WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
I think the deputized private citizens have to file a lawsuit against a provider of abortion supporting service providers (abortion clinics, taxi drivers, friends and family, etc.), and win it, before they get the bounty. No snitching involved.
The key nefarious scheme is that the State doesn't have to do the enforcing, which they think gets them around the un-Constitutional muckiness.
The DOJ disagrees.
As does every thinking lawyer.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
Ok. I’ll admit snitching isn’t a word I use often and I might have used it incorrectly. (I have to admit, it had a pleasantly vindictive sound!) on the other hand, my question stands: is filing a suit considered law enforcement? Unless I’m misunderstanding Pondering’s post about delegating law enforcement to non-state actors. (Come to think of it, I could be misunderstanding “non-state actors†as well.)
You're not wrong. Filing the suit is "law enforcement" even if not "criminal". But then, neither is zoning (Grendel's Den - love that name). The concept of "nondelegation" of authority is very old in the law - goes back to the common law, actually. The central concept is that "we" can control the government, and the government acts on our behalf, so they are in fact agents of the government. What is particularly galling about the Supreme Court's completely perfidious ruling is that they were well aware of this already, but chose to ignore it.
Last edited by NW Ponderer; 09/10/2106:33 PM.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
I think the deputized private citizens have to file a lawsuit against a provider of abortion supporting service providers (abortion clinics, taxi drivers, friends and family, etc.), and win it, before they get the bounty. No snitching involved.
The key nefarious scheme is that the State doesn't have to do the enforcing, which they think gets them around the un-Constitutional muckiness.
The DOJ disagrees.
And, they'll have to win the 42 U.S. Code § 1983 action* that is counter-pled, and will result in heftier fines.
*Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
Some thoughts on the tension between rights and responsibilities, in relation to abortion. We have touched on the normal legal need for 'standing' as a prerequisite to file a lawsuit in any matter - basically standing means that the plaintiff was harmed in some significant way. In this the Texas law fails miserably.
But what about the creating of laws that regulate individual actions? It stands to reason that they also have a need to draw a line between peoples' freedom to do as they choose, as long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights. Rights vs responsibilities are often not separated by a bright line. Consider smoking around others, for instance. We have, after a long time, come down as a society against smoking if it forces others to unwillingly inhale secondhand smoke. What about wearing seatbelts in cars? The relationship is a bit less distinct, but the idea is that when a person's (bad) choices result in a burden on society (injury in a car wreck) that it's reasonable to regulate.
Taking a look at the abortion issue, it appears to come down to the rights of the mother vs the rights of the 'not-yet-born'. Which obviously raises the question of when does an NYB acquire the rights of a person? Very murky, that one is, Obi-Wan.
But it isn't front and center as the core debate. Clearly, no other individual has any rights in the matter, except perhaps the father - who, if he wants to exercise any possible right must also accept a high level of responsibility. Reaching the bar of the mother's level of responsibility for bearing and raising a child would be impossible, however, which would imply a lesser right for the father in the matter, in my opinion.
The right of the State to have a say in the matter is completely dependent on the question of when an NYB has rights as a person - one who can't defend its rights and must therefore depend upon the State to do that. So the State can have standing in instances where individuals may not.
Does anyone know of a lawful ruling that specifically defines the conditions of the acquisition of legal rights for a NYB? I think that this would be necessary before the State could have standing.
Note that religious arguments have no standing in the matter and cannot be used in a State's determination of when rights are acquired.
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete. R. Buckminster Fuller
Log - don’t know if this is what you’re looking for; it’s only wiki - but it has some good info on treaties and laws re: fetal rights in various countries.
I also saw reference to a Supreme Court decision from 2018 that looked interesting but then I clicked past it. I’m going back to look for it. (If I’m not back in 20 minutes send the St Bernards)
Julia A 45’s quicker than 409 Betty’s cleaning’ house for the very last time Betty’s bein’ bad
Color me surprised... the U.S., and pretty much the whole planet, has never defined when (or if) the NYB get any rights as a person. But their "guardian" can represent them.
Seems like a major thread to pull to unravel the whole chaotic delusion of the anti-abortionists, don't it?
Seems a woman's right to choose is the same as the guardian's right to choose.
Reminds me of a phrase, "So you got a little bit a baby fat, it ain't no thang..."
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete. R. Buckminster Fuller
From what I read, in many places rights depend on viability. Unfortunately in Texas it depends on what is mistakenly thought to be a heartbeat.
I read that in Canada, ya gotta be ODaG (outta da gal!)
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete. R. Buckminster Fuller
