Taking cases to set precedent and guidance for lower courts is literally SCOTUS' job.

They were setting precedents for themself, they signaled they wanted other cases.

Maybe you like abortion law more than unions but it's the same nonsense.

Deciding how you're going to rule (the way you're paid to) and then making up a reason probably isn't the role of the court. But they seem to do it openly all the time.

Since these latest justices were put on the court to overturn R v W I'd say it's getting overturned. Sooner or later. Probably sooner.

Texas doctor breaks law and gets sued by friendly plaintiff.

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/20/10391...-abortion-sued

it is such an F'up law.

There is an issue if the Court will even hear this suit as the Plaintiff may be dismissed as having no standing. He cannot demonstrate any harm to himself so how can he be the Plaintiff.

But if that is the case then the Judge is saying that law as crafted is an a$$ as it allows for anyone to sue like this, regardless of standing. Thus the law needs to be invalidated.

But if the case is just thrown for lack of standing, can it then proceed to a 'merits' argument on appeal, thru the courts?

It seems that question is unsure.

As I understand it, the enforcement mechanism of the statute does give him standing to sue as the Plaintiff and has defined damages.

I doubt the law will survive but how it was crafted is definitely an end run at judicial discretion.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/suprem...ction-n1280573

As i understand it a person who brings a suit must be able to demonstrate they specifically suffered damages. Not just damages occurred and if that bar is not met the case gets tossed.

I have never seen any reports suggesting what a 3rd party, suing in this case, would claim is the damage they specifically endured. Have you seen any such case put forth?

No, they damages are statutorily defined as 10k, plus, I believe, fees and costs.

Are you talking about the "bounty" one can collect for reporting any one who is aiding and abetting an abortion?

If so, that cannot be considered a 'damage' in any traditional sense of how it was prior defined.

This legislation back door creates an 'opportunity' for the litigator to gain advantage (financial reward) but the abortion did not 'cost' them $10k and they are not seeking to recover that 'damage'. Which is the prior requirement in the law.

Yes, I am saying the statutory bounty (not subject to being proven and subject to judicial review, i.e. Interference) acts like damages in a tort action.


What is this law you speak of? This statute combines elements of criminal procedure with elements of tort law to work around the state being the actor infringing on a constitutional right.

Statutory damages are a real thing in the law. You are referring to the Article 3 standing requirements.

So help me understand your arguments as what I have seen said by lawyers is that almost certainly this is an improper end around the law that will be tossed by the Supreme Court when heard.

The arguments I have heard frame it like a chicken and egg question. But where the which comes first here is clear.

Prior to have Standing to sue you had to be able to demonstrate you suffered some 'damage' from the action itself. That somehow the action taken damaged you and you deserved compensation for that damage.

They say this however is the egg after the chicken, argument. The action happens (uber driver takes person to clinic), there is NO damage at that point in time, and they sue after the fact to get a REWARD while claiming the it is the reward that is their damage that gives them standing to sue.

Explain in simple detail for me what damage the Uber Driver taking this person to the clinic does to the litigant and why they should be compensated for that damage?


Separately why does this not establish a new standard of 'standing' as there is no lawsuit in the history of lawsuits where if the person was to win they would not get a 'reward' and thus why is not the loss of that award, if the case is thrown out for no standing, not wrong? If having a shot at getting the reward is enough for standing, then all cases have standing, no? What am I missing? As i have seen it argued that this law may create copy cat laws re Gun Control and other in Blue States, all wrongly.

A state doesn't need standing to enforce criminal law. It only needs jurisdiction.

It's like your employer doesn't have to recognize your freedom of speech. By having a private citizen pursue the bounty or statutory damages in a civil action, the state isn't encroaching on your right to an abortion in the first trimester.

Article III essentially states that you must have suffered some actual or potential injury that was caused by the defendants in order to sue in federal court. It is a threshold question -- have you been injured by the defendant -- not a cap on the upper limit you can recover in situations where statutory damages are available.

More importantly, Article III is a requirement for standing in federal court. It is not an inherent requirement for standing to sue in state court. The Texas legislature has purported to give any citizen the right to sue the Uber driver in your example. In effect, it purports to eliminate the standing requirement for these types of suits in Texas state court.

Whether this was done in a way that will survive scrutiny is another question entirely. There is a fair bit of decisional law in Texas state courts which states that the Texas state court requirements on standing track the federal requirements on standing.

And regardless of the enforcement angle, the substantive restriction on the right to abortion of course could be deemed unconstitutional by a federal court. In other words, the procedural enforcement mechanism in the Texas statute doesn't shield the underlying restriction on the right from scrutiny in the federal courts.

I think we are talking past one another a bit here but Rococo may have answered me.

From your post I get that "...your employer doesn't have to recognize your freedom of speech" but I do not think Texas State law would allow you jjjou812 to sue for damages if you were the witness of an employee sitting right beside you (ME) legitimately having their freedom of speech repressed wrongly.

You jjjou812 could not pursue a bounty or settlement against the company for them not recognizing my free speech rights and if you tried to sue for that very real transgression it would get thrown out before any merits were even discussed as you would not have standing to sue.

You can argue all you want that gaining the settlement in a win represents real monetary gain and thus loss if you are denied the ability to sue but that has never been the threshold prior.

That seems to be what Texas is trying to do in a very back door way now and that I have seen many suggest will be laughed out of court on a no standing basis.

And that is where I think we stand as well.

My point is just one of greater confidence, based on the arguments I have heard, saying it had little to no chance to survive scrutiny.

I am not arguing with you guys ability to peg differing odds on that question.

i just think you are trying to simplify an overly complex issue based on your
understanding of standing and damages. Like anything else in the law, standing and damages have general definitions, with exceptions, and exceptions to those exceptions. There may be a judical answer in the exceptions to the exception's exception. If I were a judge, I would strike down the law by simply proclaiming the bounty hunter was a "state actor" and could not infringe on a constitutional right.

This statute was purposely crafted to avoid such judicial interpretation. It was crafted in a way to impose statutory damages for performing an abortion with that "bounty" going to a private citizen, instead of the state. Again, mixing criminal procedure with tort law principles, usually separate bodies of law.

So can a court find a way to invalidate the statute based on precedent? Will a court be forced to engage in "judicial activism" to overturn the legislative will? Remember the court(s) that defined a right to privacy and further refined criminal procedure (Miranda, etc.) was considered an activist court (and activist court is considered by some to be an improper role of the courts)

My guess is the statute will not survive judicial scrutiny but the how and why will be subject to legal scholarly debate for years.

I don't think there is any surprise in the below. Biden had pre signalled he was not for such change so this gives him the shield to not proceed in the same way they hide behind the Senate Parliamentarian to not deliver election promises.


If the Dem's have one great true skill that is finding the opt outs for their 'reforms' and promises.



The Dems have adopted a position that 'sure the election promises of Build Back Better are important for the American people'. Sure 'voter rights for POC are being attacked and destroyed and this must stop', but then say 'the Senate procedure of Filibuster is just too important to change to achieve those promises and goals.'

In so doing the Dem's declare their priorates and it is not voting rights, it is not the Courts and it not the people via BBB. It is the filibuster, the Senate Parliamentarian and a pretense for bipartisanship and deference for Manchin and Sinema as the actual POTUS who hold the true veto power in the power.

in other words, all the bogeymen they can keep hold of so that when they don't deliver they can point the finger at others.

I mean, wtf, would we expect the Dem to clear the road of obstructions, the way Mitch would if the filibuster truly got in the way of one his key priorities? Would that not really expose the Dems when they failed to deliver regardless???

Despite this being a crystal clear violation of the prior defined Constitutional right to an abortion, the SC is allowing the Texas law to stand until they hear the case instead of taking the more typical route of staying the new law until they hear the case.


Supreme Court keeps Texas abortion law in place but allows providers' legal challenge to proceed

The Supreme Court on Friday said a legal challenge brought by abortion providers in Texas against a state law banning most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy can move forward, but left the law in effect while proceedings continue.

The court ruled 8-1 in favor of the providers in allowing them to pursue a challenge against some of the defendants named in their suit, namely "executive licensing officials" who take enforcement actions against the clinics if they violate Texas' abortion law, known as S.B. 8. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in allowing the clinics' suit against the licensing officials to proceed. The abortion providers' earlier efforts to block enforcement of the law had been unsuccessful because the ban's unique design insulated it from federal court review.

Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion for the court, noting that "in this preliminary posture, the ultimate merits question — whether S. B. 8 is consistent with the federal Constitution — is not before the court. Nor is the wisdom of S. B. 8 as a matter of public policy."...

...The high court sent the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings. In a separate unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the Texas law brought by the Justice Department.

Since the Texas law went into effect at the beginning of September, abortions have effectively been outlawed in Texas, as the measure prohibits abortions after embryonic cardiac activity is detected, usually at about six weeks of pregnancy and often before a woman knows she is pregnant. Some clinics in the state stopped providing abortions entirely, while others directed patients to neighboring states, where procedures are still being performed...

In a separate opinion joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, Chief Justice John Roberts lambasted Texas for passing a law that is contrary to the Supreme Court's abortion decisions and said "the clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this court's rulings."

Citing a high court decision from 1809, Roberts warned that, "'[i]f the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery.' The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Breyer and Kagan, chastised her colleagues for allowing the Texas law to remain in place, saying it "should have put an end to this madness months ago, before S. B. 8 first went into effect." Sotomayor also warned that by foreclosing lawsuits against state-court officials and the state attorney general, the court is inviting other states "to refine S. B. 8's model for nullifying federal rights."

"The court thus betrays not only the citizens of Texas, but also our constitutional system of government," she wrote in a separate opinion....

...The Supreme Court is also considering a separate challenge to a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. In that case, Mississippi officials are asking the court to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a woman's right to an abortion, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed Roe's central holding.

The justices heard arguments in the Mississippi dispute last week, and its conservative members seemed inclined to uphold the 15-week law, potentially paving the way for more states to place limits on abortions.

The Texas law, meanwhile, became enforceable September 1, but days before, abortion clinics filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court asking it to stop the measure from taking effect. In a 5-4 decision, the justices declined to do so, citing the novel procedural questions raised by the case. Still, the court said the providers raised "serious questions" about the constitutionality of the abortion ban.

Several days after the decision by the high court, the Justice Department filed its own lawsuit against Texas officials over the ban, arguing it was enacted in "open defiance" of the Constitution and the U.S. had the authority to sue the state in federal court.

A U.S. district judge in Austin temporarily halted enforcement of the ban in response to a request from the Biden administration. But roughly 48 hours later, a three-judge panel on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the law.

The Justice Department then turned to the Supreme Court and asked it to intervene and hear their case. In late October, the high court said it would hear both the Biden administration and the abortion providers' cases.

l blame the above more on today's Democrat party and their voters who will always support them no matter what because 'Lesser of Two Evils!"

As we see the SC strip this away. As we see Voting rights fall. As we see minimum wage increases abandoned. The Dems with the power to fight back and change things will continue to point to the 'tradition of the Filibuster' as the higher ideal to protect.

'Sorry POC and Women of our base for your bad fortune. Really sucks that we have the power to protect you from these horrific things the GOP is inflicting upon you, but you can't really expect us to get into a dirty fight to fight back on your behalf... can you?'

'I mean we have this tradition within this august body of the filibuster that may require sacrifice to preserve. And if that means voting rights for POC or abortion rights for women, that is a price we are willing to pay'.

'Oh and see that next Republican running for election. He is worse than us so make sure you get out and register your support for us by voting or its your fault if he gets in. You see we, the Dem's don't enact the terrible stuff, that is the GOP. We the Dems just allow it to happen after they do it even when we have the power to stop it'.

What exactly should Obama or Biden (or, for that matter, Chuck Schumer and his ilk) have done to prevent this outcome? What should the people who voted for them have done to prevent this outcome?

(edit apologies for the length but you asked for it :} and once I started down this path I felt it necessary to show the entirety of how Biden and Corporate Dems gaslight the voters with the forever offered and taken away promise of 'change')





When POTUS Roosevelt was faced with a Supreme Court stacked with Conservatives who clearly showed they had no intention of allowing a more liberal POTUS voted in by majority of more liberal voters to ACTUALLY run and shift the country incrementally more liberal, which is supposed to be the result of elections, and instead they showed they would flex their powers as the SC to invalidate most attempts, Roosevelt, flexed back his power and threatened to Pack the Court with more liberal Justices.

The threat worked and suddenly a series of more liberal legislation was not struck down, and that paved the way for the New Deal to come in.


Biden and Dem leaders do the EXACT opposite.

- On sweeping changes in his BBB and the threat of new taxes, etc - ""Nothing would fundamentally change" if i'm elected

- On using a clear unambiguous threat of eliminating the Filibuster to provoke more conciliation and compromise, Biden throws out enough waffling to ensure those for maintain the power it has to nullify Dem agenda's know they can hold to their positions.

- On the power of the threat of Packing the Court to try and push those in the Supreme Court to be more neutral - "Biden Says He's 'Not A Fan' Of Expanding The Supreme Court"


Biden is not an idiot. He just believes his voters are dupes.

He is absolutely predictable in these more 'Social' or "left' areas that have never historically been his actual position but that he adopted to beat Trump.

Even if you want to believe he has changed his stripes and suddenly become more liberal, for his legacy, you can bet and win easy money that in almost all areas he will signal, if not out right say to those who support the status quo, or a more right position, that he is not all in on these fights. He is saying to them, "I may push them. I may fight for them. But what I WON"T do is take away your power to stop them'.

That is as old school Dem or Liberal as you get from a centrist Dem who knows they need to MESSAGE big change to get power, but then lays down (as Obama prior) to these 'Walls' they say are just insurmountable and thus we were thwarted.


- oh sorry about your voters rights POC. That is horrible you lost them. But don't blame us status quo Dems - The Filibuster is just such an important tradition it must take pre-eminence!!

- oh sorry about the loss of so many of key PLANK election promises. But don't blame us status quo Dems - The Senate Parliamentarian is just such an important role that Democratic voters and Election planks must be ignored to preserve the Parliamentarian's job.

- oh sorry about the Country not just shifting but in the midst of a massive leap Right, despite Left rule in the POTUS, in the HOUSE, in the Senate, and despite the Right clearly packing the Court in the most dastardly ways, we status quo Dems feel hopeless to counter that, despite having the power to do so, because ...reasons!


I am sorry but we on the more liberal side of the ledger are dupes (Charlie Brown football gif) if we cannot see how Corporate Dems play this game but almost ALWAYS find a way to give away their power so that no big changes happen and SURPRISE we always end up near the status quo.

Biden, more than any has the biggest TELL when his talk is more empty rhetoric than threat. He always wants to signal to those who oppose and slow that his heart is NEVER in the nuclear option (as FDR threatened) which means the opposing side rarely has to consider the loss of all power and that then emboldens their obstructionism.

And that is EXACTLY what corporate Dems want. They want to make some small changes around the edges, while having the bigger agenda blocked. That way they can put out the Charlie Brown football again for the next election and re-offer basically a different version of the same options, over and over and over again without ever delivering.

If Obama had arbitrarily expanded the SC to include more liberal judges, wouldn't Trump have done the same in the opposite direction?

Well look at right now the one liberal justice is super old. Retire and let Biden nominate a younger person. Many said Ruth could have done the same thing

Sure but so what.

Nothing would allow for the Courts to become less and less influenced by Politics than expanding the number ever upwards such that singular votes mattered less and less.

You can see currently not every single Judge can be counted on to vote the party line and you get division between them. The more judges the more splits.

The United States courts of appeals has over 150 judges and the idea that you can bank on getting any partisan line vote is much tougher than with the supreme court.


Sure if the Chief Justice of the SC is set on partisanship he might be able to achieve it but the benefit of stacking the court would be that the Chief Justice would have AMPLE ways, he does not currently have, to avoid partisanship being to present in any case.

SO for example a Chief justice with an Obama stacked court, adding 4 Justices, Trump then adding 7 and Biden then adding 9 makes for 29 Justices.

Justice Roberts, if indeed he is interested in diffusing partisanship simply sets a rule that each hearing will have a minimum of X justices who will be chosen equally from both Dem and Rep POTUS nominations.


You can see how instantly Roberts then would be making a statement to any future POTUS that packing the court will have no effect on outcomes as you are NOT packing the proceedings.

And if Roberts chose to not use that one (of many ways I could suggest) that would demonstrate that he is in fact only interested in protecting partisanship and it would throw it back to Congress then to take more aggressive steps to reform the courts.


So the idea that tit for tat court packing would be bad is so easily proven false and in FACT so easily proven beneficial that it should not even be entertained.

Put it one last way for effect.

I give you the power to put in place two of your best GOP confidents to secure an outcome for a vote in a 3 person vote scenario, can you do it?
I change it so now its a pool of 100 votes and you need to nominate 51. Do you feel more or less confident in securing the vote with 51 then you would with the 2?

It should be abundantly clear to anyone that the more you need to nominate the more you will get some divergence. Divergence form party line in a SC justice pool is something to be applauded and pursued, and not avoided.