Octopus Overlords

After a bit on net researching, Isn’t ‘standing’ still a thing? How does random asshole #28 have standing to sue someone over this?

Isgrimnur wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:55 pm After a bit on net researching, Isn’t ‘standing’ still a thing? How does random asshole #28 have standing to sue someone over this?

I assumed that was at the crux of what the bill did. It gave you and your fellow Texan ‘standing’ , if your community was under this attack.

That's exactly how it works. I heard a lawsplainer talking about it. It's legality is unknown because there is nothing like it. That's why SCOTUS remaining silent was widely pilloried. Texas invented a whole new legal rationale and SCOTUS is like...we'll take our time reviewing it. Maybe next year sometime.

FWIW here is one take on it.

It’s not just outsourcing enforcement to random asshole but so a loss can’t stop every random asshole from filing lawsuits. Usually courts rule that the State Attorney General (or other official) is barred from filing any more lawsuits. An appeals court has to craft a theory preventing ALL random assholes, which is when the State Attorney General would intervene to argue that was wrong.

It’s a disgusting legal basis for the statute. It also shows evil is creative.

So they responded and effectively killed Roe via the shadow docket. This is exactly the type of action I said last year would eventually come to severely undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. It is an absolute outrage. Edit: I'll be skimming the dissent later because the order vanished off AWS but Sotomayor is clearly raging. If this is how SCOTUS is going to essentially wink and nod at autocracy...we're fucked.

FWIW this is a major shockwave. Major. I'm seeing even Conservative leaning folks shocked by this. It is starting to sink in that this democracy is collapsing on itself. It's not dead but if this is the way rights are going to be dismantled there will be reprecussions.

Edit: Just to expand a little Roberts literally talks about the problem I raised above that they invented a novel legal theory and 5 justices shrugged and said it's cool. We won't even bother to properly review this entirely new legal concept. Worse it is unsigned. We'll tell you the votes but we won't sign this bullshit opinion because we know it is hot fucking garbage. WTF.

Purely theoretically, what is to stop anyone from just saying that every single republican in the state of Texas is "aiding" an abortion, and flooding the courts. Since there doesn't seem to be any standard for proof, and anyone can sue anyone. The courts lock up, and nothing ever gets done......theoretically, of course, not actually advocating a course of action.

Hold on, now. I remember Susan Collins being VERY clear that Trump's nominees would respect precedent.

Grifman wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:51 pm

Genghis wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:49 am The new law is an abomination. It allows anyone to sue anyone they think had anything to do with an abortion. If someone brings someone to an abortion clinic anyone could sue them. Women that have a miscarrige and the doctors, nurses, staff, hospitals that help them are going to end up being sued and prove in court that it was a miscarrige and not an abortion. In cases of rape and incest, under this bill, could sue the woman who he raped if she gets an abortion after 6 weeks.

I'm against abortion but this is a terrible law in so many ways, only a few of which you noted above. And what goes around can come around. What's to prevent a liberal state to allow any person to sue any gun store that sells a weapon that ends up being used in a crime, even if it was not sold directly to a criminal? That would shut off gun sales in a minute.

Also, the Supreme Court should speak clearly about this. If they want to overturn Roe, then they ought to have the courage of their convictions and clearly do so, none of this back door stuff as is happening now. It's wrong for the court to allow a law to stand that effectively ends a constitutional right established by prior Supreme Court decisions by simply doing nothing. Something this momentous should require a clear statement by the court.

Agreed, even if you take the entire abortion out of the equation, this bill is a mess. It is only a matter of time that this will be applied to same sex marriage, gun control, Covid vaccines, other political topics. I tried reading the entire bill but could only find bits and pieces of it. This doesn't seem to be capped by the number of people that can sue. So the first person who gets sued could have everyone else pile on. In trying to get standing for court cases lawyers will try to find a test case that they can use to force the issue. In this case, who would be willing to be a test case when they could be nailed with thousands of law suits by every single member of anti abortion groups, or ambulance chaser style lawyers.
Considering the political climate in Texas, how long till they allow all pol watchers to sue election officials for even the slightest infraction. Its not that they would win, but just the risk of being sued to oblivion would stop volunteers.
This bill lets the state AG abdicate responsibility off the public and claim his hands are clean. It not him filing the lawsuits after all.

Holman wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:00 am Hold on, now. I remember Susan Collins being VERY clear that Trump's nominees would respect precedent.

To that point , Breyer had better wake the fuck up, time is short.

Holman wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:00 am Hold on, now. I remember Susan Collins being VERY clear that Trump's nominees would respect precedent.

I am sure she is very concerned. She thinks the Supreme Court learned their lesson and won't do it again.

I'll raise an eyebrow in honor of Susan Collins today.

malchior wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 12:19 am FWIW this is a major shockwave. Major. I'm seeing even Conservative leaning folks shocked by this. It is starting to sink in that this democracy is collapsing on itself. It's not dead but if this is the way rights are going to be dismantled there will be reprecussions.

Entirely agree.

I wonder, though, if the Texas extremists have overplayed their hand. *Talking* about ending Roe has always been popular with the GOP base, but it has long been expected that actually *ending* it would cost the GOP many of its independent voters and educated women.

The Right is obviously getting what they want, but they've also just taken Afghanistan out of the headlines and put women's autonomy on the ballot in 2022.

Need a test for GOP'ism in the womb.

Been following this over on Popehat's twitter, and it gets worse the more I read.
Due to how the law is written, the defendant likely can not recoup lawyers fees from frivolous lawsuits. The does not appear to be any repercussions from filing false claim lawsuits.

I still think people are struggling to figure out something that is screaming at me. The workability of this law doesn't matter. They just told us that they are going to change the United States whether we (the majority) like it or not. The shock waves of that are reverberating right now. People are wondering if they overstepped? I'll argue it doesn't matter. Worse the overstepping is the point.

Genghis wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 12:02 pm Been following this over on Popehat's twitter, and it gets worse the more I read.
Due to how the law is written, the defendant likely can not recoup lawyers fees from frivolous lawsuits. The does not appear to be any repercussions from filing false claim lawsuits.

I'll admit I've been ignoring details on this one for lack of bandwidth for so much bullshit.

What are the repercussions for refusing to appear/pay? I imagine the first lawsuit will go to the SC anyway. Considering the GOP penchant for ignoring laws and calling for retaliation for just about any lawful investigation, they shouldn't have a problem with someone telling the plaintiff to get fucked.

I wouldn't want to be the test case but surely one is coming.

Feel free to apply this to whatever you're thinking about today - abortion rights, climate change, COVID - it's relevant.

The alarmists were right, about pretty much everything.

On topic - I really don't even know how to respond to this. As has been pointed out, it's so much bigger than the actual law. It's how the Supreme Court ruled. It's how the law is supposed to be enacted or enforced. It's another day and another point where the GOP is actively trying to kick out another leg of democracy.

Unagi wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:07 am

Holman wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:00 am Hold on, now. I remember Susan Collins being VERY clear that Trump's nominees would respect precedent.

To that point , Breyer had better wake the fuck up, time is short.

Narrator: He won't.

Unagi wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:07 am

Holman wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:00 am Hold on, now. I remember Susan Collins being VERY clear that Trump's nominees would respect precedent.

To that point , Breyer had better wake the fuck up, time is short.

Sorry - we're too close to the next presidential election. We'll just have to wait to let the voters decide.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:10 pm

Unagi wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:07 am

Holman wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:00 am Hold on, now. I remember Susan Collins being VERY clear that Trump's nominees would respect precedent.

To that point , Breyer had better wake the fuck up, time is short.

Sorry - we're too close to the next presidential election. We'll just have to wait to let the voters decide.

He (McC) isn’t calling the shots. So while we have a year we need to get a replacement in.

Unagi wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:18 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:10 pm

Unagi wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:07 am

Holman wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:00 am Hold on, now. I remember Susan Collins being VERY clear that Trump's nominees would respect precedent.

To that point , Breyer had better wake the fuck up, time is short.

Sorry - we're too close to the next presidential election. We'll just have to wait to let the voters decide.

He (McC) isn’t calling the shots. So while we have a year we need to get a replacement in.

Well, no. Because Newsome is gonna lose and get replaced by some dipshit (R) that gets 19% of the vote, Feinstein is gonna kick it the next day, Breyer is gonna kick it the NEXT day, and said CA "governor" is going to appoint a Republican CA senator (and probably a nutjob one), THEN the Turtle is going to gleefully revert back to his previous stance about justices in an election year.. .er.. in the critical 3 years before an election.

Florida's already working on their own version of the Texas law.

NEW: Florida Senate President Wilton Simpson tells me “there is no question” the Florida legislature will consider an abortion heartbeat bill like Texas’ in this upcoming session.

“It’s something we’re already working on.”

Genghis wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 12:02 pm Been following this over on Popehat's twitter, and it gets worse the more I read.
Due to how the law is written, the defendant likely can not recoup lawyers fees from frivolous lawsuits. The does not appear to be any repercussions from filing false claim lawsuits.

A pro-choice group should sue every Republican legislator in Texas.

Grifman wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:25 pm

Genghis wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 12:02 pm Been following this over on Popehat's twitter, and it gets worse the more I read.
Due to how the law is written, the defendant likely can not recoup lawyers fees from frivolous lawsuits. The does not appear to be any repercussions from filing false claim lawsuits.

A pro-choice group should sue every Republican legislator in Texas.

I had the same thought, but honestly (and shamefully) it’s their daughters that I had pictured being targeted. Make it real for them.

At least there's a group trying to do something.

Lawyers for The Satanic Temple (TST) sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to request that TST be able to access abortifacients without being subjected to the agency’s regulations. We still have Religious Liberty, and we believe in bodily autonomy.

To be fair, there is also this:

The Court’s cowardly decision to uphold a flagrantly unconstitutional assault on women’s rights and health is staggering. The House will bring up Congresswoman Judy Chu’s Women’s Health Protection Act to enshrine into law reproductive health care for all women across America.

If this doesn't get them to blow up the filibuster, then we're done for.

Pffff. I doubt you can get 50 votes in the Senate for that. I'm sure Joe Manchin is just dying to vote for a pro-abortion rights law in West Virginia.

Smoove_B wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 4:08 pm To be fair, there is also this:

The Court’s cowardly decision to uphold a flagrantly unconstitutional assault on women’s rights and health is staggering. The House will bring up Congresswoman Judy Chu’s Women’s Health Protection Act to enshrine into law reproductive health care for all women across America.

If this doesn't get them to blow up the filibuster, then we're done for.

To be honest, election reform is far more important than this, and if they won't blow it up for that, it ain't happening for this.

Grifman wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 10:28 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 4:08 pm To be fair, there is also this:

The Court’s cowardly decision to uphold a flagrantly unconstitutional assault on women’s rights and health is staggering. The House will bring up Congresswoman Judy Chu’s Women’s Health Protection Act to enshrine into law reproductive health care for all women across America.

If this doesn't get them to blow up the filibuster, then we're done for.

To be honest, election reform is far more important than this, and if they won't blow it up for that, it ain't happening for this.

True, but election reform doesn't stir the passion that abortion rights does.

Lyft says it will cover all legal fees for drivers sued under Texas’ abortion law. The company says it will also donate $1 million to Planned Parenthood.

And shortly after:

The CEO of Uber now says they, too, will cover the legal fees in the same way.

Also:

BREAKING: GoDaddy is going to discontinue Texas abortion snitch website off of its service in less than 24 hours.

I enjoyed the GoDaddy, Uber, Lyft, internet horde responses. But we're so, so fucked.

Anyone know which charitable orgs might be most well-placed to battle this?

The Hill

A Texas state judge on Friday temporarily blocked an anti-abortion group from enforcing Texas's new 6-week abortion ban against Planned Parenthood, handing a narrow legal victory to abortion rights advocates.

Judge Maya Guerra Gamble's (D) ruling does not invalidate the new law but rather halts Texas Right to Life and its associates from suing abortion providers and workers at Planned Parenthood clinics under the statute, S.B. 8, that took effect Wednesday.

What percentage of GOP Governors have functioning logic circuits anymore? Seriously it has to be low. I watch this and see people clapping for this complete inanity and wonder wtf went wrong with these people.

Minority Report in our time!

Isn't the question why he waited this long to eliminate rape if he were able to do so?

stessier wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 2:04 pm Isn't the question why he waited this long to eliminate rape if he were able to do so?

He had to let the rapists own the libs. duh

AG Garland announces challenge to Texas abortion law.

malchior wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:46 pm What percentage of GOP Governors have functioning logic circuits anymore? Seriously it has to be low. I watch this and see people clapping for this complete inanity and wonder wtf went wrong with these people.

Not that it matters, but it kills me how he says "have at least 6 weeks..." when 6 weeks is the limit... ie. "at most" 6 weeks.

fucker.