4 ms·

Yeah, I did read it. I see what they try do. I just don't believe it will work. This judge rejected an anti gun law. Next-up: scotus will reject certiorari Ev

Yeah, I did read it. I see what they try do. I just don't believe it will work. This judge rejected an anti gun law. Next-up: scotus will reject certiorari Even in the unlikely event that it will end up on the scotus calendar, scotus will no doubt find it much easier to defend a constitutional right to bear arms, then to reject abortion, which for better or worse, is not mentioned in the constitution. Besides this court has ruled against precedent many times now. I don't see why this stunt would make a difference. (see e.g.: https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-court-has-overturned-precedent-dozens-of-times-including-striking-down-legal-segregation-and-reversing-roe-185941 https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-court-has-overturned...) Bottomline, I'll expect this to further women's right only indirectly by serving as publicity for Newsom

tiahura 4y ago
- torstenvl 4y ago
  The OP has nothing to do with Weinstein. Perhaps you were mistaken about what you were replying to? In any case: (a) Harvey Weinstein was convicted of three counts, including rape. (b) A lack of a conviction absolutely does not mean that the allegation didn't happen. It isn't an either-or that the jury decides between. The only thing they decide is whether it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Viewing it otherwise is dangerous, because it leads people to decide criminal cases based on which version they think is more likely, effectively transforming the criminal justice system to use a "preponderance of the evidence" standard.
matthewdgreen 4y ago
The principle that people would like to defend is the idea that states can’t simply find end-runs around something that is (under then-current Supreme Court precedent) a constitutionally-protected activity. This is what the Court did with its finding on the Texas law. You are correct that the Court has many ways to avoid providing a clear, consistent ruling that grounds its recent decisions in principle. But even this isn’t necessarily a bad thing: by doing so, the Court very clearly signals that it cannot be trusted to consistently enforce any legal principle, which is good support for the alternative solution: use the political and legislative process to remedy the situation.
- makomk 4y ago
  I don't think the Supreme Court actually ever ended up ruling on whether the Texas law's attempts to do an end-run around constitutional protections were allowed; Roe v. Wade was overturned entirely before that ever had a chance to come up. They did rule against some of the attempts to do an end run around that end run so to speak by allowing aborrtion providers to pre-emptively sue the judges and clerks that would've been tasked with enforcing the law but given how fundamental not allowing that is to the functioning of the legal system that's no surprise.
  - matthewdgreen 4y ago
    >They did rule against some of the attempts to do an end run around that end run so to speak by allowing aborrtion providers to pre- What a weird description. Texas passed a law that was, under legal precedent at that time, unconstitutional. Plaintiffs sued for injunctive relief by listing the state officials who would enforce those laws. The Court decided that they couldn't sue those officials, and then further blocked them from every other conceivable legal remedy. I'm not sure how allowing states to write vigilante laws that punish people for Constitutionally-protected activity is a good thing, nor how asking the courts for relief of that would be an "end run" or how "not allowing that is [fundamental] to the functioning of the legal system," assuming "that" refers to some kind of remedy blocking enforcement of an unconstitutional law?
    - makomk 4y ago
      It's not a weird description at all. Imagine that one day you had what you thought was a valid cause to sue some dodgy corporation over some dispute you had with them, only to discover that your ability to sue had been taken away because that corporation had already taken the judges and legal clerks in your state to court and won a lawsuit against them which neither you nor anyone else with actual reason to sue ever had a say in. Because the Texas law was structured as a purely civil remedy just like if you were to sue someone else or some business over a dispute, allowing this kind of lawsuit against judges would open a direct route to this happening. It would create a way to entirely bypass the part where cases and controversies actually went to trial with the parties involved able to present their case. There's probably more sensible ways that the Supreme Court could've defanged that law, if they wanted to and the issue hadn't been rendered moot anyway.

tiahura 4y ago

torstenvl 4y ago
The OP has nothing to do with Weinstein. Perhaps you were mistaken about what you were replying to? In any case: (a) Harvey Weinstein was convicted of three counts, including rape. (b) A lack of a conviction absolutely does not mean that the allegation didn't happen. It isn't an either-or that the jury decides between. The only thing they decide is whether it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Viewing it otherwise is dangerous, because it leads people to decide criminal cases based on which version they think is more likely, effectively transforming the criminal justice system to use a "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

matthewdgreen 4y ago

The principle that people would like to defend is the idea that states can’t simply find end-runs around something that is (under then-current Supreme Court precedent) a constitutionally-protected activity. This is what the Court did with its finding on the Texas law. You are correct that the Court has many ways to avoid providing a clear, consistent ruling that grounds its recent decisions in principle. But even this isn’t necessarily a bad thing: by doing so, the Court very clearly signals that it cannot be trusted to consistently enforce any legal principle, which is good support for the alternative solution: use the political and legislative process to remedy the situation.

makomk 4y ago
I don't think the Supreme Court actually ever ended up ruling on whether the Texas law's attempts to do an end-run around constitutional protections were allowed; Roe v. Wade was overturned entirely before that ever had a chance to come up. They did rule against some of the attempts to do an end run around that end run so to speak by allowing aborrtion providers to pre-emptively sue the judges and clerks that would've been tasked with enforcing the law but given how fundamental not allowing that is to the functioning of the legal system that's no surprise.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  >They did rule against some of the attempts to do an end run around that end run so to speak by allowing aborrtion providers to pre- What a weird description. Texas passed a law that was, under legal precedent at that time, unconstitutional. Plaintiffs sued for injunctive relief by listing the state officials who would enforce those laws. The Court decided that they couldn't sue those officials, and then further blocked them from every other conceivable legal remedy. I'm not sure how allowing states to write vigilante laws that punish people for Constitutionally-protected activity is a good thing, nor how asking the courts for relief of that would be an "end run" or how "not allowing that is [fundamental] to the functioning of the legal system," assuming "that" refers to some kind of remedy blocking enforcement of an unconstitutional law?
  - makomk 4y ago
    It's not a weird description at all. Imagine that one day you had what you thought was a valid cause to sue some dodgy corporation over some dispute you had with them, only to discover that your ability to sue had been taken away because that corporation had already taken the judges and legal clerks in your state to court and won a lawsuit against them which neither you nor anyone else with actual reason to sue ever had a say in. Because the Texas law was structured as a purely civil remedy just like if you were to sue someone else or some business over a dispute, allowing this kind of lawsuit against judges would open a direct route to this happening. It would create a way to entirely bypass the part where cases and controversies actually went to trial with the parties involved able to present their case. There's probably more sensible ways that the Supreme Court could've defanged that law, if they wanted to and the issue hadn't been rendered moot anyway.