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.
Well, SB8 is certainly a shining example of the Patriarchy-Industrial-Complex. However, it has a sort-of strange way of going about this. The law specifically excludes the abortion patient from being a defendant. And, it excludes rapists and other illegal impregnators from being plaintiffs. However, it lacks precise gender symmetry because it does not exclude the impregnating male from being a defendant. Thus, for example, a husband performing an abortion on his wife would be a potential defendant.
By the way, the abortion patient is also a potential plaintiff under the law. Thus we can imagine a form of SB8 fraud: A couple becomes pregnant and obtains an abortion specifically for the purpose of suing under SB8. Any bets on how soon we will see the first such case of SB8 fraud?
(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.
Alexis, I agree that legislators have immunity. I am making a much larger point: Any system that does not allow actual victims to get satisfaction (i.e., to sue) actual reckless perpetrators, is manifestly unjust. It deserves to be mocked, disassembled, and thrown on the trash heap.
Apparently, decisions in the shadow docket, such as the one pertaining to Texas SB 8, typically do not have detailed explanations. The complaint is that the justices hide inadequate and faulty reasoning behind sketchy shadow docket opinions.
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.
Well, SB8 is certainly a shining example of the Patriarchy-Industrial-Complex. However, it has a sort-of strange way of going about this. The law specifically excludes the abortion patient from being a defendant. And, it excludes rapists and other illegal impregnators from being plaintiffs. However, it lacks precise gender symmetry because it does not exclude the impregnating male from being a defendant. Thus, for example, a husband performing an abortion on his wife would be a potential defendant.
By the way, the abortion patient is also a potential plaintiff under the law. Thus we can imagine a form of SB8 fraud: A couple becomes pregnant and obtains an abortion specifically for the purpose of suing under SB8. Any bets on how soon we will see the first such case of SB8 fraud?
You raise an interesting scenario. I can definitely see cases of that happening.
(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.
On your first point, I think legislators enjoy immunity from suit for the laws that they pass.
On your third point, isn’t the Court supposed to spell out the reasons for its decisions in detail?
Alexis, I agree that legislators have immunity. I am making a much larger point: Any system that does not allow actual victims to get satisfaction (i.e., to sue) actual reckless perpetrators, is manifestly unjust. It deserves to be mocked, disassembled, and thrown on the trash heap.
Apparently, decisions in the shadow docket, such as the one pertaining to Texas SB 8, typically do not have detailed explanations. The complaint is that the justices hide inadequate and faulty reasoning behind sketchy shadow docket opinions.