Interesting side note. The attorney arguing for the plaintiffs—you know, the guys with no standing—was none other than Erin Hawley, the wife o one Josh Hawley, Senator of Missouri. Chickenshit legislator.
I want to make the point after skimming through SCOTUS Blog that 999 out of 1000 cases that they hear are complete and total wankery
They are nit-picks of words and pedantic bullshit that has zero relationship to the legality or legitimatecy of things argued. We could easily eliminate the SC and not be worse off than we are now.
"Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue."
Replace "drug" with "abortion". The ability to dictate what others can and cannot do is at the heart of Forced Birtherism. Ironic that a member of the Inquisition Caucus was the one to point it out. I wonder if he sees it yet.
i don't think so and i was wondering this myself just this AM (as we hear more and more of these horrendous stories with the added insult of all these women trying to navigate getting out of TX without risking anyone else with the bounty law).
i imagine all the civic group allies are just waiting for one to actually be adjudicated so they can start the process. it's pretty clearly unconstitutional.
This was the only correct verdict. Kacsmaryk pulled his justification for the plaintiffs’ standing completely out of his ass. The fact that the 5th circuit didn’t slap him down on those grounds speaks extremely poorly of them.
Leaving that bullshit standing argument in place would have meant anyone could sue simply because they disagree with the government’s decision. It would render the whole idea of requiring injury to be moot.
Kacsmaryk should be roundly and publicly abused for his part in letting this get as far as the Supreme Court, as well as for being a partisan hack. The new 5th Circuit slogan should be “Got conservative beef? Come to Texas!”
The conservative justices would not be able to enjoy any peace and quiet due to the noisy demonstrations from liberals if they rules for the plaintiff, but they also wouldn't be able to get any peace an quiet from the pesky anti-abortion demonstrators if they ruled against them on the merits, so this was their get out of jail free card from the controversy.
This is at best a temporary setback, not a victory. Rejection for lack of standing is an open invitation for a new case brought by someone who can prove standing. SCOTUS is waiting for that case.
I can’t imagine what SCOTUS proof law would look like. Especially whenever Alito and Thomas are in the majority.
The only person who might have actual standing would be someone who was actually harmed by taking the drug. Lots of luck to them getting that person to join their crusade.
That would be fabulous. But, I’ve been around too long and seen too many harebrained shenanigans to believe a victim won’t be found. These are strange times and the new and used victim lots are full of potential candidates.
No criticism intended of the Supremes' standing analysis in this case, which was so blatantly manifestly obviously correct that not even they could find a way to get around it without just abandoning the entire principle of Article III standing altogether. But any mention of standing always reminds me of this little bit of doggerel. It's by Ambrose Bierce, from "The Devil's Dictionary."
But they instructed them how to do it better next time
https://open.substack.com/pub/sethabramson/p/why-a-unanimous-supreme-court-decision?r=2y2x3&utm_medium=ios
Interesting side note. The attorney arguing for the plaintiffs—you know, the guys with no standing—was none other than Erin Hawley, the wife o one Josh Hawley, Senator of Missouri. Chickenshit legislator.
Why are the 'small government' asshats all up in other peoples business?
This lawsuit should have been aborted within 6 weeks of conception.
With all speculation to the Supreme Court's motives, I'm going with Occam's Razor.
They saw what a shit fit Dobbs caused, so they're going to lay low until after the election so they don't fuck things up.
Ta, Robyn. Unfortunately, they'll find someone, somewhere, whose story can be twisted into standing.
Supremes duck because of quacks...
In Russia, quacks are potato.
In Russia, duck YOU!
I want to make the point after skimming through SCOTUS Blog that 999 out of 1000 cases that they hear are complete and total wankery
They are nit-picks of words and pedantic bullshit that has zero relationship to the legality or legitimatecy of things argued. We could easily eliminate the SC and not be worse off than we are now.
"Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue."
Replace "drug" with "abortion". The ability to dictate what others can and cannot do is at the heart of Forced Birtherism. Ironic that a member of the Inquisition Caucus was the one to point it out. I wonder if he sees it yet.
Someone needs to take the Texas abortion 'bounty' civil law to SCOTUS and apply Kavanope's ruling here to it.
Has anyone actually been successful in collecting a bounty yet? That will probably be the case that makes it up to the SCOTUS.
i don't think so and i was wondering this myself just this AM (as we hear more and more of these horrendous stories with the added insult of all these women trying to navigate getting out of TX without risking anyone else with the bounty law).
i imagine all the civic group allies are just waiting for one to actually be adjudicated so they can start the process. it's pretty clearly unconstitutional.
Well good news on one...
This was the only correct verdict. Kacsmaryk pulled his justification for the plaintiffs’ standing completely out of his ass. The fact that the 5th circuit didn’t slap him down on those grounds speaks extremely poorly of them.
Leaving that bullshit standing argument in place would have meant anyone could sue simply because they disagree with the government’s decision. It would render the whole idea of requiring injury to be moot.
DENTISTS BABY!! if dentists don't have standing on a woman's reproductive health care WHO DOES I ASK YOU!?!?!
Kacsmaryk should be roundly and publicly abused for his part in letting this get as far as the Supreme Court, as well as for being a partisan hack. The new 5th Circuit slogan should be “Got conservative beef? Come to Texas!”
He should be thrown off the bench. He’s an ideologue making up the law to suit his agenda. He has no business being a judge.
You could say that about more than a few of the Supremes.
Especially Alito and Thomas.
I concur. That's why it was unanimous. The anti abortion crusaders will certainly continue their attempts on all fronts but this one's finished.
You know a case is bad precedent when even Alito and Thomas can’t write a pissy dissent.
Harlan Crow probably has pharma interests that would be hurt by having the ruling upheld.
The conservative justices would not be able to enjoy any peace and quiet due to the noisy demonstrations from liberals if they rules for the plaintiff, but they also wouldn't be able to get any peace an quiet from the pesky anti-abortion demonstrators if they ruled against them on the merits, so this was their get out of jail free card from the controversy.
This is at best a temporary setback, not a victory. Rejection for lack of standing is an open invitation for a new case brought by someone who can prove standing. SCOTUS is waiting for that case.
The real cure is a law that is SCOTUS proof.
I can’t imagine what SCOTUS proof law would look like. Especially whenever Alito and Thomas are in the majority.
The only person who might have actual standing would be someone who was actually harmed by taking the drug. Lots of luck to them getting that person to join their crusade.
That would be fabulous. But, I’ve been around too long and seen too many harebrained shenanigans to believe a victim won’t be found. These are strange times and the new and used victim lots are full of potential candidates.
Once Law was sitting at the bench
Where Mercy knelt a-weeping.
"Clear out," he cried, "disordered wench,
Nor come before me creeping.
Upon your knees since you appear,
'Tis plain you have no standing here."
Then Justice came. His Honor cried
"Your status -- Devil seize you!"
"Amica curiae," she replied.
"Friend of the court, so please you."
"Begone!," he shouted. "There's the door.
I've never seen your face before."
No criticism intended of the Supremes' standing analysis in this case, which was so blatantly manifestly obviously correct that not even they could find a way to get around it without just abandoning the entire principle of Article III standing altogether. But any mention of standing always reminds me of this little bit of doggerel. It's by Ambrose Bierce, from "The Devil's Dictionary."
Thanks for this - hadn’t seen it before.