Supreme Court won't block Texas abortion law but grants expedited review for Nov. 1

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Fri Oct 22, 2021, 01:55 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Washington Post

The Supreme Court on Friday said it will consider legal arguments over the Texas abortion law that is the nation’s most restrictive on Nov. 1, and that the law will remain in effect. The court granted an expedited review of what is called S. B. 8, which the Biden administration in a filing Friday said “has virtually eliminated abortion in Texas after six weeks of pregnancy.”

The decision sets up a momentous term for abortion rights at the Supreme Court. The justices on Dec. 1 will consider a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks, far earlier than the court’s precedents currently allow. Abortion opponents have urged the court to use that case to loosen precedents that say states may not prohibit abortion before fetal viability, generally thought to be around 22 to 24 weeks.

Mississippi and abortion opponents have asked the court to use the case to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which first established a constitutional right to abortion in 1973 and reaffirmed it in 1992. In the Texas case, the court said it will consider the law’s unique enforcement policy, which authorizes individual citizens to sue anyone who helps a woman obtain an abortion after cardiac activity is noted in the embryo, usually about six weeks.

The court did not accept a request from Texas specifically to reconsider Roe and Casey. Instead, it limited its inquiry to whether the United States or abortion providers may bring suit in federal court to keep S. B. 8 from being enforced. Instead, it limited its inquiry to whether the United States or abortion providers may bring suit in federal court to keep S. B. 8 from being enforced.


Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-texas-abortion-law/2021/10/22/e62d4954-334b-11ec-9241-aad8e48f01ff_story.html

---

Here is the opinion (PDF) - https://t.co/zcOXYM9GML?amp1

Link to tweet

TEXT

SCOTUSblog
@SCOTUSblog
BREAKING: SCOTUS fast-tracks both lawsuits challenging the Texas anti-abortion law and schedules oral argument just 10 days from now. Sotomayor writes a partial dissent castigating the court for once again leaving the law in place in the meantime.

https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a85_5h25.pdf

Amy Howe
@AHoweBlogger
#SCOTUS will hear oral argument on Nov. 1 in challenge to Texas near-total ban on abortion beginning at 6th week of pregnancy. Court grants requests by Biden administration, Texas abortion providers to weigh in but leaves Texas law in place until then.
12:41 PM · Oct 22, 2021

Link to tweet

TEXT

SCOTUSblog
@SCOTUSblog
When it hears argument on Nov. 1, the court will not directly consider the substance of the Texas abortion law. Here are the questions presented. The first concerns Texas' unusual private-enforcement scheme; the second concerns whether DOJ has the right to sue to block the law.
Image
Image
SCOTUSblog
@SCOTUSblog
BREAKING: SCOTUS fast-tracks both lawsuits challenging the Texas anti-abortion law and schedules oral argument just 10 days from now. Sotomayor writes a partial dissent castigating the court for once again leaving the law in place in the meantime.

https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a85_5h25.pdf
https: //twitter.com/AHoweBlogger/status/1451588171419029504
12:58 PM · Oct 22, 2021

Original article -

The Supreme Court on Friday said it will consider legal arguments over the Texas abortion law that is the nation's most restrictive on Nov. 1, and that the law will remain in effect until then.

The court granted an expedited review of the law, which the Biden administration in a filing Friday said "has virtually eliminated abortion in Texas after six weeks of pregnancy."

The court will review to the law's unique enforcement policy, which authorizes individual citizens to sue anyone who helps a woman get an abortion after cardiac activity is noted in the embryo, usually about six weeks.

This story is developing and will be updated.

[FalloutShelter]

1. Won't Block...expedited review?

Uh OH!

[C_U_L8R]

2. Their bias is showing

[2naSalit]

3. Sure is.

[gab13by13]

4. I also have a bad feeling.

Getting their ducks in a row.

[WHITT]

5. If It Were Gun Legislation

they would have issued a stay at 3AM.

BASTARDS.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

6. Good sources. Thanks.

From the dissent:

* * *
There are women in Texas who became pregnant on or around the day that S. B. 8 took effect. As I write these words, some of those women do not know they are pregnant. When they find out, should they wish to exercise their constitutional right to seek abortion care, they will be unable to do so anywhere in their home State. Those with sufficient resources may spend thousands of dollars and multiple days anxiously seeking care from out-of-state providers so overwhelmed with Texas patients that they cannot adequately serve their own communities. Those without the ability to make this journey, whether due to lack of money or childcare or employment flexibility or the myriad other constraints that shape people’s day-to-day lives, may be forced to carry to term against their wishes or resort to dangerous methods of self-help. None of this is seriously in dispute.

These circumstances are exceptional. Women seeking abortion care in Texas are entitled to relief from this Court now. Because of the Court’s failure to act today, that relief, if it comes, will be too late for many. Once again, I dissent.

[NotHardly]

8. I've got $5 that says these SCt. asshats will uphold women's servitude...

...any takers?

[TexasTowelie]

7. Can I sue the Supreme Court justices for violating the law?

Seems like they are telling women that if they want an abortion that they have to leave the state.

[NurseJackie]

9. Hey, Susan Sarandon... FUCK YOU!! Own up to your part in this. This is still on you... stupid woman!

#FuckYouSusanSarandon

[Tumbulu]

15. And all the entitled millennial women who followed her

with such enthusiasm.

Yes, f them all. Let them start doing something. Like getting people to vote.

I am past caring, actually.

The conservatives played a long game and they won.

If liberals don’t stop the hate am radio blasting on military bases an on all the rural roads. If they don’t start a real campaign to move liberal voters into red states to get the Senate balanced, it’s over.

Why can’t Bloomberg put up massive fabulous senior living apartments in borderline red states and rent the condos to democratic voters to fix the skewed Senate, made so crazy by Rush Limbaugh on the brain for 35 years?

Why does all the money go to advertising? Why not to housing in red states for democrat retirees? Even free RV spaces in great campgrounds would work for goodness sake.

Why are all ideas about advertising and not solutions? Why were republicans able to destroy the fabric of the nation by this ridiculously cheap method of blasting hate propaganda out on am radios?

[JohnSJ]

18. and others too

[NurseJackie]

19. Yes... there were more than one high-profile individuals who kneecapped Hillary...

... and even well-into the General Election were still too resentful to give their full-throated and enthusiastic support. This is on them all. The "burn it down" philosophy has consequences, particularly for the most vulnerable among us. But, funny how those who advocate such a philosophy are the ones who can afford the luxury of not having to worry about the costs and consequences. Fuck Susan Sarandon and her Stein-loving defenders as well.

[Polybius]

21. I'm not disagreeing with you, but it might not have mattered if Hillary won in 2016

Mitch may have held out Garland (or whoever Hillary nominated) her entire term. Kennedy might not have retired. Barely winning in 2016 (and with three Democratic Presidential victories in a row), a Republican likely would have won in 2020. I also see no way how Democrats would have taken the House in 2018 had there been no Trump (not that the House has anything to do with the SC).

[rdking647]

10. the first question a judge should ask texas

can a state pass a gun law allowing people to sue gun owners.....using the same idea a texas did with abortion

[bucolic_frolic]

11. To my non-legal eye, this is about standing in both cases

Can the state grant citizens the right to sue in cases where citizens lack standing, and does the Federal government have standing to sue to block such a law from going into effect?

We all know the answers to these questions. You need standing to sue, but the Federal goverment has the right of enforcing Federal laws against state laws.

The question is, does this SCOTUS mixture know the answers to these questions?

I think this will turn on an invisible aspect of "religionality", much like being unable to bake a wedding cake for LGBTQ couples based on one's morality being offended. So being morally offended by abortion will be viewed as standing by the right wing majority on this Court.

Hope I'm wrong.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

24. Yea, think your eye is sharp.

Question one has to be NO or any State can trample any constitutional right by handing over enforcement to legalized vigilantes..

Then the second question is moot.

[bucolic_frolic]

25. Every citizen will need to carry $5 million umbrella liability insurance

[bluestarone]

12. So when can we expect their

One sided decision?

[Vinca]

13. They're going to overturn Roe and it's going to be sooner rather than later.

Our only hope is supermajorities in the House and Senate to enact a law to allow freedom of choice over one's own body.

[bucolic_frolic]

14. The right only wants free choice when it means exhaling covid into people's faces

When it comes to women's rights, can't have freedom.

[Polybius]

22. 60 votes in the Senate isn't happening soon

But even if it does, it could be struck down by the SC.

[JohnSJ]

16. Susan Sarandon, Brianna Joy Gray, Jill Stein, etc, etc, etc.

[multigraincracker]

17. If the court is foolish enough to

open Pandora's box, they will have their hands full for eternity.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

26. Yep

[maxrandb]

20. Hey Virginia Dem voters! Are you paying attention?

[onecaliberal]

23. Bye bye Roe. Fuck the Nazi party.