[Fury]

Good grief.

Your initial post was:

“No surprise scumbag Roberts was one of the four dissenters.”

and then after I asked posters what the reasons were for Robert’s dissent, you ignored that question. Completely. But your choice!

The knee jerk reactions by so many about Roberts regarding this case really does indicate that very few understand the reasons for his dissent. People can think Roberts is a squish (I do regarding many of his opinions) -and- try to understand his dissent.

And “polite and respectful” is more what I hope for on certain FR threads such as subjects like COVID-19, when threads sometimes devolve into FReepers on both sides hoping those on the other side get sick.

Re: ignore - thank you for explaining.

[The Pack Knight]

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.