Joyce White Vance with some guidance about DOJ lawsuit against Texas abortion ban

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Unrolled thread here
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1435996492058222592.html


1/ When the AG & Solicitor General at DOJ sign off on a challenge to a state statute, they are very careful to ensure their theories are both legally valid (not a time to throw spaghetti on the wall to see what sticks & also to avoid doing harm to other rights. Case in point,...

2/when we challenged Alabama’s immigration law in 2011 we focused on developing challenges to specific parts of the law that were legally objectionable (not just a blanket demand that the law be expunged). Being smart meant we couldn't challenge everything

Department of Justice Challenges Alabama Immigration Law
The Department of Justice challenged the state of Alabama’s recently passed immigration law, H.B. 56, in federal court today.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-challenges-alabama-immigration-law#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20%2D%20The%20Department%20of%20Justice,56%2C%20in%20federal%20court%20today.&text=In%20addition%2C%20H.B.%2056%20will,and%20other%20high%2Dpriority%20targets

3/ We also had to consider whether issues we raised could damage other important rights. For instance, we considered whether our case gave the court the chance to rescind Plyler v. Doe, which guaranteed a right to K-12 education to all children, not just citizens. Big focus.

4/ So, when we see DOJ’s challenge to Texas’ abortion law, don't rush to judgment. DOJ is constrained by its statutory authority & standing (unlike Texas, it won’t just manufacture standing). Often the smart strategy is the more restrained than what we want, based on emotion.

5/ Finally, DOJ may not have jurisdiction to bring all claims against this statute. Some may be better or belong exclusively to private parties. DOJ can litigate alongside those entities. In Alabama, our cases were consolidated & although that took time, were stronger together.

[StarfishSaver]

1. I hope those who are complaining that DOJ isn't moving fast enough

and seem to deeply resent being told that they must move very carefully and deliberately, read and consider this.

[myccrider]

15. +1000

IAN a lawyer, but I see people wanting x or y done using the law/courts and I often wonder if they realize that getting those results might negatively impact rights and freedoms that we revere. That’s part of why vigilantism is so wrong.

[StarfishSaver]

2. Crickets

Interesting.

Perhaps the silence means folks are digesting this and are reconsidering ...

[SheltieLover]

3. K&R!

Ty!

[ancianita]

4. Some of our most informative posts come from threadreader. Thanks for this, Ndog.

[StarfishSaver]

5. True

It's usually very difficult to boil complex concepts and information into 280 characters.

[ancianita]

6. It makes me happy to see DU'ers post the complex arguments here.

We need to develop foresight that matches that of lawyers like Vance and Biden, and this helps.

[ancianita]

7. I hear the crickets, too. I usually

attribute that to people thinking. Sometimes I notice the tone of threads shift over certain issues, so maybe some issues (law doesn't fit well in a fast paced society) force more thought and patience, no?

[StarfishSaver]

10. Indeed

[Hekate]

8. Just heard the AG's speech on planned legal actions, & it sounds like the fight is joined. nt

[StarfishSaver]

9. ...

[ancianita]

11. And 'joined' means...?

[Hekate]

12. Very old usage meaning the battle has commenced & expect a war

[ancianita]

13. Thanks. Sorry. I should've looked it up, I guess.

I found that it's also a legal term, loosely connected to your explanation, I guess.

[Hekate]

14. Comes of my reading archaic stuff, I guess