BREAKINS - U.S. Supreme Court declines to block Texas abortion ban (5-4) (Roberts)

WASHINGTON, Sept 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to block a Texas ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, dealing a major blow to abortion rights and allowing a law prohibiting the vast majority of abortions in the state that took effect on Wednesday to remain in place.

Go ahead, if you want, and clarify.

The Court declined to step in and declare Federal supremacy or anything like that, "because Roe vs. Wade." That leaves everything in force in Texas and puts the onus on the plaintiffs to go back to Square One several levels down and allege harm or a Constitutional issue or whatever.

If I were a bad guy and could get this situation "fixed," I would have made sure it was stopped at the outset. You let a legitimate act of state sovereignty like this stand, it grows roots and spreads elsewhere--Deo volente.

The big problem with Roberts' dissent is his glossing over the extraordinary, unprecedented relief requested by the applicants. The applicants asked the Supreme Court to enjoin: (1) state judges from considering (and, apparently, state clerks from even accepting) lawsuits under state law before those lawsuits have even been filed or the causes of action have even accrued; and (2) potential plaintiffs from even filing such a lawsuit. That's quite a step beyond the injunctions against state officers allowed under Ex parte Young--it essentially strips a state judiciary from hearing cases based on their own laws, and imposes a prior restraint on a private citizen's right to petition.

It's ironic. If the doctors just litigated this case in state court, it probably would never make it to the US Supreme Court because most, if not all, civil suits under the statute should be dismissed for lack of standing under the Texas constitution, and the Texas Supreme Court will probably hold that at least a number of the statute's provisions violate the Texas constitution for reasons unrelated to Roe.

Re: thanks for a good analysis. It’s nice to read, instead of “Roberts is a pedo”, or “Roberts went to Epstein Island”, or “Roberts adopted his kids illegally” - which are mostly offered without facts or references or reasoning.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.