SCOTUS fails to stop TX abortion law.

#2
#2
Love the law crafting! Classic Texas politics at work! 😂

But the Texas law was drafted to make it difficult to challenge in court. Usually, a lawsuit seeking to block a law because it is unconstitutional would name state officials as defendants. But the Texas law bars state officials from enforcing it and instead deputizes private individuals to sue anyone who performs the procedure or “aids and abets” it.

The patient may not be sued, but doctors, staff members at clinics, counselors, people who help pay for the procedure, even an Uber driver taking a patient to an abortion clinic are all potential defendants. Plaintiffs, who need not have any connection to the matter or show any injury from it, are entitled to $10,000 and their legal fees recovered if they win. Prevailing defendants are not entitled to legal fees.
Click to expand...
 
#3
#3
NorthDallas40 said:
Love the law crafting! Classic Texas politics at work! 😂
Click to expand...

I’m not a lawyer but that doesn’t sound like it would hold up in a SCOTUS challenge. Codifying the ability of anyone to sue somebody without having to show damages and have legal fees re-imbursed? Seems like that is a Pandora box for frivolous lawsuits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quaint88, Weezy, VFFL@THE BEACH and 5 others
#5
#5
rjd970 said:
I’m not a lawyer but that doesn’t sound like it would hold up in a SCOTUS challenge. Codifying the ability of anyone to sue somebody without having to show damages and have legal fees re-imbursed? Seems like that is a Pandora box for frivolous lawsuits.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly why it was crafted the way it was. Abortion is still completely legal in Texas today. It just might cost a whole lot more.

Go Google there are a lot of legal opinions on the crafting.

Personally I don’t think the law is a good idea. But I do appreciate the Machiavellian drafting. Classic Texas 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#7
#7
hog88 said:
I don't like the idea of allowing someone not associated, injured or affected in anyway being able to sue another person. Idiot blue states could pass similar legislation allowing gun owners to be sued for simply owning a gun.
Click to expand...
Read my reply below your post. I’m not a fan of it either but it’s a helluva Texas approach to problem solving. And I know what a fan of Texas you are already.
 
#8
#8
NorthDallas40 said:
That’s exactly why it was crafted the way it was. Abortion is still completely legal in Texas today. It just might cost a whole lot more.

Go Google there are a lot of legal opinions on the crafting.

Personally I don’t think the law is a good idea. But I do appreciate the Machiavellian drafting. Classic Texas 😂
Click to expand...

Yeah, classic Texas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#11
#11
hog88 said:
Big fan.

Off topic, just picked up (well expanded) an account to include all of their N Tejas which includes OK. YAY me. So We'll be setting up shop somewhere up there over the next couple of months.
Click to expand...
So you’ll be spending chunks of time in N Texas. We have to figure out a way to break bread a couple of times dude.
 
#12
#12
hog88 said:
I don't like the idea of allowing someone not associated, injured or affected in anyway being able to sue another person. Idiot blue states could pass similar legislation allowing gun owners to be sued for simply owning a gun.
Click to expand...
Brilliant! Or as JJ would say:

 
#14
#14
If SCOTUS does nothing, expect huge political pressure to be put on large Texas companies to in turn press the legislature to change. Texas will become a pariah state and you won't see those California corporate dollars flowing into Texas.
 
#15
#15
evillawyer said:
If SCOTUS does nothing, expect huge political pressure to be put on large Texas companies to in turn press the legislature to change. Texas will become a pariah state and you won't see those California corporate dollars flowing into Texas.
Click to expand...
LMAO too late shrew! Your hot take is crap as usual.

What people should expect is an onslaught by religious anti abortion groups against organizations like Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics and most likely a large number will make the business decision to close up shop in Texas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiddiedoc, Franklin Pierce and NEO
#18
#18
evillawyer said:
If SCOTUS does nothing, expect huge political pressure to be put on large Texas companies to in turn press the legislature to change. Texas will become a pariah state and you won't see those California corporate dollars flowing into Texas.
Click to expand...

Good. But ya know they ain't going back to Cali don't you?
 
#21
#21
evillawyer said:
Looks like pro-choice is the plurality view in Texas.

Texas voters' views shifting on abortion, pot, gambling and Confederate monuments, poll finds
Click to expand...
Of course it is.

Public opinion in Texas about the availability of abortion has scarcely changed over the last several years. In this latest poll, 13% said abortion should never be permitted; 31% said “the law should permit abortion only in case of rape, incest or when the woman’s life is in danger"; 12% said it should also be allowed in other cases, “but only after the need for the abortion has been clearly established”; and 38% said “a woman should always be able to obtain an abortion as a matter of personal choice.”
 
Last edited:
#22
#22
NorthDallas40 said:
Of course it is.

Public opinion in Texas about the availability of abortion has scarcely changed over the last several years. In this latest poll, 13% said abortion should never be permitted; 31% said “the law should permit abortion only in case of rape, incest or when the woman’s life is in danger"; 12% said it should also be allowed in other cases, “but only after the need for the abortion has been clearly established”; and 38% said “a woman should always be able to obtain an abortion as a matter of personal choice.”
Click to expand...

Methinks you don't know the meaning of "plurality"
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#24
#24
evillawyer said:
Methinks you don't know the meaning of "plurality"
Click to expand...
I do in fact. In a non binary case it’s the highest of the brackets accounted for. A plurality candidate would receive no clear majority but the highest percentage as compared to the rest. The article listed the binary pro-life/pro-choice as 40/41%. All I pointed out is it isn’t that simple. If anything you tried to take a binary comparison and push it as a plurality most supported case available. That isn’t correct.

Edit: I clarified my reply via coloring for you. That is most likely presented in a format you can better absorb. There all better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and Rickyvol77
#25
#25
volinbham said:
so what was the Constitutional issue that merited SCOTUS taking this up?
Click to expand...
There isn’t a clear case. That’s it. Abortion is still 100% legal in Texas and the state is not telling anybody they cannot seek one.

It pressures the providers. It places no limit on the persons seeking an abortion.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top