Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1392811
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1392811
What’s to stop a state from preventing minorities access to polling places, but inserting private militias doing the enforcement of the ban and being paid to do so via a privately funded bounty system? The right to vote is Constitutional, but the state could say no one associated with the state is stopping anyone from voting.
4 Likes
Dunno why they bother pretending to care about what anyone argues or doesn’t argue. The fix is in, just issue the damned ruling.
8 Likes
This is just depressing.
5 Likes
Thank Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
2 Likes
According to Neil Katyal (SP?), Amy Covid Barrett and the Beer Lover are actually sounding less amenable to Texas right now.
ETA: I actually expect the RW judges to let this case slide and then bring down the hammer on RvW with the Mississippi case.
18 Likes
The 4th and 15th Amendments, along with the VRA. Try to stay in the realm of the plausible when you’re hypothesizing insanely bad outcomes.
13 Likes
I doubt they’ll let this one stand when they have a better vehicle for killing Roe in the pending Mississippi case. It’s “cleaner,” not tainted by the patently unconstitutional vigilante enforcement. There is no rush. The rightwing bench will want this to look as legit as possible when they finally do it.
20 Likes
Yeah, and Kyle Rittenhouse was a member of a well regulated militia.
7 Likes
100%. John Roberts hates hates hates when lower courts overrule the Supreme Court. That’s his fucking privilege. And I expect he’ll get one or more of Justice Handmaid’s Tale, Rapey McBeerface, or Gorsuch to go along with that.
13 Likes
Again, try to stay in the realm of plausibility.
11 Likes
You underestimate the true believers. Amy Covid is doing the Lord’s work here, saving the lives of the unborn.
She may find a way to sever the vigilante enforcement, or in this case just rule that DOJ doesn’t have standing, but the core of the law will stay in place
3 Likes
Whether vigilantes have standing to file suit in state courts is up to state law. I expect it will be distasteful to a majority of SCOTUS, but it won’t be an expressly deciding factor in the decision whether to reinstate the trial court’s injunction order.
And I really wish somebody would gin up a test case in the state courts. C’mon, people. SCOTX really isn’t going to bless vigilante standing even for the sake of abortion. The consequences for the oil and gas bidness are too dire if that’s the law.
11 Likes
They already let vigilante standing stand for now.
2 Likes
As well they should. It’s not an issue of federal law whether states make that a thing in their own courts. If, say, Massachusetts wants to confer vigilante standing on its citizens to sue the hell out of oil and gas companies for ruining the damn planet, that’s up to Massachusetts.
6 Likes
It is actually an open legal question as to whether the 4th and 14th amendment apply to actions by non state actors who proport to be acting under state authority.
2 Likes
Even Rapey McBeerface is wondering.
17 Likes
The right to abortion is gone. If Texas was really concerned about abortion they wouldn’t bothere defending their idiotic law. But since it is all about owning the libs…
2 Likes
Try Moscow Mitch…
18 Likes
“purport”
And it’s not an open question that non-state actors who are acting under actual state authority are, y’know, state actors. If Texas hires me to lynch a bunch of black people, both the state and I are going to have a hard time winning that case in court.
11 Likes