NewsVine_Mariyam
Platinum Member
On a different thread I indicated that I had always been taught that in order to sue someone in civil court you have to show how you were harmed as well as show that the defendant was the proximate cause of said harm and then ask for money damages to make one whole again.
i then asked unless you're not the father of the child how have one, as a plaintiff been harmed?
The only reply I got back was that if the law provides for statutory damages then you can sue, apparently without having to show how you've been harmed (because you haven't been according to standard case law). My next thought was that the law is clearly unconstitutional however until something is done to rescind it, a lot of harm to women in Texas and elsewhere can occur as it is the law for the present.
i then asked unless you're not the father of the child how have one, as a plaintiff been harmed?
The only reply I got back was that if the law provides for statutory damages then you can sue, apparently without having to show how you've been harmed (because you haven't been according to standard case law). My next thought was that the law is clearly unconstitutional however until something is done to rescind it, a lot of harm to women in Texas and elsewhere can occur as it is the law for the present.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said Thursday that the Justice Department filed the suit against Texas over its law, which he called “clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent.”"The United States has the authority and the responsibility to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights to a legislative scheme specifically designed to prevent the vindication of those rights," Garland said at a news conference.The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court in Texas, argues the law is unconstitutional and was enacted in open defiance of the Constitution.
Justice Department sues Texas over restrictive abortion law