# So, the USSC hastened their hearing on Texas' abortion law **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 28, 2021, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-ussc-hastened-their-hearing-on-texas-abortion-law/953413 "2021-10-28T21:20:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![InfraBlue](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/infrablue/32/6366_2.png) [@InfraBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InfraBlue)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2021, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-ussc-hastened-their-hearing-on-texas-abortion-law/953413/1 "2021-10-28T21:20:26Z")
So, the USSC hastened their hearing on Texas’ abortion law. [Texas, Justice Dept. argue over role of federal courts as abortion law dispute heads to Supreme Court](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court/2021/10/27/1b1781e2-3758-11ec-91dc-551d44733e2d_story.html) > The cases the court will hear Monday raise complicated legal procedure questions precisely because S.B. 8 was drafted to avoid federal court review. [WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH ET AL. v. AUSTIN REEVE JACKSON, JUDGE, ET AL.](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf) > 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. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2021, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-ussc-hastened-their-hearing-on-texas-abortion-law/953413/2 "2021-10-28T21:52:07Z")
I see this as just an indication that they are going to toss Roe anyway when they hear the Mississippi case. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2021, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-ussc-hastened-their-hearing-on-texas-abortion-law/953413/3 "2021-10-29T15:55:34Z")
> [@InfraBlue](#): > > as if procedures can override the constitutionality of a law \*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? > [@RitterSport](#): > > I see this as just an indication that they are going to toss Roe anyway when they hear the Mississippi case. That’s my guess as well. ---
**Author:** ![InfraBlue](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/infrablue/32/6366_2.png) [@InfraBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InfraBlue)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2021, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-ussc-hastened-their-hearing-on-texas-abortion-law/953413/5 "2021-10-30T05:49:06Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2021, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-ussc-hastened-their-hearing-on-texas-abortion-law/953413/6 "2021-10-30T18:33:32Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2021, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-ussc-hastened-their-hearing-on-texas-abortion-law/953413/7 "2021-10-30T18:40:46Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > It is not judicial activism or right wing hypocrisy to follow the law. 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. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2021, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-ussc-hastened-their-hearing-on-texas-abortion-law/953413/8 "2021-10-30T18:42:19Z")
What are you even talking about? Did you have anything to contribute except a personal attack? ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2021, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-ussc-hastened-their-hearing-on-texas-abortion-law/953413/9 "2021-10-30T18:49:09Z")
**Modnote** : Please remember in every place but the Pit, attack the post and not the poster. * * * > [@UltraVires](#): > > What are you even talking about? Did you have anything to contribute except a personal attack? Please remember, flag the offending post. Don’t respond in thread. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2021, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-ussc-hastened-their-hearing-on-texas-abortion-law/953413/10 "2021-10-30T19:02:26Z")
“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. I do apologize if my post stepped over a line. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2021, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-ussc-hastened-their-hearing-on-texas-abortion-law/953413/11 "2021-10-30T19:15:03Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2021, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-ussc-hastened-their-hearing-on-texas-abortion-law/953413/12 "2021-10-30T19:18:40Z")
Which negates my statement in absolutely no way. Nice try. ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2021, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-ussc-hastened-their-hearing-on-texas-abortion-law/953413/13 "2021-10-31T02:06:56Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2021, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-ussc-hastened-their-hearing-on-texas-abortion-law/953413/14 "2021-10-31T11:32:25Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > As nobody has done anything to abortion providers as of yet, I thought two people had filed suit against a provider? > [@silenus](#): > > Their open flaunting of the law has been the **defining characteristic** of the Republican Party for years. “Flouting”, I should thing. Just channeling @kaylasdad99 here. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2021, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-ussc-hastened-their-hearing-on-texas-abortion-law/953413/15 "2021-10-31T11:33:32Z")
> [@CaptMurdock](#): > > You’re trying to handwave the fact that this law was drafted to circumvent not only the concept of federal judicial review, IIRC, @UltraVires is very much opposed to this law. He’s just pointing out that it was skillful in avoiding judicial review. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2021, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-ussc-hastened-their-hearing-on-texas-abortion-law/953413/16 "2021-10-31T12:05:20Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > “Flouting”, I should thing. “Think”, you should think. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2021, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-ussc-hastened-their-hearing-on-texas-abortion-law/953413/17 "2021-10-31T13:40:59Z")
Hahaha! Never fails. ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2021, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-ussc-hastened-their-hearing-on-texas-abortion-law/953413/18 "2021-10-31T19:43:12Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2021, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-ussc-hastened-their-hearing-on-texas-abortion-law/953413/19 "2021-10-31T20:12:18Z")
I’m not him, but I think he was just explaining why this law is hard to challenge, not defending it. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2021, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-the-ussc-hastened-their-hearing-on-texas-abortion-law/953413/20 "2021-10-31T21:17:10Z")
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.