Liberal justices warn that guns, same-sex marriage and religious rights could face limits if Texas w

[libertybele]

Liberal justices warn that guns, same-sex marriage and religious rights could face limits if Texas wins abortion case

Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that constitutional rights enshrined in Supreme Court decisions concerning gun rights, same-sex marriage, birth control and other contentious issues could be open to attack depending on how the court handled the Texas abortion ban cases that were in front of it Monday.

The court's attention in Monday's arguments was not on its previous abortion precedents -- which will be under more direct examination next month -- but rather Texas' mechanism for enforcing its ban on abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected, a point about six weeks into pregnancy.

Texas has given citizens anywhere in the country a private right of action to sue those who facilitate abortions after that point. In the cases heard Monday, Texas is arguing that the law's design prevents federal courts from issuing preemptive orders blocking the law from being enforced. Defenders of the ban told the court that Congress could always step in and prevent states from implementing such private cause of actions if it so chose.

"Can I give you examples where Congress hasn't?" Sotomayor said to Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone. Sotomayor cited landmark opinions on gun control, same-sex marriage, sodomy and birth control.........

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/politics/sotomayor-kagan-breyer-texas-abortion-arguments/index.html

[Hoodat]

Liberal justices warn that guns, same-sex marriage and religious rights could face limits if Texas wins abortion case

Works for me.

[HoustonSam]

"Can I give you examples where Congress hasn't?" Sotomayor said to Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone. Sotomayor cited landmark opinions on gun control, same-sex marriage, sodomy and birth control.........

Sotomayor's observation here seems rather stupid.  Congress has not forbade states from allowing these items to be litigated as torts because no state has yet attempted to make these items torts, at least not to my (layman's) knowledge.  So it doesn't matter that Congress has not prevented states from allowing private causes of action on any of these other issues and the observation is meaningless.

Having said that, and as a strong pro-life man, I conclude that the TX Legislature's strategy here is unsound.  It inevitably confuses actions which should be considered under the criminal code with actions which are matters of private contract, it empowers people to take action as if they were parties to a contract when they are not, and if upheld it will lead to exactly the sort of specific actions Sotomayor and others have suggested; CA for example will give every US citizen the right to sue Marlin or Remington or Smith and Wesson the next time a multiple shooting occurs in CA.  Then they will give every US citizen the right to sue over the next allegation of racism that arises in CA.  Everyone in the US, not just those who have asked for a cake for a homosexual wedding, will be able to sue the baker in CO.  Basically this law will empower "cancel culture" in ways we can't fully predict.

While I reject the idea that abortion is a right, the approach taken by the TX Legislature abrogates the idea of rights.

I predict that SCOTUS will strike down the TX law and I have to conclude that were I on SCOTUS I would vote to strike it down also.

[Hoodat]

It inevitably confuses actions which should be considered under the criminal code with actions which are matters of private contract, it empowers people to take action as if they were parties to a contract when they are not, and if upheld it will lead to exactly the sort of specific actions Sotomayor and others have suggested; CA for example will give every US citizen the right to sue Marlin or Remington or Smith and Wesson the next time a multiple shooting occurs in CA.

There is a difference here.  The Texas case targets the perpetrator of an act, while your hypothetical California case does not.

I understand your concerns with the Texas statute, but your analogy is not valid.  A more accurate scenario would be California banning the manufacture of a gun within California.  And if Remington chose to manufacture one, they could be sued by anyone in the state.

[HoustonSam]

There is a difference here.  The Texas case targets the perpetrator of an act, while your hypothetical California case does not.

I understand your concerns with the Texas statute, but your analogy is not valid.  A more accurate scenario would be California banning the manufacture of a gun within California.  And if Remington chose to manufacture one, they could be sued by anyone in the state.

The distinction you draw, while logically significant, will not matter.  You're certainly correct that TX is not enabling people to sue the manufacturers of the abortionists instruments, but there is no reason the CA or CO or NY or MA legislature would be bound by that distinction.  The TX law attempts immunity from Constitutional challenge by manufacturing from thin air standing to bring private action; nothing limits how the next manufactured basis for private action might be designed.  Bakers in Colorado, churches from coast to coast, anyone who speaks an unpopular opinion, all will be crushed by legal costs in defending torts for actions which have heretofore been considered rights.

Again, the TX legislature is unfortunately opening the door to "cancel culture" and "lawfare" run amok.  As much as I want to see the pro-aborts crushed, this isn't the way to do it.

[Hoodat]

With the example of bakers, it will be interesting to see a state allow a baker to be sued for not doing something.

I don't trust Sotomayor.  I think she is blowing smoke here.  If liberals thought they could get away with suing anyone exercising their gun rights or their religious rights, not only would they have done so already, but they would be encouraging the precedent here.

[Kamaji]

She is quite correct.

[txradioguy]

She is quite correct.

No she's not.  Two of the things she cites...same sex "marriage" and birth control aren't Constitutional rights. 

She's not the brightest light on the court.

[Hoodat]

No she's not.  Two of the things she cites...same sex "marriage" and birth control aren't Constitutional rights.

Neither is abortion.

[txradioguy]

Neither is abortion.

Nope.  As much as they'd like it to be a Constitution right and as much as they falsely claim it is...it's not.  It's a poorly written "law' based on bad science and authored by the clerks for the Justice who allegedly wrote the majority opinion.

[Hoodat]

It's a poorly written "law' based on bad science and authored by the clerks for the Justice who allegedly wrote the majority opinion.

It is an opinion written by men for men.

[txradioguy]

It is an opinion written by men for men.

Exactly!