4 ms·

You're replying to a misunderstanding they didn't make. > The Court ruled that the abortion clinics' lawsuits against certain state officials may proceed as th

You're replying to a misunderstanding they didn't make. > The Court ruled that the abortion clinics' lawsuits against certain state officials may proceed as they have direct involvement in the enforcement of the law, Yes, but in doing so, they didn't enjoin enforcement of the law until the SC hearing, which is to say that the court "hasn't immediately dismissed the Texas "nullify the constitution with this one weird trick" approach of deputizing random citizens to end-run around civil rights using civil lawsuits."

s1artibartfast 5y ago
Fair, I can see reading of immediately dismissed as meaning granting an injunction. Edit: but to be fair to the SCOTUS, they were being asked to endorse a novel method of injunction, not barring a party, but a shutdown of the court hearings, essentially a new trick to counter texas' new trick
- mullingitover 5y ago
  > but to be fair to the SCOTUS, they were being asked to endorse a novel method of injunction, not barring a party, but a shutdown of the court hearings, essentially a new trick to counter texas' new trick Their ruling on injunction was clearly along republican party lines, and not on the lines of their own reservations about legal conservatism. It's okay to call a republican supreme court what it is, we all know that these justices wouldn't hesitate to issue a novel injunction if it were second amendment rights being trampled.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    > It's okay to call a republican supreme court what it is, we all know that these justices wouldn't hesitate to issue a novel injunction if it were second amendment rights being trampled. Do we? It was like five minutes ago that two Republican Justices used textualism to decide that Congress had already made discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal back in the 1960s. Virtually every time you see a Justice go wobbly in some major case, it’s a Republican appointee.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      What case was that? I would like to check it out
      - rayiner 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I don't think this was a political ruling against abortion. This is small fries and they don't need to politic around with the injunction when they already have the option to have steak and overturn all federal abortion precedent via Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Even then, it will be hard to argue that if it is legal conservatism or the personal beliefs of the judges, because they both come to the same conclusion. I say this as someone who supports the right to abortion, but the textual line between the Roe vs Wade and the constitution is tenuous at best, and even worse with reinterpretation under Casey.
    - olliej 5y ago
      California proposed an identical law but replaced abortion with certain types of gun, the Texas governor said it was an unconstitutional attack of gun ownership. The idea that you can make a law that explicitly says “you can’t use the unconstitutionality of the law as a defense” and that isn’t immediately tossed out clearly demonstrates the the republicans on the SC are biased. Hell the most recent appointee said she considers the Bible to be more important than the constitution and that she puts her faith ahead of the law (she said all judges should do that)
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        The SC has never had the power to unilaterally toss out laws. They hear cases. When one party says a law is unconstitutional and another party pushes back, then they can decide if it is unconstitutional (and needs to be thrown out). Cases about the constitutionality of the Texas law has not yet made it to the SC. I don't think so statements of the Texas governor means anything about the biases of the Supreme Court. Every Christian in the US puts God above the constitution, so this shouldnt be shocking. Even the democratic president would say the same
        olliej 5y ago
        A judge does not get to do that. She said she believes a judge should act according to their faith rather than the law if they don't agree. It's also irrelevant if "every" christian believes that (a dubious claim), as america is not a christian nation.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

Fair, I can see reading of immediately dismissed as meaning granting an injunction. Edit: but to be fair to the SCOTUS, they were being asked to endorse a novel method of injunction, not barring a party, but a shutdown of the court hearings, essentially a new trick to counter texas' new trick

mullingitover 5y ago
> but to be fair to the SCOTUS, they were being asked to endorse a novel method of injunction, not barring a party, but a shutdown of the court hearings, essentially a new trick to counter texas' new trick Their ruling on injunction was clearly along republican party lines, and not on the lines of their own reservations about legal conservatism. It's okay to call a republican supreme court what it is, we all know that these justices wouldn't hesitate to issue a novel injunction if it were second amendment rights being trampled.
- rayiner 5y ago
  > It's okay to call a republican supreme court what it is, we all know that these justices wouldn't hesitate to issue a novel injunction if it were second amendment rights being trampled. Do we? It was like five minutes ago that two Republican Justices used textualism to decide that Congress had already made discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal back in the 1960s. Virtually every time you see a Justice go wobbly in some major case, it’s a Republican appointee.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    What case was that? I would like to check it out
    - rayiner 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I don't think this was a political ruling against abortion. This is small fries and they don't need to politic around with the injunction when they already have the option to have steak and overturn all federal abortion precedent via Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Even then, it will be hard to argue that if it is legal conservatism or the personal beliefs of the judges, because they both come to the same conclusion. I say this as someone who supports the right to abortion, but the textual line between the Roe vs Wade and the constitution is tenuous at best, and even worse with reinterpretation under Casey.
  - olliej 5y ago
    California proposed an identical law but replaced abortion with certain types of gun, the Texas governor said it was an unconstitutional attack of gun ownership. The idea that you can make a law that explicitly says “you can’t use the unconstitutionality of the law as a defense” and that isn’t immediately tossed out clearly demonstrates the the republicans on the SC are biased. Hell the most recent appointee said she considers the Bible to be more important than the constitution and that she puts her faith ahead of the law (she said all judges should do that)
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      The SC has never had the power to unilaterally toss out laws. They hear cases. When one party says a law is unconstitutional and another party pushes back, then they can decide if it is unconstitutional (and needs to be thrown out). Cases about the constitutionality of the Texas law has not yet made it to the SC. I don't think so statements of the Texas governor means anything about the biases of the Supreme Court. Every Christian in the US puts God above the constitution, so this shouldnt be shocking. Even the democratic president would say the same
      - olliej 5y ago
        A judge does not get to do that. She said she believes a judge should act according to their faith rather than the law if they don't agree. It's also irrelevant if "every" christian believes that (a dubious claim), as america is not a christian nation.