3 ms·

You are stating a controversial legal opinion as though it's fact. In reality, the justices on the 5th circuit and the Supreme Court were closely divided on whe

You are stating a controversial legal opinion as though it's fact. In reality, the justices on the 5th circuit and the Supreme Court were closely divided on whether it was possible for the United States (the Plaintiff) to sue the judges and court clerks who would accept these lawsuits. The decision turned on whether the Sovereign Immunity doctrine applied to the United States government. The Supreme Court didn't even bother to resolve the issue, a majority (5/4) simply ducked the case. That's the reason we're doing this all over again with a new California law.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
First off, My understanding is that no, we are not doing it over again with the California law. As far as I can tell, the case has not raised the same questions, but perhaps I am mistaken. More to your point, there was no precedent for preemptively suing judges and clerks in this manner. It seemed to me that the case turned on setting new precedent due to the unusual situation intentionally created by the law. I think saying that the court system does not have a method to address this problem is a fair characterization. It didn't have an established path before, and it still doesn't. This is a different question than if the court system should have a method, and if they should create one.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  In the case of the California law, a judge found constitutional defects in the law and preempted it before the law could take effect. In the case of the Texas law, a different set of judges declined to rule on whether the law was defective and decided that they would punt on the decision. Courts are given latitude to make these sorts of decisions: the corollary is that we need to hold them accountable when they misuse that latitude to achieve political ends, or even appear to be misusing that latitude.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I agree that is important to both hold the courts accountable for consistent application of the law, as well as work to ensure their is a clear path for providing appropriate relief for defective (unconstitutional) laws. I just don't see how the California law is a legal victory (clearing up issues of process) or morally (Newsom can harm citizens with unconstitutional laws just as good as Texas). I will admit I am out of my depth when It comes to the fact for fact comparisons of the rulings and laws, although I have read both judgements. I didn't see any discussion of Young or federal supremacy in the Cali case. I would love to read a side by side comparison that lays out the differences. As far as I can tell, The SCOTUS was 8-1 with sending SB8 back down to the 5th circuit for decision on constitutionality with fewer defendants. Here with Cali SB 1327, The 9th circuit is making the decision on constitutionality.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      This is all academic, and despite the fact that I think both the California and Texas laws are detestable. Has a California resident with my own priors, I have a special distaste for our legislatures willingness to both openly state that these types of laws are chilling, harmful, and morally wrong while at the same time being willing to sacrifice their constituents rights and brag about it.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

First off, My understanding is that no, we are not doing it over again with the California law. As far as I can tell, the case has not raised the same questions, but perhaps I am mistaken. More to your point, there was no precedent for preemptively suing judges and clerks in this manner. It seemed to me that the case turned on setting new precedent due to the unusual situation intentionally created by the law. I think saying that the court system does not have a method to address this problem is a fair characterization. It didn't have an established path before, and it still doesn't. This is a different question than if the court system should have a method, and if they should create one.

matthewdgreen 4y ago
In the case of the California law, a judge found constitutional defects in the law and preempted it before the law could take effect. In the case of the Texas law, a different set of judges declined to rule on whether the law was defective and decided that they would punt on the decision. Courts are given latitude to make these sorts of decisions: the corollary is that we need to hold them accountable when they misuse that latitude to achieve political ends, or even appear to be misusing that latitude.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I agree that is important to both hold the courts accountable for consistent application of the law, as well as work to ensure their is a clear path for providing appropriate relief for defective (unconstitutional) laws. I just don't see how the California law is a legal victory (clearing up issues of process) or morally (Newsom can harm citizens with unconstitutional laws just as good as Texas). I will admit I am out of my depth when It comes to the fact for fact comparisons of the rulings and laws, although I have read both judgements. I didn't see any discussion of Young or federal supremacy in the Cali case. I would love to read a side by side comparison that lays out the differences. As far as I can tell, The SCOTUS was 8-1 with sending SB8 back down to the 5th circuit for decision on constitutionality with fewer defendants. Here with Cali SB 1327, The 9th circuit is making the decision on constitutionality.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    This is all academic, and despite the fact that I think both the California and Texas laws are detestable. Has a California resident with my own priors, I have a special distaste for our legislatures willingness to both openly state that these types of laws are chilling, harmful, and morally wrong while at the same time being willing to sacrifice their constituents rights and brag about it.