Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The federal government has zero standing here. SCOTUS will toss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HendrixFan
As much as I don't agree with the Texas abortion law, I agree that SCOTUS will toss it as well.
I'm not sure standing will be an issue. The DOJ is arguing its interest is in protecting its citizens, which is a cognizable interest. We'll see. Also, SCOTUS is not the first stop (it rarely is). DOJ filed in District Court in Austin. I'm very interested in how this one will play out.
This entire situation is a classic example of politicians making laws, challenging things etc. that they have zero faith will actually stick but it makes for some fine grandstanding for the base. Doesn't matter which party.
It is a really crappy bill on many levels but I don’t understand how the DOJ can sue as a party to it instead of just supporting another party’s lawsuit. I honestly don’t see how they have standing.
Not only that, TX isn't "prohibiting any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability" (from the DOJ's lawsuit. The law just enables others to sue for the wrongful death of a fetus.
Quote:
For the record, I want to see this bill fail for reasons that have nothing to do with abortion itself. I find the idea of disinterested party enforcement through civil lawsuits suits chilling. If this works it hard to tell where it will be utilized. Don’t think for a minute the other side won’t use it to go after your guns.
To sue for wrongful death by use of a firearm? It's already possible to do that. Even several arms manufacturers have been sued, and yes, even by disinterested parties (usually anti-gun groups).
Not only that, TX isn't "prohibiting any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability" (from the DOJ's lawsuit. The law just enables others to sue for the wrongful death of a fetus.
To sue for wrongful death by use of a firearm? It's already possible to do that. Even several arms manufacturers have been sued, and yes, even by disinterested parties (usually anti-gun groups).
It can still violate the Constitution since if someone is sued under the law the courts will need to award the county. When that happens, it is state action since the courts are an arm of the government. So while the structure of the law has effectively kept it from a preliminary injunction from SCOTUS, it does not mean that it won't ultimately be ruled unconstitutional.
I think the left is very happy about the Texas bill. They now have something to rally around to get out the vote.
The DOJ filing this is just a political stunt designed to energize their base.
I’m neutral on this whole issue. I don’t understand why the right cares what Godless people do, and I don’t understand the left’s fervent desire to murder future human beings.
Anyway, if any Texan wants an abortion, just fly to New Mexico or Colorado and get it done and quit whining about it. If you don’t have money, set up a go fund me for a ticket and the procedure.
It can still violate the Constitution since if someone is sued under the law the courts will need to award the county. When that happens, it is state action since the courts are an arm of the government. So while the structure of the law has effectively kept it from a preliminary injunction from SCOTUS, it does not mean that it won't ultimately be ruled unconstitutional.
I'm not seeing it. SCOTUS hasn't ruled that anti-gun groups suing arms manufacturers violates anyone's 2nd Amendment Rights.
I'm not seeing it. SCOTUS hasn't ruled that anti-gun groups suing arms manufacturers violates anyone's 2nd Amendment Rights.
The people given the right to sue under this law only have standing because it is expressly given to them by the government. Otherwise under principles of our judicial system they would not have suffered damages to give them standing, which differentiates the circumstances of people suing arms manufacturers. Also, the manufacturers don't have a constitutional right to manufacture.
Ultimately I think this will be an interesting case legally. As a law geek I'm interested in that possibly as much as the outcome itself. At the end of the day, courts have always looked at the intent and impact of laws and will take those into account in determining the validity of a law. An agency theory may also work. Just like the government cannot work through private companies to infringe on constitutional rights and then argue it isn't government action, I think this will also be viewed by the courts i a similar light. The mechanism has slowed it down but I don't think the mechanism will ultimately withstand scrutiny when it is reviewed on its merits.
The people given the right to sue under this law only have standing because it is expressly given to them by the government. Otherwise under principles of our judicial system they would not have suffered damages to give them standing, which differentiates the circumstances of people suing arms manufacturers. Also, the manufacturers don't have a constitutional right to manufacture.
The DOJ would have to prove how that violates anyone's Constitutional Rights. They don't seem to be on that track right now. They're fixated on thinking the lawsuits for wrongful death violate any supposed right to an abortion. I've already said that's a losing tactic as SCOTUS hasn't ruled that anti-gun groups suing arms manufacturers violates anyone's 2nd Amendment Rights. It's simple one party suing another for a perceived wrong.
Quote:
Ultimately I think this will be an interesting case legally. As a law geek I'm interested in that possibly as much as the outcome itself. At the end of the day, courts have always looked at the intent and impact of laws and will take those into account in determining the validity of a law. An agency theory may also work. Just like the government cannot work through private companies to infringe on constitutional rights and then argue it isn't government action, I think this will also be viewed by the courts i a similar light. The mechanism has slowed it down but I don't think the mechanism will ultimately withstand scrutiny when it is reviewed on its merits.
When anyone can sue in civil court for a perceived injustice, which is what this is, SCOTUS will be hard-pressed to find any cause to make this a single exception to long-standing legal precedent.
+1. And with no exceptions in rape cases, I doubt this ridiculous law will remain in place long. The irony is Mexico just decriminalized abortion. I imagine many women will travel there for the procedure.
Probably so on the Mexico travel. But, women should not have to go to a foreign country to get medical care when it is their right under the law of their own country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
