Red Mosquito

spike wrote:If men could bare children, this wouldn’t happen.

There are laws against men baring children.

Cutesy legal manuevers are all fun and games till its your ox getting gored. Here's looking at you, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, New York.

Appointing random members of the public as enforcers seems to be in the spirit of the moment, and terrible.

This is kind of the prop 65 of abortion bans. I don't know if California intended it, but it ended up with boutique law firms randomly sampling imported stuff and suing anyone with a ceramic with .001% cadmium or w/e.

This is less original than I initially realized.

The lawsuit shenanigans are cute, but they're also not really the concern.

It's OK though. Biden's 36-member commission will be meeting soon, and in 6 short months they'll give him a pros and cons list about adding a Justice to the court. Our salvation is right around the corner.

B wrote:The lawsuit shenanigans are cute, but they're also not really the concern.

?

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:The lawsuit shenanigans are cute, but they're also not really the concern.

?

Ending abortion is the giant shit cake. The lawsuits are cute, but they'd be pointless if fucking abortion wasn't ending.

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:The lawsuit shenanigans are cute, but they're also not really the concern.

?

Ending abortion is the giant shit cake. The lawsuits are cute, but they'd be pointless if fucking abortion wasn't ending.

They can bankrupt the accused...

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:The lawsuit shenanigans are cute, but they're also not really the concern.

?

Ending abortion is the giant shit cake. The lawsuits are cute, but they'd be pointless if fucking abortion wasn't ending.

They can bankrupt the accused...

I think B is responding to simple schoolboy's focus on the method of enforcement as opposed to the end result.

On the other hand I wonder if Texas just found a method that a majority of Justices believe give it cover to do what it clearly wants to do regarding abortion.

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:The lawsuit shenanigans are cute, but they're also not really the concern.

?

Ending abortion is the giant shit cake. The lawsuits are cute, but they'd be pointless if fucking abortion wasn't ending.

Outsourcing legal enforcement to litigant vigilantes as a means of getting around rights protection law isn’t cute or unalarming.

McParadigm wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:The lawsuit shenanigans are cute, but they're also not really the concern.

?

Ending abortion is the giant shit cake. The lawsuits are cute, but they'd be pointless if fucking abortion wasn't ending.

Outsourcing legal enforcement to litigant vigilantes as a means of getting around rights protection law isn’t cute or unalarming.

I feel this new law and the new open carry bullshit in texas go hand in hand really. It's a right wingers wet dream.

Roe v Wade is essentially done.

McParadigm wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:The lawsuit shenanigans are cute, but they're also not really the concern.

?

Ending abortion is the giant shit cake. The lawsuits are cute, but they'd be pointless if fucking abortion wasn't ending.

Outsourcing legal enforcement to litigant vigilantes as a means of getting around rights protection law isn’t cute or unalarming.

On the other hand at least they are getting due process... more than many accused of thought crimes get.

That's true. Celebrities who were flamed for tweeting shitty opinions are the real victims here.

The inevitable begins

Is there a district court split on this? The novel crafting of the law probably means there isn't yet. The Court frequently shies away from creating new precedent until they have to. I get that they want to attend to Roe with whatever case is coming up in the next term, but it would be in keeping with standard practice to punt on this specific issue for the time being, wouldn't it?

Other than trying to keep their docket to a minimum, is there any compelling reason to wait for circuit splits before smacking down facially unconstitutional laws?

Team, I need some help here. How can I blame this on Progressives? Bernie? RBG?

Bi_3 wrote:Team, I need some help here. How can I blame this on Progressives? Bernie? RBG?

Bernie bros not voting for Hillary? But that's pretty weak. RBG is a better scapegoat since Roberts would have prevented the Texas law from going into effect yesterday so Barrett's vote was the decider.

4/5 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Team, I need some help here. How can I blame this on Progressives? Bernie? RBG?

Bernie bros not voting for Hillary? But that's pretty weak. RBG is a better scapegoat since Roberts would have prevented the Texas law from going into effect yesterday so Barrett's vote was the decider.

So really, this is cancer’s fault.