Wednesday, August 16, 2023

😎

I fully expect one of Trump’s lawyers to make this argument in court someday. Not because it’s a good one; but because they seem incapable of really offering anything except some version of Trump as a legal argument. He’s talking about this:
The three-judge panel said the doctors have standing to sue because they are likely to treat a patient who has taken the pills and needs follow-up care. It’s a “concrete injury,” wrote Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, “when they are forced to divert time and resources away from their regular patients” and when they are “forced to choose between following their conscience and providing care to a woman” who has had an abortion.
To say that is off the charts is an understatement. But that is mild compared to this: Standing is as fundamental as jurisdiction and venue. Without standing, anyone can use the courts to sue anyone else without any connection between them. Standing controls that access by requiring that connection. What is espoused here removes that control in the name of ideology, of approval of the goals of those who seek the power of the court but have no standing to access it.

This is basically the law as MAGA would have it. For them, but not for you. The power of government serving their ends, and never yours. It’s a mockery of the rule of law. It is the rule only of those the judges approve of.

But this is a government of laws, not of persons. Or it’s supposed to be.

And to prove sound legal analysis recognizes sound legal analysis:
Laughter is the best medicine. Hard work is its own reward. Although the competition is pretty stiff for the title… Future’s so bright, I gotta wear shades. 😎
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)