Kavanaugh Asks if Texas Abortion Law Could Be Model for Bans on Gun Rights, Free Speech

[neurosis]

Who doesn't believe that this is eventually where this is going to go?  



https://www.newsweek.com/kavanaugh-asks-if-texas-abortion-law-could-model-bans-gun-rights-free-speech-1644642">https://www.newsweek.com/kavanaugh-asks ... ch-1644642">https://www.newsweek.com/kavanaugh-asks-if-texas-abortion-law-could-model-bans-gun-rights-free-speech-1644642

Justice Brett Kavanaugh floated the possibility of Texas's abortion law becoming a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights, such as gun rights under the Second Amendment.

Kavanaugh pressed Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone on the hypothetical during oral arguments at the Supreme Court Monday for two challenges to S.B. 8—the Lone Star State's controversial law prohibiting abortions when a so-called "fetal heartbeat" can be detected, which is as early as six weeks into pregnancy.

[JParis]

I'll be surprised if the Texas law is upheld...it'll be 5-4 but I think anyway the Texas law will be shot down...
Roberts will vote with the lefties on this one

We'll see...

[Tim Johnson]

Who doesn't believe that this is eventually where this is going to go?  



https://www.newsweek.com/kavanaugh-asks-if-texas-abortion-law-could-model-bans-gun-rights-free-speech-1644642">https://www.newsweek.com/kavanaugh-asks ... ch-1644642">https://www.newsweek.com/kavanaugh-asks-if-texas-abortion-law-could-model-bans-gun-rights-free-speech-1644642

ustice Brett Kavanaugh floated the possibility of Texas's abortion law becoming a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights, such as gun rights under the Second Amendment.

Kavanaugh pressed Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone on the hypothetical during oral arguments at the Supreme Court Monday for two challenges to S.B. 8—the Lone Star State's controversial law prohibiting abortions when a so-called "fetal heartbeat" can be detected, which is as early as six weeks into pregnancy.

I may need to reread the Constitution But I can't remember abortion being mentioned.

[neurosis]

[quote="Tim Johnson" post_id=17900 time=1635854794 user_id=68]
I may need to reread the Constitution But I can't remember abortion being mentioned.
[/quote]

If the Texas law some how manages to hold up, that's probably what the protesters signs are going to read when other States use that same model to go after rights that they don't like.  Whether you agree or disagree with abortion or the constitutionality of it is going to be irrelevant.

[YoDoug]

IMO, this is just RINO Kavanaugh trying to side with his people (Libs) and try to not sound like he is a RINO.

[gcode]

[quote="Tim Johnson" post_id=17900 time=1635854794 user_id=68]
the possibility of Texas's abortion law becoming a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights, such as gun rights under the Second Amendment.
[/quote]

abortion is not a Constitutional right
you can look all day long, but you will not find it in the Bill of Rights

[Tim Johnson]

[quote="Tim Johnson" post_id=17900 time=1635854794 user_id=68]
I may need to reread the Constitution But I can't remember abortion being mentioned.

If the Texas law some how manages to hold up, that's probably what the protesters signs are going to read when other States use that same model to go after rights that they don't like.  Whether you agree or disagree with abortion or the constitutionality of it is going to be irrelevant.
[/quote]

Justice Kavanaugh is making a comparison between the Bill of Rights and a Judicial decree. To change an amendment you have a process to go though. If you don't like gun rights then go through the process of getting the amendment changed. The Supreme court does has the right to change a previous decree.

[neurosis]

[quote="Tim Johnson" post_id=17908 time=1635862431 user_id=68]
The Supreme court does has the right to change a previous decree.
[/quote]

That's not what they're doing here though, right?  If they were that would be an entirely different conversation.

Regardless, I hope that this conversation doesn't come up in a few years because liberal States are using this model to take away rights using a shady model to circumvent them. Politicians are if nothing else, spiteful.  Look at the ridiculous law Illinois passed after Texas passed their ridiculous law.

[Tim Johnson]

[quote="Tim Johnson" post_id=17908 time=1635862431 user_id=68]
The Supreme court does has the right to change a previous decree.

That's not what they're doing here though, right?  If they were that would be an entirely different conversation.

Regardless, I hope that this conversation doesn't come up in a few years because liberal States are using this model to take away rights using a shady model to circumvent them. Politicians are if nothing else, spiteful.  Look at the ridiculous law Illinois passed after Texas passed their ridiculous law.
[/quote]

I'm not sure why Justice Kavanaugh made that statement. It doesn't sound like it was very well thought out.

[neurosis]

Kavanaugh hasn't been the only one saying it. But again, I hope that you're right.




https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/gun-rights-group-backs-abortion-providers-over-texas-ban">https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-we ... -texas-ban">https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/gun-rights-group-backs-abortion-providers-over-texas-ban

Erik S. Jaffe
Clerkship

    U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas

But Erik Jaffe, who filed the amicus brief on behalf of the nonprofit group Firearms Policy Coalition, fears the law could be used to limit other constitutional rights, in particular the Second Amendment.

"It's hard to miss the parallels between abortion and guns," said Jaffe, a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas who is also part of the team helping to defend Indiana's abortion restrictions.


'Fast and Loose'

That's why Jaffe filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the abortion providers—to call out the implications for other constitutional rights.

"To the extent this tactic is effective at evading or outright blocking preenforcement review, while allowing the significant and largely decisive deterrent to persist unless and until a direct application of the law is reviewed by this Court, it will easily become the model for suppression of other constitutional rights, with Second Amendment rights being the most likely targets of such suppression," Jaffe wrote in a brief urging the justices to consider the case.

"People think Roe should be overruled," Jaffe said, referring to the court's landmark 1973 abortion decision. "Everyone else on the other side thinks Heller should be overruled," he said, referring to the court's 2008 ruling affirming the right to own a gun in the home.

But until the Supreme Court actually overturns its precedent, states must enforce constitutional law, Jaffe said.

"You don't get to play fast and loose with the procedure," he said.

[ghuns]

Kavanaugh hasn't been the only one saying it. But again, I hope that you're right.




https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/gun-rights-group-backs-abortion-providers-over-texas-ban">https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-we ... -texas-ban">https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/gun-rights-group-backs-abortion-providers-over-texas-ban

..."It's hard to miss the parallels between abortion and guns," ...

Uhhhh... What parallels, Erik?

Only one is mentioned in the BoR.

The other was breathed into existence in a 1973 SCOTUS decision, that even many left leaning legal scholars will admit was a poorly decided case.

[neurosis]

Uhhhh... What parallels, Erik?

Only one is mentioned in the BoR.

I assume that he's talking about the political polarization and battles that are fought to keep or restrict the rights.

[Tim Johnson]

Abortion isn't a "right". It was made legal by the Supreme Court. States have put limits on the legalized abortions and Texas' heartbeat limit was the last straw for abortion rights activists. The abortion rights activists don't need to worry though. The pro-abortion States will have clinics right next to the anti-abortion States.

[neurosis]

They're not just pissed about the limits. They're pissed about the way the law was written. It was written in a way that there was no way for it to be challenged.  I don't know how you feel about that, but I see that as a huge problem. It probably doesn't matter when it's something that you agree with, but wait until it isn't.

I'm probably just talking out of my ass here, but if so, then so was the guy defending the law.

That's right, Stone said; under an S.B. 8-style law, the federal courts would be barred from intervening regardless of what right is being attacked.

"No, it does not create federal jurisdiction as a consequence," Stone said. In other words, Texas's position is that any state has the power to manipulate current legal standards to insulate an unconstitutional law from a federal pre-enforcement challenge.

Both Sotomayor and Kavanaugh raised the question as it pertained to gun possession. Could a state pass a law targeting the owners of AR-15 assault rifles with a $1 million bounty for successful lawsuits and block the federal courts from stepping in? Kavanaugh asked. Again, Stone said, sure. And again, that it would be up to Congress to fix the problem.

[Tim Johnson]

They're not just pissed about the limits. They're pissed about the way the law was written. It was written in a way that there was no way for it to be challenged.  I don't know how you feel about that, but I see that as a huge problem. It probably doesn't matter when it's something that you agree with, but wait until it isn't.

I'm probably just talking out of my ass here, but if so, then so was the guy defending the law.

That's right, Stone said; under an S.B. 8-style law, the federal courts would be barred from intervening regardless of what right is being attacked.

"No, it does not create federal jurisdiction as a consequence," Stone said. In other words, Texas's position is that any state has the power to manipulate current legal standards to insulate an unconstitutional law from a federal pre-enforcement challenge.

Both Sotomayor and Kavanaugh raised the question as it pertained to gun possession. Could a state pass a law targeting the owners of AR-15 assault rifles with a $1 million bounty for successful lawsuits and block the federal courts from stepping in? Kavanaugh asked. Again, Stone said, sure. And again, that it would be up to Congress to fix the problem.

What I think or feel doesn't matter and I have no clue about an S.B. 8-style law but if I'm reading Mr. Stone's words correctly Texas' law would be bound by the tenth amendment. The tenth amendment was added just for situations like this that if there is no described federal power from the Constitution then the States rights trumps federal rights.
 
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Again the Second amendment is a right designated to the people whereas abortion is a judicial decree and that IS a big difference.