The Washington Post reports Justice Department Sues Texas to Block Six-Week Abortion Ban.
At a news conference to announce the lawsuit filed in federal court in Austin, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the ban “is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent.”
The suit asks a judge to declare the measure unlawful, block its enforcement and “protect the rights that Texas has violated.”
Garland said the law is invalid under the Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, is preempted by federal law, and violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. The U.S. government has “an obligation to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights,” he said.
Garland Correct on All Counts
Garland is correct on all counts, but missed the key point.
It's the enforcement provision that will never stand.
Radical Puppets and Their Agenda
Biden “is a puppet of the radical abortion agenda, and his DOJ will quickly find that they do not have jurisdiction to stop the Texas Heartbeat Act,” said Elizabeth Graham, vice president of Texas Right to Life.
Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land since 1973 and the majority of citizens in the US do not want it overturned.
Thus, Graham is the one with the radical agenda.
Unconstitutional Enforcement Provision
I discussed the enforcement provision in Texas Abortion Law is Clearly Unconstitutional, So Why Didn't the Supreme Court Rule?
The Heartbeat Law is clearly unconstitutional.
A: It allow outside parties with no say or damages to collect at least $10,000 in damages.
Anyone who performs an abortion or even gives someone abortion advice or drives them to a clinic is subject to a $10,000 fine, by any private citizen (or thousands of them).
Got that? People not damaged, get to collect $10,000 in damages each. Is that unconstitutionally radical or what?
No one gives a Flying F about these kinds of things as long as it supports their radical agenda.
Extreme Political Nonsense
The two genuinely radical agenda are abortion without restriction and effectively shutting off all abortion.
Texas Right to Life seeks the latter, possibly with a single exception of the life of the mother being at risk.
The push for an extreme agenda could easily outrage independents and moderates.
And for what?
As soon as there is a case, the Supreme Court will be forced to do what it should have in the first place. Strike down the law.
What will the abortion abolitionists in Texas have gained?
Nothing, other than pissing off every sensible independent and moderate in the middle, and that especially includes moderates and independents in Texas.
Q: So why didn't the Supreme Court blast this idiotic law to smithereens?
A: Skirting the issue, the Court let the law stand until there is an actual challenge to it.
In effect, someone has to break the law then file a suit. Meanwhile, there will be hundreds if not thousands of lawsuits against that person breaking the law.
I believe that was a poor decision. And the ruling is more than a bit hypocritical as noticed by the SCOTUS Blog in Abortion, the Death Penalty, and the Shadow Docket
Perhaps the Court simply wanted more time to go over Roe v. Wade.
Meanwhile, it's unclear if the actions by Garland will change anything. What would bring this to a head is an actual lawsuit.
Test Case Needed
Someone needs to go ahead, perhaps with the backing of Planned Parenthood or the ACLU and perform an abortion (or simply claim to).
Make a false claim, get sued by someone with no standing (or better yet thousands of idiots with no standing who will lose money filing a claim) get the court to rule there is no standing.
The ultimate defence is "I didn't do it".
Like these reports? If so, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.
Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.