Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The Supreme Court, and abortion.

Larry

By Larry
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

mammajamma

mammajamma

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

No court has ruled the law to be unconstitutional.  And it had already achieved its chilling effect because Texas abortion providers will stop providing abortion for pregnancy beyond 6 weeks, lest they be hounded with a multitude of lawsuits.  Even if they win every suit, the litigation fees alone would bring them down.  If SCOTUS decides to uphold the Texas law, then the lawsuits stemming from abortions from now till SCOTUS would likely be financial ruins for the provider.

ya but if you can get one federal judge to rule the law unconstitutional, the law is unenforceable until its appealed to SCOTUS (and SCOTUS would actually have to make ruling and overturn the lower court), right?

 

i'd think there would be a line of law firms looking for high exposure to be contacting clinics right now

2 hours ago, Corcaigh said:


I thought to bring a case you had to demonstrate harm? Why would those private citizens have legal standing?

they dont... thats what makes this so ridiculous. any competent judge would throw most of these cases out

Edited by mammajamma
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bearrock

bearrock

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, mammajamma said:

ya but if you can get one federal judge to rule the law unconstitutional, the law is unenforceable until its appealed to SCOTUS (and SCOTUS would actually have to make ruling and overturn the lower court), right?

 

Well, from a provider's perspective, the only federal judge that matters would be district court judge hearing your case.  Because there's no commonality of parties, it's not as if one federal judge's ruling of unconstitutionality in a different case would be binding in another case involving different litigants (unlike cases where government is one of the parties).  It's not clear how the 5th circuit would rule in terms of an injunction pending appeal if there was an actual case.

 

The problem for the provider at the end of the day is that if SCOTUS upholds this law and overturns Roe/Casey, you are now opened up to a tidal wave of liability.  Most, if not all, providers would probably say I'll just wait to see if the law survives the upcoming round of abortion litigation in the Supreme Court.  Meanwhile, women in the 2nd most populous state in the country won't be able to get an abortion in their state (and probably in surrounding states pretty soon).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mammajamma

mammajamma

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

 (unlike cases where government is one of the parties).

Wouldn't that be the case here though, where itd be the provider v. Texas (and the enforcement of an unconstitutional law)?

 

(Thanks for the info by the way - it's clear you know much more about this than I do. I'm just curious)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mammajamma

mammajamma

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, tshile said:

I believe ethe issue is the Texas state government doesn’t enforce it. 
 

individuals do. 
 

from tactical standpoint it’s genius (based on my understanding). Pro-choice orgs are going to play hell fighting this. 

But individuals don't have legal standing to enforce laws.. so the problem is still the state law itself. In other words, what's stopping someone from suing the state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, mammajamma said:

But individuals don't have legal standing to enforce laws.. so the problem is still the state law itself. In other words, what's stopping someone from suing the state?

They sue the individual. The states only involvement is in that they created a law allowing them to sue for it. 
 

🤷‍♂️ maybe I’m the one that doesn’t get it. It’s not like in understand the law. The whole thing sort of confuses me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mammajamma

mammajamma

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, tshile said:

They sue the individual. The states only involvement is in that they created a law allowing them to sue for it. 
 

🤷‍♂️ maybe I’m the one that doesn’t get it. It’s not like in understand the law. The whole thing sort of confuses me. 

No I'm definitely the one that doesn't get it haha. That's why I'm asking so many questions. But from my limited understanding, our current legal system doesnt allow someone to enforce a state law like that, unless they had damages to themselves (in which they can sue for). So to me, if you had a few clinics join and sue the state for an unconstitutional law that has caused them harm, a competent federal judge would stop the law from proceeding (pending an appeal)

 

But I don't know. I'm definitely not an expert on this

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
maxiumone

maxiumone

Posted
Posted

 I find it funny that the right is anti vaccine because it is their body their choice but that does not apply for a woman (I know the reason is woman don’t deserve rights so the right says).  I will say I find the left stand on abortion and death penalty the same. But that is another discussion 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, maxiumone said:

 I find it funny that the right is anti vaccine because it is their body their choice but that does not apply for a woman (I know the reason is woman don’t deserve rights so the right says).  I will say I find the left stand on abortion and death penalty the same. But that is another discussion 

 

If there’s one thing we’ve learned about the right since Trump is that they don’t argue in good faith about anything. Everything is an argument of convenience that they’ll discard quickly if and when it suits them.  They don’t even stand for anything anymore other than being corporate shills, gun rights, and opposing abortion. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
maxiumone

maxiumone

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Destino said:

If there’s one thing we’ve learned about the right since Trump is that they don’t argue in good faith about anything. Everything is an argument of convenience that they’ll discard quickly if and when it suits them.  They don’t even stand for anything anymore other than being corporate shills, gun rights, and opposing abortion. 

Agree

3 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I wasn’t a huge fan of flooding the court but I am legit surprised the court is moving to overturn roe v wade after already ruling on it. I guess Democrats are going to have to do it.

Really? So trump stacking the court surprised you of this out come?  I am just floored that the most level headed justice is Roberts. Confused by your comment 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bearrock

bearrock

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, mammajamma said:

Wouldn't that be the case here though, where itd be the provider v. Texas (and the enforcement of an unconstitutional law)?

 

(Thanks for the info by the way - it's clear you know much more about this than I do. I'm just curious)

 

The law specifically give private parties the right to sue the providers and others who aid and abet.  Thus the state of Texas is not a party to the lawsuit and technically removed from the equation.  It's a transparent end run around the Constitution, but until it's actually struck down, it poses a risk for providers who perform abortions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoCalMike

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted (edited)

Two weeks ago right-wingers and anti-vaxxers were shouting about being treated like holocaust victims because of a vaccine mandate and neighbors being turned against neighbors, ratting them out for not being vaccinated.  So of course the same people fully support legislation that has written into it the power of neighbor to turn against neighbor.  Not even the most clever political drama shows could conjure up this craziness up.

Edited by NoCalMike
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

Two weeks ago right-wingers and anti-vaxxers were shouting about being treated like holocaust victims because of a vaccine mandate and neighbors being turned against neighbors, ratting them out for not being vaccinated.  So of course the same people fully support legislation that has written into it the power of neighbor to turn against neighbor.  Not even the most clever political drama shows could conjure up this craziness up.

It's incredibly Soviet in its thinking, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...