SLD
Contributor
While the Supreme Court has allowed the Justice Department’s suit against Texas over their unique anti abortion law to continue, the Justices overall seemed highly doubtful of the ability of them to prevail in the end. The conservative justices, apart from Roberts, questioned whether ultimately the DoJ could prevail. It’s too broad an attack for them.
What’s at stake are several previous Supreme Court precedents. Ex Parte Young, a 1908 case that allowed litigants to sue in federal court against state officers who were acting contrary to the US Constitution, and Shelley v. Kraemer, a 1948 case holding that state judges could not enforce racial covenants in real estate are both threatened. Shelley was instrumental later in Brown v. Board of Education.
The Texas case clearly tests both of these precedents. If state court judges can uphold anti abortion laws, before they’ve been reversed, then they can uphold laws restricting where blacks can live and where blacks can go to school, as long as state officials aren’t involved in the enforcement mechanism. The Supreme Court has let a Trojan horse in to effectively reverse Brown v. Board of Education without explicitly doing so. Granted, litigants could appeal such decisions from a State Supreme Court to the United States Supreme Court, but only if they have the means to do so. There would be no attorney fee provision that would entice an attorney to take such a case on a contingency fee basis, unless a state actor was doing the discrimination because they could be sued under 42 USC 1983 Which allows for damages and attorney fees.
This is why it’s so important for the U S Department of Justice to have the power to challenge such blatantly unconstitutional laws in lower federal courts. without this power, states could effectively do an end run around anti discrimination laws by allowing private parties to be the actors doing the discrimination.
And this way can also pave the way for restricting other rights too. California’s governor just announced that he is using the same technique against gun manufacturers.
www.nbcnews.com
What’s next? Can Alabama outlaw criticism of Trump the same way?
This is why elections are so important and why there is a huge difference between Republicans and Democrats. Who sits on the Supreme Court is vital to determining what rights we have. Those on the left continuing to vote against Democrats because they aren’t liberal enough are handing this country over to decades of right wing dominance enforced by the Supreme Court.
What’s at stake are several previous Supreme Court precedents. Ex Parte Young, a 1908 case that allowed litigants to sue in federal court against state officers who were acting contrary to the US Constitution, and Shelley v. Kraemer, a 1948 case holding that state judges could not enforce racial covenants in real estate are both threatened. Shelley was instrumental later in Brown v. Board of Education.
The Texas case clearly tests both of these precedents. If state court judges can uphold anti abortion laws, before they’ve been reversed, then they can uphold laws restricting where blacks can live and where blacks can go to school, as long as state officials aren’t involved in the enforcement mechanism. The Supreme Court has let a Trojan horse in to effectively reverse Brown v. Board of Education without explicitly doing so. Granted, litigants could appeal such decisions from a State Supreme Court to the United States Supreme Court, but only if they have the means to do so. There would be no attorney fee provision that would entice an attorney to take such a case on a contingency fee basis, unless a state actor was doing the discrimination because they could be sued under 42 USC 1983 Which allows for damages and attorney fees.
This is why it’s so important for the U S Department of Justice to have the power to challenge such blatantly unconstitutional laws in lower federal courts. without this power, states could effectively do an end run around anti discrimination laws by allowing private parties to be the actors doing the discrimination.
And this way can also pave the way for restricting other rights too. California’s governor just announced that he is using the same technique against gun manufacturers.
Newsom says he will use Texas abortion law tactics to restrict assault weapons
"If that's the precedent then we'll let Californians sue those who put ghost guns and assault weapons on our streets," Newsom said.
www.nbcnews.com
What’s next? Can Alabama outlaw criticism of Trump the same way?
This is why elections are so important and why there is a huge difference between Republicans and Democrats. Who sits on the Supreme Court is vital to determining what rights we have. Those on the left continuing to vote against Democrats because they aren’t liberal enough are handing this country over to decades of right wing dominance enforced by the Supreme Court.
