Do people not understand that, even if #SB8 is struck down some time from now, there will be hundreds (if not thousands) of Texas women for whom such a ruling will be too late for them to vindicate their constitutional right to a pre-viability abortion?
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) September 2, 2021
Or do they just not care? https://t.co/ot6hoW2Gce
Here's me back in April on how the same 5-4 majority ran right through a (fatal) procedural roadblock to expand religious liberty in Tandon:https://t.co/52stnZu7U6
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) September 2, 2021
Roe v Wade was a “new interpretation,” too. The real problem here is running roughshod over the rules when it suits. Procedural rules are sometimes the only guarantors of due process and equal protection. They are not mere “technicalities,” they are that important.Just a reminder that back in April, the very same 5-4 #SCOTUS majority flat-out *ignored* procedural obstacles to issue an emergency injunction that blocked California's #COVID-based restrictions on in-home gatherings based upon a *new* interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause.
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) September 2, 2021
Except give it a few turns of the wheel and we’re right back here again.Expand the Court. Do it tomorrow. Jesus Christ, a 5-4 majority said that the Texas law should stand because the three-card monte legal con at its heart was too clever for precedent to obtain. The whole bagjob of a decision reeks of corruption.
— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) September 2, 2021
The theory that elections matter would seem to elude so many Americans after all this time. And yet people wonder why we couldn't impose democracy on Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteI am expecting that the states will start experimenting with other such work arounds of "established precedent". I don't remember which lawyer asked if Brown v Board of Education was safe. I'm expecting more reinstatement of Jim Crow or that which reimposes LGBTQ discrimination will be tried.