Very brave of the doctor and his patient — I know he has a lot of support and did this on purpose, but still. It does make me wonder how much of the patient's identity and medical records will be...
Very brave of the doctor and his patient — I know he has a lot of support and did this on purpose, but still. It does make me wonder how much of the patient's identity and medical records will be part of proceedings (or not). I hope it'll be a "Jane Doe" situation, for their sake.
If the immediate injunction went from district to circuit to supreme court and was shut down for... reasons, are the odds that a proper challenge to the rule will go pretty much in the same direction?
If the immediate injunction went from district to circuit to supreme court and was shut down for... reasons, are the odds that a proper challenge to the rule will go pretty much in the same direction?
Since the courts can now actually enjoin the person who is trying to enforce the law, I think there is a near-certainty of an injunction being issued and remaining in place. Ultimately, even if...
Since the courts can now actually enjoin the person who is trying to enforce the law, I think there is a near-certainty of an injunction being issued and remaining in place.
Ultimately, even if the courts don’t issue an injunction (unlikely that it won’t go through three levels of court and not be touched); I believe SCOTUS will rule against it. In true Robertsian fashion, it won’t directly address the issue at hand (abortion), instead it will chastise Texas and others for trying to privatize law enforcement and expand standing far beyond previous conceptions (e.g., Section 1983 lawsuits), for opening up a huge can of worms with respect to other rights (such as First Amendment law and hate speech, for example), and (in a move of self-interest) for creating laws with the potential to severely clog up the courts. Additionally, I wouldn’t be surprised if it brings over Gorsuch, Barrett, and/or Kavanaugh.
What does it say about the court if they understand that their decision would have massive repercussions, let it through anyway, and then they uphold a challenge to it because this time it...
What does it say about the court if they understand that their decision would have massive repercussions, let it through anyway, and then they uphold a challenge to it because this time it followed procedure?
I mean, I personally think it would be incontrovertible proof that the Supreme Court needs packing and lower courts need to clean house. Whether that would happen is an exercise for the reader.
I mean, I personally think it would be incontrovertible proof that the Supreme Court needs packing and lower courts need to clean house.
Whether that would happen is an exercise for the reader.
Are American progressives scared of court packing at all? Seems to me that once that can of worms is open and the GOP controls the presidency/senate again (likely at some point) they can just...
Are American progressives scared of court packing at all? Seems to me that once that can of worms is open and the GOP controls the presidency/senate again (likely at some point) they can just implement whatever they want for four years. Blanket abortion ban in every state, voting restrictions, etc. etc.
It's more the Democrats than the progressives. Democrats fear this because they don't manage to actually pass strong progressive legislation while in power and the Republicans can get in those...
It's more the Democrats than the progressives. Democrats fear this because they don't manage to actually pass strong progressive legislation while in power and the Republicans can get in those regressions.
We're getting closer to a tipping point anyway....there might not be any better options. And sooner is better than later to make it harder for McConnel.
Proper procedures matter. Law is one field where pedantry can be an asset. This case is an obvious and easy example to enjoin the plaintiff from enforcement (and thus causing actual, not...
Proper procedures matter. Law is one field where pedantry can be an asset. This case is an obvious and easy example to enjoin the plaintiff from enforcement (and thus causing actual, not hypothetical, harm to the defendant). The previous one wasn’t. Certainly, however, procedure needs to go hand-in-hand with outcomes, both alone tend to produce an “ends justify the means” approach which degrades democratic values and human rights.
Not sure whether this belongs in ~health or ~life under politics. Feel free to place appropriately. This could be an interesting test of the new restrictive abortion laws in Texas.
Not sure whether this belongs in ~health or ~life under politics. Feel free to place appropriately.
This could be an interesting test of the new restrictive abortion laws in Texas.
I would say it's the best-possible result that could happen since the prior injunction was dismissed. Getting it into the courts quickly insures that it's revoked as quickly as possible. Or it...
I would say it's the best-possible result that could happen since the prior injunction was dismissed. Getting it into the courts quickly insures that it's revoked as quickly as possible.
Or it gets upheld and at least we know sooner rather than later that we're headed toward Handmaid's Tale.
Very brave of the doctor and his patient — I know he has a lot of support and did this on purpose, but still. It does make me wonder how much of the patient's identity and medical records will be part of proceedings (or not). I hope it'll be a "Jane Doe" situation, for their sake.
If the immediate injunction went from district to circuit to supreme court and was shut down for... reasons, are the odds that a proper challenge to the rule will go pretty much in the same direction?
Since the courts can now actually enjoin the person who is trying to enforce the law, I think there is a near-certainty of an injunction being issued and remaining in place.
Ultimately, even if the courts don’t issue an injunction (unlikely that it won’t go through three levels of court and not be touched); I believe SCOTUS will rule against it. In true Robertsian fashion, it won’t directly address the issue at hand (abortion), instead it will chastise Texas and others for trying to privatize law enforcement and expand standing far beyond previous conceptions (e.g., Section 1983 lawsuits), for opening up a huge can of worms with respect to other rights (such as First Amendment law and hate speech, for example), and (in a move of self-interest) for creating laws with the potential to severely clog up the courts. Additionally, I wouldn’t be surprised if it brings over Gorsuch, Barrett, and/or Kavanaugh.
What does it say about the court if they understand that their decision would have massive repercussions, let it through anyway, and then they uphold a challenge to it because this time it followed procedure?
I mean, I personally think it would be incontrovertible proof that the Supreme Court needs packing and lower courts need to clean house.
Whether that would happen is an exercise for the reader.
Are American progressives scared of court packing at all? Seems to me that once that can of worms is open and the GOP controls the presidency/senate again (likely at some point) they can just implement whatever they want for four years. Blanket abortion ban in every state, voting restrictions, etc. etc.
It's more the Democrats than the progressives. Democrats fear this because they don't manage to actually pass strong progressive legislation while in power and the Republicans can get in those regressions.
We're getting closer to a tipping point anyway....there might not be any better options. And sooner is better than later to make it harder for McConnel.
Roosevelt set a precedent for at least giving a legit threat to do so.
Proper procedures matter. Law is one field where pedantry can be an asset. This case is an obvious and easy example to enjoin the plaintiff from enforcement (and thus causing actual, not hypothetical, harm to the defendant). The previous one wasn’t. Certainly, however, procedure needs to go hand-in-hand with outcomes, both alone tend to produce an “ends justify the means” approach which degrades democratic values and human rights.
Not sure whether this belongs in ~health or ~life under politics. Feel free to place appropriately.
This could be an interesting test of the new restrictive abortion laws in Texas.
I would say it's the best-possible result that could happen since the prior injunction was dismissed. Getting it into the courts quickly insures that it's revoked as quickly as possible.
Or it gets upheld and at least we know sooner rather than later that we're headed toward Handmaid's Tale.