The fact that the Texas debacle is even happening is a result of the failure of democrats to codify ROE when they had the full filibuster-proof majority in the Senate to do it. The lack of political will to protect women’s reproductive rights is disgusting. We couldnt even pass the Goddamn ERA! Its cowardice and now the chickens have finally come home to roost. The extreme religious right got their Supreme Court to rule in favor of dark money, gut voting rights and kill ROE. The perfect diabolical trifecta.
Remember one salient fact: the people who are doing this, for the most part, are Republican men who have a certain religious affiliation, and are usually the same ones such as Cruz who are nowhere to be found when the shit hits the fan. Yes, they're evil and they're in power.
Exactly right. Roe has always been vulnerable because it's a court decision, not federal legislation. Even allegedly liberal states have been slow to codify the right to abortion, even though the threat has been "red alert" at least since Mitch McConnell sank Merrick Garland's nomination to SCOTUS. Massachusetts only got around to passing its ROE Act last year, after years of activism and over the veto of our supposedly "moderate" Republican governor.
The Talibangelicals are at it again! A Texas genius, must some in Austin, might discover that free birth control is cheaper than a mountain of lawsuits. It might keep down the dreaded "brown baby" deluge that terrifies Texans.
Oh, if only Ann and Molly were on watch to annihilate the morons.
"The ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro Choice America and the National Organization for Women and any number of other liberal organizations must have a whole passel of lawyers as “clever” as those in the Texas legislature. The faster they get busy, the better." Amen! Halleluiah! Can I get an Amen!
I sure as hell HOPE you’re right about all this, Lucian! What I’ve been reading is that the phone lines of abortion providers in Texas are flooded with calls from crying women who are terrified that they will no longer be able to procure an abortion. Maybe this whole situation will become a legal tar-pit in which those woman-hating, sex-hating yahoo control freaks in Texas will slowly sink and drown!
That is exactly what it's going to become if ACLU and others start suing these "vigilantes" every time they file a suit. They want to be enforcers of the law? Okay, face the consequences. The governors and attorneys general have the state to pay their legal bills. The yahoos don't. Let's see how long they last in federal court.
But the fact remains: People are being turned away because the healthcare providers can’t afford to address endless lawsuits. It’s not as if Planned Parenthood or nonprofit clinics pay these people well—in fact, many of the doctors volunteer their services. And people have good reason to fear for their lives when Loonies are deputized and out “bounty hunting.”
BTW—plenty who seek these services are actually getting A REDUCTION following IVF therapy; ie, they are trying to STAY pregnant and aim to reduce their risk of having premature multiples or miscarrying the whole shebang. Others have been diagnosed with a fetus having nonviable deformities or genetic syndromes… ETC, ETC. How would Greg Abbott like to be sentenced to carry an anacephalic to term, ending with a c-section and all the risk THAT carries?
There is nothing about pregnancy that is without risk.
GOPigs are shoving this nation toward fascism, complete with the Brown Shirts and Hitler Youth indoctrination (a la Churches, that are supposed to be separate from the State…)
The women I know haven't thrown up our collective hands in surrender -- nowhere close. Women's March has called a national action for October 2. Lyft has issued a strong statement offering to cover legal fees for any driver who's sued under this law. And apparently the Texas tip line is being flooded with bogus (and often very clever) "tips". The fact that the Supreme Court passed on this is calling attention to the right-wing justices use of the "shadow" (i.e., unaccountable, unpublic) docket. Note that the only reason the SCOTUS vote became public is that the dissenters released it -- and Justice Sotomayor's dissent, in which Justices Kagan and Breyer joined, is a doozy. IMO this is the strongest evidence yet for the need to expand the Court.
I don't see how any sentient, reasonably responsible commentator can call the Texas law clever. Maybe it's clever if you don't see the resemblance to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which similarly "deputized" citizens to turn in anyone who looked like they might be a runaway slave (i.e., they were Black)? It also strengthened the abolition movement. (No wonder they don't want the subject of racism included in the school curriculum.)
Oh yeah, and remember how after 9/11 "concerned citizens" were reporting and not infrequently attacking anyone they thought "looked like a Muslim"? We've also got an ongoing epidemic of "concerned citizens" reporting (and not infrequently attacking) people of color for doing totally legal, innocuous things. What could possibly go wrong?
All of us can sue every right wing nut in Texas for aiding an abortion. We don’t need proof, the accusation is enough to force them to defend themselves. Come on, let’s fuck these motherfuckers up big time.
Do you know what it takes to bring a lawsuit? And were you paying attention when Judge Linda Parker of the Eastern District of Michigan read the riot act to Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, et al. for bringing their totally proof-less suit against state and local election officials? Please read up on it.
Lucian, you have done a first-rate job in analyzing the weaknesses of the Texas statute. As you suggest, the administration of the statute is going to be God-awful that is likely to set off the train of retribution by Texans themselves against their legislature and their Governor.
On my Facebook page, I posted my suggestions about what other states might do if they encounter the collateral damage that falls out of the Texas statute, when someone with the Texas civil judgment based on the statute brings a lawsuit in another state to seize and attach property morning to the defendant in the Texas case. Under long-established precedent, the product of an unconstitutional statute would likely to be held unenforceable in the forum state sitting outside of Texas hearing the suit on the judgment itself. In my posting, I suggested that other states adopt legislation that affirmatively penalize attempts to sue on Texas state court judgments that are sued on in sister states where the defendant in the Texas sued may own property that may be seized and sold to pay the judgment. These are typically called 'in rem suits', because the jurisdiction of the forum court attaches to the property being seized, as distinct from 'in personam' jurisdiction, where the court has jurisdiction over the person involved.
In my proposal, I suggested that out-of-state collection suits brought by commercial factors or other successors in interest be disallowed entirely, and that those third-party claimants be held liable for damages and attorney fees pursuing on a presumptively unconstitutional statute that they knew, or should have known, was unenforceable as a matter of general law.
These sorts of private right of action suits have long been held to be unenforceable. In 1948, the Supreme Court decided the case of Shelley vs. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, that suits brought to enforce racially discriminatory restrictive covenants in the sale of real property represented state action, and therefore were unconstitutional and unenforceable. The Texas case is a more blatant example of that form of state action. There are judicial remedies under the federal All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §1651, which authorizes the federal courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." Among the writs that the federal courts have traditionally issued have been 'writs of prohibition', issued by a superior court to an inferior court, in telling the latter that it is enjoined from hearing a particular cause of action or case. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution allows the federal courts to do that, and they have done so frequently. The fact that the cynical majority of the current membership of the United States Supreme Court has chosen to turn a blind eye to the unconstitutionality of the Texas statute is not likely to sway honest and dedicated judges of the other federal courts from doing their duty. The five-justice majority that allowed Texas to proceed with its travesty are bound to face retribution, probably sooner rather than later. That has been the problem with movement Conservatives for decades, going back to the Dred Scott decision in 1859. They ignore the fact that the aberrations that they tried to inject into the law rarely stick, and they end up as the losers. That was the problem with the New England Federalists in 1798, and their successor in the Federalist Society of today. They are so wedded to the manipulation of rules that they have lost sight of substantial justice; and substantial justice are what the courts are all about.
What with the new abortion law and the right to purchase guns without a permit, I'm beginning to think that the only solution is to saw off the state of Texas from the rest of the country, allowing it to float out to sea. God help us.
If Texas were unique, that might work, but it's not. Nowhere close. And *some* Texans, e.g., the Democrats in the state legislature, are setting an example of how to fight back.
Mea culpa. I was flippant when I wrote my comment and you are correct. However, the thought of sending those vigilantes out to sea does hold some appeal to this 80 year old. We've fought this battle for so long and to see this result is so discouraging.
It *is* discouraging, but (strange as it may seem) thinking about the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 gives me hope. Because it woke a lot of northerners up, who'd been thinking that slavery was strictly a southern problem. I think that the vigilante aspects of the Texas law will wake up some people who (still) think that access to abortion is someone else's issue. I hope it also wakes more people up to the fact that the current composition of SCOTUS does not bode well for the future of the country.
OK, Grace Kennedy, I'll bite: What is the "other worst SCOTUS decision in history"? ;-) Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson leapt to mind, closely followed by Citizens United and Shelby County v. Holder. Roberts is already attached to the latter two, and not in a good way.
I am reminded of that almost every day by friends in TX (MS, LA, AL, FL . . .). I'm a big admirer of Julián Castro in particular, and you bet I'm waiting for the second coming of Molly Ivins.
A truly excellent take on the situation, and I sure as f@#k hope the legal minds at the appropriate organizations are 1) paying close attention, and 2) preparing to move like hell. I have re-posted this everywhere I can..
This new Texas law will not stand. It can’t because it is utterly unenforceable, as you have pointed out. How will determination of the six week “deadline” be established for the women who are “caught,” especially as the pregnancy proceeds. Who will dare to require testing of these pregnant women and will they be incarcerated during this time? And what’s in this new law to prevent these women from proceeding to have abortions outside of their home state? Will they be subject to Taliban-style lashing if they do? The lawsuits that will ensue (sorry) will provide a field day for attorneys representing these women, not to mention the class action cases waiting in the wings. The upshot here is the danger to our society for a showdown that could ensnare every citizen against any other citizen. We are at a nightmare crossroads as a society where the loudest, ugliest and the most evil minded fanatics are being cheered on by their own kind. Just as the right wing has exploited the abortion issue, so must the left use this moment to see the jeopardy to civil society and to organize against the forthcoming madness. 2022 elections are around the corner. Everyone on the left needs to stop arguing and get our act together. Time is running out. Thank you, Lucien, for your incredibly coherent analysis that brings focus exactly where it’s needed.
I don't think it, or the various copycat laws that are being proposed in other states, will stand either, but meanwhile it's diverting a huge amount of energy that could be productively spent on other things. Not to mention -- women who are pregnant don't have the luxury of endless time.
To illustrate what might happen should this law stand (god forbid!): I can see a time when the 'injured party' (woman who was denied an abortion, had the kid, rotten life after) sues the person who ratted her out on the basis of denial of civil rights.
That would be one defense women could have-the only one really to be on the federal level. To deny a women her lawfully given rights (such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a law that could apply in this instance-denying her bodily rights to self-determination.
Or something to that effect. I bet that many defendants will be running for the hills when they realize they have to pay for their own lawyers and other fun things at the federal level-which is not cheap or fast. Add to that if a jury is empaneled and finds for the plaintiff, the damages could be quite extensive.
But the people in Texas aren't thinking ahead, but merely with their penises and religious fervor. It's not going to end up well for them, I hope and pray.
New poll just out: Texas ranked No 1 as US State most like Afghanistan! Guns in the streets, thugs threatening others, repression of women. Rumor has it that women over age of 10 must wear either a MAGA cap or a burqua. Aftexastan!
I am surprised you didn't mention another unconstitutional elephant in the room, The Vigilantes are random plaintiffs without any relationship to the woman ( with possible the exception of the father of the embryo or the woman's parents) have no standing to sue according to the requirements of Article III. Please critique this idea.
Although the Court has been inconsistent, it has now settled upon the rule that, “at an irreducible minimum,” the constitutional requisites under Article III for the existence of standing are that the plaintiff must personally have: 1) suffered some actual or threatened injury; 2) that injury can fairly be traced to ...
From the Standing Wiki pedia entry scroll down the page to the section for United States and the chain of logic and cases is listed .
"There are a number of requirements that a plaintiff must establish to have standing before a federal court. Some are based on the case or controversy requirement of the judicial power of Article Three of the United States Constitution, § 2, cl.1. As stated there, "The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . .[and] to Controversies . . ." The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers.
". As stated there, "The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . .[and] to Controversies . . ." The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers. Federal courts may exercise power only "in the last resort, and as a necessity".
Blah blah blah.....
"Standing requirements
There are three standing requirements:
Injury-in-fact: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent (that is, neither conjectural nor hypothetical; not abstract). The injury can be either economic, non-economic, or both.
Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.
I am aware of all the legal analysis of what flows from Article 3. But it's not in the language of the Constitution and the law concerns state courts. I'm not sure how relevant it is. And now I am going to bed. Having written 1500 words on the subject of the Texas law, 1500 words I am not aware of anyone else has written with a POV and angle entirely mine, I am finished with the subject for the time being.
The fact that the Texas debacle is even happening is a result of the failure of democrats to codify ROE when they had the full filibuster-proof majority in the Senate to do it. The lack of political will to protect women’s reproductive rights is disgusting. We couldnt even pass the Goddamn ERA! Its cowardice and now the chickens have finally come home to roost. The extreme religious right got their Supreme Court to rule in favor of dark money, gut voting rights and kill ROE. The perfect diabolical trifecta.
Remember one salient fact: the people who are doing this, for the most part, are Republican men who have a certain religious affiliation, and are usually the same ones such as Cruz who are nowhere to be found when the shit hits the fan. Yes, they're evil and they're in power.
Maybe he sent his family to Cancun for another reason!
Exactly right. Roe has always been vulnerable because it's a court decision, not federal legislation. Even allegedly liberal states have been slow to codify the right to abortion, even though the threat has been "red alert" at least since Mitch McConnell sank Merrick Garland's nomination to SCOTUS. Massachusetts only got around to passing its ROE Act last year, after years of activism and over the veto of our supposedly "moderate" Republican governor.
The Talibangelicals are at it again! A Texas genius, must some in Austin, might discover that free birth control is cheaper than a mountain of lawsuits. It might keep down the dreaded "brown baby" deluge that terrifies Texans.
Oh, if only Ann and Molly were on watch to annihilate the morons.
Indeed. I’ve been wondering when the airlifts for American women from the Taliban held territory of Texas can begin.
Someone said New Mexico PP booked solid.
PP?
Planned Parenthood
"The ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro Choice America and the National Organization for Women and any number of other liberal organizations must have a whole passel of lawyers as “clever” as those in the Texas legislature. The faster they get busy, the better." Amen! Halleluiah! Can I get an Amen!
I sure as hell HOPE you’re right about all this, Lucian! What I’ve been reading is that the phone lines of abortion providers in Texas are flooded with calls from crying women who are terrified that they will no longer be able to procure an abortion. Maybe this whole situation will become a legal tar-pit in which those woman-hating, sex-hating yahoo control freaks in Texas will slowly sink and drown!
That is exactly what it's going to become if ACLU and others start suing these "vigilantes" every time they file a suit. They want to be enforcers of the law? Okay, face the consequences. The governors and attorneys general have the state to pay their legal bills. The yahoos don't. Let's see how long they last in federal court.
Amen! Halleluiah! Can I get an Amen!
But the fact remains: People are being turned away because the healthcare providers can’t afford to address endless lawsuits. It’s not as if Planned Parenthood or nonprofit clinics pay these people well—in fact, many of the doctors volunteer their services. And people have good reason to fear for their lives when Loonies are deputized and out “bounty hunting.”
BTW—plenty who seek these services are actually getting A REDUCTION following IVF therapy; ie, they are trying to STAY pregnant and aim to reduce their risk of having premature multiples or miscarrying the whole shebang. Others have been diagnosed with a fetus having nonviable deformities or genetic syndromes… ETC, ETC. How would Greg Abbott like to be sentenced to carry an anacephalic to term, ending with a c-section and all the risk THAT carries?
There is nothing about pregnancy that is without risk.
GOPigs are shoving this nation toward fascism, complete with the Brown Shirts and Hitler Youth indoctrination (a la Churches, that are supposed to be separate from the State…)
The women I know haven't thrown up our collective hands in surrender -- nowhere close. Women's March has called a national action for October 2. Lyft has issued a strong statement offering to cover legal fees for any driver who's sued under this law. And apparently the Texas tip line is being flooded with bogus (and often very clever) "tips". The fact that the Supreme Court passed on this is calling attention to the right-wing justices use of the "shadow" (i.e., unaccountable, unpublic) docket. Note that the only reason the SCOTUS vote became public is that the dissenters released it -- and Justice Sotomayor's dissent, in which Justices Kagan and Breyer joined, is a doozy. IMO this is the strongest evidence yet for the need to expand the Court.
I don't see how any sentient, reasonably responsible commentator can call the Texas law clever. Maybe it's clever if you don't see the resemblance to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which similarly "deputized" citizens to turn in anyone who looked like they might be a runaway slave (i.e., they were Black)? It also strengthened the abolition movement. (No wonder they don't want the subject of racism included in the school curriculum.)
Oh yeah, and remember how after 9/11 "concerned citizens" were reporting and not infrequently attacking anyone they thought "looked like a Muslim"? We've also got an ongoing epidemic of "concerned citizens" reporting (and not infrequently attacking) people of color for doing totally legal, innocuous things. What could possibly go wrong?
All of us can sue every right wing nut in Texas for aiding an abortion. We don’t need proof, the accusation is enough to force them to defend themselves. Come on, let’s fuck these motherfuckers up big time.
Do you know what it takes to bring a lawsuit? And were you paying attention when Judge Linda Parker of the Eastern District of Michigan read the riot act to Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, et al. for bringing their totally proof-less suit against state and local election officials? Please read up on it.
Lucian, you have done a first-rate job in analyzing the weaknesses of the Texas statute. As you suggest, the administration of the statute is going to be God-awful that is likely to set off the train of retribution by Texans themselves against their legislature and their Governor.
On my Facebook page, I posted my suggestions about what other states might do if they encounter the collateral damage that falls out of the Texas statute, when someone with the Texas civil judgment based on the statute brings a lawsuit in another state to seize and attach property morning to the defendant in the Texas case. Under long-established precedent, the product of an unconstitutional statute would likely to be held unenforceable in the forum state sitting outside of Texas hearing the suit on the judgment itself. In my posting, I suggested that other states adopt legislation that affirmatively penalize attempts to sue on Texas state court judgments that are sued on in sister states where the defendant in the Texas sued may own property that may be seized and sold to pay the judgment. These are typically called 'in rem suits', because the jurisdiction of the forum court attaches to the property being seized, as distinct from 'in personam' jurisdiction, where the court has jurisdiction over the person involved.
In my proposal, I suggested that out-of-state collection suits brought by commercial factors or other successors in interest be disallowed entirely, and that those third-party claimants be held liable for damages and attorney fees pursuing on a presumptively unconstitutional statute that they knew, or should have known, was unenforceable as a matter of general law.
These sorts of private right of action suits have long been held to be unenforceable. In 1948, the Supreme Court decided the case of Shelley vs. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, that suits brought to enforce racially discriminatory restrictive covenants in the sale of real property represented state action, and therefore were unconstitutional and unenforceable. The Texas case is a more blatant example of that form of state action. There are judicial remedies under the federal All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §1651, which authorizes the federal courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." Among the writs that the federal courts have traditionally issued have been 'writs of prohibition', issued by a superior court to an inferior court, in telling the latter that it is enjoined from hearing a particular cause of action or case. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution allows the federal courts to do that, and they have done so frequently. The fact that the cynical majority of the current membership of the United States Supreme Court has chosen to turn a blind eye to the unconstitutionality of the Texas statute is not likely to sway honest and dedicated judges of the other federal courts from doing their duty. The five-justice majority that allowed Texas to proceed with its travesty are bound to face retribution, probably sooner rather than later. That has been the problem with movement Conservatives for decades, going back to the Dred Scott decision in 1859. They ignore the fact that the aberrations that they tried to inject into the law rarely stick, and they end up as the losers. That was the problem with the New England Federalists in 1798, and their successor in the Federalist Society of today. They are so wedded to the manipulation of rules that they have lost sight of substantial justice; and substantial justice are what the courts are all about.
What with the new abortion law and the right to purchase guns without a permit, I'm beginning to think that the only solution is to saw off the state of Texas from the rest of the country, allowing it to float out to sea. God help us.
If Texas were unique, that might work, but it's not. Nowhere close. And *some* Texans, e.g., the Democrats in the state legislature, are setting an example of how to fight back.
Mea culpa. I was flippant when I wrote my comment and you are correct. However, the thought of sending those vigilantes out to sea does hold some appeal to this 80 year old. We've fought this battle for so long and to see this result is so discouraging.
It *is* discouraging, but (strange as it may seem) thinking about the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 gives me hope. Because it woke a lot of northerners up, who'd been thinking that slavery was strictly a southern problem. I think that the vigilante aspects of the Texas law will wake up some people who (still) think that access to abortion is someone else's issue. I hope it also wakes more people up to the fact that the current composition of SCOTUS does not bode well for the future of the country.
Yes yes yes!! And it remains to be seen if John Roberts wants his name attached to the other worst SCOTUS decision in history.
OK, Grace Kennedy, I'll bite: What is the "other worst SCOTUS decision in history"? ;-) Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson leapt to mind, closely followed by Citizens United and Shelby County v. Holder. Roberts is already attached to the latter two, and not in a good way.
I was thinking Dred Scott, but you’re right - the Roberts court has handed down some shameful decisions.
I am reminded of that almost every day by friends in TX (MS, LA, AL, FL . . .). I'm a big admirer of Julián Castro in particular, and you bet I'm waiting for the second coming of Molly Ivins.
It would be nice if we heard more from the 52% in Texas. Especially at the 2022 and 2024 elections.
Thank you, TC. It just keeps getting worse.
A truly excellent take on the situation, and I sure as f@#k hope the legal minds at the appropriate organizations are 1) paying close attention, and 2) preparing to move like hell. I have re-posted this everywhere I can..
This new Texas law will not stand. It can’t because it is utterly unenforceable, as you have pointed out. How will determination of the six week “deadline” be established for the women who are “caught,” especially as the pregnancy proceeds. Who will dare to require testing of these pregnant women and will they be incarcerated during this time? And what’s in this new law to prevent these women from proceeding to have abortions outside of their home state? Will they be subject to Taliban-style lashing if they do? The lawsuits that will ensue (sorry) will provide a field day for attorneys representing these women, not to mention the class action cases waiting in the wings. The upshot here is the danger to our society for a showdown that could ensnare every citizen against any other citizen. We are at a nightmare crossroads as a society where the loudest, ugliest and the most evil minded fanatics are being cheered on by their own kind. Just as the right wing has exploited the abortion issue, so must the left use this moment to see the jeopardy to civil society and to organize against the forthcoming madness. 2022 elections are around the corner. Everyone on the left needs to stop arguing and get our act together. Time is running out. Thank you, Lucien, for your incredibly coherent analysis that brings focus exactly where it’s needed.
I don't think it, or the various copycat laws that are being proposed in other states, will stand either, but meanwhile it's diverting a huge amount of energy that could be productively spent on other things. Not to mention -- women who are pregnant don't have the luxury of endless time.
To illustrate what might happen should this law stand (god forbid!): I can see a time when the 'injured party' (woman who was denied an abortion, had the kid, rotten life after) sues the person who ratted her out on the basis of denial of civil rights.
That would be one defense women could have-the only one really to be on the federal level. To deny a women her lawfully given rights (such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a law that could apply in this instance-denying her bodily rights to self-determination.
Or something to that effect. I bet that many defendants will be running for the hills when they realize they have to pay for their own lawyers and other fun things at the federal level-which is not cheap or fast. Add to that if a jury is empaneled and finds for the plaintiff, the damages could be quite extensive.
But the people in Texas aren't thinking ahead, but merely with their penises and religious fervor. It's not going to end up well for them, I hope and pray.
How about “Texas - forcing women to produce more Democrats daily”
Excellent analysis. Very good points made. Interesting re concept of vigilanties as agents of the state, essentially bounty hunters, or the state suing people by proxy, The Wall Street Journal thinks the new law a bad idea. , https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/murdoch-wall-street-journal-rips-125843515.html
New poll just out: Texas ranked No 1 as US State most like Afghanistan! Guns in the streets, thugs threatening others, repression of women. Rumor has it that women over age of 10 must wear either a MAGA cap or a burqua. Aftexastan!
Hi Lucian
I am surprised you didn't mention another unconstitutional elephant in the room, The Vigilantes are random plaintiffs without any relationship to the woman ( with possible the exception of the father of the embryo or the woman's parents) have no standing to sue according to the requirements of Article III. Please critique this idea.
There is no reference to the requirement of standing that I can find in Article Three.
What is standing under Article III?
Although the Court has been inconsistent, it has now settled upon the rule that, “at an irreducible minimum,” the constitutional requisites under Article III for the existence of standing are that the plaintiff must personally have: 1) suffered some actual or threatened injury; 2) that injury can fairly be traced to ...
https://www.law.cornell.edu › clause
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_%28law%29?wprov=sfla1
I know what standing is. Show me where you find it in Article 3.
From the Standing Wiki pedia entry scroll down the page to the section for United States and the chain of logic and cases is listed .
"There are a number of requirements that a plaintiff must establish to have standing before a federal court. Some are based on the case or controversy requirement of the judicial power of Article Three of the United States Constitution, § 2, cl.1. As stated there, "The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . .[and] to Controversies . . ." The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers.
". As stated there, "The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . .[and] to Controversies . . ." The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers. Federal courts may exercise power only "in the last resort, and as a necessity".
Blah blah blah.....
"Standing requirements
There are three standing requirements:
Injury-in-fact: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent (that is, neither conjectural nor hypothetical; not abstract). The injury can be either economic, non-economic, or both.
Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.
Prudential limitations
I am aware of all the legal analysis of what flows from Article 3. But it's not in the language of the Constitution and the law concerns state courts. I'm not sure how relevant it is. And now I am going to bed. Having written 1500 words on the subject of the Texas law, 1500 words I am not aware of anyone else has written with a POV and angle entirely mine, I am finished with the subject for the time being.
Well, it appears that Texas is actually called Gilead.
??? You lost me on that one.
Look up the Hulu TV show The Hand Maids based on the dystopian novel by Margaret Atwood
Oh— that’s the reference. I didn’t watch that or read the book — reality is plenty depressing and infuriating enough!