Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Biden DOJ Sues To Stop Texas Fetal Heartbeat Law

Biden DOJ Sues To Stop Texas Fetal Heartbeat Law

I don’t think the law is going to survive as long as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, it’s just a matter of when the judicial posture is right to strike it down.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to halt the Texas Fetal Heartbeat law on procedural grounds, without reaching whether the law was constitutional. In so doing, SCOTUS left open other litigation paths for opponents of the law.

One of those paths was in the state courts. And indeed, a state court judge issued an injunction temporarily protecting Planned Parenthood from lawsuits under the law. We’ll see how long that ruling stands.

But today the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit in federal court seeking to halt the law. You can read the Complaint. As of now, there are no motion papers on the federal PACER electronic docket, but I would expect that soon.

From the Complaint:

1. It is settled constitutional law that “a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.” Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 879 (1992); accord Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). But Texas has done just that. It has enacted a statute banning nearly all abortions in the State after six weeks—months before a pregnancy is viable….

2. Texas enacted S.B. 8 in open defiance of the Constitution…. Instead of relying on the State’s executive branch to enforce the law, as is the norm in Texas and elsewhere, the State has deputized ordinary citizens to serve as bounty hunters who are statutorily authorized to recover at least $10,000 per claim from individuals who facilitate a woman’s exercise of her constitutional rights. And Texas has mandated that its state judicial officers enforce this unconstitutional attack by requiring them to dispense remedies that undeniably burden constitutionally protected rights.

3. It takes little imagination to discern Texas’s goal—to make it too risky for an abortion clinic to operate in the State, thereby preventing women throughout Texas from exercising their constitutional rights, while simultaneously thwarting judicial review  Thus far, the law has had its desired effect. To date, abortion providers have ceased providing services prohibited by S.B. 8, leaving women in Texas unacceptably and unconstitutionally deprived of abortion services. Yet, despite this flagrant deprivation of rights, S.B. 8 remains in effect.

4. The United States has the authority and responsibility to ensure that Texas cannot evade its obligations under the Constitution and deprive individuals of their constitutional rights by adopting a statutory scheme designed specifically to evade traditional mechanisms of federal judicial review. The federal government therefore brings this suit directly against the State of Texas to obtain a declaration that S.B. 8 is invalid, to enjoin its enforcement, and to protect the rights that Texas has violated.

5. The Government also brings this suit to protect other federal interests that S.B. 8 unconstitutionally impairs….

6. The United States therefore seeks a declaratory judgment that S.B. 8 is invalid under the Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, is preempted by federal law, and violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. The United States also seeks an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining the State of Texas, including its officers, employees, and agents, including private parties who would bring suit under the law, from implementing or enforcing S.B. 8.

That last sentence is the problem for the DOJ, which is seeking an injunction to prevent private parties from suing. Even assuming the law is unconstitutional, I’m not sure there is an actual case or controversy — required for federal suit — until somone actually sues. Then the remedy is not an injunction, but dismissal of the lawsuit.

That’s the ingenious nature of the law. It creates a fear of lawsuits, but until there actually are lawsuits, there is no one against whom to issue an injunction. That’s why SCOTUS wouldn’t hear it — the government has no enforcement power, so naming Texas was held insufficient for SCOTUS to rule.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton responded:

Today the Biden Administration sued every individual in #Texas. Biden should focus on fixing the border crisis, Afghanistan, the economy and countless other disasters instead of meddling in state’s sovereign rights. I will use every available resource to fight for life.

I don’t think the law is going to survive s long as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, it’s just a matter of when the judicial posture is right to strike it down.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Human life (me, you, “the People” and our Posterity) develops in stages, in processes, with systems and functions (except consciousness that science discerns correlation but not origin and expression), that have been completely mapped. Life evolves from conception (the source) until Her Choice or her Choice. The latter can be in self-defense, or in a planned parent/hood clinic where the child is disarmed, and without a voice, and while in a prone and vulnerable position, scalped and killed. Demos-cracy is aborted in darkness (e.g. wicked solution).

Fetal development

Week 5

Week 5 is the start of the “embryonic period.” This is when all the baby’s major systems and structures develop.
The embryo’s cells multiply and start to take on specific functions. This is called differentiation.
Blood cells, kidney cells, and nerve cells all develop.
The embryo grows rapidly, and the baby’s external features begin to form.
Your baby’s brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop.
Baby’s gastrointestinal tract starts to form.
It is during this time in the first trimester that the baby is most at risk for damage from things that may cause birth defects. This includes certain medicines, illegal drug use, heavy alcohol use, infections such as rubella, and other factors.

Weeks 6 to 7

Arm and leg buds start to grow.
Your baby’s brain forms into 5 different areas. Some cranial nerves are visible.
Eyes and ears begin to form.
Tissue grows that will become your baby’s spine and other bones.
Baby’s heart continues to grow and now beats at a regular rhythm. This can be seen by vaginal ultrasound.
Blood pumps through the main vessels.

There is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman and man have four choices: abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion, and, still six weeks. Baby steps.

That said, the edge cases of involuntary (rape… rape-rape) and superior (incest) exploitation can and should be addressed separately.

Can they abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too?

Colonel Travis | September 9, 2021 at 9:11 pm

I like how this alleged president:

Flushes the economy down the toilet
Arms the Taliban to the teeth, disarms US citizens (ammo ban)
Forces vaccinations on citizens, not illegal hoards
Why are there illegal hoards? Good question!
Fights like hell to keep killing the unborn
Yes, we all know there’s more.

When does the official separation begin?

    Nation building with the Taliban is another Libyan Affair. The billions of dollars in state of the art military hardware was a house warming gift. And before that, Obama reordering claims to give cash to Iran, an experimental helicopter left in Pakistan, transnational war (Iraq War 2.0), and several dozen seals and Afghan soldiers wrapped and shipped in a cargo helicopter. We have entered the Twilight Fringe.

    Nearly every unconstitutional program is actually administered by the states. The states do not have to participate but are bribed with our own money. It is high time the states opt-out of every federal program and stop taking crap from DC.

“Roe v. Wade”, in lieu of Constitutional authority, is a legal precedent for a novel apology for self-defense. And before that it was slavery, and 1/2 (“-“) Americans, and diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment) in progress. Affirmative discrimination, not limited to political congruence, is also the law, or at least legal precedent, of the land. The philosophy and practice of law is based on consensus of choice or force. The Biden DOJ seems bent on the latter to relieve “burdens”.

And indeed, a state court judge issued an injunction temporarily protecting Planned Parenthood from lawsuits under the law.

No, he didn’t. He couldn’t do that for the same reason the SCOTUS couldn’t. What he did was enjoin specific named parties from suing PP under the law. Anyone to whom the order was not addressed is free to sue PP. And the named parties are free to sue anyone else. SCOTUS could have granted the same relief, if it had been asked to.

“It is settled constitutional law that “a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.”

It would be sweet indeed if this were the case where that so-called “settled constitutional law” became a little bit less settled.

Roe v. Wade is a constitutionally illegitimate decision, in a way few other decisions are.

    Does adding the phrase “settled constitutional law” have any legal significance? There is no such thing as “settled” in law or science. It seems to me that all it does is signify that the speaker is a lazy, arrogant tyrant is not prepared to argue important points and so demands that assume that a certain assertion is a proven and settled fact. Like as with Dred v. Scott which settled permanently settled the issue of slave ownership being a settled constitutional right. We all agree on that right? So let’s move on. Stop this talk of civil war.

      henrybowman in reply to Pasadena Phil. | September 10, 2021 at 11:30 am

      A “right” that is nowhere even mentioned in the Constitution is “settled constitutional law,” yet 200+ years later, Democrats are still quibbling that “keeping and bearing” arms does not really mean “possessing and carrying” them. It’s all Jesuitical bullshit.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Wisewerds. | September 10, 2021 at 1:44 pm

    It would be sweet indeed if there were an actual “law” that was settled. But there is not. Supreme Court decisions do NOT have the force of an actual law and can be easily overturned. Which is why we get this hysterical over-reactions from the liberal left anytime a state tries to place requirements on abortions.

“”Texas enacted S.B. 8 in open defiance of the Constitution….””

This is a sick joke coming from an Administration that has openly and blatantly disregarded or threatened to disregard the Constitution on any number of issues including speech and gun rights. The one time they choose to pretend to honor it is on a SCOTUS opinion “creating” a new right out of thin air.

I think there is a way for the US to get the injunction it wants. The key is that instead of asking the court to enjoin specific potential plaintiffs from suing under the law, which raises the question of which plaintiffs, it should ask the court to enjoin all Texas state courts from entertaining suits under the law.

The problem SCOTUS identified with the suit brought to it, asking it to enjoin certain named defendants from suing, is that no evidence was presented that those specific individuals had any plans to sue. Every Texas resident is equally a potential plaintiff, but none are particularly likely to do so. (In the Austin district court case PP presented evidence that the named defendants intended to sue it, so it got the injunction.)

But the whole point here is that someone is likely to sue. We can’t predict who it might be, but whoever it is will take it to a Texas court. So why not enjoin the courts? If they can’t hear the suits then the plaintiffs, whoever they are, can’t proceed.

    geronl in reply to Milhouse. | September 9, 2021 at 9:49 pm

    That is not constitutional.

      Milhouse in reply to geronl. | September 9, 2021 at 11:15 pm

      Sure it is. What part of the constitution doesn’t allow it?

        The likes of useful idiots Lloyd Austin and Milley.

          Huh? Even for you, that’s bizarrely non-responsive. Go on, what part of the constitution would prevent a federal court from enjoining Texas courts from entertaining suits under this law?

        I don’t think there is much chance that some federal judge will commandeer the state court system in Texas, commanding that they are not permitted to hear state court cases, in the interest of enforcing federal law. However, I would be interested in any examples where this has been done before.

        I hardly think the feds need to do that anyways. It’s a good bet that the Texas state courts will find the unconstitutional provisions of this law, well, unconstitutional, and S. B. 8 becomes, for the most part, just another unenforceable unconstitutional law on the books.

        I just wish the authoritarian leftists would hyperventilate so much about our other constitutional rights getting trampled. Anybody who has been dragged through the court system knows that the process is the punishment, even if ultimately you win and are “awarded” your “rights”. That’s a burden that falls on everybody, not just women wanting an abortion.

    The_Mew_Cat in reply to Milhouse. | September 9, 2021 at 9:52 pm

    Nobody has sued under SB8 yet. I’m not sure anyone will. We will see what happens.

    The_Mew_Cat in reply to Milhouse. | September 9, 2021 at 10:19 pm

    The way for the DOJ to get the injunction they seek is to find a woman who will get an abortion in defiance of SB8. Have her shout her abortion on social media. Have her name the Uber driver who took her to Oklahoma, and name everyone else who helped her. Have her post enough information of Facebook and enough corroborating details that an anti-abortion activist will have enough information to bring a real case under SB8. Have her appear on CNN or MSNBC and recite those details. Of course, this is too simple and straightforward for Biden clowns to execute.

      Milhouse in reply to The_Mew_Cat. | September 9, 2021 at 11:17 pm

      None of that will get them an injunction against anyone except the specific person who happens to bring suit. By enjoining the state courts they can prevent anyone from suing.

      Milhouse in reply to Wisewerds. | September 10, 2021 at 2:49 am

      Not applicable. This would not “stay proceedings” in any given case; it would forbid the state courts, as state actors, from entertaining such suits in the first place.

      Remember that all courts, state and federal, are bound by Roe and Casey, and are legally required to accept that having ones baby murdered is a constitutional right. Nobody seriously disputes that this means this law is unconstitutional; the only hitch is finding someone to enjoin. Doing it to the courts solves that.

    felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | September 10, 2021 at 3:37 am

    Well, Milhouse, it should be obvious.
    This is not yet a case or controversy. Once it is, the doctrine of Laches must be applied as in the election fraud cases recently. Don’t you agree?

    Pepsi_Freak in reply to Milhouse. | September 10, 2021 at 8:52 am

    I think you have a “true party in interest” problem here. The courts don’t really have a stake in the matter, they simply exist to resolve cases brought before them. Accordingly, they have no interest in defending against such an injunction. (If anything, they might secretly favor such an injunction since it could reduce their workload.)

The federal government has no standing and they have no jurisdiction

    Milhouse in reply to geronl. | September 9, 2021 at 11:20 pm

    The fedgov has all the standing it needs. It has a duty to ensure the constitution is upheld by the states. If birthing people have a constitutional right to murder their babies (which SCOTUS currently says they do) then it has a duty to prevent the states from violating that right. That’s why a normal state law would be toast immediately; the first court to look at it would enjoin the state against enforcing it, and that would be that. The only difference here is that there’s no way to predict who is going to sue, and therefore there’s no one to enjoin.

    Except that no matter who sues it will go before a Texas court, so the courts themselves can be enjoined by a federal court.

    Tell that to the woke military coming your way.

I’d be more worried about the mechanism than the abortion. The trick is a threat to rule of law in general. Republicans are way out of character dreaming it up.

    geronl in reply to rhhardin. | September 9, 2021 at 11:10 pm

    They didn’t “dream it up”. It’s the kind of thing the left has been doing for years.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to rhhardin. | September 10, 2021 at 4:51 pm

    I’d be more worried about the mechanism than the abortion. The trick is a threat to rule of law in general. Republicans are way out of character dreaming it up.

    You’re joking, right? I think at least some Republicans have realized that the democrats don’t abide by the “rule of law” at all so what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, I’d say, “Good for you, you’ve finally figured it out.” to the Republicans in the state of Texas

Texas SB8 will be invalidated. There are lots of problems with it that have nothing to do with abortion. But the real question is – will it be invalidated before SCOTUS hears (or even overturns) Roe with the Mississippi Case?

No lawsuits have yet been filed under SB8 in Texas. When will the first one come? Will any?

Biden sure is tough on the unborn and the unvaccinated. Not so much on rioters, looters, and Muslim terrorists.

Anyone may sue a university for $10,000 for admitting white males.

I think lawsuits under SB8 will be very slow in coming – if any happen at all. It is actually very hard to get the information you need to build a case. I assume SB8 has a chilling effect on women who get abortions, so they refrain from posting anything about their abortion on social media – or telling acquaintances, friends, or even family members anything at all. Maybe there are a few stupid women who still talk, but most people aren’t that stupid. And people who bring SB8 suits are running a personal risk of federal prosecution, so only professional activists will take those risks. Roe may be overturned next July before anyone brings an SB8 suit.

    If the law is likely to be struck down when given the opportunity, I wonder if an organization with deep pockets (e.g., PP) would be willing to allow itself to be sued by a friendly-to-them party for the express purpose of creating the necessary standing to have the law overturned.

      The_Mew_Cat in reply to Jubedgy. | September 9, 2021 at 10:38 pm

      A deep pocketed institution, like PP, will never take such a risk. If there is even a 5-10% chance of the law being upheld, they will likely be bankrupt. Even 1% is too much if you are that big. Their lawyers and insurers will never allow it. It is better to allow someone without such massive financial exposure take the big risks.

      The real question is: why doesn’t the Biden DOJ set up a case? They need to find a woman who will abort in defiance of SB8, shout her abortion all over social media, have her name the Uber driver who took her to Oklahoma and everyone else who helped her, and here is they key part – have those helper people also appear on Facebook and TV and corroborate their participation. Use Federal Employees who double as Uber drivers if you have to – and indemnify them. Set up a perfect case for an activist to file under SB8 – a case where the facts are not in question and are stipulated in advance.

    Milhouse in reply to The_Mew_Cat. | September 9, 2021 at 11:22 pm

    .

    And people who bring SB8 suits are running a personal risk of federal prosecution,

    How? Under what law could they be prosecuted simply for bringing a suit in a state court? How can that be a crime?

      Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Milhouse. | September 10, 2021 at 5:00 pm

      Are you just an idiot or what. Have you completely forgot what the “DOJ” did to Michael Flynn? It doesn’t matter what they law they prosecute a person under any longer. The law isn’t the point any longer. The process is used as the punishment. Even if at the end of it all the person walks free they will be totally destroyed. Bankrupt. Everything they worked for gone. And the federal government will simply shrug it’s shoulders and go on to the next victim. And the next. And the next. It’s no longer government by the people and for the people. It’s government for the elite, by the elite and everyone else better STFU and do as they’re told or else. Truth.

New York is always safe for abortions, if you can’t get one at home. They passed a law that says state law on abortion is what Roe vs Wade rules were at the time.

The mental gymnastics necessary to simultaneously scream about HER BODY, HER CHOICE, while demanding YOU WILL TAKE THE VACCINE, literally boggles my mind.

    geronl in reply to Olinser. | September 9, 2021 at 10:32 pm

    VP Harris reportedly said America is better when people make health decisions without government interference. (of course she was referring to abortion)

      Lucifer Morningstar in reply to geronl. | September 10, 2021 at 5:05 pm

      So on the one hand Biden has his lackey in the DOJ by the name of Merrick Garland suing the state of Texas for the heinous crime of “mandating what a woman can do with their body” on the one hand but you also have the person installed as president saying he will have his Dept. of Labor promulgate rules by which private companies will then be mandated to force their employees to be vaccinated or face a huge daily fine for not abiding by the “rules”.

      Hypocrisy, your name is Joe Biden.

Of course the DoJ is now going to be asked about the timeline for viability. They can’t simply assert that 6 weeks isn’t it. They will have to present their case as to when their own experts state viability exists. Then TX gets to have it’s experts counter that. Then the trial court will have to figure out where that point is.

Then medical ethics become involved. Take the case of a person in a coma or a trauma victim. They are not viable if by that we mean able to breath unassisted or ingest food on their own. Roe didn’t hold that abortion was unlimited. It created an unimpeded right to abortion prior to viability. So the State can protect an unborn person post viability, Roe is clear on this point. Casey as well

The undue burden in Casey was too narrow, IMO. By this I mean it wrongly focuses upon access to abortion as the only means to avoid carrying a child to term. This skips over a number of opportunities to avoid this. Abstaining from sexual activity works every time. There are many more choices in contraception available in 2021 than in 1973 when Roe was decided. These options are more effective today. The existence and availability of the ‘morning after’ pills can’t be discounted.

The deference to abortion as a necessary evil is completely unwarranted by simply reframing the argument to address the entire range of options. The elimination of elective abortion post viability is overdue. If nothing else the fact that the point of viability is much earlier today must be taken into account by our legal system.

I could be wrong but I have the impression that Ted Cruz is a pretty smart constitutional lawyer and I would not be the least bit surprised if he advised the state law makers on how to create a law that may be hard to rule as unconstitutional.

The big picture: Obama clone Susan Rice is running our nation, and her insanity is taking us off the cliff.

There is zero chance of Roe being struck down. More importantly, there is no legimate or rational basis for striking it down. The pro life position is roooted in scientific illiteracy and bronze age supersition.

    Juris Doctor in reply to Juris Doctor. | September 10, 2021 at 12:40 am

    The so called Judeo Christian moralistic arguments necessarily fail because if things like 1 Sam 15:1‑3 and Judges 11:29-40.

      What have they got to do with it? In both of those cases there is no ambiguity about God’s command, nor any doubt that the command was His. God defines right and wrong. Right is obeying Him and wrong is defying Him. Murder is killing someone against His will; that is why it is wrong. When He says to kill someone, then that is right, and refusing to do so is wrong.

    There is actually quite a good chance of Roe and Casey being struck down. And there is plenty of basis for doing so. Roe is almost universally regarded now, even by its supporters, as bad law. That’s why Casey was needed, to shore it up. There is simply no support in the constitution for it, and that’s plenty of reason for striking it down.

    Kavanaugh will probably be a vote to uphold Casey, because it’s by his mentor Kennedy, and he’s on record as calling it “the precedent on precedents”. But I would expect Gorsuch, Barrett, and maybe even Roberts, to be for striking it down.

    Your last sentence does nothing but expose you as a slavering bigot.

    Roe should be struck down as bad law, and I thought so when I supported abortion on demand up till 17-23 weeks (I didn’t much care within that range because myelination in the brain started at 23 weeks and that seemed like a good line, 17 weeks was “quickening” which was a traditional line and seemed like plenty of time to notice the pregnancy and act.)

    Not being Constitutionally based or even a good fake thereof is a very rational basis to strike it down.

The DOJ lawsuit opens up the entire Roe vs Wade issue of Constitutionality. The left may wish they never opened up this Pandora’s Box. On the other hand, the Court is threatened by the left’s threat of court packing. The stench of evil in this debate is unmistakable.

I don’t know where I could ask this question, so I guess I’ll just ask it here:

Just because we WANT abortions, does that, alone, make them ok?

    Milhouse in reply to lgstarr. | September 10, 2021 at 3:00 am

    By default, wanting anything makes it OK. There has to be a specific reason for banning it; a specific law that forbids it, and that law must be valid, which means it can’t violate the state or US constitutions, and in the case of a federal law it must be specifically authorized by the US constitution.

    Before Roe many states had laws banning abortion; in those states that didn’t, merely wanting an abortion made it legally OK. Roe said states have no right to have such laws, because they conflict with the US constitution, specifically a clause written in invisible ink somewhere in the margins of one of the amendments. That made it legally OK in all states.

    henrybowman in reply to lgstarr. | September 10, 2021 at 11:55 am

    Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
    –THOMAS JEFFERSON

    The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.
    –JOHN STUART MILL

    History shows the Democrats’ fondness for the argument, “X are not really human beings, therefore they have no human rights.” Whenever I hear it, I go to Condition Red.

Re my idea of enjoining the state judges, Josh Blackman raises an interesting objection:

Moreover, the suits against state court judges is problematic for a reason that hasn’t gotten much attention. State court judges must decline to opine on the constitutionality of the law. Were judges to defend the law, they would be forced to recuse. Given that they cannot defend the law, judges lack the requisite adversity for Article III standing. In other words, litigation against state judges is a sham. There are so, so many reasons why suing state judges cannot work. I still have yet to seen anyone explain how the Supreme Court could have “blocked” the Texas law given only a single judge was present, and he declined to defend the law.

I’m not convinced, but it’s an interesting point. I would say, though, that the defendant would not be the judges but the state itself; the state courts are a branch of its government.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Milhouse. | September 10, 2021 at 9:55 am

    You still have the Cases or Controversy problem that no one has sued under the Act. Maybe someone will. Maybe they won’t (as noted above, finding enough information to file suit is going to be problematic, unless the case is staged, and set up, as was the abortion information case that was part of the legal foundation for Roe).

Roe v. Wade is not, never has been nor ever can be “law of the land.”
It is obviously not an application of any provision of the Constitution and indeed it violates the constitution in that it aims to prohibit the states from protecting life.
Whether nine black-robed lawyers try to usurp the power of the people to give themselves a constitution or not.

    The supreme court, which is vested by the constitution with the power to say what the law is, says it is an application of some provision of the constitution. Therefore, until they correct the error, that is the law of the land.

      Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 10, 2021 at 10:51 am

      Or, at any rate, the lower courts, who are bound by the supreme court’s precedents, must say that it is the law of the land, whether they believe that or not. Which comes to the same thing.

      ecreegan in reply to Milhouse. | September 10, 2021 at 11:27 am

      The fact that Roe was written by judges enacting their policy preferences is obvious to anyone who reads it, and attempts to defend it have poisoned judicial confirmations at least since Bork.

      It may be “law of the land” but only because the highest judicial body was full of oathbreakers and this is OBVIOUS.

Stick to your guns, Abbott. Become a SANCTUARY CONSTITUTIONAL STATE the way those commie bastards harbored ILLEGAL ALIENS in their sanctuary cities/states. Even now the left are ignoring the Supreme Court when it comes to our borders and property owners. Defy these pieces of s! By the way, there’s not a damn thing about abortion in our Constitution. If going to another state to kill your baby is too much for you human wishbones, then leave Texas entirely or walk with your knees together.

    You clearly have no idea what a “sanctuary state” is.

    Sanctuary states do not violate US law; they simply refuse to help the feds enforce it. They do not harbor illegal aliens; they merely stand aside and let the feds do their job as best they can, without any help from them.

    Just like northern states used to treat federal slave catchers; the supreme court said states could not interfere with the slave catchers, but could forbid state and local officials from cooperating with them.

    Now how does that translate to this situation? Texas is not refusing to enforce a federal law. It’s actively violating federal law, which it has no right to do.

      So, the state of Texas passed an unconstitutional law. Whoop-di-do. I mean, that never happens, right?

      So, it just needs a case and a legal decision, and then it is ripe for appeal and review. Or not. If every one of these suits gets thrown out as unconstitutional and unenforceable at the state trial or appeals court level, there is no excuse, and indeed no reason, for the federal courts to enjoin anybody or review anything.

      As you observed, the case law is pretty clear that the feds cannot commandeer state law enforcement to do their bidding. That also means that the feds cannot commandeer the Texas state court judges and command them to hear or not hear cases, or make certain judgements or legal rulings, especially if those judges are prone to make the “right” decisions anyways.

        Milhouse in reply to Rand. | September 12, 2021 at 2:46 am

        They can’t be commanded to hear cases. They can be commanded not to hear them.

          Not really. What would such an injunction to not “entertain” lawsuits under this law really entail? Is it against state court judges? All of them? What does it enjoin them from doing exactly. Consider the process: A state court lawsuit is filed. The defendant(s) files an answer. A state court judge is appointed and a hearing is scheduled. Additional motions are filed, not the least of which is a motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds. So far, there is NOTHING that violates any conceivable injunction by the federal judge against state court judges. They haven’t even reviewed the case yet nor made any rulings. Next, there is a hearing, and the state judge looks at the lawsuit and various motions and either says “Wait, this lawsuit is unconstitutional. Motion by the defense to dismiss on constitutional grounds is granted. All parties can now go home.” -OR- “Wait, there is a federal injunction against me deciding this case. You will all have to wait until the injunction is lifted. In the meantime, this state court case is in limbo awaiting adjudication because I am enjoined from “entertaining” this lawsuit. That is, I am prevented from deciding this case until the injunction is lifted. I will see you all later when that happens.”

          Great plan.

          By the way, just to clarify how I really feel about this law. It scares the crap out of me. And not because I have any strong feelings about abortion. Frankly, you have to draw the line somewhere between conception and birth. Wherever you draw that line is going to depend on your particular values, your religion, your morals, your ethics, or whatever, but there has to be a compromise. Nobody is going to be entirely happy with the final result.

          Nevertheless, I reflexively dislike laws that give powerful people (powerful economically or politically or both) the ability to mess with your constitutional rights and with the quiet enjoyment of your life in general.

          Although I am skeptical about what sort of injunction is feasible in this particular case, I don’t like the nature of A. B. 8 at all. It is a license for activists to legally harass their political enemies into submission.

          This “sue them out of existence” approach is a popular tactic used by the left, such as when they want to harness the legal system to sue the gun manufacturers out of business. So much for the 2nd amendment if nobody can afford the liability of manufacturing firearms.

          I would love to see this A. B. 8 law overturned not because of Roe v. Wade, which would be specifically only about abortion, but overturned somehow because it turns every political activist into a legal bounty hunter. I fear that this could become an unmitigated disaster to civil rights for everybody if it becomes a wide-spread tactic.

          Also, what I would like to see more of are laws crafted around the same notion as anti-SLAPP laws. If you sue people with the purpose of violating their civil rights, you should be subject to a counter-claim with substantial damages. I’m not a big fan of new federal laws, but that would be one I think I could get behind.

          I know, I know. I’m talking crazy. Hope springs eternal.

Those DoJ arguments are the same arguments that Texas used when it challenged the Electoral College certifications. Grifters, frauds, hypocrites, liars, and charlatans – that’s all the government is anymore, and that’s all the regard I have for that gang of ignorant fools.

At this point I’m not even sure it matters how it’s gets struck down. It will take a couple of months to work its way through the courts, so you have the humor of watching the Democrats going on TV and chanting “My Body, My Choice! Your Body, My Choice!” for the next few months as they try to justify abortion at will, and vaccines at mandate at the same time.

What a dumpster fire clown show this admin has been.

Though, the reality is the mandate has been structured to target the admin’s political opponents for destruction, so the talking heads brigade is mostly just a distraction.

If we were a country of law where is it in the Constituion? So no legal standing.

    The rite to sacrifice human life, a liberalized apology for self-defense for social progress and casual causes, was discovered in the Twilight Amendment (“penumbras and emanations”), a right to privacy, and the plausible existence of a rape… rape-rape culture and affirmative diversity (e.g. sexism). Essentially, witch hunts, warlock trials, and demos-cracy is aborted, cannibalized, and sequestered in darkness.

Lucifer Morningstar | September 10, 2021 at 1:31 pm

1. It is settled constitutional law . . .

And I stopped really reading it beyond that as it is not “established law” constitutional or otherwise. Roe is just a weakly argued, ill thought out court decision that legalized abortion. But a Law? Nope.

The states and the feds pass unconstitutional laws all the time. They’re a dime-a-dozen. These laws are challenged in court, often based on a test case with parties who have standing to sue, and there is a court decision, then maybe an appeal, and, maybe, a supreme court review. All of which takes time.

So, let’s say the supreme court eventually finds the rent moratorium unconstitutional, after over a year. Is it as if the eviction moratorium never happened? Do the landlords get all their missed rent paid? Fat chance. That’s just the way the judicial cookie crumbles folks.

Of course, when this ponderous legal process of judicial review invalidating unconstitutional laws imposes the usual delays on getting unconstitutional anti-abortion laws overturned, well then, holy shit, that’s a totally different matter! They are special, don’t you know.

The lawmakers can screw you out of your 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, 5th amendment, 14th amendment (which, unlike abortion, actually have pretty clear clauses written into the bill-of-rights), or whatever rights you care to name. You don’t like it? Of course, you can spend a fortune in legal fees and appeal and wait for judicial review and ultimate “justice” from our judicial priests in black robes. But now, when the shoe is on the other foot, the abortion rights advocates have discovered that they don’t like that slow ponderous process at all. It’s a catastrophe. Surely, there is a penumbra of emanations of unfairness going on here.

As a legal matter, it will be interesting to see who, if anybody, actually gets enjoined from doing what. Sadly, I doubt they will have a problem. There is always some idiot federal judge out there who will do whatever it takes to serve the political powers-that-be. I suspect that the left-wing loons could find a federal judge to issue an injunction against the law of gravity if they really wanted.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend