IANAL, so maybe there's some fine bit of legal think that I don't understand...
But how can Texas claim that it's not 'enforcing' the law, when the only reason people can sue at all is because they created it, have the law on the books, and enable the propagation of the suits. Even if it's indirect, the primary enabler is the state. Is that not enough?
What happens if the doctor or whoever just ignored the civil suit brought against them entirely? They get served with a court date and don't even bother to show up.
I'm pretty sure failure to appear results in a summary judgment against, so kind of a bad idea for the person on the receiving end.
But how does the court collect on the judgment without using the executive?
NPR had an experienced TX lawyer on the show to discuss some of the ins and outs of this law and he basically said that if you bail on the trial in TX they'd probably send the marshals after you. But if you're out of state there's not a thing they can do. It still begs the question of then whether or not the marshals are now acting as carrying out the law for the state. But that's just one of the many reasons this law is so fucking bad.
He also said he didn't think that anyone would be suing airlines or other big companies because of how crazy doing so would be...and to that I say, no one thought Trump could ever win either.
The bit about "the state can't enforce the law" is mostly chaff. The text of it is more like, "the state can't enforce this law except everything related to the civil suits". The whole law is full of bizarre garbage like that which doesn't really mean anything but it's there to add confusion and delay.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
The bit about "the state can't enforce the law" is mostly chaff. The text of it is more like, "the state can't enforce this law except everything related to the civil suits". The whole law is full of bizarre garbage like that which doesn't really mean anything but it's there to add confusion and delay.
Trying to obscure the fact that this is pulled directly from the Fugitive Slave Act which was a very not good law and forced down other state's throats at another time of social upheaval. The fascists only have one move and that's destabilizing the government at all costs. This example is how to get the state to eat itself by being the enforcer in all but name.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Would someone offer a legal definition of "standing"? I know the general usage but legalese is very precise.
the basic idea is that if you have not been harmed, and are not likely to be harmed, then you can't bring a lawsuit
the details vary, depending on the court you're in and the claim you're filing
but in general, a state can declare that you have a civil claim and that standing exists to file that claim in their courts, which is what Texas has done here
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
The Washington Post has published an op ed by a Texas physician stating clearly that he has now violated this law, signed his and his practice's names, and said come fucking get him.
And that is why, on the morning of Sept. 6, I provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit. I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.
I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested.
God damn. I'm glad there are people willing to put themselves on the line like this.
IANAL, so maybe there's some fine bit of legal think that I don't understand...
But how can Texas claim that it's not 'enforcing' the law, when the only reason people can sue at all is because they created it, have the law on the books, and enable the propagation of the suits. Even if it's indirect, the primary enabler is the state. Is that not enough?
What happens if the doctor or whoever just ignored the civil suit brought against them entirely? They get served with a court date and don't even bother to show up.
I'm pretty sure failure to appear results in a summary judgment against, so kind of a bad idea for the person on the receiving end.
But how does the court collect on the judgment without using the executive?
The executive supports the courts and the system to collect judgements is already setup. I believe you'd win a judgement if the other party didn't show up. Presumably that party wouldn't pay the judgement and then you'd go back to court to force payment of the judgement either through seizing assets or garnishing wages.
The correct strategy is to force a lawsuit like that doctor above is and then ask the court for a stay while the trial and appeals are ongoing as you now have proven harm.
I am absolutely not a lawyer, but aren't you only able to get a stay if the court you're asking for said stay believes you are likely to prevail on the merits? If that is true, this seems like an enormous risk for the doctor above to take, but I do applaud his courage.
The Washington Post has published an op ed by a Texas physician stating clearly that he has now violated this law, signed his and his practice's names, and said come fucking get him.
And that is why, on the morning of Sept. 6, I provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit. I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.
I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested.
God damn. I'm glad there are people willing to put themselves on the line like this.
50 year career, so basically retiring in a blaze of righteous glory.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The Washington Post has published an op ed by a Texas physician stating clearly that he has now violated this law, signed his and his practice's names, and said come fucking get him.
And that is why, on the morning of Sept. 6, I provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit. I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.
I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested.
God damn. I'm glad there are people willing to put themselves on the line like this.
50 year career, so basically retiring in a blaze of righteous glory.
Also, with that kind of career, the kind of person who could have walked away, but has chosen to take a stand on behalf of all those following behind him, that probably couldn't afford to fight this fight.
Got to give it up for the man, if more people of his generation were willing to do this kind of thing, maybe we wouldn't all be so fucked.
Also, the usualfuckos are calling for the suspension of his license for violating state law. Hey, assholes, the whole point of this law is it's not really a violation of state law. Because THAT would be unconstitutional. Citizens have the ability granted for them to sue, that's it. THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS LAW.
So fuck off.
EDIT - I mean, there's a decent chance they will take his license, because Texas being Texas. But fuck me, I'm so tired of this Gilead shit from these fuckers.
The Washington Post has published an op ed by a Texas physician stating clearly that he has now violated this law, signed his and his practice's names, and said come fucking get him.
And that is why, on the morning of Sept. 6, I provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit. I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.
I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested.
God damn. I'm glad there are people willing to put themselves on the line like this.
50 year career, so basically retiring in a blaze of righteous glory.
Also, with that kind of career, the kind of person who could have walked away, but has chosen to take a stand on behalf of all those following behind him, that probably couldn't afford to fight this fight.
Got to give it up for the man, if more people of his generation were willing to do this kind of thing, maybe we wouldn't all be so fucked.
Also, the usualfuckos are calling for the suspension of his license for violating state law. Hey, assholes, the whole point of this law is it's not really a violation of state law. Because THAT would be unconstitutional. Citizens have the ability granted for them to sue, that's it. THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS LAW.
So fuck off.
Yeah the whole law is so dumb that even if no one wants to sue him because "it's a trap!", he can just ask one of his nurses to sue him or something.
The Washington Post has published an op ed by a Texas physician stating clearly that he has now violated this law, signed his and his practice's names, and said come fucking get him.
And that is why, on the morning of Sept. 6, I provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit. I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.
I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested.
God damn. I'm glad there are people willing to put themselves on the line like this.
50 year career, so basically retiring in a blaze of righteous glory.
Also, with that kind of career, the kind of person who could have walked away, but has chosen to take a stand on behalf of all those following behind him, that probably couldn't afford to fight this fight.
Got to give it up for the man, if more people of his generation were willing to do this kind of thing, maybe we wouldn't all be so fucked.
Also, the usualfuckos are calling for the suspension of his license for violating state law. Hey, assholes, the whole point of this law is it's not really a violation of state law. Because THAT would be unconstitutional. Citizens have the ability granted for them to sue, that's it. THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS LAW.
So fuck off.
Yeah the whole law is so dumb that even if no one wants to sue him because "it's a trap!", he can just ask one of his nurses to sue him or something.
Per WaPo, we now have our first contestant in the bounty legal Olympics. After reading about this doctor in WaPo the first bounty-seeking plaintiff has filed. What's more entertaining is that the plaintiff is in Arkansas and he's under home confinement for federal tax evasion.
The Washington Post has published an op ed by a Texas physician stating clearly that he has now violated this law, signed his and his practice's names, and said come fucking get him.
And that is why, on the morning of Sept. 6, I provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit. I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.
I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested.
God damn. I'm glad there are people willing to put themselves on the line like this.
50 year career, so basically retiring in a blaze of righteous glory.
Also, with that kind of career, the kind of person who could have walked away, but has chosen to take a stand on behalf of all those following behind him, that probably couldn't afford to fight this fight.
Got to give it up for the man, if more people of his generation were willing to do this kind of thing, maybe we wouldn't all be so fucked.
Also, the usualfuckos are calling for the suspension of his license for violating state law. Hey, assholes, the whole point of this law is it's not really a violation of state law. Because THAT would be unconstitutional. Citizens have the ability granted for them to sue, that's it. THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS LAW.
So fuck off.
Yeah the whole law is so dumb that even if no one wants to sue him because "it's a trap!", he can just ask one of his nurses to sue him or something.
Per WaPo, we now have our first contestant in the bounty legal Olympics. After reading about this doctor in WaPo the first bounty-seeking plaintiff has filed. What's more entertaining is that the plaintiff is in Arkansas and he's under home confinement for federal tax evasion.
Because that is exactly the sort of goose who would take a swing at this particular tar baby.
In a phone interview with CNN, Stilley said he is an opponent of the law that bars most abortions in the state, but wants to clear the way for a judge to rule on its constitutionality.
"I am a supporter of the Constitution, and I am opposed to the law." Stilley said.
Stilley is the plaintiff.
+5
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Also if they overturn Roe outright next year, Dems might be galvanized for the midterms.
That's the whole point behind the election nullification laws in Texas, georgia, and elsewhere. They don't need to maintain a fig leaf of respectability anymore. Set the US back to a time which never existed except in their delusions, kill off their own voters - doesn't matter. They've already set up their "I win forever" button in the states. Nothing less than federal action is going to dislodge them, and since the right-wing has control over the courts (especially SCOTUS), when is that going to happen?
In a phone interview with CNN, Stilley said he is an opponent of the law that bars most abortions in the state, but wants to clear the way for a judge to rule on its constitutionality.
"I am a supporter of the Constitution, and I am opposed to the law." Stilley said.
Stilley is the plaintiff.
Yea, this is weird and kind of amusing. Apparently several anti-abortion groups in Texas are waiting to find the "right" case to back (whatever the fuck that means in this context). In the meantime, it seems like both the defendant and plaintiff in this case think the law is unconstitutional and decided "you need a case? Here's a case."
In a phone interview with CNN, Stilley said he is an opponent of the law that bars most abortions in the state, but wants to clear the way for a judge to rule on its constitutionality.
"I am a supporter of the Constitution, and I am opposed to the law." Stilley said.
Stilley is the plaintiff.
Yea, this is weird and kind of amusing. Apparently several anti-abortion groups in Texas are waiting to find the "right" case to back (whatever the fuck that means in this context). In the meantime, it seems like both the defendant and plaintiff in this case think the law is unconstitutional and decided "you need a case? Here's a case."
It means one where they can go after a poor brown person so they can stack the deck to their advantage. This type of case is less to their advantage. But they kind of have to take it, because if people openly flout the law it’s worst than not finding the best case.
In a phone interview with CNN, Stilley said he is an opponent of the law that bars most abortions in the state, but wants to clear the way for a judge to rule on its constitutionality.
"I am a supporter of the Constitution, and I am opposed to the law." Stilley said.
Stilley is the plaintiff.
Yea, this is weird and kind of amusing. Apparently several anti-abortion groups in Texas are waiting to find the "right" case to back (whatever the fuck that means in this context). In the meantime, it seems like both the defendant and plaintiff in this case think the law is unconstitutional and decided "you need a case? Here's a case."
It means one where they can go after a poor brown person so they can stack the deck to their advantage. This type of case is less to their advantage. But they kind of have to take it, because if people openly flout the law it’s worst than not finding the best case.
Yep. Or an addict. They need an edge case and it needs to involve someone who's reputation they can smear, and who every smarmy pundit can righteously rage against on their radio and tv shows.
I never thought that we could fall this far, in just five years (or less).
I guess I was very sheltered and/or naive.
Commander Zoom on
+6
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Actually if I were looking to have a law viewed as unconstitutional. I would sue with the worst lawyer I could find. I wouldn’t let the conservatives cultivate the perfect edge case I’d file suit and then appeal each loss to get it to SCOTUS. Go for broke. With an ambulance chaser. Essentially fund both sides of the lawsuit, but poorly fund the side filing the bounty lawsuits.
Actually if I were looking to have a law viewed as unconstitutional. I would sue with the worst lawyer I could find. I wouldn’t let the conservatives cultivate the perfect edge case I’d file suit and then appeal each loss to get it to SCOTUS. Go for broke. With an ambulance chaser. Essentially fund both sides of the lawsuit, but poorly fund the side filing the bounty lawsuits.
If (when) this goes to this SCOTUS, it's not going to be decided on the actual merits. The fix is in, and not just the thumb but the whole hand is on the scales.
Every day the “don’t worry I don’t intend to die on the bench” line gets more and more infuriating. Oh cool so you’re quitting after you end that sentence? Oh you’re not? Well great, fuck
Once Roe is struck down this Texas law will probably be mostly fine. Yes it would be grevious bullshit if government can revoke constitutional rights via third parties, but the SC can just decide that there was no constitutional right being effected here in the first place.
NPR had an experienced TX lawyer on the show to discuss some of the ins and outs of this law and he basically said that if you bail on the trial in TX they'd probably send the marshals after you. But if you're out of state there's not a thing they can do. It still begs the question of then whether or not the marshals are now acting as carrying out the law for the state. But that's just one of the many reasons this law is so fucking bad.
He also said he didn't think that anyone would be suing airlines or other big companies because of how crazy doing so would be...and to that I say, no one thought Trump could ever win either.
If Liberals aren't already planning on suing the airlines in an attempt to hurt the Texas Government I would be shocked and a bit dismayed, because IMO it's the best strategy
Once Roe is struck down this Texas law will probably be mostly fine. Yes it would be grevious bullshit if government can revoke constitutional rights via third parties, but the SC can just decide that there was no constitutional right being effected here in the first place.
The Texas law.would still be wildly unconstitutional in it's current form. That is the most blatant part of all of this, and why Roberts even balked at it. There are a bunch of reasons to strike it down that were just hand waved away.
I think the most egregious part of the law, at least from the point of view of the courts and specifically SCOTUS, is that it says in plain text that you cannot use "SCOTUS precedent said my actions were legal at the time" as a defense. It is pretty clearly angling to make an action illegal after the fact, which is very much against basically all precedent ever.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), saying that the federal agency’s guidance on LGBTQ rights is “extreme federal overreach” that violates Texas’s “sovereign right” to determine workplace policies, specifically when it comes to LGBTQ job discrimination protections in the workplace.
The lawsuit goes so far as to claim that employers like the state of Texas have a First Amendment right to refer to transgender people by the wrong names and pronouns.
I am extremely tired. And will become even more tired when this eventually, inevitably, hits the Clown Bench
TX seems to have decided this is the time to go all-in. And I can't say they're wrong (about the timing, at least); though they may end up focusing enough attention on how broken the SCOTUS is that people might actually do something about it. (I can only hope.)
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), saying that the federal agency’s guidance on LGBTQ rights is “extreme federal overreach” that violates Texas’s “sovereign right” to determine workplace policies, specifically when it comes to LGBTQ job discrimination protections in the workplace.
The lawsuit goes so far as to claim that employers like the state of Texas have a First Amendment right to refer to transgender people by the wrong names and pronouns.
I am extremely tired. And will become even more tired when this eventually, inevitably, hits the Clown Bench
Given the fragile egos of these fuckers, would intentionally misidentifying them get them to see why it's harmful work?
Or would that do more harm than good? Sincerely wouldn't want that to happen. But don't know how to convince people who are clearly unempathetic (but might be capable) that this is a real issue.
Seeing as this is the second time today I've encountered people saying that the Kavanaugh finance story is overblown and turning into a conspiracy on the left, I thought it might be worth a look-see.
The idea that Brett Kavanaugh has taken bribes to sustain his country club lifestyle is one of the hardiest conspiracy theories on the political left. And like most conspiracy theories, this one suffers from some internal logic problems.
How did Kavanaugh come up with a $245,000 down payment at a time when his financial disclosure forms indicated that he had a mere $10,000 in the bank outside of his federal retirement account?
As it turned out, there were rather simple answers to most of those questions. Kavanaugh explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee that much of his credit card debt stemmed from either work on his fixer-upper mansion or buying Nats season and playoff tickets for himself and a handful of dudes who’d been going to the games together for years. They had paid him back in full, the White House said at the time. As for the rest, while he was maddeningly obtuse in admitting it, Kavanaugh seems to have gotten lots of money from his parents.
The rest of the article lays out the ins and outs of Kavanaugh's family life, how he grew up, what his parents did and just how much money they have. He grew up with several silver spoons in his mouth, he was a spoiled brat who wanted for nothing material (less said about the other aspects of his life such as siblings or how much time his parents spent with the kids), and for the parents, his mother was a judge in Maryland and his father a cosmetics industry lobbyist. Judges tend to be pair fairly well at the level his mother was at, so that much checks out. And the article notes that his father retired on a $13 million dollar payout from the lobbying group he worked for.
So in conclusions while there is still questions about the timing for his opening to the court, Kavanaugh's money troubles appear to have been settled by mumsy and dadsy's deep pockets. Like the right little bitch that he is.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Posts
But how does the court collect on the judgment without using the executive?
He also said he didn't think that anyone would be suing airlines or other big companies because of how crazy doing so would be...and to that I say, no one thought Trump could ever win either.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Trying to obscure the fact that this is pulled directly from the Fugitive Slave Act which was a very not good law and forced down other state's throats at another time of social upheaval. The fascists only have one move and that's destabilizing the government at all costs. This example is how to get the state to eat itself by being the enforcer in all but name.
the basic idea is that if you have not been harmed, and are not likely to be harmed, then you can't bring a lawsuit
the details vary, depending on the court you're in and the claim you're filing
but in general, a state can declare that you have a civil claim and that standing exists to file that claim in their courts, which is what Texas has done here
The Washington Post has published an op ed by a Texas physician stating clearly that he has now violated this law, signed his and his practice's names, and said come fucking get him.
God damn. I'm glad there are people willing to put themselves on the line like this.
The executive supports the courts and the system to collect judgements is already setup. I believe you'd win a judgement if the other party didn't show up. Presumably that party wouldn't pay the judgement and then you'd go back to court to force payment of the judgement either through seizing assets or garnishing wages.
The correct strategy is to force a lawsuit like that doctor above is and then ask the court for a stay while the trial and appeals are ongoing as you now have proven harm.
50 year career, so basically retiring in a blaze of righteous glory.
Also, with that kind of career, the kind of person who could have walked away, but has chosen to take a stand on behalf of all those following behind him, that probably couldn't afford to fight this fight.
Got to give it up for the man, if more people of his generation were willing to do this kind of thing, maybe we wouldn't all be so fucked.
Also, the usual fuckos are calling for the suspension of his license for violating state law. Hey, assholes, the whole point of this law is it's not really a violation of state law. Because THAT would be unconstitutional. Citizens have the ability granted for them to sue, that's it. THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS LAW.
So fuck off.
EDIT - I mean, there's a decent chance they will take his license, because Texas being Texas. But fuck me, I'm so tired of this Gilead shit from these fuckers.
Yeah the whole law is so dumb that even if no one wants to sue him because "it's a trap!", he can just ask one of his nurses to sue him or something.
Per WaPo, we now have our first contestant in the bounty legal Olympics. After reading about this doctor in WaPo the first bounty-seeking plaintiff has filed. What's more entertaining is that the plaintiff is in Arkansas and he's under home confinement for federal tax evasion.
Because that is exactly the sort of goose who would take a swing at this particular tar baby.
Stilley is the plaintiff.
That's the whole point behind the election nullification laws in Texas, georgia, and elsewhere. They don't need to maintain a fig leaf of respectability anymore. Set the US back to a time which never existed except in their delusions, kill off their own voters - doesn't matter. They've already set up their "I win forever" button in the states. Nothing less than federal action is going to dislodge them, and since the right-wing has control over the courts (especially SCOTUS), when is that going to happen?
Yea, this is weird and kind of amusing. Apparently several anti-abortion groups in Texas are waiting to find the "right" case to back (whatever the fuck that means in this context). In the meantime, it seems like both the defendant and plaintiff in this case think the law is unconstitutional and decided "you need a case? Here's a case."
This does not fill me with joy, knowing this court.
Yep. Or an addict. They need an edge case and it needs to involve someone who's reputation they can smear, and who every smarmy pundit can righteously rage against on their radio and tv shows.
I guess I was very sheltered and/or naive.
If (when) this goes to this SCOTUS, it's not going to be decided on the actual merits. The fix is in, and not just the thumb but the whole hand is on the scales.
I'm surprised momentum largely carried us through even if the doors are falling off. Breaking a nation does not take long.
If Liberals aren't already planning on suing the airlines in an attempt to hurt the Texas Government I would be shocked and a bit dismayed, because IMO it's the best strategy
it's the only pressure the GOP respond to
The Texas law.would still be wildly unconstitutional in it's current form. That is the most blatant part of all of this, and why Roberts even balked at it. There are a bunch of reasons to strike it down that were just hand waved away.
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/09/texas-sues-biden-admin-first-amendment-right-misgender-trans-people-work/
I am extremely tired. And will become even more tired when this eventually, inevitably, hits the Clown Bench
Given the fragile egos of these fuckers, would intentionally misidentifying them get them to see why it's harmful work?
Or would that do more harm than good? Sincerely wouldn't want that to happen. But don't know how to convince people who are clearly unempathetic (but might be capable) that this is a real issue.
A lot of times, what appears “hypocritical” is the result of bigots exercising hierarchies against those they consider to be their lessers.
From Stephanie Mencimer at Mother Jones:
The rest of the article lays out the ins and outs of Kavanaugh's family life, how he grew up, what his parents did and just how much money they have. He grew up with several silver spoons in his mouth, he was a spoiled brat who wanted for nothing material (less said about the other aspects of his life such as siblings or how much time his parents spent with the kids), and for the parents, his mother was a judge in Maryland and his father a cosmetics industry lobbyist. Judges tend to be pair fairly well at the level his mother was at, so that much checks out. And the article notes that his father retired on a $13 million dollar payout from the lobbying group he worked for.
So in conclusions while there is still questions about the timing for his opening to the court, Kavanaugh's money troubles appear to have been settled by mumsy and dadsy's deep pockets. Like the right little bitch that he is.