A liberal twist on the Texas abortion law

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So wondering about this here with how Texas was able to make the law immune from most review.

Let's say a liberal state passed a law that made it illegal for religious figures to condemn homosexuality. Now obviously that law would be unconstitutional....but let's say they also made it so that it didn't have the state arresting or charging pastors for condemning homosexuality, instead it allowed people to sue anyone. So if a pastor gives a sermon saying that homosexuality is a sin and same-sex marriage is an abomination, any private individual can sue them for $10k. Now any churches opposed to this can't sue the state, because they're not the ones enforcing it, and it would create the same issue the Texas law does.

So if such a thing happened, how do you think the courts would treat it and the Supreme Court? Because it's obviously such a law would never withstand constitutional muster, but the Texas precedent would make it very difficult to block it.

[lfromnj]

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/571732-how-to-mess-with-texas-anti-abortion-bounty-apply-it-to-gun-sales

Here's Dersowitz's opinion.

I already stated my previous opinion. I don't believe Roe was a good decision but as it stands it is precedent until a proper overturn.

[dead0man]

Reason is worried about it concerning guns and other civil liberties.

Conservatives should be just as outraged by this legal ruse as liberals are. After all, if the Texas scheme actually succeeds in the long run, what's to stop an anti-gun state legislature from banning handguns in the home, in clear violation of SCOTUS precedent, and then placing state officials beyond the reach of federal judicial review by outsourcing the ban's enforcement to an army of private-sector gun control activists? Most gun shops would probably go bankrupt overnight when faced with the wave of private-sector civil suits that such a state law would unleash. Is that the future that conservatives want?

[Torie]

I don't understand myself why it is such a heavy lift to find state action by virtue of the state passing a law that effectively makes the exercise of a Constitutional right a tort. I just be missing something, but I don't know what that something is.

[Donerail]

I don't understand myself why it is such a heavy lift to find state action by virtue of the state passing a law that effectively makes the exercise of a Constitutional right a tort. I just be missing something, but I don't know what that something is.

Well, it's easy to write that opinion if you're willing to say that. But acknowledging that the right at issue in the Texas case is protected by the constitution? Don't know if that's something you want to reiterate, especially if you plan to find otherwise in Dobbs.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Reason is worried about it concerning guns and other civil liberties.

Conservatives should be just as outraged by this legal ruse as liberals are. After all, if the Texas scheme actually succeeds in the long run, what's to stop an anti-gun state legislature from banning handguns in the home, in clear violation of SCOTUS precedent, and then placing state officials beyond the reach of federal judicial review by outsourcing the ban's enforcement to an army of private-sector gun control activists? Most gun shops would probably go bankrupt overnight when faced with the wave of private-sector civil suits that such a state law would unleash. Is that the future that conservatives want?

Reason sticks to its principles on almost all issues related to penal law and criminal justice and is one of the best sources in America for those issues.

[NYDem]

You've hit upon the worst feature of this Texas "law". It doesn't provide a way for getting around abortion, rather it provides a way for getting around any constitutional right (That's what abortion before 20 weeks currently is). This is the reason I can't imagine the Supreme Court possibly upholding this law. That decision wouldn't have the effect of striking down Roe v. Wade; it would have the effect of striking down every constitutional protection of any kind. If the Supreme Court rules that way it would legitimately be one of the worst court decisions in history.