3 ms·

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 l

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

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.