Federal judge blocks enforcement of Texas abortion law

1
On Wednesday, a federal judge blocked enforcement of Texas' controversial new law enacting a near-total ban on abortion.

Judge Robert Pittman barred the law from being enforced by "the State", an order that expands even to judges and clerks.

Pittman refused to stay his ruling pending appeal, saying that "The State has forfeited the right to any such accommodation by pursuing an unprecedented and aggressive scheme to deprive its citizens of a significant and well-established constitutional right."

Texas lawmakers attempted to make the ban — which prohibits abortions at six weeks of gestational age, before most women even know they are pregnant — difficult to enforce by allowing private vigilantes to sue anyone who helps to facilitate an abortion. The Supreme Court declined to stay the law pending appeal, which led many to accuse them of a backdoor teardown of the Roe v. Wade precedent establishing a right to an abortion.
https://www.rawstory.com/judge-blocks- ... rtion-law/

It about time, hope it stays.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Federal judge blocks enforcement of Texas abortion law

4
In his 113-page ruling, Robert L. Pitman, a Federal District Court judge in Austin, Texas, sided with the Biden administration, which had sued to halt a law that has changed the landscape of the abortion fight and further fueled the national debate over whether abortion will remain legal across the country.

His decision to pause enforcement of the law, known as Senate Bill 8, could have an immediate impact on women in Texas who have scrambled to find health care providers in other parts of the country to get abortions.

“From the moment S.B. 8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their own lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution,” Judge Pitman wrote in his opinion.

“This court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right,” he added.

Judge Pitman enjoined the State of Texas or anyone acting on its behalf from enforcing the law. He also said state court judges and state court clerks who had the power to enforce or administer the law were not to do so.
Judge Pitman said that through its abortion law, Texas has pursued “an unprecedented and aggressive scheme to deprive its citizens of a significant and well-established constitutional right.”

The Supreme Court declined last month to block the Texas law in a 5-to-4 decision, even though it did not rule on whether the law and its unorthodox enforcement mechanism are constitutional.
If the Supreme Court does choose to hear the case, it will be asked to consider the impact that outsourcing enforcement to private citizens could have on the power of the courts and to rule on the constitutionality of Senate Bill 8.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/us/p ... n-law.html


At 113 pages, Pitman gave the 5th Circuit and SCOTUS plenty to review. Pitman denied a stay of his ruling, the 5th Circuit or SCOTUS could issue a stay.

Opinion
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ... 8/full.pdf
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Federal judge blocks enforcement of Texas abortion law

5
Appeals Court Lets Texas Temporarily Resume Extreme Anti-Abortion Law

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court Friday night allowed Texas to temporarily resume banning most abortions, just one day after clinics across the state began rushing to serve patients again for the first time since early September.

Abortion providers in Texas had been bracing for the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals to act quickly, even as they booked new appointments and reopened their doors during a brief reprieve from the law known as Senate Bill 8, which bans abortions once cardiac activity is detected, usually around six weeks.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, an appointee of President Barack Obama, issued an order suspending the Texas law that he called an “offensive deprivation” of the constitutional right to an abortion. It came in response to a lawsuit filed by the Biden administration, which warned that other GOP-controlled states could rush to adopt similar measures.

But the New Orleans-based appeals court quickly granted Texas’ request to set aside Pitman’s order for now while the case is reviewed. It ordered the Justice Department to respond by Tuesday.

Texas had roughly two dozen abortion clinics before the law took effect Sept. 1, and not all Texas abortion providers resumed services while it was on hold. Many physicians had feared a swift reversal from the appeals court that risked putting them back in legal jeopardy.

The new law threatens Texas abortion providers with lawsuits from private citizens, who are entitled to collect at least $10,000 in damages if successful. That novel approach is the reason why courts had not blocked the law prior to Pitman’s ruling, since the state plays no role in enforcing the restrictions.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-ab ... ab4bb46e35

Just what we could expect from the most conservative US Appeals Court in the country, especially after Moscow Mitch loaded ti up with TOT appointees.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Federal judge blocks enforcement of Texas abortion law

7
Abortion clinics could still face prosecution for abortions performed after the injunction was issued.
Several clinics in Texas had resumed providing abortions to patients who were beyond the six-week limit following Wednesday's order.

They may now face some legal risk, as the law includes a provision that says clinics and doctors may still be liable for abortions carried out while an emergency injunction is in place, legal experts say.

However, it is unclear whether such a provision can be enforced, with Judge Pittman saying in his ruling that it is "of questionable legality".

Some women have reportedly been travelling to other states where the procedure is legal.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58853859

It's stupid since the injunction suspends the law, but never know what DAs will do.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Federal judge blocks enforcement of Texas abortion law

8
highdesert wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 12:18 pm Abortion clinics could still face prosecution for abortions performed after the injunction was issued.
Several clinics in Texas had resumed providing abortions to patients who were beyond the six-week limit following Wednesday's order.

They may now face some legal risk, as the law includes a provision that says clinics and doctors may still be liable for abortions carried out while an emergency injunction is in place, legal experts say.

However, it is unclear whether such a provision can be enforced, with Judge Pittman saying in his ruling that it is "of questionable legality".

Some women have reportedly been travelling to other states where the procedure is legal.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58853859

It's stupid since the injunction suspends the law, but never know what DAs will do.
Didn’t the judge say officers of the court and so on were forbidden to enact on any such cases? I would think that means they can’t file them.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Federal judge blocks enforcement of Texas abortion law

9
sikacz wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 2:22 pm
highdesert wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 12:18 pm Abortion clinics could still face prosecution for abortions performed after the injunction was issued.
Several clinics in Texas had resumed providing abortions to patients who were beyond the six-week limit following Wednesday's order.

They may now face some legal risk, as the law includes a provision that says clinics and doctors may still be liable for abortions carried out while an emergency injunction is in place, legal experts say.

However, it is unclear whether such a provision can be enforced, with Judge Pittman saying in his ruling that it is "of questionable legality".

Some women have reportedly been travelling to other states where the procedure is legal.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58853859

It's stupid since the injunction suspends the law, but never know what DAs will do.
Didn’t the judge say officers of the court and so on were forbidden to enact on any such cases? I would think that means they can’t file them.
I don't think it would be found legal. It's implications go beyond this case to every injunction issued by every judge in any case, hope SCOTUS slaps them down. Depending on the 5th Circuit ruling, but this will end up at SCOTUS.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Federal judge blocks enforcement of Texas abortion law

10
highdesert wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 9:45 pm
sikacz wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 2:22 pm
highdesert wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 12:18 pm Abortion clinics could still face prosecution for abortions performed after the injunction was issued.
Several clinics in Texas had resumed providing abortions to patients who were beyond the six-week limit following Wednesday's order.

They may now face some legal risk, as the law includes a provision that says clinics and doctors may still be liable for abortions carried out while an emergency injunction is in place, legal experts say.

However, it is unclear whether such a provision can be enforced, with Judge Pittman saying in his ruling that it is "of questionable legality".

Some women have reportedly been travelling to other states where the procedure is legal.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58853859

It's stupid since the injunction suspends the law, but never know what DAs will do.
Didn’t the judge say officers of the court and so on were forbidden to enact on any such cases? I would think that means they can’t file them.
I don't think it would be found legal. It's implications go beyond this case to every injunction issued by every judge in any case, hope SCOTUS slaps them down. Depending on the 5th Circuit ruling, but this will end up at SCOTUS.
Didn’t some higher court just overturn this overturn..
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Federal judge blocks enforcement of Texas abortion law

13
CDFingers wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 6:47 am
Image

CDFingers
One can hope it costs him votes. Since he is worried about a more conservative challenger in the primaries I wonder how many republicans he’d lose over this if any in the general election. I hope the dems don’t push another bloomie candidate on us.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Federal judge blocks enforcement of Texas abortion law

14
Intentional loopholes in Texas abortion law draw a judge’s rebuke

The federal judge who temporarily blocked enforcement of the new abortion restrictions in Texas said state lawmakers knew the law was unconstitutional and wrote it to try to prevent the federal courts from saying so.

“A person’s right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established,” U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman wrote. “Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, the State contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that. … It drafted the law with the intent to preclude review by federal courts that have the obligation to safeguard the very rights the statute likely violates.”

Pitman’s order has already been paused. The state asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to restore the near-total ban, and on Friday, that court said the abortion law should remain in effect until it has heard arguments on Pitman’s ruling. That ruling would have prevented anyone from enforcing Senate Bill 8, which outlaws abortions after detection of early cardiac activity in an embryo — usually around six weeks into a pregnancy. That’s before many people know they’re pregnant.

The law also includes a section that puts enforcement in the hands of private individuals — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor called them “bounty hunters” — instead of state officials.

That mechanism drew Pitman’s particular attention. He focused much of his ruling on the state's attempt to wire around the courts, and around judges like him.

He didn’t like that one bit.

“S.B. 8 is deliberately structured so that no adequate remedy at law exists by which to test its constitutionality,” Pitman wrote. “By purporting to preclude direct enforcement by state officials, the statutory scheme is intended to be insulated from review in federal court. The State itself concedes that the law’s terms proscribe review by the federal courts, limiting review to state court alone.”

This was a lawsuit brought by the federal government against the state government, and he cited the federal argument in making the point about the state’s enforcement plan.

“The final factor identified by the United States will likely carry the most weight, as states can be expected not to deliberately deprive their citizens of redress through the courts,” he wrote.

Later, he added, “State actors worked deliberately to craft a statutory scheme that would avoid review by the courts, and thereby circumvent any pronouncement of its unconstitutionality.”

He said the state hadn’t extracted itself entirely from enforcement anyway, that “the State has its prints all over the statute,” since the law requires state employees and courts to take part, even if they’re not bringing charges against people who help Texans obtain abortions.

And not just state employees. If the state is relying on private citizens to enforce the law through civil actions — to do themselves what the state itself has decided not to do — it has given them its power, and made them “state actors.”

“The State chose to deputize them; the State chose to remove any requirement that they suffer an injury to bring suit (an injury is almost always required to bring suit); and the State chose to incentivize them by automatically awarding them damages of at least $10,000 if their suit is successful,” he wrote.

His injunction was designed to stop enforcement of the law while it’s being litigated and to remove “irreparable harm” Texans face if the law is in effect.

He also made a point that got lost in the first reports of the ruling and subsequent appeals: If the Texas law remains in effect, it will be an example — and not a good one, in Pitman’s view — for other states.

“… had this Court not acted on its sound authority to provide relief to the United States, any number of states could enact legislation that deprives citizens of their constitutional rights, with no legal remedy to challenge that deprivation, without the concern that a federal court would enter an injunction,” he wrote.

That could happen on abortion laws, or Second Amendment laws or other Constitutional rights, according to Pitman.

“If legislators know they cannot accomplish political agendas that curtail or eliminate constitutional rights and intentionally remove the legal remedy to challenge it,” Pitman wrote, “then other states are less likely to engage in copycat legislation.”
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/10/1 ... y-hunters/

He brings up interesting point how the states could apply the copycat laws to other actions and activities.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Federal judge blocks enforcement of Texas abortion law

16
TrueTexan wrote:
Intentional loopholes in Texas abortion law draw a judge’s rebuke

The federal judge who temporarily blocked enforcement of the new abortion restrictions in Texas said state lawmakers knew the law was unconstitutional and wrote it to try to prevent the federal courts from saying so.

“A person’s right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established,” U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman wrote. “Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, the State contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that. … It drafted the law with the intent to preclude review by federal courts that have the obligation to safeguard the very rights the statute likely violates.”

Pitman’s order has already been paused. The state asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to restore the near-total ban, and on Friday, that court said the abortion law should remain in effect until it has heard arguments on Pitman’s ruling. That ruling would have prevented anyone from enforcing Senate Bill 8, which outlaws abortions after detection of early cardiac activity in an embryo — usually around six weeks into a pregnancy. That’s before many people know they’re pregnant.

The law also includes a section that puts enforcement in the hands of private individuals — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor called them “bounty hunters” — instead of state officials.

That mechanism drew Pitman’s particular attention. He focused much of his ruling on the state's attempt to wire around the courts, and around judges like him.

He didn’t like that one bit.

“S.B. 8 is deliberately structured so that no adequate remedy at law exists by which to test its constitutionality,” Pitman wrote. “By purporting to preclude direct enforcement by state officials, the statutory scheme is intended to be insulated from review in federal court. The State itself concedes that the law’s terms proscribe review by the federal courts, limiting review to state court alone.”

This was a lawsuit brought by the federal government against the state government, and he cited the federal argument in making the point about the state’s enforcement plan.

“The final factor identified by the United States will likely carry the most weight, as states can be expected not to deliberately deprive their citizens of redress through the courts,” he wrote.

Later, he added, “State actors worked deliberately to craft a statutory scheme that would avoid review by the courts, and thereby circumvent any pronouncement of its unconstitutionality.”

He said the state hadn’t extracted itself entirely from enforcement anyway, that “the State has its prints all over the statute,” since the law requires state employees and courts to take part, even if they’re not bringing charges against people who help Texans obtain abortions.

And not just state employees. If the state is relying on private citizens to enforce the law through civil actions — to do themselves what the state itself has decided not to do — it has given them its power, and made them “state actors.”

“The State chose to deputize them; the State chose to remove any requirement that they suffer an injury to bring suit (an injury is almost always required to bring suit); and the State chose to incentivize them by automatically awarding them damages of at least $10,000 if their suit is successful,” he wrote.

His injunction was designed to stop enforcement of the law while it’s being litigated and to remove “irreparable harm” Texans face if the law is in effect.

He also made a point that got lost in the first reports of the ruling and subsequent appeals: If the Texas law remains in effect, it will be an example — and not a good one, in Pitman’s view — for other states.

“… had this Court not acted on its sound authority to provide relief to the United States, any number of states could enact legislation that deprives citizens of their constitutional rights, with no legal remedy to challenge that deprivation, without the concern that a federal court would enter an injunction,” he wrote.

That could happen on abortion laws, or Second Amendment laws or other Constitutional rights, according to Pitman.

“If legislators know they cannot accomplish political agendas that curtail or eliminate constitutional rights and intentionally remove the legal remedy to challenge it,” Pitman wrote, “then other states are less likely to engage in copycat legislation.”
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/10/1 ... y-hunters/

He brings up interesting point how the states could apply the copycat laws to other actions and activities.
They are passing these “sanctuary city for the unborn” unconstitutional & illegal ordinances all over ohio. My wife has been organizing & protesting against them, hard core all year. The one in Mason, OH was cut and paste right from the TX law … brought here by Texas right to life people.

Lawyers won’t take them up Becuase there’s no point suing these little, shit towns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Federal judge blocks enforcement of Texas abortion law

18
Appeals Court Again Lets Texas Continue Abortion Ban

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas can continue banning most abortions after a federal appeals court on Thursday rejected the Biden administration’s latest attempt to undo a novel law that has become the nation’s biggest curb to abortion in nearly 50 years.

It pushes the Texas law closer to returning to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in September allowed the state to move ahead with banning abortions once cardiac activity is detected, usually around six weeks. No exceptions are made in cases of rape or incest.

Since then, Texas people have sought out abortion clinics in neighboring states, some driving hours through the middle of the night and including patients as young as 12 years old.

The new decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extends a previous order that for now keeps in place the Texas law known as Senate Bill 8. It marks the third time since October that the conservative-leaning appeals court has sided with Texas and let the restrictions stand.

It leaves the Justice Department and Texas abortion providers with a narrowing path to try stopping the law, which has thus far prevailed because of a unique structure that leaves enforcement up to private citizens. Anyone who brings a successful lawsuit against an abortion provider for violating the law is entitled to claim at least $10,000 in damages, which the Biden administration says amounts to a bounty.

Despite numerous legal challenges both before and after the law took effect Sept. 1, only once has a court moved to put the restriction on hold — and that order only stood for 48 hours.

During that brief window, some Texas clinics rushed to perform abortions on patients past six weeks, but many more appointments were canceled after the 5th circuit moved to swiftly reinstate the law. The Biden administration could now seek a rehearing or go straight to the Supreme Court, just as abortion providers unsuccessfully tried in August.

Texas had roughly two dozen abortion clinics before the law took effect, and operators have said some may be forced to close if the restrictions stay in place for much longer.

Already the stakes are high in the coming months over the future of abortion rights in the U.S. In December, the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court will hear Mississippi’s bid to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that guarantee’s a person’s right to an abortion.

A 1992 decision by the Supreme Court prevented states from banning abortion before viability, the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, around 24 weeks of pregnancy. But Texas’ version has outmaneuvered courts so far due to the fact that it offloads enforcement to private citizens.

Texas Right to Life, the state’s largest anti-abortion group, set up a tipline to receive allegations against abortion providers but has not filed any lawsuits.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/appeals ... b3cbd0c7a2

Here we go again and who knows ow the SCOTUS will rule on this, but I bet it won’t be in favor of the clinics. If they let this law stand, expect more copycat laws on other subjects to be passed in many states.

I can just see the TV Car Crash lawyers ads wanting to have people file lawsuit as a way of making money. “Yes! You to can make $10,000 for reporting the (fill in the blank) and calling us at 1-800- MYMONEY.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Federal judge blocks enforcement of Texas abortion law

19
TrueTexan wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:27 am
Appeals Court Again Lets Texas Continue Abortion Ban

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas can continue banning most abortions after a federal appeals court on Thursday rejected the Biden administration’s latest attempt to undo a novel law that has become the nation’s biggest curb to abortion in nearly 50 years.

It pushes the Texas law closer to returning to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in September allowed the state to move ahead with banning abortions once cardiac activity is detected, usually around six weeks. No exceptions are made in cases of rape or incest.

Since then, Texas people have sought out abortion clinics in neighboring states, some driving hours through the middle of the night and including patients as young as 12 years old.

The new decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extends a previous order that for now keeps in place the Texas law known as Senate Bill 8. It marks the third time since October that the conservative-leaning appeals court has sided with Texas and let the restrictions stand.

It leaves the Justice Department and Texas abortion providers with a narrowing path to try stopping the law, which has thus far prevailed because of a unique structure that leaves enforcement up to private citizens. Anyone who brings a successful lawsuit against an abortion provider for violating the law is entitled to claim at least $10,000 in damages, which the Biden administration says amounts to a bounty.

Despite numerous legal challenges both before and after the law took effect Sept. 1, only once has a court moved to put the restriction on hold — and that order only stood for 48 hours.

During that brief window, some Texas clinics rushed to perform abortions on patients past six weeks, but many more appointments were canceled after the 5th circuit moved to swiftly reinstate the law. The Biden administration could now seek a rehearing or go straight to the Supreme Court, just as abortion providers unsuccessfully tried in August.

Texas had roughly two dozen abortion clinics before the law took effect, and operators have said some may be forced to close if the restrictions stay in place for much longer.

Already the stakes are high in the coming months over the future of abortion rights in the U.S. In December, the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court will hear Mississippi’s bid to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that guarantee’s a person’s right to an abortion.

A 1992 decision by the Supreme Court prevented states from banning abortion before viability, the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, around 24 weeks of pregnancy. But Texas’ version has outmaneuvered courts so far due to the fact that it offloads enforcement to private citizens.

Texas Right to Life, the state’s largest anti-abortion group, set up a tipline to receive allegations against abortion providers but has not filed any lawsuits.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/appeals ... b3cbd0c7a2

Here we go again and who knows ow the SCOTUS will rule on this, but I bet it won’t be in favor of the clinics. If they let this law stand, expect more copycat laws on other subjects to be passed in many states.

I can just see the TV Car Crash lawyers ads wanting to have people file lawsuit as a way of making money. “Yes! You to can make $10,000 for reporting the (fill in the blank) and calling us at 1-800- MYMONEY.
Expect illegal searches to flourish when unsafe gun storage laws are modeled in a similar manner. All any of these type laws need is an accusation. It doesn’t need any reality and there will be plenty of victims of this type of vigilantism.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Federal judge blocks enforcement of Texas abortion law

22
wings wrote: Sat Oct 16, 2021 5:48 pm Why do you think the bipartisan committee draft report on resizing the Supreme Court got leaked this week?

The commission released draft papers of work groups within the commission.
“Commissioners are divided on whether court expansion would be wise,” one draft paper said. “The risks of court expansion are considerable, including that it could undermine the very goal of some of its proponents of restoring the court’s legitimacy.”

“Recent polls suggest that a majority of the public does not support court expansion,” the paper said. “And as even some supporters of court expansion acknowledged during the commission’s public hearings, the reform — at least if it were done in the near term and all at once — would be perceived by many as a partisan maneuver.”

In a recent interview, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said he was wary of increasing the number of justices, saying that doing so could erode public trust in the court by sending a message that it is at its core a political institution.
A second draft paper from another working group, on imposing limits on the justices’ tenure, took a different tone.

“Among the proposals for reforming the Supreme Court, term limits for Supreme Court justices appear to enjoy the most widespread and bipartisan support,” the paper said.

“A bipartisan group of experienced Supreme Court practitioners who testified before the commission concluded that an 18-year term limit ‘warrants serious consideration,’” it said, adding that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Breyer and Elena Kagan “have noted the potential benefits of term limits.”
“Commission members are divided about whether Congress has the power to create a term limits system by statute,” the draft materials said. “Some believe it is possible; others believe any statutory system would encounter so many constitutional problems it would be unwise to proceed that way.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/14/us/p ... imits.html

I agree with the 18 year term limits and get rid of "senior status" for lower courts.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Federal judge blocks enforcement of Texas abortion law

23
I agree on the 18 year or maybe 20 for term limits as for the senior status Keep it but only for them to hear minor cases that fall under federal jurisdiction and that status is only for the district courts not the Circuit Appeal courts or the SCOTUS. The Senior Status takes some of the load off the active judge in the district.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Federal judge blocks enforcement of Texas abortion law

25
F4FEver wrote:
In a recent interview, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said he was wary of increasing the number of justices, saying that doing so could erode public trust in the court by sending a message that it is at its core a political institution.
Is he that clueless?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/4732/supreme-court.aspx

https://www.cato.org/commentary/just-ac ... -political
No - even as a very old, man he doesn’t want his grip on power diluted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests

cron