Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

"In enacting SB 8, the Texas Legislature not only deliberately prohibited the exercise of a constitutional right recognized by this court, it did everything it could to evade effective judicial protection of that right in federal or state court," he said.
He said the lawsuit should be able to go forward because the state "delegated enforcement to literally any person anywhere except for its own state officials."
But Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone said the case should not be able to proceed in federal court because the state is not the proper defendant, since SB 8 bars state officials from enforcing the law. He stressed that the law allows civil lawsuits to proceed in state courts after an abortion is challenged.
Critically, Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed discomfort with the idea that a federal court could not hear the challenge and wondered if a federal constitutional defense "can be fully aired" in state courts. She seemed troubled that a state court hearing would be sufficient to air constitutional grievances.
And Justice Brett Kavanaugh wondered if other states might copy the law to restrict other rights concerning such issues as gun control and free speech. He asked whether the law couldn't be "easily replicated in other states that disfavor other constitutional rights."
Critically, though, while Barrett and Kavanaugh seemed receptive to the argument put forward by the providers, both had previously voted to allow the controversial law to remain in effect.

Kavanaugh pressed Stone on the prospect that the legal machinery of the new abortion law could be used against other freedoms, including gun and religious rights. He asked Texas’ lawyer to imagine a law that let anyone sue a person for using an AR-15 rifle and hold them liable for $1 million.

“A state passes a law: Anyone who declines to provide a good or service for use in a same-sex marriage, a million dollars, a suit by anyone in the state, that’s exempt from pre-enforcement review?” Kavanaugh asked.

Justice Elena Kagan said extreme hypotheticals weren’t necessary to understand the implications of the Texas law. “The actual provisions in this law have prevented every woman in Texas from exercising a constitutional right as declared by this court,” she said. “That’s just not a hypothetical, that’s an actual.”

Col Hogan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 6:44 am I live in Texas.

I oppose abortion.

I hate this law.

Col Hogan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 6:44 am I live in Texas.

I oppose abortion.

I hate this law.

andy7171 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 4:55 am From what I understand about this law, its on the fellow citizen to report an illegal abortion? First and fore most, I don't like NARCs. Secondly, how can the observer know about a heartbeat? Third, its none of my bsiness.

HI54UNI wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 9:35 am SCOTUS consolidated 4 cases regarding Obama's Clean Power Plan and Trumps replacement for that plan. SCOTUS is going to determine if Congress has delegated its authority to regulate much of the economy to the EPA.

Ivytalk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 11:49 am

HI54UNI wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 9:35 am SCOTUS consolidated 4 cases regarding Obama's Clean Power Plan and Trumps replacement for that plan. SCOTUS is going to determine if Congress has delegated its authority to regulate much of the economy to the EPA.

Good. I can see Justice Gorsuch ramming this one down the government’s throat.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 12:27 pm

Ivytalk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 11:49 am

Good. I can see Justice Gorsuch ramming this one down the government’s throat.

That's the first thing I thought of when I read that - can't wait to read Gorsuch's tirade against this. It won't be on the order of saying that most of the state of Oklahoma really belongs to the Native Americans, but it should still be good. He's like the new Scalia - not for his positions and findings, but more for his fun to read opinions.