did not rule on the legality of the law (either the abortion restriction or the enforcement mechanism), it only validated the Texas Legislature's attempt to avoid a pre-implementation block against the law. While this enables the chilling effect of the law, it does not validate the substance of the law. > That the Supreme Court basically rubber stamped it is absolutely insane. If you want an outcome-oriented reasoning explanation, I’d say the majority wanted to set back the availability of abortion without overturning row; indeed, while likely still upholding it once a case reaches it through the slow path it has required.
- locopati 5y ago
  "While this enables the chilling effect of the law, it does not validate the substance of the law." in practice though, it has the same effects... shutting down clinics even if, later, they invalidate the law, the damage will have been done and the court can pretend they were impartial even though they were not at all

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> the Supreme Court basically rubber stamped it The Court rejected an emergency stay. It did not uphold the law. That will come after hearings next year.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Who will SCOTUS hand the bill to for the unplanned and unwanted children who are carried to term in the meantime by women who could not get access to healthcare until hearings are held [1]? Who should these women sue for damages due to defective statute and who have been harmed by the state of Texas? [1] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-6-week-abortion-ban-prevent https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-6-week-abortion-ban-p... (However, preliminary estimates suggest that the law could prevent roughly 132 procedures per day, or 4,009 per month.)
watwut 5y ago
Yeah, causing damage in between. But that is what selecting justices was all about anyway last years.
jandrese 5y ago
The damage is already done. This galaxy brain legislation is being picked up by 6 other states[1] and growing. By the time the Supreme Court gets back to it there will be at least a dozen other implementations to consider as well. If they opt for a narrow ruling the whole case could drag out for a decade or more. Meanwhile legal bounty hunters get to make claims with little to no merit on the hopes of getting some $10,000 payouts and with little risk--the abortion providers pay the court costs win or lose. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/03/texas-abortion-republicans-six-states-arkansas-florida-indiana-mississippi-north-south-dakota https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/03/texas-abortion...
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > the abortion providers pay the court costs win or lose Wait, so if I had even a thin basis for a suspicion, I could file cases against the legislators who voted for the bull?
  - jandrese 5y ago
    If you lose you have to pay your own court costs, but the abortion provider pays their own costs regardless. If you win the abortion provider also pays your court costs. From what I’ve read there is nothing preventing you from filing frivolous suits against the legislators. They have to defend themselves or face a summary judgement. The law as written is wide open for abuse. This could be amended with a provision that excludes legislators and rich politically connected people.
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    Even better, you could do so in courts that are inconvenient for them (read: other end of the state), without any allegations that it's a proper venue for the case at all, and they couldn't move to place it in a more reasonable jurisdiction. Granted, that provision is probably unconstitutional by itself, but it just goes to show you that the banning abortion part of the law is the least problematic part of the entire thing.
babyblueblanket 5y ago
Between the time the court rejected a stay and the hearings next year, a constitutional right will be denied to countless people.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  >a constitutional right Exactly, just because it isn't specified or enumerated as a right in the constitution, doesn't mean it's not a right... right?

kodah 5y ago

You're probably getting downvoted for this attitude: > The fact the Texas legislature came up with that completely ridiculous scheme is not that surprising. People on this site tend to downvote if you talk based on perceived state attitudes. The same thing happens if you make blanket statements about California, it's citizens, or electorate.

hnaccy 5y ago
It's not a blanket statement about a state but the legislature which is much smaller group of people.
- kodah 5y ago
  Unfortunately it's a small jump to thinking, "somebody elected these people" and then projecting those sentiments widely. Anyway, that's what I've learned about talking about Texas and California broadly. I've lived in both states and have both negative and positive things to say about each, but when I criticize them I've figured out I have to be very concise about describing with who and what I find wrong in order to have my opinion heard and respected.
crazy_horse 5y ago
No downvote here but it's that. We're used to people talking about a place that doesn't exist usually so we're touchy about it. But the law is crazy, unconstitutional and would start a tit-for-tat form of legislating that would completely delegitimize whatever legitimacy the government has left. Note, the legislature is weird. It meets every other year, is basically a second job. Not sure Cali's professionalization of politics is better, but something has to give.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Note, the legislature is weird. It meets every other year, is basically a second job. IIRC, biennial sessions used to be extremely common.
  - 5y ago

bryanlarsen 5y ago

This is not a "completely ridiculous scheme". This is a loophole in the constitution that Texas is employing. IANAL, but this is how I understand it. The supreme court does not strike down laws in a preliminary injunction, it just prevents the attorney-general or other applicable officials from enforcing it. This law is written so that the attorney general has no part in enforcing the law, so the supreme court can't do a preliminary injunction. It can only strike down the law once somebody tries to use the law and it bubbles its way up the court system. But of course if everybody is too afraid to break the law, the law has effect without ever being applied. The best suggestion I heard on how to get rid of it would be to have Massachusetts ban handguns using the same loophole. Somehow I think that this stacked court will come to its senses when it is the 2nd amendment being threatened rather than the 14th.

benmmurphy 5y ago
texas probably got the idea from civil liability laws that were used being used against gun manufacturers prior to the federal immunity law. gun control organisations were using the court system to bankrupt manufacturers as a backdoor to banning guns.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  I don't think that's a similar situation, really; those allowed injured parties to sue the manufacturers who made the dangerous device. In the US gun manufacturers are generally special-cased here; they have unusual protections that you wouldn't have if you, say, manufactured a defective water heater. In this case totally _unrelated_ parties can sue, which seems entirely different.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The fact the Texas legislature came up with that completely ridiculous scheme is not that surprising. They just aren't that good at making laws They are very good at making laws to do what they want (in this case, leverage precdent to ensure that that wfeffoets to block the law before it went into effect did not succeed, maximizing the chilling effect on abortion provision). > That the Supreme Court basically rubber stamped it is absolutely insane. The Supreme Court did not rule on the legality of the law (either the abortion restriction or the enforcement mechanism), it only validated the Texas Legislature's attempt to avoid a pre-implementation block against the law. While this enables the chilling effect of the law, it does not validate the substance of the law. > That the Supreme Court basically rubber stamped it is absolutely insane. If you want an outcome-oriented reasoning explanation, I’d say the majority wanted to set back the availability of abortion without overturning row; indeed, while likely still upholding it once a case reaches it through the slow path it has required.

locopati 5y ago
"While this enables the chilling effect of the law, it does not validate the substance of the law." in practice though, it has the same effects... shutting down clinics even if, later, they invalidate the law, the damage will have been done and the court can pretend they were impartial even though they were not at all