• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

Just thought I would leave this here.

 
Again, it’s ridiculous to see things we already knew being reported as news years later. The corruption was public.
 
PhDeac said:
Again, it’s ridiculous to see things we already knew being reported as news years later. The corruption was public.
Click to expand...

"No it wasn't. I still don't see it."
- col anus, sailor, wakebored (GQP Alumni Apologists for fascism)
 
The mere concept that a body that creates laws cannot be challenged in court on those laws is fucking insane. I'm thinking the USSC waits until they get a clean case and hammers that idiotic process for good.
 
Liquid Karma said:
The mere concept that a body that creates laws cannot be challenged in court on those laws is fucking insane. I'm thinking the USSC waits until they get a clean case and hammers that idiotic process for good.
Click to expand...

Huh?

In general or the Texas case specifically?

Laws get struck down all the time.
 
bym051d said:
Huh?

In general or the Texas case specifically?

Laws get struck down all the time.
Click to expand...

LK is referring to the fact that Texas somehow structured this law so that it could not be challenged (haven't looked into what that means yet), and the Supreme Court is playing along at this point?
 
There’s pretty good analysis from some people about how the mechanism of action to enforce the laws, i.e it still would need to go to court even if the plaintiffs are rando citizens, that SCOTUS has jurisdiction for injunctions etc… through the other courts. It’s just they choose to go along with the scheme.
 
Shooshmoo said:
LK is referring to the fact that Texas somehow structured this law so that it could not be challenged (haven't looked into what that means yet), and the Supreme Court is playing along at this point?
Click to expand...

I thought the Supreme Court said the plaintiffs didn’t make their case.

In an unsigned opinion, the majority wrote that while the clinics had raised "serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law," they had not met a burden that would allow the court to block it at this time due to "complex" and "novel" procedural questions.
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/02/politics/texas-abortion-supreme-court-sb8-roe-wade/index.html

I’m not saying they’re right, but they didn’t say the law can’t be challenged.
 
Haven't looked at it yet, but I'm presuming the complex and novel procedural questions relate to what Texas did to stymie the review. They did not review on the merits.
 
Shooshmoo said:
LK is referring to the fact that Texas somehow structured this law so that it could not be challenged (haven't looked into what that means yet), and the Supreme Court is playing along at this point?
Click to expand...

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/02/1033...twitter.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews

Because the established procedure for challenging a state law is to sue officials charged with enforcement, the Texas state legislature wrote the law instead to put citizens in charge of enforcement. Specifically, the law allows anyone, without establishing any vested personal interest, to sue clinics and individuals alike for "aiding and abetting" abortions performed after about six weeks.

That potentially puts in the crosshairs of liability not just clinics but also individuals who staff the clinics, who drive patients to clinics or who help finance abortions.
Click to expand...

I got it from the above, but I think I am misunderstood part of it. Hoping one of you legal experts can explain this more clearly.
 
I think they expressly said that their ruling does not foreclose further challenges.
 
Pretty sure he was talking about the 2016 election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top