Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
Aldersberg: Yes, the Court should implement the injunction against Texas. The issue must still be litigated and there are fundamental rights at stake. The women in Texas face a loss of their fundamental right to bodily autonomy that has been enforced by Supreme Court precedent. The state of Texas suffers no harm by an injunction. It is only equitable that an injunction be enforced pending a resolution of litigation.
OP: hit the button on whatever you've got
Tethys: I think the stay should definitely be vacated so as to come out in favor of the position of the United States. The deputizing of private citizens to enforce the will of a state is substantively problematic for the instant matter and those to come. Imagine deputizing the citizens of California to find and turn in anyone that violated their gun laws. That might not be a constitutional problem per se, as CA5 notes, but it is procedurally concerning. Substantively, I think it is unconstitutional to insulate an otherwise unconstitutional law (assuming abortion jurisprudence is accepted by SCOTUS as legitimate) by delegating enforcement thereof to prviate citiznes
Centaurus A: This issue is tricky to me. While I am completely opposed to the anti-abortion bill, I think back to the Trump administration and the important role states played in countering federal immigration policies. I am also worried about the Supreme Court being the final arbiter of these nationwide political issues, and I see no reason for them to make the right choice here. But faced with this question, I hope the Supreme Court sides with the federal government
Saturn: Yes, the preliminary injunction should go back into effect. Before you even need to dip into the case law, Texas's de facto invalidation of Roe badly upsets the balance of federalism and flies in the face of federal judicial supremacy on these sorts of federal constitutional questions. This act of a state is so brazen that it can't be countenanced.
Triangulum: Yes, the stay should be overturned and the preliminary injunction reinstated. SB8 is a clear constitutional violation according to precedent (Casey & Roe). The structuring is a blatant attempt to escape judicial review and insulate the legislation of Texas from any sort of check on its power and its efforts to deprive citizens of their rights. This is not in question, and instead was bragged about by the bill's architect, Jonathan Miller, in his brief to the 5th Circuit.
Ahch-To: Reinstate the injunction because the Texas law establishes an unconstitutional timeline for viability which infringes on a woman's right to choose. Also, the Texas law has a disproportionate impact on marginalized women in the state which puts their healths and wellbeing at risk
Hoags Object: I think the court should reinstate the injunction because of the irreparable harm caused by the stay and the clear violation of the fourteenth amendment.
Luna: Yes, the injunction should remain in place. SB 8 runs counter to extensive SCOTUS precedent, and while I'm not deluded enough to be sure the current makeup of the court will follow said precedent, until the case is decided by the Supreme Court, the current law ought to be followed.
Io: Yes, overturn the stay and reinstate the preliminary injunction. There are fundamental rights at stake, and precedent (Roe, Casey) suggest SB8 is unconstitutional.
Asuras: The injunction should be reinstated
Crinfrid: The stay should not be overturned. There is no established legal reason for doing so on this law particularly. Texas has a strong interest in enforcing and arguing its own law first and having the presumption of legality given the lack of precedent on the specifics.
Deimos: Still reading responses but agree with many of these posts and share the concerns others have voiced.
Tollana: Yes, the Court should reinstate the injunction against Texas. To offer just one reason, echoing back to the readings from last week, S.B. 8 violates the guiding principles of federalism and the Supremacy Clause. States should not be able to circumvent the Federal Constitution through a series of creative procedural hoops. As the brief states, if states want to challenge Roe v. Wade, they can do so on the merits.
Lothal: The injunction should be reinstated. Body autonomy and what that means on a grander scale has been a cornerstone of some of the things we treasure most both in the law and society. This debate is long tired, for nearly 50 years this has been settled. As we have seen in the past, this is just one giant creep towards an outright ban - an assault on one specific part of the population in reality, even if not in name.
Tethys: Biden should get NY or CA to pass some ridiculously progressive law that mirrors the TX abortion law, sue both TX and NY/CA and force SCOTUS to say this type of deputizing is per se unconstitutional. Biden's worried about optics, rightfully so considering how bad Ds look these days. Give him an out by being able to win and be nonpartisan.
Aldersberg: I think every group you stated is addressed by the injunction. There is a real danger that there will be many in Texas that will flagrantly disobey the order. The mere fact that the Texas law puts power in the hands of private citizens demonstrates that the people of the state are willing to take matters into their own hands. Regardless, this issue is too fundamental not to reinstate the injunction and enforce it.
Triangulum: Though it would be testing the authority of the court to reinstate the injuntion, they have the backing of the administration, so they should be relatively confident in doing so. I think the court should be more worried about the message they are sending by allowing a state to completely ignore Supreme Court precedent with impunity.
Deimos: I could be misreading but the above proposition seems pretty risky. It legitimizes even if it isn't meant to.
Io: Disobeying an injunction is an extraordinarily risky endeavor given the collateral bar rule. Furthermore, the risk of someone disobeying an order is not a reason not to make it, at least in this case.
Asuras: I think there's a big risk that people will disobey the order, power is in the hands of an elite with great control over women's health
Crinfrid: What is the legal authority to issue this injunction? This is not ex party young . . . you'd have to enjoin the courts . . .
Sirius B: The Court should vacate the Fifth Circuit's stay of the preliminary injunction. The U.S. has sufficiently met Alabama Association's 4-factor test for a stay - likelihood to succeed on the merits, irreparable injury absent a stay, substantial injury to other interested parties, and significant public interest.
Saturn: The Fourteenth Amendment end-around here, by delegating enforcement to private citizens, is so constitutionally tricky (and devious), because it makes a traditional, "cert-granted" challenge more difficult to dredge up to challenge this law.
Deimos: @Aldersberg People will always take this matter into their own hands to some extent.
Deimos: (whether or not a statute permits or encourages it)
Luna: I'm a bit confused as to how effectively individuals COULD disobey the injunction without being facilitated by the state in doing so. In which case I, for one, welcome the army deployment to Texas (just kidding, I know they wouldn't do anything and also increased militarization is bad)
Tollana: It is important to reinstate the injunction without any serious qualification to send a message to all state legislatures. Without a united front about S.B. 8, I worry that other states will adopt this model of deputizing state citizens to avoid pre-enforcement suits, which is dangerous regardless of the right being protected.
Centaurus A: @Deimos can you elaborate on the last two points?
Io: Yes @Tollana I worry about that too
Triangulum: @Crinfrid - ex parte young is a work around of sovereign immunity. You don't need it when the US is the party suing a state
Crinfrid: you do because the state has sovereign immunity
Tethys: Arrest Greg Abbott
Sirius B: One common thread from S.B. 8 and Donziger - why do we continue to delegate enforcement of the law to private citizens? I remain troubled by Kaplan's deputizing of a private attorney, Rita Glavin, to prosecute Donziger, after U.S. Attorney Berman declined prosecution. We elect and appoint prosecutors for a reason - to enforce our laws.
Deimos: I misread Tethys comment and thought the proposal was to pass one like TX; however, even passing a very progressive law could backfire and lead to precedent limiting progressives' ability to do so in the future. Re: Aldersberg, I agree. I was just adding that people will take it into their own hands whether or not that equates w/ violating an order. So maybe the risk is the same (or similar) either way? (In response to " There is a real danger that there will be many in Texas that will flagrantly disobey the order. The mere fact that the Texas law puts power in the hands of private citizens demonstrates that the people of the state are willing to take matters into their own hands.")
Tethys: Why should the Supreme Court even have judicial review? Is Marbury itself wrong?
Coruscant: Who else do you suggest should have it?
Coruscant: Who decides if a law is constitutional?
Tethys: Democratic processes, like the UK