re: Justices Hear Challenges to Texas Abortion Law LIVE @ 10AM EST- 9AM Central

So Twitter is claiming victory for whom?

That is unfortunate.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Again, it was clever, but it is a two-edged sword ... waiting to cut the Right when the next Leftist legislature tries to do the same on one of the Right's sacred cows.

---

This. Look no farther than the vaccine “mandates” to see how private enforcement of government prerogatives turns out for the citizenry.

---

Or a statute (a) establishing (i) "strict liability" for any firearm death, (ii) against any person who manufactured, transported, owned, sold or discharged the weapon AND any person who assisted in the purchase transaction, and (iii) liquidated damages of $100,000 per plaintiff and (b) providing legal standing to sue in "any person."

Firearm sales in that state would disappear completely within 24 hours.

That is the logical progression from this Texas statute.

Locke

I have not listened to any of the arguments.

If I’m understanding it correctly- the Texas statute provides private enforcement rights whereby ppl can sue to enjoin doctors to prevent them from performing abortions.

I’m not sure how advisable it is to allow unassociated persons to enjoin two (or really 3) other private parties on something that does not concern them from a strictly procedural standpoint. (From a public policy standpoint it would be very unwieldy and could produce some awful results if applied in other contexts). Ironically- the would be plaintiffs suing to stop abortions under the Texas law, would ordinarily lack standing bc he/she/group suing isn’t injured. The law itself is what creates the standing for the would be plaintiffs.

I’ve always believed that the proper plaintiff in a Roe case would be a father filing on behalf of his unborn murdered child. The proper plaintiff in an abortion case is THE BABY, and the suit should be brought by a legal guardian. Not the pregnant chick, not the doctor but a parent or legal guardian of the baby. Babies can be plaintiffs in other contexts (like if his parents die before he’s born, or if he’s injured in interp, or if he’s seven ans has an accident. You don’t have legal capacity to sue until you’re over the age of majority).

This case is interesting from the standpoint of procedural due process: and the SCOTUS may have to decide the Abortion question, in order to rule, or they could punt and decide the case solely on a procedural basis. Can a statute grant the would be plaintiffs standing when plaintiff is not injured; or does that violate procedural due process of the doctors? And do the defendant doctors have standing to constitutionally challenge a statute when nobody has sued them yet?

If the plaintiff doctor has a constitutional right to perform an abortion, I would say that the state couldn’t pass a law that would present him with a burden that prevents him from performing one, or pass a law that allows random plaintiffs to sue to shut down this aspect of his practice. In the Texas case being argued, I don’t think any woman who wanted an abortion but couldn’t get one is there plaintiff. In fact, I don’t even think the statute applies to pregnant women who want abortions. It applies to the doctors who give them. But - the right to have an abortion (even if it actually exists) belongs to the pregnant person, NOT THE DOCTOR. So ironically, the doctors (who are plaintiffs) may not have standing to sue to stop the law bc their constitutional rights were not violated, nor threatened to be.

If somehow, the doctors cross the standing threshold- they would have to show that the Texas Law creates an undue burden on the constitutional “right” to abortion (which again I don’t think belongs to them even if it exists). They can only get strict scrutiny (which basically means the law can’t stand) if abortion is in fact a constitutional right, and Roe is good law. So, the court could maybe overrule Roe bc the question maybe is properly before it - or it could make a wacky ruling that doctors don’t have a constitutional right to perform abortions, so they dismiss the suit and don’t make any substantive rulings on Roe.

Roe makes no sense and is terrible law for a variety of reason but If this is the case that corrects it, the state of the law and judicial precedent in this area will be even more fricked up and confusing than it already is. Bad facts make bad law.

I hope they wait till the Mississippi case and rule on both together.

But the vigilante plaintiff stuff (suing to enforce conduct you don’t like but doesn’t injure you) - I don’t like. It creates problems.

quote:

---

They're not going to involve themselves in this. It's a states rights issue.

---

More likely they are holding everything for the Mississippi case. The Texas law is not the hill to die on. The vigilante enforcement is very problematic if enshrined in law.

Congress needs to pass an abortion law...Set the damn ground rules.

6 weeks
10 weeks
20 weeks

Draw a line in the sand.

quote:

---

As I recall, they declined to grant injunctive relief months ago but ordered expedited briefing and hearing on the substantive issue ..

---

Not that I recall. As far as I know, there has been no substantive ruling by a lower court on this issue