Even if "Medicare for All" passed and somehow survived a conservative supreme court, good luck getting it implemented in the ideal way. One of the more popular bills carrying the M4A name actually creates 50 separate payers controlled by the states. Think the conservative state legislatures will implement such a program in good faith for the benefit of their state's citizens?People always say ‘pass Medicare for all!’ and things to that effect. While that’s nice and all, do they really not realize that conservatives will invent a legal rationale to challenge it and the Supreme Court will likely go along with it, at least in part?
Even if "Medicare for All" passed and somehow survived a conservative supreme court, good luck getting it implemented in the ideal way. One of the more popular bills carrying the M4A name actually creates 50 separate payers controlled by the states. Think the conservative state legislatures will implement such a program in good faith for the benefit of their state's citizens?
And a while bunch of people will be sued. Remember a company can ignore laws due to freedom of speech, but you can't drive a woman somewhere without being sued.From a practical perspective will the TX law even prevent abortions? The answer is no.
People with means (including Republicans) will just go out of state to get them and the people without means will just go underground again resulting in a major mortality rise for poor women.
But poor women dying from back alley Abortions is exactly the punishment they are looking for.From a practical perspective will the TX law even prevent abortions? The answer is no.
People with means (including Republicans) will just go out of state to get them and the people without means will just go underground again resulting in a major mortality rise for poor women.
And a while bunch of people will be sued. Remember a company can ignore laws due to freedom of speech, but you can't drive a woman somewhere without being sued.
Creating an individual cause of action so private citizens enforce laws is an absolutely insane idea that if not slapped down by the courts could metastasize into a nationwide disaster.Yes the absolute lunacy of the law as written is substantially overlooked.
This right here. I don't think people get how dumb this law really is. It basically allows the States to shadow ban anything they want no matter what the Constitution says about it.Creating an individual cause of action so private citizens enforce laws is an absolutely insane idea that if not slapped down by the courts could metastasize into a nationwide disaster.
Creating an individual cause of action so private citizens enforce laws is an absolutely insane idea that if not slapped down by the courts could metastasize into a nationwide disaster.
Yup, a shadow ban is exactly what this is. The state isn’t banning a thing, it’s just creating the potential for ruinous liability that no business can sustain so it’s best not to try.This right here. I don't think people get how dumb this law really is. It basically allows the States to shadow ban anything they want no matter what the Constitution says about it.
Let this stand and in a year you will be able to sue the clerk that sold a gun used in a robbery. Not just the person that was robbed, anyone that has some extra time and money laying around can sue. You don't even have to be an injured party.
Would it be common for SCOTUS to take up duplicate cases on the same issue, but for another State? If not, you can see why they declined Taxes.
- In May, justices agreed to review Mississippi’s ban on the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy
I disagree. Biden and those in favor of human rights may expand the court.will-biden-pack-the-court
And do you agree with that.
Normal course of action would be laws invoking new restrictions to be stayed pending litigation. The 5th circuit and now scotus have now abandoned the normal course of litigation.Would it be common for SCOTUS to take up duplicate cases on the same issue, but for another State? If not, you can see why they declined Taxes.
- In May, justices agreed to review Mississippi’s ban on the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy
Absolutely radical stuff.Normal course of action would be laws invoking new restrictions to be stayed pending litigation. The 5th circuit and now scotus have now abandoned the normal course of litigation.
This should be a wake up call for how radical this scotus is going to be.
2 of the 3 justices that pre-emptively blocked any district court review, without a hearing, and thereby blocked any judicial review prior to law going into effect were indeed Trumpians, third was a a Reagan holdover. Alito is the one who has blocked review (so far) at the Supreme Court level as he has authority over emergency petitions originating from the 5th.Absolutely radical stuff.
They are actively reviewing the case. A stay is clearly the right call particularly for something as major as abortion within a state. Ginsburg is probably spinning in her grave.
Also wtf is up with the fifth circuit going against decades of clear precedent? I mean the Texas law is naked in it's ambition and has zero legal standing in the face of decades of precedent. I wonder how many of those judges are underqualified religiously zealot trump appointees
Judges have zero accountability. Apparently it took them 240 years to figure out they could be nakedly partisan and ignore any law they wanted to, but nothing can be done about it. The constitution just doesn't work when half the people in government have no interest in operating in good faith.Absolutely radical stuff.
They are actively reviewing the case. A stay is clearly the right call particularly for something as major as abortion within a state. Ginsburg is probably spinning in her grave.
Also wtf is up with the fifth circuit going against decades of clear precedent? I mean the Texas law is naked in it's ambition and has zero legal standing in the face of decades of precedent. I wonder how many of those judges are underqualified religiously zealot trump appointees
As usual, your intelligent post will fall upon deaf ears on yet another ignoramus.No, it's the only clear-eyed solution because it recognizes reality for what it is instead of what we wish it was. Conservatives do not care about violating norms of judicial confirmations to get their way. Liberals do. This has led to an asymmetric situation where despite Democrats winning the presidency 5 out of the last 8 times in the last 30 years (and really, the popular vote 7 out of 8) we have a situation where there is a conservative supermajority on the court.
So what I propose is that liberals wake up and realize that since conservatives don't care about judicial norms anymore, they shouldn't either. When you don't have norms to constrain behavior what do you use instead? The power you have. Add justices to balance back out the norm violations of the Republicans and then offer them a deal to reform the court once and for all to stop this stupidity. If they refuse to deal, add more justices. Rinse, repeat.
Sincerely though, if you have a way to make Republicans respect judicial norms again without expanding the court I'm open to hearing it. I just have no idea what that would be because I'm very confident they look at their actions over the last 5-6 years and see them as an unmitigated success.
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
13.
One from each Circuit. Yes FROM. No permanent Justices --- end all current terms.
Each annual Court Session gets a different 13 Justices, one from each Circuit. If a case comes up that one of the rotating Justices heard in their circuit, they sit that case out.
Those 13 are selected for each session at random by the Administrative Office Of The Courts, no input by the Executive or Legislative Branches.
And in a 5-4 decision SCOTUS has thrown its own standard procedure out the window and refused a stay. So as of now the Texas law is in effect.2 of the 3 justices that pre-emptively blocked any district court review, without a hearing, and thereby blocked any judicial review prior to law going into effect were indeed Trumpians, third was a a Reagan holdover. Alito is the one who has blocked review (so far) at the Supreme Court level as he has authority over emergency petitions originating from the 5th.
In the words of the greatest wordsmith the English language has ever known, “'tis a consummation devoutly to be wish'd.”This whole political thing could get very interesting should democrats not only hold onto the house and senate come 2022, but if democrats actually expand seats in the house and the senate. Then, America will see some real progress and they won't need worry about Joe Manchin anymore. Yes, it could get really interesting if democrats can excel in the house and especially in the senate.
Keep me the fuck out of Texas, hear that Elon Musk? You fucked up bigtime.And in a 5-4 decision SCOTUS has thrown its own standard procedure out the window and refused a stay. So as of now the Texas law is in effect.