How One Bar's Liquor License Case Could Bring Down The New Texas Abortion Ban - Rachel Maddow MSNBC

[Rhiannon12866]

Rachel Maddow tells the story of how Cambridge, Massachusetts bar, Grendel's Den, whose case to obtain a liquor license over the objections of a neighboring church was argued before the Supreme Court and won by Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, setting a precedent that could put an end to the new Texas abortion ban. Aired on 09/07/2021.




Supreme Court Precedents Offer DOJ Lots Of Options To Challenge Texas Abortion Law - Rachel Maddow - MSNBC

Laurence Tribe, professor of Constitutional Law, emeritus, at Harvard Law School, talks with Rachel Maddow about past Supreme Court decisions that Attorney General Merrick Garland could cite in a challenge to the new Texas abortion ban. Aired on 09/07/2021.

[SheltieLover]

1. I love Laurence Tribe!

Ty for posting!

[Rhiannon12866]

2. I was waiting for Laurence Tribe since his SCOTUS case was the subject of this segment

But it wasn't immediately available, so I had to add it - I'm so glad that you noticed! He is always worth posting, I agree - one of the best guests ever and this case was historic.

[SheltieLover]

3. For sure!

Ty again!

[Rhiannon12866]

4. I would have been really bummed out of they'd just uploaded the first segment, but not the interview!

[SheltieLover]

5. Me too!

Ty so much for the pleasant surprise!

[Rhiannon12866]

8. He's usually on with Lawrence, so it was a pleasant surprise for me, too!

[SheltieLover]

10. Dr. Ed?

[Rhiannon12866]

11. Was I confused? I meant Laurence Tribe!

[SheltieLover]

12. Sorry, I was just joking.

[Rhiannon12866]

19. I know. And I just wonder how many of Colbert's audience remember Mister Ed?!

[True Blue American]

6. Thank you for this. No greater Legal Scholar than Laurence!

Will watch the entire thing when I return from the pool!

[Rhiannon12866]

7. Rachel introduced and explained the relevant court case, then Laurence Tribe came on to discuss it

It took them awhile to upload the interview, but it would have meant little without his appearance. I agree, he's just the best! Have a good swim!

[True Blue American]

9. I heard just a portion in the reunion this morning

But missed Trribe.

[Rhiannon12866]

14. I was hoping they'd include the interview so I could post it, he was terrific, as always!

[FBaggins]

13. Some of the arguments can be recycled, but the case doesn't seem to apply

The case clearly relied on the fact that it was a church that was exercising government powers - in clear violation of church/state boundaries in the establishment clause. There’s no such element here.

Additionally, creating a personal right to sue in the current case is fraught with difficulties when the state lacks the authority to make a thing illegal. But one of those difficulties isn’t that you’re exercising state powers.

For the case to apply directly, we would have to imagine that the state had the power to approve/deny an imagined application for abortion and has delegated that power to private individuals.

I think the eventual challenge (once the clinics have someone to sue) will rest on whether or not a state can bypass court scrutiny in the first place by having a law that no state official is tasked with enforcing.

[Rhiannon12866]

15. I think the relevance was that the church were private citizens, as well

But you may be right. And the provisions of the new "law" sound absolutely ludicrous to me - it can't possibly stand up to legal scrutiny. However, I wouldn't want to argue with Laurence Tribe, he brought this to SCOTUS and he won.

[FBaggins]

17. I don't see that in the ruling summary

However, I wouldn't want to argue with Laurence Tribe, he brought this to SCOTUS and he won.

Well… I wouldn’t want to go up against him either. But that begs the question: Did he bring “this” to SCOTUS?

Were I to try to take him on re: that question… I would probably start by asking him which bar association(s) had approved his ability to argue in court and which governmental bodies had delegated that power to such a non governmental organization.

[Rhiannon12866]

18. No, he brought the case on behalf of the restaurant against the license refusal caused by the church

And you know far more about the legal issues than I do, but there must be something to it if he agreed to make the connection on national television.

[True Blue American]

20. I would take Tribe's

Words over any one else. The man is a real genius when it comes to the law.a Real one

[zanana1]

22. Laurence Tribe...

just might know a little more about the law than you do.

[FBaggins]

24. I think you don't understand what his job is

He no doubt knows more about constitutional law than I do... but that's an entirely different thing from believing that his statements in this case are therefore a reliable analysis on how a court would review the question.

Note that Tribe has lost plenty of SCOTUS cases. People love Neal Katyal too... yet he too has lost lots of cases (some recent ones were 9-0 against). That does not mean that he didn't know the "right" answer (i.e., how the court would rule) at the time. It just means that his job is crafting the best possible case for his client that he can. Ginsburg voted against him in his last SC case... which one of them knew more about the law?

Tribe could easily run a moot court round on this question and argue either side persuasively. Neither side would be justified in committing the argument from authority fallacy by claiming "Tribe just might know a little more about the law than you do" as you tried here.

[zanana1]

25. I didn't mean to make you defensive.

[FBaggins]

27. Oh... not at all

It's just the DUers frequently misperceive the interpretive value of what these guys say in public.

As another example - Marc Elias knows that some of his arguments in the Texas voting laws case are pretty ridiculous (some are better). If you were to back him up against a wall and ask him what the chances were of the 5th circuit agreeing that banning 24-hour voting is unconstitutional (when almost no states allow it now)... he would almost certainly say zero. But he's making the argument anyway. Courts need the best arguments on both sides of an issue in order to come to solid rulings.

[zanana1]

28. You cite a simple case.

That's not what we're dealing with now. It's alot more complex. By the way, are you an attorney?

[Hekate]

16. KnR

[zanana1]

21. Laurence Tribe is a great lawyer.

He's been getting into "good trouble" for a long time.

[Midnight Writer]

23. I think it is cute that we are counting on the SCOTUS to rule on precedent and established law.

Trump has shown The Way.

Just do the Dirty Deed and let the opposition gasp in outrage.

Might Makes Right.

[LiberalLoner]

26. Exactly.