This topic has a high chance of going off the rails but I think it is an important one to discuss. I would really appreciate it if we could avoid discussing the purpose of this law as much as possible and focus on the potential 2A implications so we can keep the conversation going.
The law was clearly designed to remove or at least hamper the Supreme Court’s ability to rule on its Constitutionality by making private citizens the enforcers through their ability to sue anyone they feel is breaking it. I think this sets a very dangerous precedent. Just as Biden is building on Trump’s bump stock band in order to ban 80% firearms and pistol braces (etc., etc. if those two succeed), anti gunner’s and anti Bill of Rights folks can use this tactic to go after countless freedoms.
Your neighbor thinks you are storing your firearm improperly? Lawsuit for you! Neighbor thinks your guns pose a danger to them? Lawsuit for you!
Regardless of how you feel about the goals of the law, I think we should all be concerned about the tactic used. What could possibly go wrong when States and Federal government find ways to work arounds the Constitution??? I also think the mobilization this will put into the Left makes the return of Republican control in 2022 a lot less likely. The Left is almost completely unmotivated by the current administration right now. This bill will get a lot of people out their chairs. One or two more far Left Senators and Biden won’t need to use the ATF to take our firearms.
then the US Constitution starts to look like road kill. This law kills the First Amendment. Next round goes for the Second. Most of the rest are already being nibbled at, or on the rocks — nothing a few “public-spirited” nuisance lawsuits can’t collapse. Attacks on PLCAA are using similar tactics to undermine the supply side of 2A. Won’t be long before we’re quartering soldiers without consent.
OK for the 0600 - 19:30 crowd please elucidate on the above statement. I have opinions on abortion that shall remain private but that statement is curious to me and I really don’t have time to figure out where you are going with it. Not a slam or a flame I just don’t have enough knowledge of the topic.
I’m not a lawyer but here is my interpretation based on a read of the law and the SCOTUS majority decision allowing it to remain in effect for the moment:
Instead of the State enforcing this law it has passed enforcement onto private citizens giving them the right to sue people they believe are violating it. Since the Bill of Rights generally limits Government infringements upon those rights and not the actions of private individuals, the attempt here is clearly to argue that the law cannot violate the Constitution and therefore SCOTUS has no right to hear the case. So any one that is thought to perform or assists someone trying to perform an abortion on a fetus older than 6 weeks can be sued.
If this tactic is found to be constitutional States may pass laws that violate the constitution as long as they pass on enforcement measures to private citizens. In this case suing anyone they feel has violated the law. And it is my understanding the suing party gets the money. Creating a financial incentive to sue people. How many people will be falsely accused because someone want to make some money?
I think the counter argument would be that the State passed the law and therefore is the ultimate infringing party.
I don’t think this is the best forum for discussing whether abortion is right or wrong or what is the best way to end it. And I am not arguing here wether it should or shouldn’t be protected by the Constitution. But I firmly believe this method opens the door to government injustice through a form of mob rule. A mob of people armed with lawyers instead of pitchforks but still incredibly dangerous to our freedoms. Just imagine if this law banned firearms made before or after a certain date instead of abortion. If this method is held to be constitutional the rights of anyone in a minority on a given topic can be sued into oblivion and SCOTUS could do nothing to stop them.
@Shamrock I too am not wanting to devolve into the right or wrong of abortion, not my circus not my clowns. I see your points and you have my interest. @MikeBKY have you read this? Thoughts?
If by transferring “power” from the state to the individual as far as rule of law that is a whole 'nother can of worms that could have stupid BIG ramifications.
Again, not invested in this argument but doggone, talk about Pandora’s Box or the Butterfly Effect.
I understand your point there is a strong argument for your position. But the last SCOTUS rulings on this topic currently disagree. I can live with having those previous decision reconsidered with the right case if it is considered fairly. But if this law stands I believe all our rights could be toast.
The ends justifying the means is great for those agreeing with the ends who can live with the means. But any means that works for one group will be used by others and we better hope we like their ends.
This is an honest question, maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the law stated an individual could sue the organization performing the abortion not the ones that had an abortion?
@Thomas141, you raise an interesting point. However, the “right” to an abortion is argued to be the specification of a particular right which is implied under the umbrella of the right to privacy, which is itself an outgrowth of the protections afforded by the 4th Amendment. (If I have my rights right.)
Everything carries within itself the seed of its own destruction, and that is no less true when it comes to our Constitution. There are passages in which the Framers used non-specific language purposely because they felt that listing certain rights it could be seen as excluding others which were not included. So they stated the principle behind the rights but left the enumeration to the reader. The Constitution could have ended up being hundreds or even thousands of pages long if every single right were to be listed and explained, not to mention listed the things specifically excluded.
Not a bad idea, on the face of it, but it does leave open the possibility of unscrupulous persons exploiting the ambiguities through tortured logic and twisted emotional appeals to achieve their own ends with no regard to the will of the people. I believe they intended the vagueness to be an umbrella over a wide range of obviously implied rights, but the sad fact is that anything shoved under the umbrella, good or bad, gets the same protection from the rain.
I think the big danger here is the mutilation of “standing” as it pertains to civil suits. Basically, standing means that the person who has been damaged is the only one who can sue for compensation for those damages. Similarly, only the person who caused the damage can be held liable for them. (It’s certainly a lot more complicated than this, but you get the idea.) To remove the concept of standing so that anyone can sue persons only minimally involved on the periphery of an action is to open the door to far greater abuses of the civil courts than we have ever seen before now.
America may never fall to a foreign enemy; we may be strangled in our sleep with our own good intentions.
From what I have heard, it also allows suits against anyone “assisting” the organization or patient. Uber drivers? Linen suppliers? Third party payers? Where would it stop?
I believe that the law allows suing anyone who performs or assists with the person getting an abortion. But don’t have time to recheck at the moment. Even if you don’t apply laws like this to individuals you can use them to shut down industries and providers. Like gun sellers and makers for instance.
Whether or not you agree with her conclusion, I believe Justice Sotomayor’s dissent (about half-way through the document) provides the clearest overview of the effect of the Texas law, and the Constitutional problems it presents.
Or you could see how the talking heads and keyboard warriors will twist it to their needs.
I can see where this would go sideways for any disagreement. It’s on the same lines as red flag laws. I believe some people have decent intentions with these things, but they don’t look at the whole scope of ramifications.
It’s like the “my body my choice” argument. “They” yell that when it’s about abortion. Now as others have used that to argue against mandatory vaccination, then “they” don’t want to touch “my body my choice” with a 10 foot pole.
Yes the erosion of rights has been a long process accelerated after 9/11. But this puts the whole process on steroids. Not to mention the massive boost this gives the Left in 2022. The chances of the Dems gaining full control of the Senate and stacking the Supreme Court just went up significantly.
The people who wrote and voted for this law were either clueless to the ramifications of their actions or felt that their cause was more important than the Constitution, SCOTUS and all our other rights. Now they are much more likely to loose in the long term on their cause with a future SCOTUS stacked against them. And we are all much more likely to lose countless other freedoms starting with our 2A rights.
The left has beat this drum ever since Roe v Wade. With everything else going on in the world, this Texas law won’t even be a blip on the radar by then.
I suppose that is possible but it sure gives the media something else to fill their air time with instead of all the other disasters out there. Without Trump to pick on they were finally running out of topics to cover and were starting to have to cover some of Biden’s antics. And the court packing talk is front and center again.
