How a Massachusetts Case Could End The Texas Abortion Law

[Dana7360]

Wow it looks like the 5 judges on the Supreme Court that allowed the Texas abortion ban to go into effect not only violated the case law allowing abortion, it also violates a 40 year old case law that the court voted 8-1 saying that the state can't delegate governmental power to a private entity.

Which is what Texas has done with their abortion law.

So what Texas has done has already been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court.

That Texas law is unconstitutional on so many grounds that it's crazy that the court allowed it to go into effect.

How a Massachusetts case could end the Texas abortion law - The Boston Globe

A legal decision once prevented a church from vetoing a Harvard Square restaurant’s liquor license. Now it could prevent other private parties from wielding government power.

www.bostonglobe.com

 

[pknopp]

Another post where one does not understand what the court did. All the court did was to note that the case was not properly presented. It has now been presented correctly in a lower court and will be heard by the Supreme Court where it will be struck down.

 

[harmonica]

Dana7360
1. BostonGlobe--HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
2. they did not violate anything

 

[Crepitus]

Wow it looks like the 5 judges on the Supreme Court that allowed the Texas abortion ban to go into effect not only violated the case law allowing abortion, it also violates a 50 year old case law that the court voted 8-1 saying that the state can delegate governmental power to a private entity.

Which is what Texas has done with their abortion law.

So what Texas has done has already been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court.

That Texas law is unconstitutional on so many grounds that it's crazy that the court allowed it to go into effect.

How a Massachusetts case could end the Texas abortion law - The Boston Globe

A legal decision once prevented a church from vetoing a Harvard Square restaurant’s liquor license. Now it could prevent other private parties from wielding government power.

www.bostonglobe.com

The court is skewed towards crazy right now. Look for more in the coming months.

 

[harmonica]

The court is skewed towards crazy right now. Look for more in the coming months.

The court is skewed towards sensible right now. Look for more in the coming months.

 

[Crepitus]

Another post where one does not understand what the court did. All the court did was to note that the case was not properly presented. It has now been presented correctly in a lower court and will be heard by the Supreme Court where it will be struck down.

They could have granted the temporary stay while the issues were sorted out. The fact they they didn't, and didn't on party lines, is telling.

 

[Crepitus]

The court is skewed towards sensible right now. Look for more in the coming months.

Thank you for making my point.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Another post where one does not understand what the court did. All the court did was to note that the case was not properly presented. It has now been presented correctly in a lower court and will be heard by the Supreme Court where it will be struck down.

Except those 5 justices in essence agrees with the underlying theme...which is to ban abortion....

This shadow-docket decision was just a pussy-ass way to avoid issuing an injunction....

 

[harmonica]

Thank you for making my point.

Thank you for making my point.

 

[pknopp]

They could have granted the temporary stay while the issues were sorted out. The fact they they didn't, and didn't on party lines, is telling.

No it isn't. This is hardly the first time a court has rejected a case because the participants didn't have the standing to bring it. In this case the argument is even bigger. The court is simply saying that the government can't sue itself. So P.P. brought the suit and the stay was granted. The Supreme Court understood that this is what would happen.

It will be overturned.

 

[pknopp]

Except those 5 justices in essence agrees with the underlying theme...which is to ban abortion....

This shadow-docket decision was just a pussy-ass way to avoid issuing an injunction....

They can agree all they want but they are not going to uphold this law. If Texas had simply banned abortions after 20 weeks arguing that RvW allowed restrictions after viability that law might have survived.

Texas never expected this law to not get overturned. They were simply interested in politics, not the unborn.

 

[Dana7360]

The court is skewed towards crazy right now. Look for more in the coming months.

Yes it is. Something needs to be done about it.

 

[Crepitus]

Thank you for making my point.

Close your mouth, kid. You're making an echo.

 

[harmonica]

Close your mouth, kid. You're making an echo.

Close your mouth, kid. You're making an echo.
ahahahhahahahahahhahahaha-----= you are just babbling crap--as usual

 

[Crepitus]

No it isn't. This is hardly the first time a court has rejected a case because the participants didn't have the standing to bring it. In this case the argument is even bigger. The court is simply saying that the government can't sue itself. So P.P. brought the suit and the stay was granted. The Supreme Court understood that this is what would happen.

It will be overturned.

In the long run, most likely. But I stand behind my comments. They say it was done is telling.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow it looks like the 5 judges on the Supreme Court that allowed the Texas abortion ban to go into effect not only violated the case law allowing abortion, it also violates a 40 year old case law that the court voted 8-1 saying that the state can't delegate governmental power to a private entity.

Which is what Texas has done with their abortion law.

So what Texas has done has already been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court.

That Texas law is unconstitutional on so many grounds that it's crazy that the court allowed it to go into effect.

How a Massachusetts case could end the Texas abortion law - The Boston Globe

A legal decision once prevented a church from vetoing a Harvard Square restaurant’s liquor license. Now it could prevent other private parties from wielding government power.

www.bostonglobe.com

not only violated the case law allowing abortion,

They violated case law? What the hell does that mean?
What is the punishment for violating case law? Link?

it also violates a 40 year old case law that the court voted 8-1 saying that the state can't delegate governmental power to a private entity.

But all the other times this happens it's okay?

What government power was delegated to what private entities in this law? Be specific.

 

[Synthaholic]

Who owns Kavanaugh?

Who paid off his $200,000 in credit card debt?

Who paid for his $92,000 country club membership?

 

[Rogue AI]

Wow it looks like the 5 judges on the Supreme Court that allowed the Texas abortion ban to go into effect not only violated the case law allowing abortion, it also violates a 40 year old case law that the court voted 8-1 saying that the state can't delegate governmental power to a private entity.

Which is what Texas has done with their abortion law.

So what Texas has done has already been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court.

That Texas law is unconstitutional on so many grounds that it's crazy that the court allowed it to go into effect.

How a Massachusetts case could end the Texas abortion law - The Boston Globe

A legal decision once prevented a church from vetoing a Harvard Square restaurant’s liquor license. Now it could prevent other private parties from wielding government power.

www.bostonglobe.com

Yet, here we are. You folks are really grasping. Texas isn't delegating power to anyone, people already had the power to sue in civil court. All Texas did was expand the parameters to include suing abortion doctors and others associated with that vile practice.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Wow it looks like the 5 judges on the Supreme Court that allowed the Texas abortion ban to go into effect not only violated the case law allowing abortion, it also violates a 40 year old case law that the court voted 8-1 saying that the state can't delegate governmental power to a private entity.

Which is what Texas has done with their abortion law.

So what Texas has done has already been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court.

That Texas law is unconstitutional on so many grounds that it's crazy that the court allowed it to go into effect.

How a Massachusetts case could end the Texas abortion law - The Boston Globe

A legal decision once prevented a church from vetoing a Harvard Square restaurant’s liquor license. Now it could prevent other private parties from wielding government power.

www.bostonglobe.com

Massoftwoshits isn't Texas.

Pesky state's rights

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wow it looks like the 5 judges on the Supreme Court that allowed the Texas abortion ban to go into effect not only violated the case law allowing abortion, it also violates a 40 year old case law that the court voted 8-1 saying that the state can't delegate governmental power to a private entity.

Which is what Texas has done with their abortion law.

So what Texas has done has already been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court.

That Texas law is unconstitutional on so many grounds that it's crazy that the court allowed it to go into effect.

How a Massachusetts case could end the Texas abortion law - The Boston Globe

A legal decision once prevented a church from vetoing a Harvard Square restaurant’s liquor license. Now it could prevent other private parties from wielding government power.

www.bostonglobe.com

Following the logic that allowed Biden to steal the election, MA has no standing in TX