To prevail in an application for a stay or an injunc-
tion, an applicant must carry the burden of making a
“strong showing” that it is “likely to succeed on the merits,”
that it will be “irreparably injured absent a stay,” that the
balance of the equities favors it, and that a stay is con-
sistent with the public interest.
The Court wouldn’t rule as to whether this law is constitutional or not when it was first challenged, raising procedural questions as if procedures can override the constitutionality of a law that has de facto banned abortions (read: irreparably injured absent a stay) in Texas.
Ironically, this is an example of judicial activism that conservatives decry—when it doesn’t serve their ends.
*snip…Well yeah. You have to follow procedures to test the constitutionality of a law. If someone just fired a flaming arrow with a scroll around it saying “TX law unconstitutional, bro!” would you complain that not ruling on the flaming arrow was just procedural?
I would think that the flaming arrow was irrelevant to the complaint that the TX law was unconstitutional, and that the scroll itself would be the document to decide whether the TX law was unconstitutional or not. Addressing the flaming arrow and not the scroll is merely a distraction from the crux of the issue.
This has been discussed extensively in other threads. The law is pretty clear and TX has creatively used the law to its benefit. It is not judicial activism or right wing hypocrisy to follow the law.
As nobody has done anything to abortion providers as of yet, whose name would you put on the injunction to tell them to do or not do something? And for every person you can name, there is a solid legal reason why an injunction is not proper against that person. We’ve gone over this ad nauseum only for more threads to pop up just claiming without support that this is right wing judicial activism.
That right there destroys any argument you can ever make against anything, including whether or not the sky is blue. Game over. If anybody ever took you seriously before, they certainly won’t any more.
“It isn’t right wing hypocrisy to follow the law.”
The right wing has, for the last 4 years, followed the law only when it served their purpose. Their open flaunting of the law has been the defining characteristic of the Republican Party for years. For them to turn around and say “Hey, we’re only following the law” is the very definition of hypocrisy.
And here I thought that was the left wing, turning around and talking about The Law with a straight face after years of failing to crack down on illegal aliens. I guess different folks define hypocrisy in different ways, huh?
You’re trying to handwave the fact that this law was drafted to circumvent not only the concept of federal judicial review, but also the Supremacy Clause. “Procedural” my great-aunt’s fanny.
So why would he be okay with that? Especially for an attorney, a purported officer of the court, this should be seen as a slap in the face. If “legislating from the bench” is supposedly a violation of the separation of powers, how is “adjudicating from Congress” okay?
He’s consistently said that he’s opposed to the law, for a number of reasons.
But, even if a lawyer thinks a law is a bad law, bad policy, bad idea, that doesn’t mean you short circuit the proper court procedures to challenge the law. Those procedures have evolved over a long time to ensure due process in the challenge to a law.