While some of the conservative justices admitted that the plaintiffs Monday had strong cases against the six-week Texas abortion ban, they wrung their hands about how to remedy it.
Again this maneuver by Texas will ripple out to other states, and beyond abortion limitations.
So you 6 conservative justices what happens to a woman’s rights once the only places in the US of A is CA or NY where they can get an abortion after 6 weeks? Will there be some sort medical ship anchored out in the gulf? Or some set up of a abandoned oil platform? How will they handle women going across the border to Mexico? Will border patrol get sued because they allowed a woman to cross to get an abortion?
Chief Justice John Roberts balked at the novelty of the remedy.
“It’s hardly traditional to get injunctions against judges, injunctions against clerks, injunctions against everybody, right? That’s part of the relief you seek, isn’t it?” he asked Prelogar. “Anybody can bring one of these suits, so you’re seeking an injunction against the world, right?”
To which Prelogar responded, in good voice: 
Injunction junction, what’s your function?
FFS! The law itself and the 6-week abortion ban are clearly in violation of the precedents of Roe and Casey. A six-week abortion ban is clearly an undue burden under the standard of Casey and, as such, the entire Texas law should be declared unconstitutional. The enforcement mechanism is SB 8 is just a ruse. If the so-called conservative justices can’t agree on those simple facts, it is clear that what they are looking for is a shadow ban of Roe and Casey. I.e., the conservative justices want to o/t Roe v. Wade without having to actually declare that they are overturning Roe v. Wade. They know that actually overturning Roe will cause massive blowback and, at the same time, deprive christofascists of their most powerful recruiting/money raising tool. Fucking cowards!
I have an idea. Let’s pass the same law and replace the word “abortion” with the word “gun.”
Utilizing the principle of “Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”, I’d like to see a Democratic lege produce a similar law that says any vigilante can sue anyone else who shows or has shown support for secession or for the January 6th insurrection, using the SCROTUS ruling as precedent.
Could blue states craft a law that allowed private citizens to sue other private citizens if they open-carried or concealed carried a gun because they felt afraid for their safety?
We could be in for a very bumpy ride if these thing stands. And bumpy I mean the end of our nation of laws.
Can I sue if I see my neighbor walking into the door with a gun? It might make me uneasy and feel my local neighbor is now hostile. Degrading my peace of mine, the sanctity of my home and the general sense it is a healthy, function neighborhood? Should I be able to get compensation for the reduction in the quality of my life then? Who do I sue?
Sure they did. Same way they did during Bush v. Gore.
Governing is hard!!
In many states, you can just shoot them and be done with it.
You better be careful, or your neighbor just might give you a peace of his mine.
“Gorsuch spun up his own hypothetical where S.B. 8 is somehow consistent with the precedent of Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood that guarantees a pre-viability abortion, and imagines a massive burden on the shoulders of the poor county clerk.”
These justices are worried about the “burden” this all poses to…(checks notes)….county clerks?!
Rape victims forced to birth their rapist’s child?
Pre-teens forced to become parents as children, themselves?
Women forced to carry congenitally-dead fetuses to term?
Not so much.
The Republican Party – and its SCOTUS apotheosis – is simply evil, inhuman, and deplorable.
You see, we need clarification on this issue.
Call me old fashioned, but I know that if someone wants to do something they will find a way. These justices are trying to sell me on the idea that they’re out of ideas? I don’t think they want to do anything.
Worth a try … but there is that pesky 2A to give them a reason to see a difference.
What about the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. Can Texas have a law where people are sued when other states do not (and will not) have such a law? This seems like a slam dunk, to invalidate the Texas law because it violates Roe vs. Wade which applies to all states. What am I missing?
How heartbreaking. Six Supreme Court justices who’d really like to help except those clever dickenses down there in Texas were just too tricksy for them.
