SaysWho? Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-588_c07d.pdf Breaking news, so more analysis forthcoming The main crux a few pages in: JUSTICE GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part II–C. The Court granted certiorari before judgment in this case to determine whether, under our precedents, certain abortion providers can pursue a pre-enforcement challenge to a recently enacted Texas statute. We conclude that such an action is permissible against some of the named defendants but not others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CayceG Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 Thanks for redoing the thread title. Because I was going to ask what the legalese meant in real human terms of abortion being legal or illegal. It's times like these (legal rulings and dumbass lawyer speak) that I well and truly rely on Twitter reactions to tell me what to think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted December 10, 2021 Author Share Posted December 10, 2021 Just now, CayceG said: Thanks for redoing the thread title. Because I was going to ask what the legalese meant in real human terms of abortion being legal or illegal. It's times like these (legal rulings and dumbass lawyer speak) that I well and truly rely on Twitter reactions to tell me what to think. No problem. Thomas concurs and dissents with parts of the decision. From SCOTUSBlog: "Justice Thomas concurs in part and dissents in part: He would send the case back with instructions to be dismissed entirely. He would also hold that the providers lack a legal right to sue." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneticBlueprint Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 I'm confused. I thought that providers were the defendants in these cases? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 Just now, GeneticBlueprint said: I'm confused. I thought that providers were the defendants in these cases? No, the providers were suing in advance of being sued under the new law. The court found that they could sue certain executive level people in the government, but not alll of the named defendants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 13 minutes ago, SaysWho? said: No problem. Thomas concurs and dissents with parts of the decision. From SCOTUSBlog: "Justice Thomas concurs in part and dissents in part: He would send the case back with instructions to be dismissed entirely. He would also hold that the providers lack a legal right to sue." justice thomas continues to set the bar for absolute bat shit insanity. i guess you'd have to in order to be married to Ginni! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 wat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 The short explanation of the ruling today is that the court dismissed lawsuits by abortion providers against a bunch of state officials, with the exception of those state officials at the Texas Medical Board who *could* dole out punishment to the providers due to their licensing authority. All of the other defendants had no ability to harm the providers under the statute, which is why they were dismissed from the suit. The likely outcome is a special legislative session is called where they bar the medical board from punitive action based on the law, which wasn’t ever intended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 3 minutes ago, sblfilms said: The short explanation of the ruling today is that the court dismissed lawsuits by abortion providers against a bunch of state officials, with the exception of those state officials at the Texas Medical Board who *could* dole out punishment to the providers due to their licensing authority. All of the other defendants had no ability to harm the providers under the statute, which is why they were dismissed from the suit. The likely outcome is a special legislative session is called where they bar the medical board from punitive action based on the law, which wasn’t ever intended. And then it stays as is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 6 minutes ago, SuperSpreader said: And then it stays as is? Correct Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 Allow lawsuits for religious advertising Lawsuits for fake news, including distribution (Facebook) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.