Who? The judge? He hasn’t accepted a single case and the defendant can raise the issue of the unconstitutionality of the law, and we presume he will follow the Constitution. They can fully litigate the issue in front of the judge.
I couldn’t agree more.
As I said upthread.
Make a test case, have a judge issue an injunction and see how it plays out.
This is not a new thing. It is a very common tactic.
This law casts a pretty (read: insanely) broad net.
What if a similarly broad net were cast in regards to gun crimes.
What if, say, Massachusetts said that – in the event of any gun crime, any citizen could sue the store, the manufacturer, the distributor (or any 3rd party middle actor), any ad agencies that created marketing materials for the gun brand, any parent company, any media outlet that carried the marketing, any lobbying organization – including the NRA – that relies heavily on funding from the industry, any other players who manufactured peripherals found in the criminal’s home or (but not only) used in the crime, the merchant bank and CC company that issued the card used to purchase the gun, and any individuals who could be tied – no matter how tenuously – to the purchase and/or ownership of the gun ?
You see where I’m going ?
Why not ?
As always, they target those who are the most vulnerable – who can’t get to other states, who can’t hire attorneys, who can’t make the multi-hour trip to a different jurisdiction (where the plaintiff/bounty hunters intentionally filed the suit), can’t take the time off work for any of this, and who – in no way – could afford to pay the judgment indicated in the law.
This is so horrible on so many levels that I’d have difficulty putting it into words.
When they go low – and they have – we should try the Chicago Way:
[no actual violence suggested by me. Just a metaphor]
IANAL, but I’m not sure how the TX law could stand and the MA hypothetical law couldn’t.
Don’t forget the state will pay a bounty for such lawsuits.
Are they literally proposing to pay a bounty, or is the $10,0000+ potential judgment the actual prize at the end of the awful rainbow ?
I thought it was the latter, and that it was more than enough to serve as the worst kind of perverse incentive.
In other words, what’s available isn’t a commission or a kickback – no “cut of the action,” here. It’s the whole pot.
No ?
Well…no, they do not pay $10,000 just for bringing a case (everyone would do that).
But the state is incentivizing bringing a case.
We’ll have to wait and see, though, whether any of the anti-choice private organizations do begin to ‘invest’ in potential lawsuits under this legislation, should it be allowed to stand.
Why not, right ? A little ‘referral fee.’
The problem is finding the abortion office who is going to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. As soon as NARL finds a Jane Doe who needs an abortion and connects her with Dr. Smith, who performs the procedure so that a NARL lawyer can start a test case, every person on the Operation rescue list feed can sue Dr. Smith, his staff and anyone in NARL who played any role in the process that led to them being introduced to each other.
Are you saying that as soon as one person sues someone the rest of the people in the state can pile on and sue as well? Each gets $10,000 from the state? Each can get a judgement against the doctor?
At most one person will get the $10K statutory win from any one defendent, but there are lots of people besides the doctor involved each of which has a bounty of $10k on their head. Also even if someone else already got the $10K for one of these people you can still sue that person for shits and giggles and they will still have to pay your legal bills for the privilege.
Just a thought, if NARAL comes in to help (say donates pro bono legal work), are they not:
(2) knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets
the performance or inducement of an abortion
and therefore, they and each individual on the hook for $10k/abortion?
Yes that was exactly what I was positing in my post.
Shit. I’m sorry.
Not necessary, I wasn’t upset just wanted to affirm that we were in agreement.
And why would anyone put themselves at the center of a test a case when we have a pretty good idea of where the current SCOTUS stands on this issue? The SCOTUS is encouraging anti-abortion activism, and they know it. This is only the beginning.
Don’t like the ruling? Well there’s always court packing, but we know that Dems don’t have the spine for that one.
I don’t think the answer is to give up the fight and go home.
Also, as I have said before on the SDMB (I forget where), conservatives LOVE the fight over abortion. The LAST thing they want to do is settle the issue in their favor (abortion outlawed). They have had the opportunity recently and completely ignored it. There’s a reason for that.
The difference between the actual Texas law and any hypothetical “left-leaning” version (intended to control the spread of guns, or to discourage racially-motivated hate crimes, or to punish corporate polluters, etc.) is the current Supreme Court.
Any such initiative would, eventually, come up in a case before SCOTUS.
And the current SCOTUS has signaled quite clearly that it is happy to give its seal of approval to violations of the Constitution that promote right-wing goals, but will veto any that promote progressive goals.
Make no mistake: the Roberts court (despite the demur of Roberts himself) has told us that they are more than willing to dispense with the U.S. Constitution.
All that is needed is for a state to:
…et voila, Constitutionally-protected activity X is now virtually non-existent due to the intimidation provided by innumerable civil lawsuits.
The current Roberts Supreme Court thinks this is a fine way to throw out the Constitution. Why not, after all? Who will stop them?
…Possibly an outraged populace. It’s up to the people of the United States to let their elected representatives know that this is another one of those times----which have occurred several times in our history—when it is appropriate and even urgent that the number of Justices be changed.
Short of stacking the court I see no way to change the makeup of the court for decades.
And Biden and Dems have shown no interest in stacking the court.
Oh I agree, I just have a different kind of fight in mind. How about mass protests in cities across the country? Wasn’t there some sort of women’s march a few years ago?
When the elites begin to feel comfortable tossing crumbs to the plebes, that’s the signal - that it’s time to make the elites scared.
Sounds great but mostly nets very little.
I was at those women’s marches a few years ago. It was great. But it was one day then everyone went home.
Americans are no longer built for long term, sustained protest.