Misinformation alert... SCOTUS did NOT rule on Constitutionality of TX law.

[WarGamer]

So many people think that SCOTUS just ended Roe v Wade.

They did NOT.

They ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing or some shit to challenge the Texas law.

That's all.

There ARE currently lower Court cases in the works... eventually SCOTUS will be forced to judge the actual Constitutionality.

Don't give up!! Don't mope!!

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/us/supreme-court-texas-abortion.html

[Kittycatkat]

1. Thank's for the clarity!

[WarGamer]

2. Half the clickbait merchants are spreading misinfo to create outrage.

The more upset they make people, the more ad revenue and "followers".

Wake me when SCOTUS makes an actual judgement re: Constitutionality.

[Lovie777]

3. Thanks for the confirmation which I sincerely believed .....

Roe vs. Wade is still law in the United States of America.

Plus, the effed up 5 justices did not allow argument nor any hearing. That is totally unacceptable.

Second, what they allowed is unconstitutional, and to also allow bounties on women is a fucking shame.

[WarGamer]

4. The cake is still in the oven...

Be patient.

And tbh, SCOTUS always judges standing before scheduling to allow arguments.

[LanternWaste]

36. tbh By that standard, the cake will remain in the oven. Forever. tbh

If your measure of finality is challenges to a law, you should then realize that every law of note is consistently challenged. tbh

JFC. tbh...

[WarGamer]

37. To repeat...

The law hasn't yet been judged if it IS or IS NOT Constitutional.

I have a feeling that even this SCOTUS will find it unconstitutional when a proper case is put before them. Which will be soon.

A JFC and an eye roll... wow. Thanks.

[andym]

5. Analysis: Supreme Court signals Roe vs. Wade will fall after allowing Texas to ban most abortions.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-09-02/the-supreme-court-signals-that-roe-vs-wade-will-fall-now-that-texas-may-ban-early-abortions

"Legal analysts believe that this ruling signals the end of Roe V Wade."
BY DAVID G. SAVAGE STAFF WRITER
SEP. 2, 2021 2:08 PM PT

"WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has sent its strongest signal to date that Roe vs. Wade will fall, having given a green light to the nation’s second-most populous state to outlaw abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. The justices did not overturn the right to abortion in the order they released at 11:58 p.m. Eastern time Wednesday on the Texas case, and they might not formally overrule Roe vs. Wade later this year when they take up a case from Mississippi. But the five most conservative justices made it clear they would not protect women or their doctors if they face abortion-related penalties imposed by a state..

For the first time, President Trump’s three appointees joined together to rule in an abortion dispute, aligning with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., who have opposed abortion rights in court opinions for more than 30 years. The justices rejected an appeal from physicians in Texas and left in place a law that says it is illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion if a fetal heartbeat can be detected."

Florida State University law professor Mary Ziegler, an expert on the history of abortion law, said the decision pointed to the demise of Roe. “I think that any court that took the right to abortion seriously would have stayed this law,” she said. “I think the real question is how and when the court overrules Roe. It may not be in Dobbs [the case from Mississippi], but the end of Roe seems inevitable.”

“The only way to understand the court’s action,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, “is that there are five votes to overrule Roe vs. Wade. “Given their desire to do so and their opposition to abortion rights,” he said, “they could not bring themselves to block the Texas law. The law bans, effectively, abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy. That obviously cannot be reconciled with Roe.”
---------
Of course the analysts could be wrong, but...

[stopdiggin]

8. right. there's a certain amount of pussyfoot here

but the intention couldn't be any more clear.

[DallasNE]

26. Other Avenues Possible

If SCOTUS rules in favor of the Mississippi case it only revises Roe to first trimester abortions only. That would green litght a State to pass a 6 week bill. That will then allow SCOTUS to strike down the Texas law, not based on the 6 week rule, but based on the reward system placed in the bill. In other works, they leave alive the 6 week rule, further revising Roe.

[Danascot]

28. Justice Sotomayor was pretty worked up about it too

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/02/sonia-sotomayor-dissent-texas-abortion-ban-law-supreme-court

[Danascot]

35. Also this

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/sotomayor-abortion-dissent/tnamp/?__twitter_impression=true

Conservatives would have you believe that the Supreme Court’s decision to allow Texas’s law banning abortions after six weeks, and deputizing bounty hunters to enforce it, was a narrow and technical ruling from the high court. It was not. It was a frontal attack on the constitutional rights of women, made all the more despicable by the conservative decision to authorize the Texas attack on women without the benefit of a full, public hearing on the issues. In dissent, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor called out her conservative colleagues for all of it: their “breathtaking defiance” of constitutional order, their stunning rejection of precedent, and their flaming cowardice.
She could not stop them, but for posterity and future generations, she placed on the record an account of their shame. —Elie Mystal

[stopdiggin]

6. you're correct

What the Supreme Court did was intentional sidestep the obvious need for a ruling on constitutionality.

On the other hand - there's also every reason to castigate our legislative and executive branches - for allowing 50 years to pass without any attempt to enshrine an obvious constitutional and human rights issue in law.

[tritsofme]

7. When in the last 50 years do you suppose Democrats had the votes in Congress to codify abortion

rights into federal law?

[stopdiggin]

9. you're also correct

but Row also allowed cover for those that found it more convenient to not step up to the plate. Let's remember that we have had Democratic majorities - and legal abortion has been supported by a majority of Americans throughout the history of Roe. So - there is a certain element of political will (and capital) here also.

[tritsofme]

13. Democrats have had majorities, but not necessarily pro-choice ones, not even today.

[dsc]

27. In the House we do today

and with the pro choice GOP senators (there are 2 of them) we have one in the Senate.

[stopdiggin]

38. that depends A LOT on what you call

or how you define pro-choice. Not exactly sure why you're digging in on this, but ... I think the point I make (or try to make) rests on fairly solid ground.

The Democratic party has been pro-choice (w/ the support of American majorities) as a party for years and years. And while adhering to a big tent philosophy the number of seated Democrats in congress that have publicly expressed flatly anti-abortion positions (no exceptions, no timelines) - are relatively few. There is very little doubt that if the party chose to expend the political capital - hold feet to the fire, and perhaps at the same time negotiate some things in the margins - that something very like Roe could have been pushed through. Particularly in early days when a certain degree of 'protections' were actually quite popular in the public mind - and more importantly, were actually shared by an appreciable number of Republicans! Unfortunately the political calculus was that it was not worth the cost - Roe was already in place, with no sign that the court would back away from it - so why engage in fat messy fight? Turns out that was a major miscalculation, granted the benefit of hindsight - and now we're back to square one, with virtually no access and no protections in large swaths of of the republic - and congressional leaders mouthing sentiments about enshrining reproductive rights into law. Something that would have been far easier done - before the country slid into its current state of schizophrenic polarization and culture war.

[nvme]

10. Screw That Get Angry

Call one senator or congressperson to let them know your not ok. Join a campaign or register voters (if the rethuglicans haven't banned it your area. Run for office in TX and turn that state blue

[carpetbagger]

15. In Texas...

My congressman praised the ruling, my state reps and senator voted for the law, and Ted Cruz is my senator. There are millions of fighting democrats here, and I've had better people than me running for office. The dem who lost my congressional district filibustered the state 2013 abortion bill to death. Frankly, we're just outnumbered.

[LymphocyteLover]

11. Yes, but it's still friggin' outrageous they let this monstrosity stand and it seems likely the

same bunch will knock down Roe for good.

[Mr.Bill]

12. What are you trying to do,

put cable news out of business?

[Hoyt]

14. The truth is not a good a story. Besides, people don't seem to demand the truth.

[SharonClark]

16. Who doesn't already know what you posted?

The SC's lack of action on clearly unconstitutional legislation is why people are rightly upset. It is why Sotomayor wrote the strong opinion she did.

"They ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Texas law.
That's all."

The plaintiffs lacked standing? Really?
That's all? Really?

What nonsense.

[Treefrog]

30. Yea, I'm gonna go with Sotomayor.

Not some random poster on a message board.

Thank you!

[kcr]

17. So many people think they ended it because effectively that's what they did

Women in Texas can't get an abortion anymore because SCOTUS didn't step in when they should have. No one is being misinformed here.

[SharonClark]

18. Exactly.

[berniesandersmittens]

20. Yep

The women of Texas are not protected by Roe anymore.

It may not be turned over nationally, but TX has been allowed to defy Roe v Wade due to inaction of the SCOTUS.

[Lonestarblue]

19. They did not overturn Roe v. Wade, but they did allow the Texas law to effectively end abortion

in the state of Texas. Healthcare clinics are no longer taking appointments for abortions. So the pregnant women in Texas who do not want a child should just chill out and wait for the Supreme Court to make a real decision! Women in Texas are being denied a constitutional right that exists so long as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. So in effect, the SC did overturn Roe, but just for women in Texas. That is what people are upset about.

[dpibel]

21. Well, if we're insisting on punctilious accuracy

The denial of stay was not based on standing.

The majority stated this as the rule:

"To prevail in an application for a stay or an injunction, an applicant must carry the burden of making a 'strong showing' that it is 'likely to succeed on the merits,' that it will be 'irreparably injured absent a stay,' that the balance of the equities favors it, and that a stay is consistent with the public interest."

and then said:

"In light of such issues, we cannot say the applicants have met their burden to prevail in an injunction or stay application."

That is not a lack of standing ruling.

As others have pointed out, it is also the case that the Supremes allowed Roe to be suspended within the borders of the state of Texas. You can parse to your heart's content whether or not that represents a de facto overruling of Roe, but it sure leaves a person wondering what kind of federal polity we have if we can have valid constitutional rights that only apply in some places.

[elleng]

22. **"In reaching this conclusion," the opinion said,

“we stress that we do not purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants’ lawsuit. In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’ law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/us/supreme-court-texas-abortion.html

[CaptainTruth]

23. Clarity & reading comprehension matter!

[DallasNE]

24. Woong In One Regard

SCOTUS did not rule that the "the plaintiffs lacked standing". The Court flip-flopped on how they rule on the emergency clause. Normally they prevent a new law from going into effect until after the court has spoken. Here they allowed the law to go into effect while it winds its way through the courts. It is a major break in judicial process and is mind numbing. The headline, however, is correct.

Here is a link that explains it better.

https://news.northeastern.edu/2021/09/03/supreme-court-allows-texas-abortion-laws/

[ancianita]

25. Shush shush, pat pat, don't get all paranoid at all that chipping away, chippies.

Women mistook a 48 year strategic retreat for the end. But this is war against women without end.

No one's giving up or moping. People are acting and speaking appropriately.

While the majority of America keep fighting to preserve their humanity in 22 states, here's Robert Montgomery with the rest of what's happening.

[RandomNumbers]

29. They allowed harms to continue under the law, pending years of litigation

to come to an actual ruling.

No one is giving up. People are FIRED UP. (as they should have been when Trump was within 10 pts of Hillary on any poll in 2016. Oh well.)

THAT SAID - People SHOULD MOURN THOSE WHO WILL BE HARMED.

This was not a no-consequence ruling. It has plenty of consequences for lots of women. Please do not dismiss that.

[dsc]

31. Honestly this is a bit disingenuous

Had this been a right they weren't going to overturn, there is no way they would have refused to intervene in this law. Just imagine if this were a law pass in CT about guns. Do you think the Court would have upheld that law? Or if this had been a law such as this applied to campaign contributions?

[NullTuples]

32. It's worse than ruling on the Constitutionality of that law

Shadow docketing discriminatory election laws was just a test run.

What they did with SB8 was assist the Texas Legislature (+ Governor) in creating a new form of law in America.

One which this court claims is outside their purview.

...and therefore not subject to their judicial checks and balances at this time.

They've also blessed the creation of vigilantes, and horribly unbalanced laws.

While leaving the question of Constitutionality completely untouched.

By doing so, they've left intact that the law - for now - is *assumed* constitutional.

[BumRushDaShow]

33. There was a podcast on the local news radio station here a few days ago

where the issue was discussed by a local law professor with the reporter - https://www.audacy.com/kywnewsradio/podcasts/kyw-newsradio-in-depth-229/texass-new-abortion-law-why-the-supreme-court-didnt-do-anything-and-the-future-of-roe-vs-wade-707972756

Basically what he said is that the SCOTUS (majority opinion) is saying that they can't enjoin against something that "hasn't happened yet".

I.e., no loons have actually attempted to utilize the state law YET to accuse someone of having had an "illegal abortion", and then try to collect their bounty, so no one had been impacted by the law at the time of the filing.

Supposedly as soon as someone does try it, THEN requests for an injunction can go forward.

Of course there are basically 2 parts to that law - the one that is really the focus - the ban on abortions at "6 weeks" or later and that is what I think was what needs to be halted. The reporting thing is more like the penalty.

The professor did make note that it can go both ways - Democratic-majority states could enact similar when it comes to something like guns (his example), and then what's good for the goose is good for the gander. So it behooves the SCOTUS not to go down the path of accepting this sort of thing encouraging explicit "citizen lawsuits" in this manner.

[themaguffin]

34. What the court did is unconscionable.

[UTUSN]

40. K&R