Alan Dershowitz illustrates my concern about the Texas abortion legislation being used as precedent for other issues, in Democratic monopoly states:
Consider this out-of-the-box proposal: Liberal, pro-gun-control states could apply the Texas bounty approach to gun control. New York or Illinois, for example, could declare that gun crime has gotten so serious that the private ownership of most handguns should be deterred. It would be unconstitutional for the state to authorize the criminal prosecution of those who facilitate constitutionally protected gun ownership. But the state could, instead, enact a gun-bounty civil law modeled on the Texas abortion law. It would empower any citizen to sue for $10,000 anyone who facilitates the sale or ownership of handguns.
Gun-ownership advocates would rail against such a law as circumventing Heller, just as abortion advocates are railing against the Texas law as circumventing Roe. But it would be hard for the courts to uphold the civil mechanism of the anti-abortion law without also upholding the identical mechanism in the anti-gun law.
Creating this “shoe on the other foot” challenge would bring home the dangerous implications of the Texas bounty approach which, if not stopped, could undercut the authority of the Supreme Court to enforce other constitutional rights.
Texas could, for example, next apply it to gay marriage — any private citizen could sue anyone who performed or facilitated same-sex marriages — thus circumventing Obergefell v. Hodges. New York could then apply it to Citizens United v. FCC and offer a civil bounty to sue any media outlet that ran corporate political ads. Any state could simply target any Supreme Court precedent it doesn’t like and deter its enforcement by authorizing citizens who oppose it to sue. This would empower every state to effectively overrule Supreme Court decisions, as some southern states unsuccessfully tried to do following Brown v Board of Education in 1954.
Earlier this year, the anti-Civil Rights group “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence” issued a press release in support of Terry McAuliffe’s run [again] for Governor of my adopted state of Virginia.
In this now deleted release [the internet is forever geniuses], they rail against the GOP challenger [who doesn’t really seem to stand for anything, based on his TV ads] by stating:
“His willingness to say anything for a vote is deeply troubling, as we’ve already seen him cozying up to those with deep ties to those at the forefront of the insurrectionist movement, like Senator Amanda Chase and the domestic terror organization, the Virginia Citizens Defense League.”
As a member in good standing of said Virginia Citizen’s Defense League, apparently that makes me a domestic terrorist. Knowing the source, I guess I’ll wear that label with some amount of pride.
Honestly, I’m more upset at being implicated in the same sentence as batshit crazy Amanda Chase.
I’m watching in fascination, both the various legal analyses of the newly implemented Texas abortion law….and the even newer pursuit of one-upsmanship on the part of a couple of other states.
Whether it’s the Left on issues like gun control or the Right with abortion……one wonders if they ever stop to calculate the second and third order effects……as well as the very real fact that their legal victories…..can serve as precedent when tables are turned, or in jurisdictions where they aren’t in the majority.
To this end, an OpEd in the WSJ notes:
“This one delegates exclusive enforcement to private citizens, who are authorized to sue anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion after six weeks. Citizens who prevail in their civil lawsuits are entitled to at least $10,000 per abortion along with legal costs.”
The law sets an awful precedent that conservatives should hate. Could California allow private citizens to sue individuals for hate speech? Or New York deputize private lawsuits against gun owners? Texas argues that abortion providers don’t have standing to challenge the law because the state isn’t enforcing it and neither at this point is any private citizen. Thus there is no case or controversy, which is what courts are supposed to settle. This is technically correct and it is why the five Justices declined to enjoin the law.
The entire article is behind a paywall, but this and another snippet can be found here.
I have little doubt that this law will be struck down, not because it effectively skirts settled law, but for the manner in which it does…..and the horrible precedent it sets. Snitch lines/website? Blanket legal standing for unaffected Citizens to sue?
This is a dangerous road that political myopia built.
“I’m going in there with 20 strong men, I’m going to speak to the school board and I’m going to give them an option. They can leave or they can be removed ” said Steve Lynch who is running for PA Governor, “Make men men again”, he said during Freedom Rally today.
At protest in Santa Monica today before the vote on mask-mandate, Jason Lefkowitz has the home addresses of each LA City Council member on his sign. He says they are going to the homes of whoever votes for it, and if it passes, it’s “civil war, get your guns.” From @chadloder
Soon is coming the time for patriots to grab muskets from over the mantle, secure shot and ball, and prepare to defend our nation from the Cult of the Unmitigated Asshole. Those self-aggrandized snowflakes who allow their impotent rage to convince them that they’re victims because of <insert baseless reason here>.
A reckoning is indeed coming, but they mistakenly reckon that the cause of Patriots is on their side.
Reposted in it’s entirety from Kent’s “Hooligan Libertarian” Blog. Compelling thesis.
Liberty is illegal. Liberty isn’t piecemeal. Either you have the freedom to do everything you have a right to do– everything which doesn’t violate anyone else’s equal and identical rights– free from political interference, or you don’t. There’s no halfway. And government doesn’t allow you to exercise your liberty. No political government anywhere willingly allows it– libraries full of legislation are written to violate your liberty. So, liberty is illegal.
This is why governments such as the USA encourage people to focus on freedom instead. It’s why government-supremacist organizations publish “freedom indices” instead of something more objective.
Freedom is subjective. It depends on what you want to do. You may have the freedom to “Netflix and chill” but not to carry a full-auto Tommy gun to the store, but if you don’t care about the Tommy gun and are happy about everything else, you feel free. You are free. But your liberty is being violated.
Only by getting rid of legislation can liberty stop being illegal. And that probably requires getting rid of political government. Which means liberty will be illegal all your life.
That’s not the defeatism you might think.
If you know you’re going to have to be an outlaw all your life to get as close as possible to living in liberty, it removes a lot of the hesitation about breaking “laws“. Your concern then isn’t whether something you have a right to do is “illegal”, but about getting caught. And once you realize evildoers of one sort or another will always be trying to violate you (it’s just what they do), even if liberty weren’t illegal, you can get on with living and dodging or outsmarting the bad guys, which is just life. Don’t let the opinions of your enemies– of liberty’s enemies– dictate how you live.
So, Biden hypes a ‘massive’ effort to curb violent crime and crime involving firearms yesterday. After careful review of his statements….they can be summed up as…….actually enforcing existing gun laws. A position that the political Right has long advocated for. My, what courage……
Now, being the uncompliant and obstinate Libertarian that I am, I believe that nearly every firearm prohibition should be removed, beginning with the abysmal NFA.
P.S. – In another ironic tidbit….many GOP elected representatives – after having voted against a commission to illuminate the events behind the Jan 6th insurrection – are now calling for that very event, having bought into the specious allegation that the FBI coordinated and enabled the event; which was carried out by Trump cultists.
Of course, this position against an unconstitutional agency notwithstanding, she’s still a perfidious piece of shit cultist. And the bill will go absolutely nowhere, but good on her for trying anyway. This bill wouldn’t have passed when the last Administration held the White House and both houses of Congress…….
No surprise to any one who still checks in here. There’s simply no free time…and no interest to be honest. At least for now.
I’m deployed again, and have been for a bit now. The Iranians and their proxies demand just about all of my attention…which further compels me to wonder why the hell we’re still over here. That we’re here to defend Iraq against ISIS, is a canard that is well past it’s expiration date. We’re here to keep the eastern Syrian oil fields out of the hands of the Syrians themselves [how’s that for respecting someone’s national sovereignty?]. Remember that if we [or a certain ‘third party’] attack Iran in the waning days of the Trump Regime….or if they strike first. If it happens, remember why our sons and daughters were sacrificed…..
At home, the Leftists and the Trump Cultists continue to try and out-stupid themselves in the race to see who can destroy the Republic and piss on the Constitution more, or quicker. Snowflakes and beta-boi’s on both sides….some dressed in black and some in their airsoft finery….all trying to compensate for poor life choices and low self-esteem….make me glad that I can retreat to my homestead upon my departure from one shithole country to return to an emerging shithole country.
Yep, my country is becoming an embarrassing example on par with so many others…..’exceptionalism’ my ass. And, I’ve earned the right to think such.