Posted on 09/01/2021 9:23:12 PM PDT by Az Joe
What you're talking about--I think.
Go ahead, if you want, and clarify. Otherwise....
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.
It’s a denial of preliminary relief. How does it “preserve Roe v. Wade’s precedent”?
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.
I took it back in the very next post. They didn’t decide NOT to consider it (which WOULD preserve Roe v Wade), but only to consider it later.
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.