2021 jewnited $nakes jewpreme kort Decisions

[US jewpreme Kort]

California v. Texas No. 19–840. Argued November 10, 2020—Decided June 17, 2021


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...9-840_6jfm.pdf
http://christian-identity.net/forum/...3046#post23046
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...3046#post23046

No. 19–840. Argued November 10, 2020—Decided June 17, 2021*

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as enacted in 2010 required most Americans to obtain minimum essential health insurance
coverage and imposed a monetary penalty upon most individuals who
failed to do so. Amendments to the Act in 2017 effectively nullified the
penalty by setting its amount to $0. Subsequently, Texas (along with
over a dozen States and two individuals) brought suit against federal
officials, claiming that without the penalty the Act’s minimum essential coverage provision, codified at 26 U. S. C. §5000A(a), is unconstitutional. They sought a declaration that the provision is unconstitutional, a finding that the rest of the Act is not severable from
§5000A(a), and an injunction against enforcement of the rest of the
Act. The District Court determined that the individual plaintiffs had
standing. It also found §5000A(a) both unconstitutional and not severable from the rest of the Act. The Fifth Circuit agreed as to the existence of standing and the unconstitutionality of §5000A(a), but concluded that the District Court’s severability analysis provided
insufficient justification to strike down the entire Act. Petitioner California and other States intervened to defend the Act’s constitutionality and to seek further review.

Held: Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge §5000A(a)’s minimum
essential coverage provision because they have not shown a past or
future injury fairly traceable to defendants’ conduct enforcing the specific statutory provision they attack as unconstitutional. Pp. 4–16.
(a) The Constitution gives federal courts the power to adjudicate
only genuine “Cases” and “Controversies.” Art. III, §2. To have standing, a plaintiff must “allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the
requested relief.” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 342.
No plaintiff has shown such an injury “fairly traceable” to the “allegedly unlawful conduct” challenged here. Pp. 4–5.
(b) The two individual plaintiffs claim a particularized individual
harm in the form of past and future payments necessary to carry the
minimum essential coverage that §5000A(a) requires. Assuming this
pocketbook injury satisfies the injury element of Article III standing,
it is not “fairly traceable” to any “allegedly unlawful conduct” of which
the plaintiffs complain, Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 751. Without a
penalty for noncompliance, §5000A(a) is unenforceable. The individuals have not shown that any kind of Government action or conduct has
caused or will cause the injury they attribute to §5000A(a). The
Court’s cases have consistently spoken of the need to assert an injury
that is the result of a statute’s actual or threatened enforcement,
whether today or in the future. See, e.g., Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442
U. S. 289, 298. Here, there is only the statute’s textually unenforceable language.
Unenforceable statutory language alone is not sufficient to establish
standing, as the redressability requirement makes clear. Whether an
injury is redressable depends on the relationship between “the judicial
relief requested” and the “injury” suffered. Allen, 468 U. S. at 753, n.
19. The only relief sought regarding the minimum essential coverage
provision is declaratory relief, namely, a judicial statement that the
provision challenged is unconstitutional. But just like suits for every
other type of remedy, declaratory-judgment actions must satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement. See MedImmune, Inc. v.
Genentech, Inc., 549 U. S. 118, 126–127. Article III standing requires
identification of a remedy that will redress the individual plaintiffs’
injuries. Id., at 127. No such remedy exists here. To find standing to
attack an unenforceable statutory provision would allow a federal
court to issue what would amount to an advisory opinion without the
possibility of an Article III remedy. Article III guards against federal
courts assuming this kind of jurisdiction. See Carney v. Adams, 592
U. S. ___, ___ . The Court also declines to consider Federal respondents’ novel alternative theory of standing first raised in its merits brief
on behalf the individuals, as well as the dissent’s novel theory on behalf of the states, neither of which was directly argued by plaintiffs
below nor presented at the certiorari stage. Pp. 5–10.

(c) Texas and the other state plaintiffs have similarly failed to show
that the pocketbook injuries they allege are traceable to the Government’s allegedly unlawful conduct. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,

Cite as: 593 U. S. ____ (2021) 3
Syllabus
547 U. S. 332, 342. They allege two forms of injury: one indirect, one
direct.
(1) The state plaintiffs allege indirect injury in the form of increased costs to run state-operated medical insurance programs. They
say the minimum essential coverage provision has caused more state
residents to enroll in the programs. The States, like the individual
plaintiffs, have failed to show how that alleged harm is traceable to
the Government’s actual or possible action in enforcing §5000A(a), so
they lack Article III standing as a matter of law. But the States have
also not shown that the challenged minimum essential coverage provision, without any prospect of penalty, will injure them by leading more
individuals to enroll in these programs. Where a standing theory rests
on speculation about the decision of an independent third party (here
an individual’s decision to enroll in a program like Medicaid), the
plaintiff must show at the least “that third parties will likely react in
predictable ways.” Department of Commerce v. New York, 588 U. S.
___, ___. Neither logic nor evidence suggests that an unenforceable
mandate will cause state residents to enroll in valuable benefits programs that they would otherwise forgo. It would require far stronger
evidence than the States have offered here to support their counterintuitive theory of standing, which rests on a “highly attenuated chain
of possibilities.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 410–411.
Pp. 11–14.

(2) The state plaintiffs also claim a direct injury resulting from a
variety of increased administrative and related expenses allegedly required by §5000A(a)’s minimum essential coverage provision. But
other provisions of the Act, not the minimum essential coverage provision, impose these requirements. These provisions are enforced without reference to §5000A(a). See 26 U. S. C. §§6055, 6056. A conclusion
that the minimum essential coverage requirement is unconstitutional
would not show that enforcement of these other provisions violates the
Constitution. The other asserted pocketbook injuries related to the Act
are similarly the result of enforcement of provisions of the Act that
operate independently of §5000A(a). No one claims these other provisions violate the Constitution. The Government’s conduct in question
is therefore not “fairly traceable” to enforcement of the “allegedly unlawful” provision of which the plaintiffs complain—§5000A(a). Allen,
468 U. S., at 751. Pp. 14–16.

945 F. 3d. 355, reversed and remanded.

BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J.,
and THOMAS, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined.
THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined.

Opinion 52 pages:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...9-840_6jfm.pdf

[US jewpreme Kort]

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH ET AL. v. AUSTIN REEVE JACKSON, JUDGE, ET AL. 594 U.S. ____

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH ET AL. v. AUSTIN REEVE JACKSON, JUDGE, ET AL. 594 U.S. ____


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...21a24_8759.pdf
http://stumbleinn.net/forum/showthre...144#post439144
http://thebeerbarrel.net/threads/the...-v-wade.47582/
http://christian-identity.net/forum/...3409#post23409
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...3409#post23409

Cite as: 594 U. S. ____ (2021)

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 21A24

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH ET AL. v. AUSTIN REEVE JACKSON, JUDGE, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

[September 1, 2021]

The application for injunctive relief or, in the alternative, to vacate stays of the district court proceedings presented to JUSTICE ALITO and by him referred to the Court is denied.

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. Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009); Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 66 (2020) (citing Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 20 (2008)). The applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue. But their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden.

For example, federal courts enjoy the power to enjoin individuals tasked with enforcing laws, not the laws themselves. California v. Texas, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 8). And it is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit can or will seek to enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our intervention. Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 409 (2013) (“threatened injury must be certainly impending” (citation omitted)). The State has represented that neither it nor its executive employees possess the authority to enforce the Texas law either directly or indirectly.

Nor is it clear whether, under existing precedent, this Court can issue an injunction against state judges asked to decide a lawsuit under Texas’s law. See Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 163 (1908).

Finally, the sole private-citizen respondent before us has filed an affidavit stating that he has no present intention to enforce the law. In light of such issues, we cannot say the applicants have met their burden to prevail n an injunction or stay application. In reaching this conclusion, 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’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.

.

==================

.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting.

The statutory scheme before the Court is not only unusual, but unprecedented. The legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large. The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the State from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime.

The State defendants argue that they cannot be restrained from enforcing their rules because they do not enforce them in the first place. I would grant preliminary relief to preserve the status quo ante—before the law went into effect—so that the courts may consider whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws in such a manner. Defendants argue that existing doctrines preclude judicial intervention, and they may be correct. See California v. Texas, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 8). But the consequences of approving the state action, both in this particular case and as a model for action in other areas, counsel at least preliminary judicial consideration before the program devised by the State takes effect.

We are at this point asked to resolve these novel questions—at least preliminarily—in the first instance, in the course of two days, without the benefit of consideration by the District Court or Court of Appeals. We are also asked to do so without ordinary merits briefing and without oral argument. These questions are particularly difficult, including for example whether the exception to sovereign immunity recognized in Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), should extend to state court judges in circumstances such as these.

I would accordingly preclude enforcement of S. B. 8 by the respondents to afford the District Court and the Court of Appeals the opportunity to consider the propriety of judicial action and preliminary relief pending consideration of the plaintiffs’ claims.

Although the Court denies the applicants’ request for emergency relief today, the Court’s order is emphatic in making clear that it cannot be understood as sustaining the constitutionality of the law at issue. But although the Court does not address the constitutionality of this law, it can of course promptly do so when that question is properly presented. At such time the question could be decided after full briefing and oral argument, with consideration of whether interim relief is appropriate should enforcement of the law be allowed below.


Rest of the Pissing & Moaning in Dissent by Faggots, kikesses and beaneresses in following PDF Opinions:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...21a24_8759.pdf
.

[Meercat #4]

Behind Texas Abortion Law, an Attorney’s Unusual Enforcement Idea

Behind Texas Abortion Law, an Attorney’s Unusual Enforcement Idea

Jonathan F. Mitchell taught law and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia before devising a provision that has confounded abortion-rights advocates and animated their opponents

Simply put they "lawfared" ending abortions by granting anti-abortionists the ability to civil "lawfare" abortion mills

By Jacob Gershman, WailingWallstein Street jewrinal
Sept. 4, 2021 9:38 am ET


https://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-...ea-11630762683
https://gab.com/PastorLindstedt/post...82784489248906
http://stumbleinn.net/forum/showthre...d=1#post439145
http://thebeerbarrel.net/threads/the...2/#post-290121
http://christian-identity.net/forum/...3417#post23417
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...3417#post23417
.

Behind a Texas law that has confounded legal scholars and given abortion opponents hope is a publicity-shy, 45-year-old West Coast litigator known for his command of abstruse legal theory.

The Texas Heartbeat Act has survived a brush with the Supreme Court and made Texas the most restrictive in the nation for abortion access, thanks largely to its unusual enforcement scheme. The law puts ordinary Texans—not any government official—in charge of enforcing a prohibition on performing or aiding abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, making it more difficult to challenge in court.

What the Texas Republicans have done is the same as what the $outhern Poverty Law Center and Bryan Reo and his ZOGbot "White Supremacist" Poverty [F]Law Center / Foundation for the MarketPlace of Ideas has done for years: Civil "lawfare" or as Pastor Lindstedt puts it, weaponizing the corrupt ZOG state and federal korts into the same weapons used by Sodom and Gomorrah to legalized murder and robbery under color of law to where someone without jurisdiction usurps that jurisdiction and proceeds to use the power of the state to "legally" destroy their targets. In the case of Bryan Reo and the rest of the antifa ZOGbots it is being used to impoverish Pastor Lindstedt and his friends and family by stealing his inheritance under color of "law". In this case the Republicans have deputized their anti-abortion allies to "lawfare" in the Texas korts to hold the threat of never-ending civil litigation against jew and gliberal whigger abortion mill operators.
.

The principal architect of the private-enforcement provision is Jonathan F. Mitchell, a constitutional litigator, former Justice Antonin Scalia clerk and law professor who in his spare time works pro bono advising the Republican legislators in Texas, according to people familiar with the legislation’s development. He is active with the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group.

Mr. Mitchell helped draft the bill at the suggestion of state Sen. Bryan Hughes, an East Texas Republican, who said he sponsored it as a way for Texas to enact a so-called heartbeat bill that many other states passed into law.

Scalia was one very smart dago-wop jewror who routinely jewstified whatever his and his faction of CONstipationalists wanted to do in a very effective manner. I myself especially liked his rationalization ability in Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008) in which the jewpreme kort held that a mentally ill defendant had the additional standard of passing competentcy requirements in order to be his own lawyer. Scalia made the point that a cunning criminal could become "legally insane" and tie matters up forever if he so wished. My friend who killed his father with a claw hammer in self defense who was nutty as can be wanted to make a plea of voluntary manslaugher and get off with time served in the NutHouse but his stupid bitch of a pub[l]ic pretender wanted to write a book and because the Missouri Department of Mental Health wanted to keep him in the Nuthouse drawing $250,000 per year as opposed to him getting a Disability crazy check for 12,000 per year so that he could live with his crazy mother and play the ponies across the Missouri River in Kansas scotched that idea.

Likewise, since I was locked up in the NutHouse because I refused to hire a lawyer for these bogus child-molestation charges upon the insistence of Judges GRIDS-Grindr Greggie Stremel and Kevin Lee Selby and the Newton County judges finally ruled no pub[l]ic pretender for me, I decided to pretend to hire a lawyer in order to induct the NutHouse psyco-criatists to unlawfully doping me up and thus having any excuse for keeping me up at the NutHouse and because in medium-security I was starting to cause trouble for them in how they treated the nuts I got on the fast track for discharge. Once back in the Newton County Jail at the hearing the next day before jewdge LePage, I said "what lawyer" and demanded to represent myself. Then the lawyer I pretended to hire wanted money and said that Jacob Skouby the Newton County Prosecuting Attorney at the time, and Judges Timmy Perigo and LePage wanted to dismiss the charges as long as I agreed to leave Missouri and go to South Dakota or somewhere at least 400 miles away. Pore Bub had been stolen and homosexually raped the very first night of his first foster home and become a rage-monster unlikely to lie for them. However the Missouri Pedophile and Baby-Stealing Ring known as the Missouri Department of Family Services wouldn't let the deal go through and so the case had to be dismissed on 27 Feb. 2009 Pore Bub got stolen and ass-raped by the Missouri Department of Family Services and turned into a faggot and a rage-monster so refused to cuntinue with the very lie which got him and his sister and half-brothers bought and sold off. This is why I have no problem with destroying the families of ZOGbots or even the ZOGtards that enable them.

So Edwards v. Indiana with it leaving barely intact the question of as to whether a lawyer could be forced upon a nutty defendant was a major impact on making my move to get out of the NutHouse, as was Runt Blunt's decision to simply not run for another term as governor made in Jan. 2008. I knew that if I worked quietly then I would be able to get out of the NutHouse, and then out of jail and then back into play as a Resistance Leader and Soldier.

So this legal weasel under Scalia learned how to subvert the law from an especially clever dago-wop jewpreme kort jewstice. Probably even wrote some of Scalia's opinions for him no doubt.

ZOG's "Law" is nothing more than what coonected Satanic lawyers and judges say it is. Nothing more. This ploy is simply unleashing civil "lawfare" or legalized civil warfare through the Satanic ZOG state and federal korts and enlisting ZOGtards to do so.
.

But the senator said he also wanted to avoid the fate of those other bills, which were all struck down by judges who said the laws placed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion before the fetus was viable. District attorneys in Texas’ more liberal cities were already saying they wouldn’t enforce abortion bans in the event of a Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade. So Mr. Hughes wanted a bill that could remain effective even without prosecutions.

Yes, yes, so the Blue-Shitty Prostitutors are not going to enforce abortion bans from the State Legislature [mis]representing Da Pisspul anyways so a "civil lawfare" solution to where Da Pisspul get to engage in majority barratry is in order.
.
“We knew we had to have another way,” said Mr. Hughes, chairman of the chamber’s influential Senate State Affairs policy-making committee. “We were going to find a way to pass a heartbeat bill that was going to be upheld.”

Some legal scholars, including conservatives, are dubious that the Texas law can survive a more sustained legal review and expect courts—either at the federal or state level—to halt it with some kind of general injunction. But they say Mr. Mitchell still has defied the odds by seeing the law go into effect.

Ever since Marbury v. Madison the ZOG korts have overturned dem[on]ocracy, especially [mis]representational demonocracy in favor of plutocratic oligarchy by means of pretending that theys' self-serving made-up pharisatanic lawyershit is the "Real Law." It isn't and never was. All this anti-abortion law has done is to deputize any daring ZOGtard in Texas into starting a civil lawsuit which it will cost abortionists and abortion mill money to where it is no longer profitable to cut up and flush pre-born niglets and beanerlets mainly who as sub-animal Beasts of the Field will grow up if whelped to be a drain upon what remains of ZOGling Whigger AmurriKwa. This bill simply renders large-scale abortion mills unprofitable as well as dangerous.

And by putting it to a 5-4 jewpreme kort vote in which the gliberal faggot (Breyer), the frog-faced kikess (Kagan) and beaneress-kikess (Sotomayor) as well as the Out on Epstein's Island Pedo-Perv Chief jewstice John Roberts can be outvoted by the Uncle Tom, the Fiver (Roman katlick), and the Trumptard jewstices including niglet-adopting crazy-eyed cunt as a preliminary reconnaisance to the Mississippi case which shall overcum Roe v. Wade in favor of taking it back to the States before they implode as well.

“He would have been a pretty successful legal academic,” said Ilya Somin, a George Mason University law professor and former colleague of Mr. Mitchell’s. “He’s a creative legal thinker.”

Mr. Mitchell has taught law at several law schools, including George Mason University and Stanford Law School, before entering state government in 2010 as the Texas’ solicitor general under Gov. Rick Perry. He left the job when Mr. Perry’s tenure ended. In 2017, President Donald Trump said he would tap Mr. Mitchell to lead the Administrative Conference of the United States, an obscure federal agency that advises on administrative law and regulatory procedures. But his confirmation never came up for a vote.

In 2018, Mr. Mitchell drafted “The Writ-of-Erasure Fallacy,” (((Full 87-page PDF here)))a Virginia Law Review article that articulated the legal theories that would eventually find their way into the Texas abortion law. The article was a deep dive into the subject of judicial review and raised the idea that when a court rules a statute unconstitutional, the law isn’t erased from the books and could be modified to allow for “private enforcement.”

He described how laws could be constructed to “enable private litigants to enforce a statute even after a federal district court has enjoined the executive from enforcing it,” without going in-depth about the applicability to abortion laws.
.

Actually upon reading this hagiography about a clever lawyer I actually agree with much of what he writes. These jewdges pretend that theys' self-serving pharasatanic lawyershit is the last word under a pretend CONstipation Repub[l]ican Form of [mis]government. The Romans put an end to the patrician "common-law" judge-made [d]rulings in favor of the Twelve Tablets of Roman civil law within 50 years of kicking out the kings and establishing theys' Repub[l]ic. Setting out a legalistic skirmish line of anti-abortionist ZOGtards to lawfare the abortion milliners works over the short term up until Roe v. Wade can be overturned at the jewpreme kort level and the question can be returned to the imploding States and then by the local Ten Thousand Warlord.
.

After opening a solo law practice, Mr. Mitchell extended the idea to abortion in 2019 when he advised an antiabortion East Texas pastor in drafting an ordinance adopted by a number of smaller Texas cities, including the city of Lubbock, that allowed Texas citizens to obtain an injunction against anyone performing or helping to carry out an abortion. Efforts by abortion-rights advocates to stop enforcement of the Lubbock ordinance failed in federal court, where a judge ruled that the plaintiff, Planned Parenthood, couldn’t sue the government over the law.

So the skirmish-line "lawfare" routine worked previously at the federal district kort level as it now works at the jewpreme kort level as well.

The Texas Heartbeat Act, or SB 8, as the Texas law is known, is a legal labyrinth of statutory construction that has coonfounded some of the legal profession’s most seasoned minds. Abortion-rights activists have denounced the law as diabolical, while some legal scholars have marveled at its creative clauses.

In a typical challenge to an antiabortion law, abortion-rights advocates can sue government officials tasked with enforcing the statute and wage their fights in courts and regions of their choosing. SB 8, which many Republican lawyers in the statehouse helped shape into its final form, turns the table on the geographic advantage. Claimants can sue on their home turf, even if the abortion-provider defendant is located elsewhere, and avoid courts in more Democratic areas. With no government official to sue, plaintiffs lack standing to move pre-emptively against the laws.

The law brims with financial enticements for claimants and their lawyers. The law sets a floor for damages at $10,000 per unlawful abortion but sets no limit on how much money claimants can recover. If they prevail, they can also demand the losing party pay their legal bills. If they lose in court and their case is dismissed, they owe the defendant nothing.

The law permits multiple lawsuits to be filed by different individuals over a single abortion. Once a claimant collects damages, though, the others suing may not collect more money from the same defendant for the same violation.

What this law does is to strike at the heart of the ZOGkort's deceit: Now anyone and everyone can engage in barratry without coonsequence and taking away what was granted nearly 50 years ago by the jewpreme kort. This Texas law is the equivalent of a phage -- a bacterium or virus which attacks legal pathogens such as legalizing abortions in states where the majority wants no legal abortions performed. The Texas bill weaponizes civil "lawfare."

The Republican-led state Senate and House passed the measure in May with votes almost entirely split along party lines. Between the two chambers, only two Democrats voted for the bill. No Republicans voted against the ban. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, signed the bill on May 19, and it went into effect Wednesday.

In an unsigned 5-4 order, the Supreme Court declined to block the law from taking effect. The conservative majority wrote that there were “serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law” but said the court might lack the jurisdiction to act because of procedural technicalities. The three liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts filed dissents.

Write to Jacob Gershman at jacob.gershman@wsj.com

Sooner or later as ZOG decays and collapses so too will its edicts. There is no reason to cuntinue with Roe v. Wade. Not after the First Trimester legalization across the ZOGland has been out-done by the Blue-State legislatures legalizing partial-birth abortions. If in jew yawk or Vagina or Mexifornia the usually beanerlet spwn can be sliced, diced and vaccummed up to provide stem cells and aging treatments for the aging wives of billionares then it makes no sense to impose federal abortion mandates upon Missouri, Utah and Texas. Rich whigger girls who screwed theys nigger or beaner bucks can pay for a bus ticket or motel room to a gliberal whigger state running an abortion mill there. The preggers she-boon or beanercita will end up squeezing out another anchor, ball and chain for the ZOG taxpayer to support for life -- or the life of ZOG -- which ever cums first. Texas chooses to employ a line of anti-abortion skirmishers before the inevitable termination of Roe v. Wade as the ZOGland decaying into collapse of 2021 isn't the ZOGland of 1973.

Hail Victory !!!

Pastor Martin Lindstedt
Church of Jesus Christ Christian / Aryan Nations of Missouri

.

[Meercat #4]

Opinion: What the Justice Department should do to stop the Texas abortion law

Opinion: What the Justice Department should do to stop the Texas abortion law

Opinion by Laurence H. Tribe
Sept 5, 2021 at 2:29 p.m. EDT

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...aurence-tribe/
http://christian-identity.net/forum/...3426#post23426
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...3426#post23426

Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor emeritus and a professor of constitutional law emeritus at Harvard Law School. And a member in good standing of The Tribe, i.e. a jew lawyer.
.

The Texas legislature and five Supreme Court justices have joined forces to eviscerate women’s abortion rights — the legislature by creating and the justices by leaving in place a system of private bounties designed to intimidate all who would help women exercise the right to choose. But the federal government has — and should use — its own powers, including criminal prosecution, to prevent the law from being enforced and to reduce its chilling effects.

Of course, the best approach would be for Congress to codify the right to abortion in federal law, although Democrats likely lack the votes to make that happen — and there is a risk that this conservative Supreme Court would find that such a statute exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause.

But as President Biden calls for a “whole of government” response to the fact that thousands of women in Texas — and no doubt soon elsewhere — are being denied their constitutional rights, there are other solutions that already exist in federal law.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has the power, under federal civil rights laws, to go after any vigilantes who employ the Texas law to seek bounties from abortion providers or others who help women obtain abortions.

The attorney general should announce, as swiftly as possible, that he will use federal law to the extent possible to deter and prevent bounty hunters from employing the Texas law. If Texas wants to empower private vigilantes to intimidate abortion providers from serving women, why not make bounty hunters think twice before engaging in that intimidation?

For example, Section 242 of the federal criminal code makes it a crime for those who, “under color of law,” willfully deprive individuals “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

This statute — originally designed to go after the Ku Klux Klan — fits the Texas situation perfectly: The bounty seekers, entitled under the Texas law to collect penalties of at least $10,000, have been made, in effect, private attorneys general of Texas. They act “under color of state law,” and unless and until Roe v. Wade is overruled, they unmistakably intend to prevent the exercise of a constitutional right.

In addition, Section 241 of the federal criminal code makes it an even more serious crime for “two or more persons” to agree to “oppress, threaten, or intimidate” anyone “in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same.” This crime may be committed even by individuals not found to be acting “under color of law” but as purely private vigilantes, as long as they’re acting in concert with others.

Again, the Texas scheme could hardly be more perfectly designed to match the language of that section. The whole point of the Texas law, after all, is to intimidate abortion providers and others by threatening them with penalties of at least $10,000, plus legal fees, in the form of bounties to be paid to the vigilante. Even jurists who believe the Constitution does not protect abortion rights might be given pause by this seizure of private property, with unlimited penalties not tied to any actual harm suffered by the bounty hunter.

It would be particularly fitting — in tune not just with the letter but the spirit of the law — to use the Ku Klux Klan Act in this way. After all, the statute was enacted in 1871, in the aftermath of the Civil War, precisely to prevent Klansmen from lynching and other attacks on formerly enslaved Black citizens, including to prevent them from exercising their constitutional right to vote. As the Klan rampaged in the former Confederacy, Southern states didn’t simply turn a blind eye to its vigilante justice but encouraged it.

In addition to these criminal provisions, there are civil actions available under federal law, including the ability to seek and obtain court orders to halt the illegal state scheme. The Justice Department can’t directly use the civil provisions of the Ku Klux Klan Act; only the injured party can. But the All Writs Act, which permits federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions” could allow the department to go to court to seek an order blocking the Texas law from being enforced.

The Justice Department is understandably reluctant to announce particular investigations or prosecutions before pinning down more details than are yet available. But, at some point, the need to disarm those who cynically undermine constitutional rights while ducking all normal avenues for challenging their assault on the rule of law becomes paramount.

We have arrived at that point.