Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
OP: two questions presented; why these two? how do they relate?
P3X-888: The court will not directly consider the constitutionality of the law. Instead, in its order, the court said it would consider the following questions: whether "the state can insulate from federal-court review a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general public the authority to enforce that prohibition through civil action"; and can "the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the State, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced."
Darn Rowan: @P3X: If the Court decides that the United States can't bring its suit and at the same time decides that Texas can't insulate SB-8 from federal-court review, where will that leave us?
Starkiller Base: We are using this thread, right?
Orilla: I believe so!
Lantea: Roberts/KAV playing political games, most likely--now they can uphold MISS and strike down TX to look "moderate"
Kerack: They probably didn't want to grant cert on the merits, especially on an expedited basis, since blatantly overturning Roe would be such a controversial move. They have Dobbs coming up later this term which gives them a chance to keep chipping away at it anyway.
Mandalore: death by a thousand cuts^^
Kamino: I agree with Whirlpool. It appears to be a cautious angle for political motivations by the conservatives on the court.
Sunflower: Good for Sotomayor to get her convincing and rousing dissent out now--don't think she'd get the chance unless she'd be writing the majority opinion in US v. Texas when it's formally decided
Orilla: At the end of the day this law is incredibly classist - something Sotomayor alludes to. I feel this is a matter of relative change, much as Proxima alludes to.
Luyten 726-8A: What explains the 8-1 split here when the prior denial was 5-4?
Starkiller Base: I agree with Whirlpool, too. Great way to get around all of the reality coming their way from the providers, etc.
Yavin 4: what is the significance of her getting out her dissent now?
Sunflower: @Rigil Kentaurus: think maybe because they're not deciding anything on the merits now? Though Sotomayor may think the court's latest move isn't without substantive consequences
Starkiller Base: I imagine the split was because the fact that questions the justices agreed to decide concern whether TX can insulate the law from review in federal court in this weird way, rather than sort of ignoring precedent entirely?
Neptune: I think part of the power of Sotomayor's dissent is that she clearly highlights the real, substantive, and disproportionate substantive consequences that are already occurring as part of the injunction.
Starkiller Base: Agree with Sunflower
Starkiller Base: and Mayena
Polaris: I don't feel great about SCOTUS expediting the cert process. Usually, granting cert. would be a good signal for overturning the appellate decision, but here, that seems too good to be true. Rather, I suspect the Court is in a hurry to uphold the constitutionality of a bill like S.B. 8 so it can move on to considering the merits (thus overturning Roe).
Kamino: Agree with @Mayena
Moon: @Mayena -- agreed. Sotomayor adds a human face to the law and centers the pregnant people it impacts
Starkiller Base: *I imaging the more drastic 8-1 divide was due to the fact that the questions (sorry, y'all)
OP: @whirlpool: they granted cert on other issues, not roe v. wade. are you thinking they cannot avoid it?
Felucia: @Polaris Agree