SB8 is designed to do nothing more and nothing less than to subjugate women. Want proof? Point me to any provision of the law which penalizes any man for getting the woman pregnant in the first place. Last I checked, it took “two to tango”, and yet only the woman and anyone trying to help her is targeted. This is a despicable, evil piece of legislation that is unfortunately set to be emulated in red states across the country.
Oh, and lest anyone think that the anti-choice movement is going to stop in the red states, rest assured that it will not. It’s going to scheme to go after it in blue states as well.
(1) Why can't the real victims in Texas SB 8 debacle (women whose rights have been abridged) sue the real perpetrators (the state legislators who voted for SB 8)? Clearly, those legislators have acted recklessly, since they knew that SB 8 is unconstitutional under current law. And clearly, the women have suffered real and measurable harm. The entire mechanism of standing is manifestly broken. It should be tossed out and replaced with something rational.
(2) If the state of Texas can create a nonsensical cause of action out of whole cloth, then so can the Federal government. (Assuming that the SCOTUS allows that aspect of SB 8 to stand.) And, it is well within Federal powers to enable lawsuits against state legislators and governors, both personally and in their official capacity, regardless of what state constitutions say. Every citizen of the U.S. could be said to be harmed if a state legislature and governor were to conduct a Federal election in a manner designed to subvert the popular will. Or, to certify a slate of electors different from the ones selected by voters. We should all be allowed to sue such legislators and governors. Just saying!
(3) With regard to the Shadow Docket, you should be careful what you wish for. It strikes me that this is the judicial analog of prosecutorial discretion. The obvious fix would be for the SCOTUS to spell out in detail its reasons for each such decision. This would mitigate, or prevent, shadow docket decisions that are "unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend." But, if they were to do so, honestly, then they would be giving Supreme Court litigants a roadmap for how to "game " the court.
SB8 is designed to do nothing more and nothing less than to subjugate women. Want proof? Point me to any provision of the law which penalizes any man for getting the woman pregnant in the first place. Last I checked, it took “two to tango”, and yet only the woman and anyone trying to help her is targeted. This is a despicable, evil piece of legislation that is unfortunately set to be emulated in red states across the country.
Oh, and lest anyone think that the anti-choice movement is going to stop in the red states, rest assured that it will not. It’s going to scheme to go after it in blue states as well.
(1) Why can't the real victims in Texas SB 8 debacle (women whose rights have been abridged) sue the real perpetrators (the state legislators who voted for SB 8)? Clearly, those legislators have acted recklessly, since they knew that SB 8 is unconstitutional under current law. And clearly, the women have suffered real and measurable harm. The entire mechanism of standing is manifestly broken. It should be tossed out and replaced with something rational.
(2) If the state of Texas can create a nonsensical cause of action out of whole cloth, then so can the Federal government. (Assuming that the SCOTUS allows that aspect of SB 8 to stand.) And, it is well within Federal powers to enable lawsuits against state legislators and governors, both personally and in their official capacity, regardless of what state constitutions say. Every citizen of the U.S. could be said to be harmed if a state legislature and governor were to conduct a Federal election in a manner designed to subvert the popular will. Or, to certify a slate of electors different from the ones selected by voters. We should all be allowed to sue such legislators and governors. Just saying!
(3) With regard to the Shadow Docket, you should be careful what you wish for. It strikes me that this is the judicial analog of prosecutorial discretion. The obvious fix would be for the SCOTUS to spell out in detail its reasons for each such decision. This would mitigate, or prevent, shadow docket decisions that are "unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend." But, if they were to do so, honestly, then they would be giving Supreme Court litigants a roadmap for how to "game " the court.