Originally published at: Federal judge blocks enforcement of Texas abortion ban | Boing Boing
…
A 4 min listen discussing the ruling and law.
Good and short overview of the ruling (thanks @KathyPartdeux) District Judge blocks Texas abortion ban in rebuke to Supreme Court.
And finally some analysis of the actual effects of the ruling Texas appeals after abortion law temporarily blocked by federal judge | The Texas Tribune
The anti-choicers will frame this as usual as the work of an “actvist judge” (i.e. one who isn’t afraid to uphold the Constitution against their assault on reproductive rights).
#turntexasbluein2022
I’m disheartened to find out that this changes nothing - the law apparently has provisions that if it’s blocked and re-instated, you can retro-actively sue over abortions done while enforcement was blocked. So the fear remains - which is the whole point of the law.
You are right. But it does delay any suits in progress or from being filed.
IMHO*, the fact there is an injunction at all, that the court found the feds have standing, and the systemic dismantling and shaming of SCOTUS and their excuses are the most important parts. It is very hard to get a preliminary injunction and this one neatly sidesteps the mechanics in the law to avoid just such an injunction. The feds having standing sets the stage for the DOJ to move forward.
The opinion is solid, meticulous, and appears to be based on well established law. It provides a map for other courts and will be difficult to assault on appeal.
It will be interesting to see if the reaming of SCOTUS forces certain justices to put their actions where their mouths are with regard to partisanship.
It is also a fairly strong political blow to right wing death cultists. Texas needs as much of that as possible.
*constitutional law is not in my wheelhouse.
You are most optimistic if you think such a thing is possible:
- Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barrett had their shame surgically removed at birth.
- Roberts can only physiologically experience shame on every odd lunar eclipse.
- Gorsuch lives on the libertarian/Martian calendar, so his shamelessness is indeterminate.
AFAIK there’s no need to apologize. You’ve linked the song to good news for BBers… so more, I say!
maybe we should, just get the civil war over now. Doesn’t look like anybody is going to come to their senses.
So Pittman did what the SCOTUS stooges did not do: He earnestly studied the issue, heard the arguments, and came to a conclusion based on the aforesaid.
Idiocy doesn’t get more Useful than that.
The Twitter thread is funny: a whole bunch of snarky and actually progressive commenters (and a few outraged right-wing anti-choicer bigots) arrayed against the lone Catholic rando – “sonja morin” – who’s acting as a mouthpiece for this astroturf org.
Uh ohs.
The ping-ponging by lower courts further demonstrates that The Supremes should have taken up the case.
The pingponging by lower courts was entirely predictable, and can only be considered something that the Supremes considered and concluded would be a feature.
Nothing like endless uncertainty over whether a fundamental right is going to be taken away or not to keep you scared and panicky. And there’s nothing so demoralising as the continual dangling of frustrated hope.
It occurs to me that not making exceptions for rape and incest may come from the idea that if women just start saying no instead of risking whatever draconian penalties may result from an unintended pregnancy, men may be “forced” to use assault in order to have the sex they believe they are owed. After all, nothing says “we respect your bodily autonomy” like the government forcing you to have kids.
I’m pretty sure they made no exceptions for rape because A: Everyone knows you can’t get pregnant from rape unless you consent and 2: Texas has also banned rape.
Now, where’s that sarcasm tag?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.