General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBlue cities/states need to do this Texas snitch thing with mask mandates...Seriously!!!!
Texas started their snitch thing in a tiny town in called Waskom in 2019. The town was so small and had no abortion facilities. It was mostly symbolic. In 2020 Lubbock caught on and created a snitch ordinance for Planned Parenthood over there. Planned Parenthood in Lubbock closed shop.
Blue states can get a municipality to do a mask snitch ordinance.
Governors can write an executive order to create snitch law
The beauty about mask ordinances is that they are temporary (Once Covid is over, the experiment is over)...Lots of people violate mask ordinances, so there will be lots of lawsuits...
Seattle? Portland? San Francisco? NYC? Anywhere?? Please!!!
Texas abortion law S.B. 8 follows a model first used in Waskom to ban abortion within its boundaries in 2019. The novel legal approach used by the city on Texas border with Louisiana is one envisioned by a former top lawyer for the state.
Right to Life East Texas director Mark Lee Dickson, 36, a Southern Baptist minister, championed Waskoms abortion ban. Through his state senator, Bryan Hughes, he met Jonathan F. Mitchell, a former top lawyer for the state of Texas. Mitchell became his attorney and advised him on crafting the ordinance, Dickson said in an interview.
The ordinance shields Waskom from lawsuits by saying city officials cant enforce the abortion ban. Instead, private citizens can sue anyone who performs an abortion in the city or assists someone in obtaining one. The law was largely symbolic, however, because the city did not have a clinic performing abortions.
Nearly three dozen other cities in the state followed Waskoms lead. Among them is Lubbock, where a Planned Parenthood clinic stopped performing abortions this year as a result.
https://apnews.com/article/texas-us-supreme-court-laws-185e383ba4aa6cfc558231dcabd4104a
LeftInTX
(25,224 posts)tanyev
(42,543 posts)should be reported to that Right To Life snitch line. Over and over again.
LeftInTX
(25,224 posts)DU likes to "tell Texas what to do"...Well now I'm telling blue states
Works perfect...Even in blue states, mask mandates are hard to enforce, but there are plenty of violators...Make it a private thing where private citizen can sue someone who is not wearing a mask and can collect $10,000.....
Sooner or later, the system will fall apart...Someone may appeal to federal court...Then federal court will need to do something, but they then look at SB 8. Then, SB 8's private enforcement for a public law comes under scrutiny.
W_HAMILTON
(7,859 posts)And they seem to like to "even the field" by instituting things like independent commissions to fairly draw districts when Republican-controlled states across the country are gerrymandering the **** out of their state to ensure the maximum number of Republicans representing them.
I don't know what it's going to take for those on the left to start getting as cutthroat when it comes to politics as Republicans are.
LeftInTX
(25,224 posts)Which state governments refuse to enforce and leave up to private citizens via huge incentives...Plaintiffs sue, but what happens when a defendant appeals? What happens when it crosses state lines.....
If a blue state wants to make a mask mandate, but is reluctant to enforce it, just create a snitch instead...
Think of all the people who will line up to sue the maskholes!
W_HAMILTON
(7,859 posts)... that many of those on the left just don't seem to have it in them.
And, by the way, this isn't me shitting on Democrats. I'm referring more to the far left types, the types that should be the most against Republicans, and yet seem to be against us as often as Republicans are. There is no reason that super blue states shouldn't enforce their will the same way that Republican-controlled purple (and certainly deep red) states do. It doesn't "make us like them" -- it means that we are fighting back appropriately and proportionately.
Rstrstx
(1,399 posts)Doesnt the judicial system in the US have at its core the concept of standing, that you have to be able to show that you are directly injured or affected by someones actions to bring a suit against them?
Perhaps the craziest thing about this law is that it appears to have no prerequisite for standing to be met at all. This is the main reason I was extremely surprised that SCOTUS did not issue a stay, not because it went against Roe v Wade but because there seems to be a fundamental judicial question here that appears to go against the way the legal system in the US works, especially with civil suits. I still think it will be the laws ultimate downfall, but am surprised it wasnt nipped in the bud.