One of the first things that a law student learns about in civil procedure is the concept of "standing". To sue someone, you have to be the party that suffered injury of some kind. There has to be injury of some nature to you and the remedy that you're seeking, whether it's money, an injunction, or both, is one that a court has the power to award.
It's not a hard concept. If you are not affected by something, you can't sue for it.
The Texas law does away with standing. If you heard a rumor that someone had an abourtion, or their cousin drove them out of state for one, you can sue. Even if you have no connection to them, you can sue.
The proponents have claimed that this is nothing more than a "private attorney general" provision, which is allowed in Federal civil rights cases. But that is a lie, for even there, the person suing has to have standing. They have to be one (or one of the ones) who was injured by illegal conduct.
The elimination of standing opens the door to a lot of other things that could be addressed by just letting private citizens sue. If the motorcyclists going by your house have straight pipes on their hogs, you could sue the parts stores for selling them or the gas stations where they refueled. You could sue the guy down the street who won't mow his lawn. Sue the local tint shop for over-tinting car windows. Sue the local paper for making a product that contributes to litter. Maybe sue the cops if they violate the civil rights of some other guy.
If the Texas law fails, I expect it'll fail because of its elimination of the requirement for standing.
That the Fifth Circuit and the Supremes let this law go into effect show, to my mind, that when it comes to appellate courts, politics and ideology often hold sway over picky things such as justice.
And I am not saying this lightly. There was an aspect of Federal civil rights law that, at least in one Federal appellate circuit, the attorneys practing there could tell who would win by which judges were selected for the three-judge panel. For the pro-plaintiff side, the outcome was 80% or so reliable. For the pro-defendant side, it was 99.9% reliable. It just didn't matter what the facts of the case were if you were the defendant; if you got two or three of the pro-defendant judges, you won.
Ever since then, my opinion has been that if you rely the Federal courts to protect your rights, you will eventually be screwed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
My outside the protection of the "law" Outsider/Outlaw take is of course a bit more ones and zeros, balls on a brass monkey: an ideologically stacked unelected panel of actively partisan Catholic Illuminatti handing down edicts in secret are vigilantes, the "court" is illegitimate, there is no "law". But nobody listens to me, Cassandra's Grandson. The best turn of the phrase I've seen so far, the most descriptive to my jaded eye ~ not to suggest your synopsis doesn't rank right up there ~ is that what the "court" has done is overturn The Rule of Law. Overturn, The Rule of Law.
There is no Law. All that compels us to "obey" is the social contract.
Which as an Outsider ...
Ten bears are at least nine-and-a-half too many. But you are right about the upshot and therefore about the purpose.
For a fun thought experiment, travel back in time a hundred years -- or perhaps just a bit longer, to be safe -- and tell anyone, anyone at all, that in the early 21st century the Supreme Court will consist of six Catholics and three Jews.
Seem the checks for bonafide claim is weak at best therefore
the "justice" will be more like summary. It would seem a
claim of actual pregnancy has to be verified.
Seems to me based on multiple readings of this and other
commentary on standing before the law that Texas has
gone wild west. I see this getting out of control...
So if someone feels abused in some why their standing is
sufficient to call for the street at high noon, or maybe a
convenient lot, and deal with the problem in a direct
fashion though outdated.
In short since law has failed then blood may ensue.
If states take the same stance, say ban something and leave
it in the hands of bounty hunters its not going to be good
and it also allow a much wider range of things to be banned.
Nope, its a fuster cluck, legally, socially, and morally.
Eck!
As to traveling back in time we have the Fugitive slave acts
of both 1793 and 1850.
The makeup of the court is not about religion but people
that are not beholden to anyone and can interpret the law.
In the past there were stacked courts and in all cases the
presumed imbalance was laid out in lavender as we have
history to recall them. The things some need in DC is
to recall they are likely there but history may can
remember the blood on souls. Legacy is both the good
and the bad.
Maybe because I studied the famous Judges and their cases
in american history and why they are as we know them and
a few that were noted for the infamous decisions. Often
the opinions are interesting both affirmative and in
dissent. History remembers all!
Eck!
Republicans used to scream for tort reform, but there I go remembering stuff again.
-Doug in Sugar Pine
Another legal thought: wouldn't the TX Coathanger Law run afoul of HIPAA?
Stewart, possibly, but I don't know very much about HIPPA.
(And nobody's paying me to learn.)
The worst little twist is you have protection if you report and sue. Even if you lose, you cannot be ordered to pay the defendants legal fees. This law is effectively custom written to invite harassment and abuse.
HIPPA I know some from running a companies systems for a few years.
Healthcare information portability and protection act... Your first clue.
For Me in IT and systems it was about makeig information available to
those that had bonafide right to see it (in short very few people,
mostly HR). For the end patient they had personal access but most
of that was outside the company.
Its the process and law that makes your radiologist be able to send
imaging data to you doc and other specialists you seem part of the
you health care system, and Insurance (proxy payer) while obligating
them to protect you information up to including basic Name, address,
birthday, and SSN .
So if a DOC had a private conversation and abortion was mentioned
its protected conversation. Medical advise is free speech and also
confidential.
Why Texas law is hot mess.
It attempts to be too cute and sidestep a laundry list of federal
law design to insure lawful activities are not unduly restricted.
They protect persons usually women, and their rights, all of them.
In short if "YOU" will not wear a mask or seatbelts because its
somehow unfair that the government to tell you what to do. Then
the same "YOU" has no standing tell any women how to conduct
personal private medical affairs about her body.
Eck!
Post a Comment