Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Department sues Texas over 'unconstitutional' abortion law
The Hill ^ | September 9, 2021 | Harper Neidig

Posted on 09/09/2021 12:23:34 PM PDT by Stravinsky

The Justice Department is suing Texas over the state's new controversial restrictions on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced on Thursday.

Garland called the Texas law "clearly unconstitutional," and said it included an "unprecedented scheme" to insulate the state of Texas from responsibility for the law.

"The United States has the authority and responsibility to ensure that Texas cannot evade its obligations under the Constitution and deprive individuals of their constitutional rights by adopting a statutory scheme designed specifically to evade traditional mechanisms of federal judicial review," the lawsuit reads. "The federal government therefore brings this suit directly against the State of Texas to obtain a declaration that S.B. 8 is invalid, to enjoin its enforcement, and to protect the rights that Texas has violated."

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: abortion; biden; merrickgarland; plannedparenthood; prolife; righttolife; texas; texasheartbeatact
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 next last

1 posted on 09/09/2021 12:23:35 PM PDT by Stravinsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Stravinsky

Didn’t SCOTUS already hear this?


2 posted on 09/09/2021 12:27:13 PM PDT by rdl6989 ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stravinsky

guess they never heard of separation of powers


3 posted on 09/09/2021 12:27:44 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stravinsky

Waiting for the Justice Dept to say that mandating people be FORCED to be vaccinated is also unconstitutional..oh wait almost forgot, that’s different..but baby murder, super awesome


4 posted on 09/09/2021 12:27:54 PM PDT by Sarah Barracuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stravinsky

Judges should him he has no standing.


5 posted on 09/09/2021 12:27:54 PM PDT by pnut22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stravinsky

I’d like to see more fed suits against states for infringing gun rights.


6 posted on 09/09/2021 12:28:01 PM PDT by fruser1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stravinsky

I do not see in the constitution any obligation to kill the babies.


7 posted on 09/09/2021 12:28:07 PM PDT by AZJeep (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0AHGreco RomNQkryIIs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stravinsky

Boy that America Garland is a ghoul. We really dodged a bullet with him, he could have had a lifetime appointment but now we only have him for a couple of years.


8 posted on 09/09/2021 12:28:50 PM PDT by McGavin999 (biden is not my president)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdl6989

Some on the SCOTUS might be having a change of heart. Fresh horse heads for everyone!


9 posted on 09/09/2021 12:28:57 PM PDT by CatOwner (Don't expect anyone, even conservatives, to have your back when the SHTF in 2021)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stravinsky

The law has already been taken to the state Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court and come through fine.
The IN”Justice Department is wasting their time and our money.


10 posted on 09/09/2021 12:29:32 PM PDT by SmokingJoe ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdl6989

Not really. They elected to not issue an injunction. I don’t think they ruled on the merits. Meaning they law could begin being enforced but it could go back up if challenged. Someone correct me if I understand that wrong.


11 posted on 09/09/2021 12:30:58 PM PDT by pepsi_junkie (Often wrong, but never in doubt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stravinsky

then you will please point to the part of the Constitution that OKs abortion...


12 posted on 09/09/2021 12:31:22 PM PDT by Chode (there is no fall back position, there's no rally point, there is no LZ... we're on our own. P144:1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdl6989
Didn't SCOTUS already hear this?

Yup.
And the State Supreme Court too. Both were fine with it.

13 posted on 09/09/2021 12:31:40 PM PDT by SmokingJoe ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999

Garland needs to be slapped down hard by the SCOTUS for raising a frivolous lawsuit.


14 posted on 09/09/2021 12:33:33 PM PDT by Carl Vehse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Stravinsky

I detest our leftist Washington government


15 posted on 09/09/2021 12:34:18 PM PDT by RatRipper ( Democrats and socialists are vile liars, thdieves and murderers - enemies of good and America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsi_junkie

They did not rule against the law. The law therefore stands and is fully in force right now.
If they did not rule against the law a few months ago, why would they even take the case let alone rule against it now?


16 posted on 09/09/2021 12:35:12 PM PDT by SmokingJoe ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Stravinsky
Can he cite the particular clause in the Constitution? I looked but I cannot locate the penumbra anywhere. What I CAN find is in the 14th Amendment:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [emphasis added]
Of course that all depends upon the definition of "Person" and I believe the State of Texas equates that to possession of a heartbeat. So Mommy, before you sanction the murder of that little person within your Womb, give them a little due process, please.
17 posted on 09/09/2021 12:35:56 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (Claiming Racism, the antidote to personal responsibility)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdl6989

Not exactly the dismissed for lack of standing I believe....


18 posted on 09/09/2021 12:36:41 PM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CatOwner
Some on the SCOTUS might be having a change of heart.

When has that ever happened with the same Supreme Court with the same justices, after just a few months? That's not how it works.

19 posted on 09/09/2021 12:38:59 PM PDT by SmokingJoe ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pnut22

I would love to see the judge rule they have no standing.


20 posted on 09/09/2021 12:39:00 PM PDT by EastTexasTraveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson