What The Texas Abortion Ban Does And What It Means For Other States

[NWRMidnight]

Sounds like similar laws can be passed to remove all guns from a state or whatever else they left wants to do.

If Dems had any stones they would try this in another state with the same rules as Texas and see what SCOTUS does.

There is a problem with this idea: The constitution has specific language concerning guns (2nd amendment), but does not have specific language pertaining to abortion. Row vs Wade and other abortion rights cases, have been ruled under the 14th amendment "due process" and "the right of privacy" for protection. The current SCOTUS would use such specifics to rule against any such action where guns are concerned, while ignoring the due process clause and right to privacy, of the 14th amendment where abortion's are concerned.

 

[ivwshane]

There is a problem with this idea: The constitution has specific language concerning guns (2nd amendment), but does not have specific language pertaining to abortion. Row vs Wade and other abortion rights cases, have been ruled under the 14th amendment "due process" and "the right of privacy" for protection. The current SCOTUS would use such specifics to rule against any such action where guns are concerned, while ignoring the due process clause and right to privacy, of the 14th amendment where abortion's are concerned.

The point isn’t about what the constitution says or which rights are guaranteed but rather the fact that states are getting around any rights by instituting what amounts to vigilante Justice. It’s a direct undermining of law enforcement both at the state and federal level.

 

[MichaelMay]

To me this is a really simple thing. If you take away the most basic right ANY person has, the right to their own person, then no other rights matter anymore.

This is Poland/Taliban/Uganda level shit, this is theocratic lawmaking, this is a fucking affront to liberalism and freedom and if it stands you can tear up the bill of rights and the constitution because it no longer matters.

 

[uclaLabrat]

It’s essentially a recipe for anarchy - anything unconstitutional you want to do you just farm out to a cash bounty system.

I do expect them to eventually invalidate the bounty provision due to the pure chaos it will cause but the fact that they’ve let it exist at all speaks volumes to their lack of commitment to the rule of law.

If they take the ACA approach and basically nullify the penalty, how does the law achieve the desired effect? No bounty but you still have to bear the cost of legal fees for defense?

The entire premise of the law is intimidation through threat of bankruptcy.

 

[HomerJS]

There is a problem with this idea: The constitution has specific language concerning guns (2nd amendment), but does not have specific language pertaining to abortion. Row vs Wade and other abortion rights cases, have been ruled under the 14th amendment "due process" and "the right of privacy" for protection. The current SCOTUS would use such specifics to rule against any such action where guns are concerned, while ignoring the due process clause and right to privacy, of the 14th amendment where abortion's are concerned.

The Constitution has specific language concerning the right to bear arms and we already legally ban certain types of arms. The state can just expand that list.

 

[NWRMidnight]

The point isn’t about what the constitution says or which rights are guaranteed but rather the fact that states are getting around any rights by instituting what amounts to vigilante Justice. It’s a direct undermining of law enforcement both at the state and federal level.

The point was about what SCOTUS would do if blue states made similar laws concerning guns. which is what I was referring to.. I agree, red states are skirting and undermining the law, making us a lawless country, and turning our judicial system into a bigger joke than it already is.

The Constitution has specific language concerning the right to bear arms and we already legally ban certain types of arms. The state can just expand that list.

(See Above) However: No where does it say in the constitution that we can have every gun known to man. Besides, the 2nd amendment was written when we had muskets, not with the guns of today in mind.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Democratic states should immediately allow sueing anyone that aided gun violence. Bring the gun shops to their knees

Beer Barrell Brett seems to have asked that exact question today.

MSN

 

[Viper1j]

Sounds like similar laws can be passed to remove all guns from a state or whatever else they left wants to do.

Yep! Texas gave California and New York a golden ticket that will make all the MAGAts cry long and hard.

Just take their law, and everywhere you see the word "abortion", replace it with the word "gun".

 

[Fenixgoon]

The Constitution has specific language concerning the right to bear arms and we already legally ban certain types of arms. The state can just expand that list.

you're telling me all rights aren't unlimited? what kind of freedumb do we have then?!? /s

 

[Zorba]

What did I miss, I thought they rejected the last repeal in the shadow docket again and now it appears to be on the normal docket?

Beer Barrell Brett seems to have asked that exact question today.

MSN

Like @fskimospy said, they won't let the bounty system stand because they know it would completely screw up the entire legal system.

 

[Sunburn74]

What did I miss, I thought they rejected the last repeal in the shadow docket again and now it appears to be on the normal docket?


Like @fskimospy said, they won't let the bounty system stand because they know it would completely screw up the entire legal system.

Probably 3 of the conservatives clowns (I don't even need to state names; we know who they are) will vote to keep it per reports. The other 3 seems to be more sensible. Ridiculous that its not going to be a 9-0 decision.

 

[Muse]

What did I miss, I thought they rejected the last repeal in the shadow docket again and now it appears to be on the normal docket?


Like @fskimospy said, they won't let the bounty system stand because they know it would completely screw up the entire legal system.

Yeah, the writing's all over the walls. If you let that loophole stand the constitution has no foundation. The Texas end run around the constitution is going to be stopped. Kavanaugh and Barrett aren't going for it, Sotomayor has spoken.

 

[HomerJS]

I think in stopping SB-8 they left the door open for upsetting precedent on Roe v Wade. This quote...

In our republic, the Constitution and other federal law are the "supreme law of the land." And Supreme Court justices take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and federal laws. But the decisions of the Supreme Court are not the "supreme law of the land." And Supreme Court justices do not take an oath to defend the decisions of the Supreme Court.

In Texas Abortion Case, Kavanaugh and Barrett Caved to Judicial Supremacy | Opinion (msn.com)

 

[Dave_5k]

...
(See Above) However: No where does it say in the constitution that we can have every gun known to man. Besides, the 2nd amendment was written when we had muskets, not with the guns of today in mind.

I would have no problem with the "right" invented by the Supreme Court in 2008 for individuals to keep guns, if the guns definition was consistent with the framers definition - a single shot, barrel loaded, smoothbore flintlock musket or pistol.

 

[Meghan54]

I would have no problem with the "right" invented by the Supreme Court in 2008 for individuals to keep guns, if the guns definition was consistent with the framers definition - a single shot, barrel loaded, smoothbore flintlock musket or pistol.

So, a little constitutional originalism, eh?

 

[Fenixgoon]

What did I miss, I thought they rejected the last repeal in the shadow docket again and now it appears to be on the normal docket?


Like @fskimospy said, they won't let the bounty system stand because they know it would completely screw up the entire legal system.

Even if you take away the bounty, it still circumvents the state enforcing the law.

I think in stopping SB-8 they left the door open for upsetting precedent on Roe v Wade. This quote...

In Texas Abortion Case, Kavanaugh and Barrett Caved to Judicial Supremacy | Opinion (msn.com)

That line of thinking opens up every previous SC decision to being revisited and overturned by 180 degrees. Basically "we don't have to follow precedent"

 

[shortylickens]

Judge: Texas abortion law’s enforcement mechanism not valid

Planned Parenthood celebrated the ruling but said abortion services still remain “virtually inaccessible" in Texas.

www.politico.com

As is already the law: You cannot sue on behalf of someone else. Nor can you sue to enforce a criminal law when you arent involved.
Its sad that the south keeps coming up with obvious bullshit then waits for someone to bring it up to a higher court to declare it unconstitutional or not.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Judge: Texas abortion law’s enforcement mechanism not valid

Planned Parenthood celebrated the ruling but said abortion services still remain “virtually inaccessible" in Texas.

www.politico.com

As is already the law: You cannot sue on behalf of someone else. Nor can you sue to enforce a criminal law when you arent involved.
Its sad that the south keeps coming up with obvious bullshit then waits for someone to bring it up to a higher court to declare it unconstitutional or not.

Except that Texas specifically states that you can in the law, and the SCOTUS already said that they think that it might be okay. Otherwise they would have put a hold on it.

 

[hal2kilo]

Judge: Texas abortion law’s enforcement mechanism not valid

Planned Parenthood celebrated the ruling but said abortion services still remain “virtually inaccessible" in Texas.

www.politico.com

As is already the law: You cannot sue on behalf of someone else. Nor can you sue to enforce a criminal law when you arent involved.
Its sad that the south keeps coming up with obvious bullshit then waits for someone to bring it up to a higher court to declare it unconstitutional or not.

It's because they think they can win their case with the Trump/McConnell trashed SCOTUS.

 

[K1052]

The thing what was always going to happen is about to happen:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1469865007517089798

 

[MrSquished]

The thing what was always going to happen is about to happen:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1469865007517089798

Good. Every blue state do this. Let us further make it indisputable that we don't belong in the same country with the regressive red state South. Just not the same values.

 

[ivwshane]

The thing what was always going to happen is about to happen:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1469865007517089798

I tried to warn you righties but you didn’t want to listen.

Now these new anti 2nd laws will go to the Supreme Court and they’ll either have to give it the same ruling they gave the anti abortion laws or risk completely losing their legitimacy in which case the democrats will be totally justified in pack/expanding/impeaching the Supreme Court.

Honestly some of the best legislation the blue states could come up with would be to allow citizens to sue corporations for donating to politicians and parties. That’s one way to get rid of dark money.

Other types of legislation that would do even better than gun restrictions would be anti propaganda/misinformation laws that allow citizens to sue media companies for spreading propaganda and misinformation.

There can of worms has been opened.

 

[Muse]

The thing what was always going to happen is about to happen:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1469865007517089798

I've come to really like Gavin Newsom (governor of California), way more than I did. Not all the time, not every time, but a lot of times way way more than most "politicians," or in his case I should probably say public servants. He's a few orders of magnitude smarter than so many infuriating so-called leaders in this country.

I saw a story yesterday that indicated that John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS has major concerns that the court is cutting off its legs at the knees with their letting Texas do an end run around federal constitutional law. But there are now 5 conservative justices who are making that possible. I'm afraid the USA is going to march backwards over a cliff and disappear from relevance. We don't have time to waste, and marching backwards is just, well, pretty much a sign of the end. Reversing Roe vs. Wade and losing the mid-terms to the Republicans would pretty much confirm that's exactly where we're going.

 

[shortylickens]

in a move suprising no one, they decided to puss out:

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Sent it back to a federal court. Probably because they couldnt flat out ban abortion but didnt want to uphold it either.

 

[Fenixgoon]

interesting development

FDA says abortion pills can be sent by mail

The US Food and Drug Administration announced Thursday that it is lifting a requirement that patients seeking medication abortion had to pick up the medication in-person, instead allowing pills to be sent by mail.

www.cnn.com