Justice Dept sues TX over abortion law SB8
- Thread starter bcg_2006
- Start date
The law is unconstitutional and will never survive. I am curious as to the DOJ's standing to challenge it though. I haven't read the complaint yet to see what it says about its standing.
Garland has been wrong a awful lot in a short amount of time. And it's amazing something that doesn't have a actual federal law on the books legalizing has constitutional protection while the one thing that does in this (states rights/10th amendment) tend to be forgotten. RvW has been walking a fine line for years, the fact it's established "law" is why most SC sessions won't tackle it. In the end it's over-reach against the 10th amendment and should be overturned overall. If done all it does is make states write laws legalizing it or not and blue states will so it won't totally go away. The reason it's such a fight in this country is how it was legalized. Other countries don't experience near the fight and it's all in how it was passed or not.
I'm not sure the Supreme Court thinks abortion is a constitutional right. We will find out soon enough and not because of the Texas case.
Roe v Wade says otherwise. The holding was based on the 14th amendment, which the Court called a fundamental right to privacy.
Maybe the new court doesn’t anymore, but I seriously doubt that.
The easy answer is a state is prohibited from any ban on abortion during the first trimester.
Other issues involve deputizing civilians to carry out what are I assume criminal penalties.
And the law is just fundamentally stupid. I mean, a random guy can sue an Uber driver and if he wins he gets 10k and attorneys fees? What? And if he loses he owes no attorneys fees to whoever he sued? What’s his standing?
I'm talking about the current Supreme Court. Everyone knows Roe v. Wade's days may be numbered. There is a case that will challenge it this year.
I can’t see the court doing a total 180 on whether it’s a constitutional right. Precedent is still a big driving factor for the court. Maybe it changes how the rights are defined, but it will remain a constitutional right at some level.
9 people said it was a constitutional right. 9 people at one time also said slavery was a constitutional right, The main way you find out what is a constitutional right is you read the constitution and if it's in there then its protected. 10th amendment states if it's not in the constitution as protected federally then it falls to the states. Wedging it in as a privacy issue is a false argument. It's not a privacy right, it's a judgment over the act itself. If the act isn't offered then there is no doctor/patient issue. If you wedge this in then why not other things like optional cosmetic surgery for 8 year olds (ie Breast augmentation)? Again, this became "law" off a Sc decision. They basically legislated it legal which is not their job. There is no federal law that legalizes abortion (hence Pelosi said they would take that up after the Texas law was passed).
I don't disagree with the standing point you make, but it also falls to Garland that way as well. Since it won't be Texas sueing they the standing to sue them isn't there . Garland may need to wait till the first case come up then sue the plaintiff.
