Originally published at: Supreme Court refuses to block Texas abortion ban in 5-4 decision | Boing Boing
…
7 Likes
This is utter lawlessness.
42 Likes
They are not going to stop until they drag us back to the Middle Ages.
37 Likes
21 Likes
FFS Pack the court, Joe. Pack it tight.
And stack the lower courts while we’re at it.
58 Likes
The Xtianists are getting closer to their decades-long goal. The SCOTUS needs to be packed now that too many Justices operating toward conservative political ends make up the majority.
37 Likes
So, now Texas has an abortion ban and an insane open carry law.
What are single issue voters going to do now? Stay home on Election Day?
27 Likes
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, dissenting:
The Court’s order is stunning. Presented with an appli- cation to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engi- neered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand. Last night, the Court silently acquiesced in a State’s enactment of a law that flouts nearly 50 years of federal precedents. Today, the Court belatedly explains that it declined to grant relief because of procedural complexities of the State’s own invention. Ante, at 1. Because the Court’s failure to act rewards tactics designed to avoid judicial review and inflicts significant harm on the applicants and on women seeking abortions in Texas, I dissent.
The Act is clearly unconstitutional under existing precedents. See, e.g., June Medical Servs. L. L. C. v. Russo, 591 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 5) (explaining that “the State may not impose an undue burden on the woman’s ability to obtain an abortion” of a “nonviable fetus” (citing Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992); internal quotation marks omitted)). The respondents do not even try to argue otherwise. Nor could they: No federal appellate court has upheld such a comprehensive prohibition on abortions before viability under current law.
The Texas Legislature was well aware of this binding precedent. To circumvent it, the Legislature took the extraordinary step of enlisting private citizens to do what the State could not. The Act authorizes any private citizen to file a lawsuit against any person who provides an abortion in violation of the Act, “aids or abets” such an abortion (including by paying for it) regardless of whether they know the abortion is prohibited under the Act, or even intends to engage in such conduct. §3 (to be codified at Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §171.208). Courts are required to enjoin the defendant from engaging in these actions in the future and to award the private-citizen plaintiff at least $10,000 in “statutory damages” for each forbidden abortion performed or aided by the defendant. Ibid. 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.
PDF:
65 Likes
If only. lol. No, what will happen next is non-stop scare-mongering about “if you don’t vote Republican, them librul socialist Hitler-lovers will pass laws to take away your guns and force you to get an abortion.”
Count on it.
ETA: No to next
28 Likes
For decades conservatives have voiced terror over Justices “writing laws from the bench.” But given the opportunity, they sure don’t hesitate to do it.
37 Likes
This law is a crazy clusterfuck, allowing Texas to do an end run around the Supreme Court. It is no surprise to me that Roberts voted with the liberal wing. He is an institutionalist that tries to maintain the power and prestige of the Supreme Court. How long before NY or CA or some other blue state used this bizarre “bounty” system to go after guns? I’m guessing that the current, highly politicized court will grant cert and hit that with an injunction very quickly. It is sad to see how utterly political the court has become.
Whatever they accuse you of they are guilty of or aspire to. Every time.
35 Likes
The SCOTUS has already made it impossible to implement gun control years ago and only got more conservative but the hobbyists that vote single issue about guns still vote as a bloc for Republicans because that’s how the tent pole issue political will works.
15 Likes
To be honest that is a game both sides play, like filibustering and gerrymandering. Constitutional US law is like christian apologetics: Any conclusion you like can be claimed from any text.
Many here may not like to hear it but Roe v. Wade was based on a very creative if not downright bad-faith reading of the constitution. Abortion rights in the US were never properly founded on clear federal law making them fair game to any new SCOTUS willing to play the same game for the other side.
Until there is a legislative body writing clear and unambiguous laws and the supreme court gets called to heel where it belongs and only interpretes these laws as they are written there is little that can be done.
The US congress is never going to stick out its neck to achieve anything and so the people can only achieve change by making courts re-interpret the constitution in whatever way is convenient today.
6 Likes
Threaten BIPOC at the polls with their guns. They did that at the last election cycle. They love threatening people with guns.
22 Likes
Once again, a special “FUCK YOU” to all the people who refused to vote for Hillary in the 2016 General Election under the rationale that she was just as bad as Trump.
This is exactly the kind of dystopian outcome that progressives predicted from a court filled with Trump appointees.
60 Likes
And a preemptive “FUCK YOU” to the people who don’t vote (blue) in future elections, even at state and local level. We’ve seen what happens when the “eh, whatever” majority stays home.
30 Likes
Why did the conservatives on the court avoid ruling on this, allowing the unjust laws they KNOW will take place in other states based on the same arguments, instead of making it permanent? They knew they had the votes – why kick the can down the road? My guess is that they fear that a liberal reprisal to literally throwing out Roe v. Wade will overwhelmingly throw the next few elections to the Left. By just ignoring Roe v. Wade instead of overruling it, they hope to muddle an explicit electoral reaction (elections being an issue they are supposedly “above”). If true, I hope this backfires tremendously on them. If it’s not true, what could possibly have convinced them to do this?
6 Likes
