Liberals Now Like Texas Anti-Abortion Law Tactic?

[Revoltingest]

Texas seeks to circumvent constitutional law (SCOTUS ruling).
Californiastan notices, & thinks....
"Great idea!"
"That damnable Constitution is so inconvenient."
In response to Texas abortion ban, Newsom calls for similar restrictions on assault weapons
Excerpted...
The Texas Heartbeat Act, also known as Senate Bill 8, declares that it is illegal to perform an abortion after about six weeks of a pregnancy but gives the state no direct role in enforcing that ban. Instead, it authorizes private lawsuits in state courts against doctors or clinic owners who violate its provisions.

The new California anti-gun effort, Newsom said, would function the same way. Newsom said he was directing his staff to work with the state Legislature and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta on a new law that would allow private citizens to sue manufacturers or distributors of assault weapons as well as ghost gun kits or parts.

"If the most efficient way to keep these devastating weapons off our streets is to add the threat of private lawsuits, we should do just that," Newsom said in the statement.

The governor's pledge to pass a law restricting assault weapons through private litigation is exactly the kind of legal gambit that constitutional scholars have predicted since the Supreme Court majority declined to block the Texas abortion law, said Khiara M. Bridges, a professor at UC Berkeley School of Law.

"Gov. Newsom is following through on the threat," Bridges said. "It’s just been academic up until now."

 

[Revoltingest]

Lawyers are thrilled at these developments.
(Many have had to use tissues to clean themselves
up after unexpected moments of intense pleasure.)
Imagine....a nation wherein all controversial laws
will be enforced against defendants in civil suits.
And SCOTUS says "not my problem, man".

I see it as a kind of grass roots fascism. Similar
to anarchy in a way, but the opposite because of
employing burgeoning new complex legislation.
Tis a perfect storm of incompetence, corruption,
lawlessness, fanaticism, & regulation.

The above is IMO.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why shouldn't the left do exactly that? There are no rules any more, unless one wants to submit to them alone voluntarily, but I can't imagine why anyone would show such restraint if it is not being reciprocated. The reason to adhere to the rules is in part to give others an incentive to do the same. If they simply trample tradition and forbearance, there is no value in showing it in return. You cannot be unfair to people that are never fair themselves. There is no duty to them. Take their guns away from them if you can by any method that works. What is there to lose? Their respect? Their cooperation? The left cannot defend its interests if it is to play with one hand tied behind its back against an opponent without scruples.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let Revoltistan become the libertarian enclave that exists
separately from the libs & cons attacking each other.
I wonder if we'll need a wall?

 

[74x12]

Texas seeks to circumvent constitutional law (SCOTUS ruling).
Californiastan notices, & thinks....
"Great idea!"
"That damnable Constitution is so inconvenient."
In response to Texas abortion ban, Newsom calls for similar restrictions on assault weapons
Excerpted...
The Texas Heartbeat Act, also known as Senate Bill 8, declares that it is illegal to perform an abortion after about six weeks of a pregnancy but gives the state no direct role in enforcing that ban. Instead, it authorizes private lawsuits in state courts against doctors or clinic owners who violate its provisions.

The new California anti-gun effort, Newsom said, would function the same way. Newsom said he was directing his staff to work with the state Legislature and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta on a new law that would allow private citizens to sue manufacturers or distributors of assault weapons as well as ghost gun kits or parts.

"If the most efficient way to keep these devastating weapons off our streets is to add the threat of private lawsuits, we should do just that," Newsom said in the statement.

The governor's pledge to pass a law restricting assault weapons through private litigation is exactly the kind of legal gambit that constitutional scholars have predicted since the Supreme Court majority declined to block the Texas abortion law, said Khiara M. Bridges, a professor at UC Berkeley School of Law.

"Gov. Newsom is following through on the threat," Bridges said. "It’s just been academic up until now."

Liberals have been circumventing the constitution for a looong time. Ridiculous for them to be all self righteous about the constitution now. The supreme court has sided with conservatives when it comes to roe v wade. Overturning roe v wade has nothing to do with the bill of rights like so called liberals want to dismantle. I guess I'm glad I finally left California for reasons like this. We'll probably see an exodus of actual freedom loving Americans from places like California and those states will be left to rot under extreme leftist governments.

 

[F1fan]

Lawyers are thrilled at these developments.
(Many have had to use tissues to clean themselves
up after unexpected moments of intense pleasure.)
Imagine....a nation wherein all controversial laws
will be enforced against defendants in civil suits.
And SCOTUS says "not my problem, man".

I think it was a huge error of judgment by the 5 conservative SC judges (except Roberts) to not stay the Texas 6 week abortion ban. Roberts' decent was correct in that Roe v Wade is still valid and applicable all over the USA.

I see it as a kind of grass roots fascism. Similar
to anarchy in a way, but the opposite because of
employing burgeoning new complex legislation.
Tis a perfect storm of incompetence, corruption,
lawlessness, fanaticism, & regulation.

The above is IMO.

Are you referring to the Texas law as well as the CA proposal?

The thing about states banning abortion is that it will only affect those women who can't afford to travel. Those with means can travel to another state and get the procedure so I'm not quite sure what these red state legislators are trying to accomplish from a moral perspective. It seems more pressure on poor women who won't have the resources to carry a child to term.

 

[Revoltingest]

Liberals have been circumventing the constitution for a looong time. Ridiculous for them to be all self righteous about the constitution now. The supreme court has sided with conservatives when it comes to roe v wade. Overturning roe v wade has nothing to do with the bill of rights like so called liberals want to dismantle. I guess I'm glad I finally left California for reasons like this. We'll probably see an exodus of actual freedom loving Americans from places like California and those states will be left to rot under extreme leftist governments.

I'm fair.
I criticize both libs & cons for either trashing or loving
the Constitution when it serves their purpose. But it
is great that we have different laws in different states.

Interesting wrinkle....
We even have different constitutional rights in different
states. The federal courts in various districts (eg, 7th
circuit) recognize a 1st Amendment right to record cops.
Some other districts don't....the even numbered ones,
oddly enuf.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it was a huge error of judgment by the 5 conservative SC judges (except Roberts) to not stay the Texas 6 week abortion ban. Roberts' decent was correct in that Roe v Wade is still valid and applicable all over the USA.

I concur.

Are you referring to the Texas law as well as the CA proposal?

Yes, both are anti-constitutional (IMO).

The thing about states banning abortion is that it will only affect those women who can't afford to travel. Those with means can travel to another state and get the procedure so I'm not quite sure what these red state legislators are trying to accomplish from a moral perspective. It seems more pressure on poor women who won't have the resources to carry a child to term.

But it will also affect non-poor because the parties
can be sued even for aiding out-of-state travel.

 

[Left Coast]

Who has standing in either of these arrangements?

 

[F1fan]

Liberals have been circumventing the constitution for a looong time. Ridiculous for them to be all self righteous about the constitution now.

Give us some examples.

The supreme court has sided with conservatives when it comes to roe v wade.

Only because it has been an issue pushed heavily by the Christian right in the USA.

Overturning roe v wade has nothing to do with the bill of rights like so called liberals want to dismantle.

It is a decision made by the Supreme Court, and that is the law. It is a liberty that women have all over the First World and the USA is going backwards in this area of liberty for women.

I guess I'm glad I finally left California for reasons like this. We'll probably see an exodus of actual freedom loving Americans from places like California and those states will be left to rot under extreme leftist governments.

Well, no freedom if you are a woman in Texas who doesn't have the means to travel to a state that isn't hostile to the liberties of women.

Conservative like to talk about freedom, but in reality they don't want freedom outside of their ideological framework. Freedom from gun violence? They don't care. Freedom of body autonomy? They don't care.

 

[Revoltingest]

Who has standing in either of these arrangements?

Anyone.
That's why the law is so powerful.
And the ultimate wet dream of lawyers & all others in the Justice Industrial Complex.
Texas abortion law a “radical expansion” of who can sue whom, and an about-face for Republicans on civil lawsuits

 

[sun rise]

Good for the left. We don't bring a sword to a gunfight. The extreme right SCOTUS is about to have their radicalism shoved up their butts. Bring it on.

 

[Revoltingest]

Good for the left. We don't bring a sword to a gunfight. The extreme right SCOTUS is about to have their radicalism shoved up their butts. Bring it on.

Hah!
I knew it.
The left knows no ethics or rule of law.
Any tactic, no matter how wrong, is fair game.

There....I feel better now.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, both are anti-constitutional (IMO).

Well I think you are an originalist if I recall. But we live in evolving societies and technologies, and the Constitution has had to adjust. It adjusted to free black people and women voting, as examples. There are liberties that are open to citizens now that were not back in the 18 and 19 centuries, and the SC does have authority to assess whether these liberties can be extended from the lose framework of the Constitution. As noted in Roe abortion isn't even a full right. It has limits depending upon the development of the pregnancy. I suspect conservatives are going to take power in the coming decade, but are laying out policies that are not going to work for the USA long term.

But it will also affect non-poor because the parties
can be sued even for aiding out-of-state travel.

I think that bounty hunter element has turned off a lot of people, namely that anyone who takes up the state's opportunity to turn someone in will get national exposure. They open themselves to a lot of harassment. But this law works best because it makes doctors scared and pregnant women scared. Those with the means will be able to maintain their privacy and get the abortion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well I think you are an originalist if I recall. But we live in evolving societies and technologies, and the Constitution has had to adjust. It adjusted to free black people and women voting, as examples. There are liberties that are open to citizens now that were not back in the 18 and 19 centuries, and the SC does have authority to assess whether these liberties can be extended from the lose framework of the Constitution. As noted in Roe abortion isn't even a full right. It has limits depending upon the development of the pregnancy. I suspect conservatives are going to take power in the coming decade, but are laying out policies that are not going to work for the USA long term.


I think that bounty hunter element has turned off a lot of people, namely that anyone who takes up the state's opportunity to turn someone in will get national exposure. They open themselves to a lot of harassment. But this law works best because it makes doctors scared and pregnant women scared. Those with the means will be able to maintain their privacy and get the abortion.

Amending the Constitution is fine with me (an originalist).
But I oppose amendment by fiat, be it by SCOTUS, Congress,
Presidential directive, or some backwater state legislature.

 

[F1fan]

Good for the left. We don't bring a sword to a gunfight. The extreme right SCOTUS is about to have their radicalism shoved up their butts. Bring it on.

Right, Democrats get a lot of criticism for playing the game hard like Republicans. It goes back to the double standard: that Democrats are ethical and need to act like it, and Republicans are cheaters, but if they are elected that's what they people wanted.

 

[F1fan]

Amending the Constitution is fine with me (an originalist).
But I oppose amendment by fiat, be it by SCOTUS, Congress,
Presidential directive, or some backwater state legislature.

But that won't happen since there are so many in Congress who will shut the door on liberties JUST because the other side wants them. The USA still needs to function, and abortion is one thing our society and economy relies on. The courts will have to decide hard issues for the sake of the big picture, not the simplistic ideals of one party.

 

[Revoltingest]

But that won't happen since there are so many in Congress who will shut the door on liberties JUST because the other side wants them. The USA still needs to function, and abortion is one thing our society and economy relies on. The courts will have to decide hard issues for the sake of the big picture, not the simplistic ideals of one party.

Abortion isn't necessary for the economy.
It's a civil rights issue...bodily autonomy.

BTW, there's far more economic activity
generated by a baby (than by an aborted fetus).
Those things are really costly for at least 18 years!

 

[Left Coast]

Anyone.
That's why the law is so powerful.
And the ultimate wet dream of lawyers & all others in the Justice Industrial Complex.
Texas abortion law a “radical expansion” of who can sue whom, and an about-face for Republicans on civil lawsuits

That is bizarre. And as much as I'm fine with restricting access to guns in various ways, it's silly that Newsom would model our law on this weird, likely unconstitutional one in TX. Comes across as more of a "**** you" than a well thought-out policy.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Lawyers are thrilled at these developments.
(Many have had to use tissues to clean themselves
up after unexpected moments of intense pleasure.)
Imagine....a nation wherein all controversial laws
will be enforced against defendants in civil suits.
And SCOTUS says "not my problem, man".

I see it as a kind of grass roots fascism. Similar
to anarchy in a way, but the opposite because of
employing burgeoning new complex legislation.
Tis a perfect storm of incompetence, corruption,
lawlessness, fanaticism, & regulation.

The above is IMO.

Well, that's exactly what it is. And, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out in his dissent, Trump's and McConnell's packed SCOTUS themselves created the climate in which such a stupendously stupid free-for-all seems permissible.