LogFAQs > #957663000

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, Database 9 ( 09.28.2021-02-17-2022 ), DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic 378: My name is FD(A), and I Approve this Topic.
xp1337 09/02/21 5:03:26 AM #166:	LordoftheMorons posted... More details on the Texas law: https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1433102356946685953?s=21 straight-up evil shit God, the more I dig into this the worse it gets. LordoftheMorons posted... https://twitter.com/mjs_dc/status/1433278317269028865?s=21 JFC Actual link to the opinions: https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1433280766574739456?s=21 As I read it SCOTUS very well could (and I would guess will) uphold a stay if the right people are being sued (i.e. one of the vigilantes). Of course, as the dissent points out, many TX abortion clinics are halting providing abortions in the first place because of the threat of these lawsuits, and the majority is basically saying tough luck if your rights are being stolen by intimidation jesus fucking christ Yeah, the majority here is buying into the ludicrous scheme the Texas legislature cooked up about the vigilantes. Like I said, the whole vigilante bit wasn't just some sick cruelty - this was why it was included, it was the key component to the law because it was intended to result in just this outcome since they finally believed they had a court stacked enough with partisans to buy in. Again, my longer post from before goes a bit more into detail, but basically Texas intentionally wrote the law to empower citizen vigilantes and pushed the responsibility of enforcement to them precisely so they could go, "Hey, we - the Texas government - are not the one enforcing this law we passed. It's the citizens! So you can't sue us we have nothing to do with it! You gotta wait until one of those vigilantes files a lawsuit. So you can't put a stop to our flagrantly unconstitutional law here on that technicality!" As for the dissents. Every single one of the four dissenting judges (Liberals + Roberts) wrote their own dissent here to call this bullshit out for what it is. Roberts (+Breyer and Kagan) points out just what I said above. That what Texas is trying to do here is concoct a scheme to "insulate the State from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime." He also takes issue with this being decided in the shadow docket inside two days, without consideration of either lower court, standard merits briefings, or oral arguments. He explicitly states (well I mean he's dissenting so duh) that he would enjoin the law so that it could properly work its way through the court system with full arguments, etc. Breyer (+Sotomayor and Kagan) points out the obvious unconstitutionality of the law under Planned Parenthood and Roe and notes that obviously a state can not delegate a power which it literally does not have. He also goes all the way back to Marbury v Madison to point out that when a legal right is "invaded" a "legal remedy by suit or action at law." is provided by law and notes that Texas's vigilante scheme should not change this fact. Sotomayor (+Breyer and Kagan) immediately calls the majority out for "bury[ing] their heads in the sand" by letting a law designed to defy 50 years of settled law go through and "rewards tactics designed to avoid judicial review." She points out that the six week ban means abortion is now banned before many women even realize they are pregnant. She also pretty bluntly calls the law what it si, "In effect, the Texas Legislature has deputized the State's citizens as bounty hunters, offering them cash prizes for civilly prosecuting their neighbors' medical procedures." Kagan (+Breyer and Sotomayor) leads with stating that the majority has greenlighted Texas overturning Roe and Casey. The rest of her opinion is putting the court on blast for the shadow docket bullshit. I'll quote it in its entirety because she puts it better than I ever could. Justice Kagan dissents... Today's ruling illustrates just how far the Court's "shadow docket" decisions may depart from the usual principle of appellate process. That ruling, as everyone must agree, is of great consequence. Yet the majority has acted without any guidance from the Court of Appeals -- which is right now considering the same issues. It has reviewed only the most cursory party submissions, and then only hastily. And it barely bothers to explain its conclusion -- that a challenge to an obviously unconstitutional abortion regulation backed by a wholly unprecedented enforcement scheme is unlikely to prevail. In all these ways, the majority's decision is emblematic of too much of this Court's shadow-docket decisionmaking -- which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend. To add onto to Kagan's statement there I'll add that this is the latest chapter in a clear pattern of how this Court has chosen to operate. In the "regular" docket where cases are fully argued through the standard process it tosses a bone here or there like the ACA case to give Republicans and "moderates" (and perhaps most insidiously, the willing accomplices in the media) the opportunity to go, "See, this Court is actually more centrist than Democrats feared. They saved Obamacare... twice!" to give the Court a thin veneer of credibility as an independent, nonpartisan institution - even as they also release opinions that tear down the Voting Rights Act and let unlimited dark money flood the system. But then in the shadow docket where they can issue unsigned, and often without explanation, orders? They go full partisan because they largely do it with less attention and no accountability. In just the past two weeks they used this process to force the Biden administration to implement Trump's immigration policy (and somehow compel a foreign country to agree to it), killed the eviction moratorium, and now have let Texas outlaw abortion in clear defiance of Planned Parenthood v Casey and Roe. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:957663000] in Politics C... [t:79627991]...</cite> <quote>LordoftheMorons posted... </cite> <quote>More details on the Texas law: https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1433102356946685953?s=21 straight-up evil shit</quote>God, the more I dig into this the worse it gets. LordoftheMorons posted... </cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/mjs_dc/status/1433278317269028865?s=21 JFC Actual link to the opinions: https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1433280766574739456?s=21 As I read it SCOTUS very well could (and I would guess will) uphold a stay if the right people are being sued (i.e. one of the vigilantes). Of course, as the dissent points out, many TX abortion clinics are halting providing abortions in the first place because of the threat of these lawsuits, and the majority is basically saying tough luck if your rights are being stolen by intimidation</quote>jesus fucking christ Yeah, the majority here is buying into the ludicrous scheme the Texas legislature cooked up about the vigilantes. Like I said, the whole vigilante bit wasn't just some sick cruelty - this was why it was included, it was the key component to the law because it was intended to result in just this outcome since they finally believed they had a court stacked enough with partisans to buy in. Again, my longer post from before goes a bit more into detail, but basically Texas intentionally wrote the law to empower citizen vigilantes and pushed the responsibility of enforcement to them precisely so they could go, "Hey, we - the Texas government - are not the one enforcing this law we passed. It's the citizens! So you can't sue us we have nothing to do with it! You gotta wait until one of those vigilantes files a lawsuit. So you can't put a stop to our flagrantly unconstitutional law here on that technicality!" As for the dissents. Every single one of the four dissenting judges (Liberals + Roberts) wrote their own dissent here to call this bullshit out for what it is. Roberts (+Breyer and Kagan) points out just what I said above. That what Texas is trying to do here is concoct a scheme to "insulate the State from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime." He also takes issue with this being decided in the shadow docket inside two days, without consideration of either lower court, standard merits briefings, or oral arguments. He explicitly states (well I mean he's dissenting so duh) that he would enjoin the law so that it could properly work its way through the court system with full arguments, etc. Breyer (+Sotomayor and Kagan) points out the obvious unconstitutionality of the law under Planned Parenthood and Roe and notes that obviously a state can not delegate a power which it literally does not have. He also goes all the way back to Marbury v Madison to point out that when a legal right is "invaded" a "legal remedy by suit or action at law." is provided by law and notes that Texas's vigilante scheme should not change this fact. Sotomayor (+Breyer and Kagan) immediately calls the majority out for "bury[ing] their heads in the sand" by letting a law designed to defy 50 years of settled law go through and "rewards tactics designed to avoid judicial review." She points out that the six week ban means abortion is now banned before many women even realize they are pregnant. She also pretty bluntly calls the law what it si, "In effect, the Texas Legislature has deputized the State's citizens as bounty hunters, offering them cash prizes for civilly prosecuting their neighbors' medical procedures." Kagan (+Breyer and Sotomayor) leads with stating that the majority has greenlighted Texas overturning Roe and Casey. The rest of her opinion is putting the court on blast for the shadow docket bullshit. I'll quote it in its entirety because she puts it better than I ever could. Justice Kagan dissents... <quote>Today's ruling illustrates just how far the Court's "shadow docket" decisions may depart from the usual principle of appellate process. That ruling, as everyone must agree, is of great consequence. Yet the majority has acted without any guidance from the Court of Appeals -- which is right now considering the same issues. It has reviewed only the most cursory party submissions, and then only hastily. And it barely bothers to explain its conclusion -- that a challenge to an obviously unconstitutional abortion regulation backed by a wholly unprecedented enforcement scheme is unlikely to prevail. In all these ways, the majority's decision is emblematic of too much of this Court's shadow-docket decisionmaking -- which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend.</quote> To add onto to Kagan's statement there I'll add that this is the latest chapter in a clear pattern of how this Court has chosen to operate. In the "regular" docket where cases are fully argued through the standard process it tosses a bone here or there like the ACA case to give Republicans and "moderates" (and perhaps most insidiously, the willing accomplices in the media) the opportunity to go, "See, this Court is actually more centrist than Democrats feared. They saved Obamacare... twice!" to give the Court a thin veneer of credibility as an independent, nonpartisan institution - even as they also release opinions that tear down the Voting Rights Act and let unlimited dark money flood the system. But then in the shadow docket where they can issue unsigned, and often without explanation, orders? They go full partisan because they largely do it with less attention and no accountability. In just the past two weeks they used this process to force the Biden administration to implement Trump's immigration policy (and somehow compel a foreign country to agree to it), killed the eviction moratorium, and now have let Texas outlaw abortion in clear defiance of Planned Parenthood v Casey and Roe. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1