I agree. And the law will not stand. This was just a ruling on a temporary injunction.
And by denying the injunction they have already allowed states to find new ways to end-run around the law and precedent and the fundamentals of law (See: “Golden Rule” above).
In the future the SCOTUS will now find itself either continuing to allow such bullshit or they have to pick and choose (as soon as they allow one to do this others will follow).
Which is worse?
The law will change not to allow this bullshit, but it must still it must be followed. And your point is valid. If it stopped Catholics from going to church, then that is more pressing than letting a woman have a post six week abortion IF you believe that such a right is unsupported to begin with. As such it tips their hand.
Roe should be overruled for the terrible decision it was and as it has not stabilized but destroyed our politics ever since.
Roe came into being under Nixon and Nixon and republicans didn’t give a shit.
We can thank Reagan for making it an issue.
So, who destroyed our politics?
Doesn’t matter how it came in. It is 50 years old and hasn’t settled anything. Take Brown v. Board. In 2005 were southern legislatures still trying end arounds to segregate schools? No.
This is an issue that never should have been taken away from the people to decide, and it was wrong to do it in the first place. The Court has been diminished by its ridiculous rulings each way. Scalia was spot on in his dissent in 1992.
I agree it hasn’t stabilized our politics. But I can think of some bigger destroyers. Lack of good jobs for the less educated may be at the top of my list (example). Admittedly, I don’t have evidence you are wrong.
I don’t know that I agree, but I did find a good-enough-to-share article that I think supports your view:
See, I think that is common ground. Where you and I, who would disagree on the color of the sky, can come together and solve this toxic shit that is going on…get rid of Roe…start the healing process.
How could SCOTUS fight the standing issue as a federal court? Is it possible for them to say that only a person that has been damaged has standing is a long tradition in English common law and American jurisprudence that “Being sued by only people you have injured” is an unenumerated IXth Amendment right?
This reasoning is fair IF we assume that Americans receive no information on the facts about the Supreme Court.
Today we have even Democrats selling the idea that the number of Justices is Permanently and Righteously set at nine, and that change in the number has never occurred and therefore would be “radical.” And most Americans will just accept that, so long as the message keeps being pounded into their heads.
But the message is a distortion of both our history and the current situation.
The current situation is that the radically-activist SCOTUS majority has already rendered radical decisions and is likely to go on rendering radical decisions----making the defense-against-a-numbers-change that it should not happen because it’s “radical,” quite moot.
The Texas law to which the radically-activist Supreme Court majority gave a seal of approval, eliminates standing as a principle of our legal system. It would be difficult to be more radical than that.
The Texas law to which the radically-activist Supreme Court majority gave a seal of approval, creates a vigilante economy unprecedented in our nation. It would be difficult to be more radical than that.
The right response to a radically-activist SCOTUS majority is a not-routine-but-certainly-not-radical change in the number of Justices. Nothing else will stop the radical activists on the current Court from continuing to undermine our democracy with their radical activism. Nothing else will stop them from imposing their personal or religious beliefs on the nation—regardless of actual law and precedent. They do not care about the law.
We’ve changed the number of Justices six times. Doing it a seventh time is not radical.
And perhaps Democrats could stop spreading the false message that it is. Fears of ‘what the Republicans will do’ are not legitimate, because we know that they will do whatever they wish to do, no matter how fearfully Democrats cower in the corner, hoping to avoid ‘provoking’ them. Republicans will do whatever they feel will ensure their power in perpetuity, no matter what Democrats do.
Both quotations are from:
What? Why should SCOTUS get involved in TX law about standing? Texas can allow a dog to sue in its courts if it wants. It isn’t a federal issue. Nobody thinks otherwise.
Completely false and full of rhetoric. You lost this round. Have your corner man spray you off and try to win the next one.
Here’s an interesting take by Laurence Tribe:
Decades ago, recalling the court’s early 20th-century invalidation of just such schemes in cases involving land use and zoning, we successfully invoked the civil parallel of the Ku Klux Klan Act to prevent the neighbor of Harvard Square restaurant Grendel’s Den from wielding a state-conferred veto power over the issuance of any liquor license within a 500-foot radius. That statute was enacted by Congress specifically to provide a federal judicial remedy for violations of constitutional rights when state judicial remedies were blocked, as they clearly are by the structure of the Texas abortion law.
In an 8-1 opinion by Chief Justice Warren Burger, no liberal himself, the Supreme Court in 1982 held that such veto power could easily be invoked for religious, ideological, or other illicit reasons that could well be undetectable, making the scheme unconstitutional on its face.
He also stated, on Maddow:
"There are cases in which the Supreme Court said you cannot give governmental power over peoples` lives or liberty to private bodies, that have no public accountability.
And the Supreme Court has said, in 1925, in a unanimous decision, that the attorney general of the United States, even without a statute, has authority to go to court, to represent the United States against any state, which interferes with interstate commerce, or in this case, international commerce, to Mexico, or to New Mexico within the country, or that violates human rights pursuant to a treaty, in order to get injunctive relief."
Tribe is a big time liberal, but I like him. I think his heart is always in the right place. But IMHO, that is what a ruling against TX would have been…a wish and a hope and not law. And if you can do that for good, you can do it for evil which is why I don’t like judges bending the law.
This is even more dangerous. It allows the federal government to interfere with nearly everything. It is another reason Roe has to go. Each side will break their necks over this issue by these creative methods because they are not permitted to legislate how they want.
So you have no counter-argument (merely invective)?
Yes, states may define “standing” differently than does the federal government (the Constitution and entire apparatus of federal-court precedent).
But as states seek to undermine Constitutionally-protected rights and other federal policy via state litigation, any action that violates public perceptions of justice—such as, in your example, Texas hypothetically giving dogs standing to sue in Texas courts—has ramifications not only in Texas elections, but in the likely decisions produced by SCOTUS. Do you believe that John Roberts wants to be known as the Chief Justice responsible for law-enforcement-via-bounty-hunting?
So, do you have any substantive support to offer for your stated position about the new Texas law’s effect on the concept of standing?
All talking points. Perhaps you could get involved in the discussion above. Also realize that Roberts did do exactly what you are asking.
May I predict Dobbs?
5: Roe is overruled. Familiar arguments, Written by Barrett. A woman overrules Roe.
1: Roberts, concurs and dissents. We should modify Casey that a State can prohibit abortion at 15 weeks. No need to reach Roe
1: Breyer, dissents. Although Roe may be bad as an original argument, stare decisis says to keep it
2: Kagan and Sotomayor: Roe was right. Keep it.
Very late reply. Why not sue the people of the state of Texas as a class? They are after all “empowered” by statute to enforce the law, therefore they are agents of the state subject to an injunction under sec. 1983.
Assuming you had standing, suing defendants as a class is difficult and very rarely done:
Huh. I have actually read that article in the past. I stand by my suggestion.