Politics And Current Events

[Troy Loney]

It’s true, that’s why I think vaccines are good

[willeyeam]

Lol

[Gaucho]

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

antivaxxers would argue that Dems are killing their base

[Viva la Ben]

Who wants to cave to a piece of ****.

[shafnutz05]

This situation is rapidly spiraling out of control.

https://apnews.com/article/health-mexic ... 8fa2cad298

[dodint]

Haiti’s willingness to accept flights would determine how many flights there would be.

Don't land, then, just push them out of the back.

[DigitalGypsy66]

This situation is rapidly spiraling out of control.

https://apnews.com/article/health-mexic ... 8fa2cad298

Seriously, let them in with expedited green cards. Our county lost 9% of its population in the last ten years. Every business is having trouble hiring and keeping workers. Move 'em here. Have their kids fill the schools, and get a useless degree from my employer - the American Dream lol.

[Morkle]

lol let them in, so the republicans can complain about immigrants getting into our cities.

It's lose-lose either way politically, which is what GOP loves.

[Troy Loney]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... t-in-state

Alabama needs them

[shmenguin]

The only “crisis” at the border remains the state-endorsed kidnapping of children from 4-ish years ago.

[Troy Loney]

Also, it’s hard not to draw a straight line from Latin American humanitarian crisis to us foreign policy.

[Troy Loney]

[NTP66]

EveryShockedImageOnTheWeb.gif

[Viva la Ben]

[faftorial]

A lawsuit that could test the constitutionality of the nation’s most restrictive abortion ban was filed in Texas on Monday against a doctor who admitted to performing an abortion considered illegal under the new law.

The details of the civil suit against Alan Braid, a physician in San Antonio, are as unusual as the law itself, which empowers private citizens to enforce the ban on abortion once cardiac activity has been detected — often as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

The plaintiff is a felon serving a federal sentence at home in Arkansas, with no connection to the abortion at issue. He said he filed the claim not because of strongly held views about reproductive rights but in part because of the $10,000 he could receive if the lawsuit is successful. A second suit filed Monday — just four paragraphs long — came from a man in Chicago who asked a state court to strike down the abortion law as invalid.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... table-main

[shmenguin]

How about $100 for spotting who *should have* been aborted in Texas.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

maybe a question for the legal thread but why’d we have to wait until a lawsuit before this law was challenged legally?

[MWB]

Is there another way to challenge a law legally?

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

if I knew the answer, would I have asked the question?

it feels like this type of thing should be challengable at the time it was signed rather than now

[Troy Loney]

Because the law is a gimmick. The whole bounty hunter thing was so that the state isn’t charged with enforcing the law, the whole scotus thing a couple weeks back was to say they wouldn’t block it from going into effect because the state couldn’t be the opposite party in the suit.

I don’t understand any of this, but i believe the uproar was that the 5 republican hacks let the gimmick succeed

[faftorial]

Because the law is a gimmick. The whole bounty hunter thing was so that the state isn’t charged with enforcing the law, the whole scotus thing a couple weeks back was to say they wouldn’t block it from going into effect because the state couldn’t be the opposite party in the suit.

I don’t understand any of this, but i believe the uproar was that the 5 republican hacks let the gimmick succeed

[Shyster]

maybe a question for the legal thread but why’d we have to wait until a lawsuit before this law was challenged legally?

The very short answer is that courts generally (not always, but generally) deal only with actual controversies and not hypothetical situations. A longer but still short answer is that there are all sorts of novel procedural questions and barriers that were intentionally baked into the Texas law, including who has standing to sue and who can be sued, and an actual lawsuit answers some (but not all) of those questions. The longest answer is in the below series of posts at the Volokh Conspiracy. Note that the procedural complexities of this law are such that six posts isn't enough to talk about all of them (a seventh post is forthcoming).

The Procedural Puzzles of SB8, Part I: Litigating Constitutional Rights
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/09/10/th ... al-rights/

The Procedural Puzzles of SB8, Part II: Failing Offensive Litigation
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/09/12/th ... itigation/

The Procedural Puzzles of SB8, Part III: Suing Private Plaintiffs
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/09/13/th ... laintiffs/

The Procedural Puzzles of SB8, Part IV: Test Cases for Defensive State-Court Litigation
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/09/14/th ... itigation/

The Procedural Puzzles of SB8, Part V: Standing in State-Court Litigation
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/09/15/th ... itigation/

The Procedural Puzzles of SB8, Part VI: Federal Defenses in SB8 Actions
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/09/20/th ... 8-actions/

Anyone who says "the Supreme Court should have already stepped in to block this law" is glossing over the huge procedural complexities in this whole matter. If one is not familiar with how the legal system works, saying that a case can't move because of "procedural" issues may sound like a cop-out based on technicalities. But questions of injury-in-fact, standing, etc. are fundamental to the jurisdiction of federal courts to act in the first place, so they could not be more important when it comes to any federal suit.

[blackjack68]

How about $100 for spotting who *should have* been aborted in Texas.

I always wondered how I’d make $1,000,000.

Thanks

[Troy Loney]

Back to being “fiscally conservative” I see.