Just ONE State Could Unwind Texas's Law

[berni_mccoy]

One state could make a law that allows any citizen to sue any politician for taking money from lobbies for an amount equal to the money received and allow every constituent to bring suit and win the same amount of money and I guarantee that it gets immediately challenged and brought down in the SCOTUS. Make the language identical to the Texas law except replace abortion with lobbying and the amounts of the bounty.

Both actions are affirmed rights by the SCOTUS: Lobbying is affirmed via Citizen’s United v. FEC and abortion is affirmed via Roe v. Wade.

SCOTUS can’t take one down without taking the other down on the same grounds.

[BlueGreenLady]

1. Maybe we could have a Constitutional Convention and

add it to the Bill of Rights! Seriously.

[rurallib]

11. For a lot of reasons, I don't think we want a constitutional convention

First of which is that there are no real rules, so expect Repugs to do all they can to 'rig' it.

[xxqqqzme]

20. A Constitutional Convention is on the agenda of every RW billionaire.

It is why the koch's have supported the Federalist Society for years and why Moscow mitch receives a list of court nominees from the Federalist Society and not the ABA

[2naSalit]

22. +1

[usaf-vet]

24. EXACTLY! That would unfortunately open a can of MAGA-gots. As other have said the billionaire dream.

They would buy and manipulate every Constitutional Amendment that obstructs their agenda.

The thought that should send shivers down all of our backs.

[JHB]

32. Yep. They're prepped and ready for a new CC, and would end up running the show.

It would pass all their pet agenda items, locking in their advantages and kneecapping any ability to reform.

It would be a second Confederate Constitution.

[NCjack]

2. I like it. Also, use the approach for gun control and men having sex with underaged girls.

Last edited Sat Sep 4, 2021, 03:16 PM - Edit history (1)

[joetheman]

18. THIS!!! We ALL have standing against guns, not so much abortion or lobbying. nt

[MichMan]

3. Probably be a blue state that would be able to pass something like this

Wouldn't that make it much more likely that it would be a Democrat that was sued?

[berni_mccoy]

4. A chance worth taking... I suspect the SCOTUS would not take a pass on this one though

Like they did with the Texas law. SCOTUS would be stuck trying to argue this law is not valid while Texas law is. They both infringe on rights the SCOTUS has affirmed in the past: Citizen’s United and Roe v. Wade.

[ancianita]

13. Right. Because

one concerns fictional personhoods and their "speech," and the other flesh and blood humans and their "privacy."

[lame54]

5. It would have to be a RED state...

Otherwise the SCOTUS would call it's bluff and let it destroy itself

[LeftInTX]

6. I think it should be done with mask mandates!

Quick and easy...Right a law. Right now. Or heck right an executive order.

[Ms. Toad]

7. You are incorrect - Texas DID make abortion after a fetal heartbeat illegal..

From the bill:

Sec. 171.204. PROHIBITED ABORTION OF UNBORN CHILD WITH
DETECTABLE FETAL HEARTBEAT; EFFECT. (a) Except as provided by
Section 171.205, a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an
abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal
heartbeat for the unborn child as required by Section 171.203 or
failed to perform a test to detect a fetal heartbeat.

They merely excluded the state from enforcing the law by deputizing any citizen to bring a private action.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

8. Why isn't a doctor defying the law

Surely there is someone on the left who would cover the costs of the lawsuit? Then we can get it blocked, or call the lawsuit bluff.

[berni_mccoy]

9. Thanks for the correction. I edited to correct.

[AncientOfDays]

30. Then don't detect

Besides, how is a random outsider going to prove any of this in court?

[Ms. Toad]

33. They thought of that

The doctor is obligated to try, and can be sued if they performed an abortion without attempting to detect the heartbeat with the same penalty as if they had detected one.

[yaesu]

10. or better yet

pass a law against buying or using viagra, making it a suable offense, $10,000 bounty if you catch anyone "in the act", sounds fair to me.

[Diraven]

26. Awkward

I don't even want to imagine how men will have to prove they don't actually need Viagra in court.

[wryter2000]

12. Or pass a similar law

For gun ownership. Glen Kirschner suggested on Stephanie Miller's show.

[iemanja]

14. I think there is judicial precedent

That protects legislators and executive appointees from liability for acts that are part of their job.

[berni_mccoy]

16. Political campaigning is not part of their job

It’s what they do to keep their job but the laws are clear at distinguishing their job as rep and their political career.

[ancianita]

15. Or every woman can incorporate as a IVF business, with dr., driver, nurse, etc., as employees.

Embryos are a global business; there's no law that says a woman's embryos are not her property. Anyone can take that to court, but under the commerce clause, she'd probably win.

[BlueIdaho]

17. Bring it on!

If the lobbying bill withstands a judicial review, we still win.

[bluestarone]

19. Maybe a blue state could say $10,000 reward

For every citizen that sue a RETHUGLICON for ANYTHING?

[Diraven]

27. I was actually thinking about this earlier

What's stopping these states with total Republican control from making a similar law offering bounties for anyone who can be identified as being a Democrat?

[LT Barclay]

21. Not that the SCOTUS is above twisting logic like taffey, but I think that is what saved the ACA.

If the court ruled that the government overstepped their bounds by forcing people to buy health insurance, then states couldn't require automobile insurance.

[Blue Owl]

25. K&R

[brooklynite]

28. No comparison to Texas.

1st Amendment basis would knock out anti-lobbying law with no impact on Texas abortion law.

[berni_mccoy]

29. Both are tested actions ruled protected by the Constitution

By the SCOTUS. The only difference are what amendments are involved.

[Josiesdad]

31. The premise in this thread is absolutely spot on...

Forget what you think you know about constitutionally protected activities granted by our federal constitution. These actions protect citizens against actions by state actors. The Texas law has pulled back the thin veneer of these protections and has allowed the constitutionally protected activities to be controlled by bypassing the constitution completely and creating a common law tort centered around activities that enable abortions.

So be it. If this is the constitutional model that the Federalist society wants to be the norm for the rest of this century then bring it on. If they are now saying that the federal constitution is no longer primary then let's create torts that allows citizens to litigate and sue to collect damages in the case of federal bribery (aka lobbying activities) or perhaps it could be come a tort to transport or sell firearms. Or on the other side perhaps it becomes a tort to offer food and water to people that are standing in line to cast their vote.

The possibilities are literally endless.

It has been an unstated goal of the Republicans and the Federalist society to weaken the power of the trial lawyers... It looks like they don't care about that any more.