September 03, 2021, Ace of Spades
The Court's brief order -- not at all unusual in the emergency-application context -- made clear that the procedural issues prevented it from considering the constitutionality of the Texas law. The defendants are state officials plus one private citizen. The state officials claimed they lacked the authority to enforce the Texas law, which allows private citizens to file suit against any person who provides an abortion or aids or abets such an abortion. The one private citizen who was sued stated he has no intention to enforce the law. Absent such authority or intention among the named defendants, the majority concluded, "We cannot say the applicants have met their burden to prevail in an injunction or stay application." All of that means that, as Ed Whelan has aptly explained, the case did not present a live controversy (i.e., an actual dispute between the parties).
Ed Whelan found the dissenters' claims weak and entirely political.
Oh, Bush appointee John Roberts joined the liberals. Of course.
Why do I say he "joined" the liberals? He rules in lockstep with the liberals in 90% of cases. He is a liberal.
Last night the Court denied abortion providers' beyond�audacious request for emergency relief against the Texas Heartbeat Act by a 5�4 vote. The feebleness of the four dissents shows that the denial should have been 9�0.
...
The most disappointing -- because we should have expected so much better, especially from someone who often presents himself as very serious about jurisdictional limits on judicial power --is the Chief's (which Breyer and Kagan join). The Chief acknowledges that defendants "may be correct" that "existing doctrines preclude judicial intervention." That acknowledgment should be enough to require him to deny relief. Instead, he somehow imagines that the Court has the power to "grant preliminary relief to preserve the status quo ante" so that the lower courts can address the "particularly difficult" questions that the case raises. And, again, he also mistakenly assumes that preliminary relief against the named defendants actually could "preserve the status quo ante."
One bright note for those who fear that the Chief holds extraordinary sway over a couple of his conservative colleagues is that neither of them went south with him.
The usual liberal "Republicans" are campaigning against this bill, warning actual conservatives that this type of "innovative" legislation -- authorizing the use of private causes of action to vindicate policy objectives --
might be used against conservatives
in the future.
Might?
In the future?
Are they aware that anyone attempting to develop his own land can be sued for a host of claimed environmental offenses?
Did they notice that bakers can be sued and harassed (by a state agency with a virtually unlimited budget) if they refuse to bake a "Gender Transition Cake" for a serial stalker?
Did they notice that employers can be sued for not hiring enough minorities, or firing too many minorities during a downsizing?
This type of law is already rife in our legal codes, and deployed exclusively
against the right, against traditionalists.
They never argue against those laws. Their "libertarianism" only comes to the fore when someone on the
right wants to use the left's tactics against the left.
But as to the left's own tactics? They have no problem with that. Sure, if you
make an issue of it with them on Twitter, they will reluctantly mumble "Well I'm against those laws, too."
But are they? Strange we never hear about this supposed opposition to the left's impositions on the right
until we probe them about their inconsistency on these issues.
You don't really "oppose" something if your "opposition" only gets voiced when someone pressures you into stating it.
These people are liberals, have been liberals, will always be liberals. They do not object to liberal policies or laws, especially those that advance a liberal social agenda, because they are, in fact, liberals.
They object exclusively to the
right's ventures into these areas because, again, they
areliberals.
I'm getting sick and tired of being told that I can't pick up the same legal club the left has been beating the shit out of me with my whole life, because of "Muh Principles."
I have no principles requiring me to be a chump, or a simp for the left's agenda.
Maybe those with such "principles" should reexamine them.
Or at least stop claiming to be "conservative." Or even "libertarian."
Meanwhile, the fake conservatives/fake libertarians will have no problem with
Jen Psaki's announcement that the Biden Puppet Administration is looking for ways to use the federal government's power to rewrite a state's law.
