Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Texas Tribune) Hero Finally, some potential good news for individual freedom in the Authoritarian State of Texas   (texastribune.org) divider line
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

4982 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Dec 2022 at 5:50 PM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



40 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-12-08 4:52:31 PM  
A lack of standing to sue is an understatement here.
 
2022-12-08 5:20:59 PM  
FTFA: "I wanted to make sure that Texas didn't get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested," Braid wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post."

Considering the Supreme Court opened the door to ending Roe Vs Wade, I'm quite sure they've already made up their mind about what the Constitution thinks about this.
 
2022-12-08 5:54:50 PM  

make me some tea: A lack of standing to sue is an understatement here.


The lege will be back in session next month, so I'm sure they'll try to close that "loophole".

/still waiting for Abbott to end rape
 
2022-12-08 5:57:57 PM  

make me some tea: A lack of standing to sue is an understatement here.


I thought the whole point of SB8 - well, besides making abortions functionally impossible to get - was to broaden the definition of "standing" such that any Texan had standing to sue any other Texan for providing what the litigant thinks might be an abortion.

So the judge ruled that they can't create standing from nothing, or that even with the broadened definition the litigant STILL didn't actually have standing to sue?

// TFA was not helpful in that regard
 
2022-12-08 5:58:50 PM  
Abbot got a Positive on a Covid test?
 
2022-12-08 6:01:33 PM  

Dr Dreidel: make me some tea: A lack of standing to sue is an understatement here.

I thought the whole point of SB8 - well, besides making abortions functionally impossible to get - was to broaden the definition of "standing" such that any Texan had standing to sue any other Texan for providing what the litigant thinks might be an abortion.

So the judge ruled that they can't create standing from nothing, or that even with the broadened definition the litigant STILL didn't actually have standing to sue?

// TFA was not helpful in that regard


That was indeed the idea, but no guarantee that it would stand up in court.
 
2022-12-08 6:08:44 PM  
Three lawsuits were filed against Braid immediately. Two were never formally served, Hearron said, but one, filed by a Chicago resident named Felipe Gomez, proceeded through the courts. Thursday's ruling in the Gomez case is the first and only SB 8 case to be resolved in court. Hearron said he anticipated that Gomez, who represented himself, would appeal the decision.

Always nice to know you can have an out of state resident from Illinois sue you for money regarding something that doesn't affect them at all.
 
2022-12-08 6:09:04 PM  
I like that this Gomez plaintiff is from Illinois. Clearly none of his freaking business, and that's what the court said. So this doctor is closing down his Texas clinic and opening up a new one... in Illinois. Hopefully he puts it across the street from Gomez's house.
 
2022-12-08 6:12:49 PM  

flypusher713: That was indeed the idea, but no guarantee that it would stand up in court.


Forgive my ignorance here (I'm a Jew, not a lawyer), but isn't "standing" whatever the law says it is? Why couldn't the legislature define (a certain) crime in such a way as to allow standing to anyone who claims it?

// if there was some overriding Federally-guaranteed civil right that was being abridged by granting randos standing to sue, ok
// but the whole point of Dobbs was to un-make a civil right of "bodily autonomy where pregnancy is concerned"
// so TX makes it a crime to ...whatever, not grab people for interrogation out of the backseat of any car within 100' of an "abortion clinic" (but sir, this is a Wendy's...) - can't they define standing however they want?
 
2022-12-08 6:13:00 PM  
Blue states need to fight back by passing equally insane laws to target conservatives. A good start would be a law that allows anyone to sue a business owner who refuses to serve a gay person who wants to be their customer. Don't outlaw the discrimination. Just create a private cause of action that makes it financially untenable to discriminate. And then another law that creates a private cause of action for anyone to sue anyone who files a lawsuit challenging that law. To top things off, a law creating a private cause of action allowing anting to sue a judge who rules against either of those laws. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
 
2022-12-08 6:15:39 PM  

Straight Outta Wells Branch: FTFA: "I wanted to make sure that Texas didn't get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested," Braid wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post."

Considering the Supreme Court opened the door to ending Roe Vs Wade, I'm quite sure they've already made up their mind about what the Constitution thinks about this.


I disagree. I think they would say "we opened the door for illegality, so drop this nonsense passive law that leans on those without standing and stop wasting our time"
 
2022-12-08 6:17:24 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Three lawsuits were filed against Braid immediately. Two were never formally served, Hearron said, but one, filed by a Chicago resident named Felipe Gomez, proceeded through the courts. Thursday's ruling in the Gomez case is the first and only SB 8 case to be resolved in court. Hearron said he anticipated that Gomez, who represented himself, would appeal the decision.

Always nice to know you can have an out of state resident from Illinois sue you for money regarding something that doesn't affect them at all.


Well, according to this judge, you actually can't.
 
2022-12-08 6:18:42 PM  
It never made sense that an unaffected person can bring suit against someone. Isn't that the entire point behind standing?
 
2022-12-08 6:19:52 PM  
Clownshoes legislature makes clownshoes law.
 
2022-12-08 6:22:39 PM  
He's got a lot to lose. Lawsuits aren't even the biggest risk this guy is taking. Pretty inspiring.
 
2022-12-08 6:23:10 PM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: Blue states need to fight back by passing equally insane laws to target conservatives. A good start would be a law that allows anyone to sue a business owner who refuses to serve a gay person who wants to be their customer. Don't outlaw the discrimination. Just create a private cause of action that makes it financially untenable to discriminate. And then another law that creates a private cause of action for anyone to sue anyone who files a lawsuit challenging that law. To top things off, a law creating a private cause of action allowing anting to sue a judge who rules against either of those laws. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


How about no.
 
2022-12-08 6:25:59 PM  
Does the dead baby object to pointy thing going into his head?
 
2022-12-08 6:27:14 PM  
https://abovethelaw.com/2022/01/attorney-accused-of-extreme-and-egregious-behavior-over-harassing-emails-to-biglaw/

I'm not sure if this is the same guy as the plaintiff, but if so might explain some things.
 
2022-12-08 6:31:09 PM  

Dr Dreidel: flypusher713: That was indeed the idea, but no guarantee that it would stand up in court.

Forgive my ignorance here (I'm a Jew, not a lawyer), but isn't "standing" whatever the law says it is? Why couldn't the legislature define (a certain) crime in such a way as to allow standing to anyone who claims it?

// if there was some overriding Federally-guaranteed civil right that was being abridged by granting randos standing to sue, ok
// but the whole point of Dobbs was to un-make a civil right of "bodily autonomy where pregnancy is concerned"
// so TX makes it a crime to ...whatever, not grab people for interrogation out of the backseat of any car within 100' of an "abortion clinic" (but sir, this is a Wendy's...) - can't they define standing however they want?


Not a lawyer or a Jew. Standing seems to do with harm a plaintiff suffered that a court can cure, usually by ordering financial compensation from the defendant. If the activity is illegal, the DA may bring criminal charges separate from a civil suit. Maybe a law talking guy can weigh in.
 
2022-12-08 6:33:00 PM  

Jeff Van Fooks: Does the dead baby object to pointy thing going into his head?


Fark user imageView Full Size

Yes, she does.
 
2022-12-08 6:41:36 PM  

cob2f: Dr Dreidel: flypusher713: That was indeed the idea, but no guarantee that it would stand up in court.

Forgive my ignorance here (I'm a Jew, not a lawyer), but isn't "standing" whatever the law says it is? Why couldn't the legislature define (a certain) crime in such a way as to allow standing to anyone who claims it?

// if there was some overriding Federally-guaranteed civil right that was being abridged by granting randos standing to sue, ok
// but the whole point of Dobbs was to un-make a civil right of "bodily autonomy where pregnancy is concerned"
// so TX makes it a crime to ...whatever, not grab people for interrogation out of the backseat of any car within 100' of an "abortion clinic" (but sir, this is a Wendy's...) - can't they define standing however they want?

Not a lawyer or a Jew. Standing seems to do with harm a plaintiff suffered that a court can cure, usually by ordering financial compensation from the defendant. If the activity is illegal, the DA may bring criminal charges separate from a civil suit. Maybe a law talking guy can weigh in.


So I guess my question boils down to "is 'standing' a matter of LAW, or of LOGIC?" - can a Legislature (re)define standing however they want, or is 'standing' merely what we call a litigant's ability to show a direct link to the offense?

// I know what the term means, but has it been adjudicated as a matter of law?
// which I guess also doesn't matter, if Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts decide that standing means PROTEC TEH BABBIES
 
2022-12-08 6:53:17 PM  

patcarew: I like that this Gomez plaintiff is from Illinois. Clearly none of his freaking business, and that's what the court said. So this doctor is closing down his Texas clinic and opening up a new one... in Illinois. Hopefully he puts it across the street from Gomez's house.


...and gives Gomez an abortion whether he wants one or not.
 
2022-12-08 7:01:05 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Three lawsuits were filed against Braid immediately. Two were never formally served, Hearron said, but one, filed by a Chicago resident named Felipe Gomez, proceeded through the courts. Thursday's ruling in the Gomez case is the first and only SB 8 case to be resolved in court. Hearron said he anticipated that Gomez, who represented himself, would appeal the decision.

Always nice to know you can have an out of state resident from Illinois sue you for money regarding something that doesn't affect them at all.


Typical arrogance.  Have you even considered Felipe's feelings or deeply held religious beliefs?
 
2022-12-08 7:01:08 PM  

ippolit: Jeff Van Fooks: Does the dead baby object to pointy thing going into his head?

[Fark user image 400x225] [View Full Size image _x_]
Yes, she does.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-12-08 7:01:28 PM  

Jeff Van Fooks: Does the dead baby object to pointy thing going into his head?


i.imgflip.comView Full Size
 
2022-12-08 7:04:33 PM  
Standing is decided by you being party to those affected by a crime or whatever. I would make the argument that the aborted thing could have become a tax payer that would contribute to public works that I would be deprived of at a later date. Now, I only graduated from Hollywood Upstairs Law School, but...

Hold on, Giuliani is calling again. I'm kinda his mentor, gotta take this.

*snuffs out joint*
 
2022-12-08 7:19:54 PM  

cob2f: Dr Dreidel: flypusher713: That was indeed the idea, but no guarantee that it would stand up in court.

Forgive my ignorance here (I'm a Jew, not a lawyer), but isn't "standing" whatever the law says it is? Why couldn't the legislature define (a certain) crime in such a way as to allow standing to anyone who claims it?

// if there was some overriding Federally-guaranteed civil right that was being abridged by granting randos standing to sue, ok
// but the whole point of Dobbs was to un-make a civil right of "bodily autonomy where pregnancy is concerned"
// so TX makes it a crime to ...whatever, not grab people for interrogation out of the backseat of any car within 100' of an "abortion clinic" (but sir, this is a Wendy's...) - can't they define standing however they want?

Not a lawyer or a Jew. Standing seems to do with harm a plaintiff suffered that a court can cure, usually by ordering financial compensation from the defendant. If the activity is illegal, the DA may bring criminal charges separate from a civil suit. Maybe a law talking guy can weigh in.


Does any law like this define standing? It would seem to me that standing is a judicial term, not a legislative one. Why would the legislative branch have any power to decide what courts determine to be valid standing?
 
2022-12-08 7:32:43 PM  

Jeff Van Fooks: Does the dead baby object to pointy thing going into his head?


Asking for a friend?
 
2022-12-08 7:35:09 PM  

Jeff Van Fooks: Does the dead baby object to pointy thing going into his head?


The dead baby objects nothing, it's dead

And up in a tree.

Cause I hit it with my bat.
 
2022-12-08 7:37:59 PM  

austerity101: cob2f: Dr Dreidel: flypusher713: That was indeed the idea, but no guarantee that it would stand up in court.

Forgive my ignorance here (I'm a Jew, not a lawyer), but isn't "standing" whatever the law says it is? Why couldn't the legislature define (a certain) crime in such a way as to allow standing to anyone who claims it?

// if there was some overriding Federally-guaranteed civil right that was being abridged by granting randos standing to sue, ok
// but the whole point of Dobbs was to un-make a civil right of "bodily autonomy where pregnancy is concerned"
// so TX makes it a crime to ...whatever, not grab people for interrogation out of the backseat of any car within 100' of an "abortion clinic" (but sir, this is a Wendy's...) - can't they define standing however they want?

Not a lawyer or a Jew. Standing seems to do with harm a plaintiff suffered that a court can cure, usually by ordering financial compensation from the defendant. If the activity is illegal, the DA may bring criminal charges separate from a civil suit. Maybe a law talking guy can weigh in.

Does any law like this define standing? It would seem to me that standing is a judicial term, not a legislative one. Why would the legislative branch have any power to decide what courts determine to be valid standing?


IANAL but I think a court could reasonably rule that allowing any random person to see over some event violates basic judicial principles. I mean, how the hell does a person in Illinois have any right to sue for something that happened in Texas that they probably read about a newspaper?

If I was a judge, I would certainly be pretty skeptical of a law that let anybody anywhere sue for something that had no impact on them, because there has to be some sort of reasonable point at which we say a person can reasonably bring something to suit or else everything dissolves into chaos
 
2022-12-08 7:48:31 PM  

austerity101: cob2f: Dr Dreidel: flypusher713: That was indeed the idea, but no guarantee that it would stand up in court.

Forgive my ignorance here (I'm a Jew, not a lawyer), but isn't "standing" whatever the law says it is? Why couldn't the legislature define (a certain) crime in such a way as to allow standing to anyone who claims it?

// if there was some overriding Federally-guaranteed civil right that was being abridged by granting randos standing to sue, ok
// but the whole point of Dobbs was to un-make a civil right of "bodily autonomy where pregnancy is concerned"
// so TX makes it a crime to ...whatever, not grab people for interrogation out of the backseat of any car within 100' of an "abortion clinic" (but sir, this is a Wendy's...) - can't they define standing however they want?

Not a lawyer or a Jew. Standing seems to do with harm a plaintiff suffered that a court can cure, usually by ordering financial compensation from the defendant. If the activity is illegal, the DA may bring criminal charges separate from a civil suit. Maybe a law talking guy can weigh in.

Does any law like this define standing? It would seem to me that standing is a judicial term, not a legislative one. Why would the legislative branch have any power to decide what courts determine to be valid standing?


This dumbass law tries to create a wildcard concept of standing that even the current supreme court is probably not comfortable with.

If allowed to stand it opens the floodgates for legislatures to create "standing" for any crazy reason they dream up.

I don't think even the clownshoes wearing majority of the SC wants to have to deal with the pandemonium of what this stupidity creates.
 
2022-12-08 8:13:25 PM  

chawco: Jeff Van Fooks: Does the dead baby object to pointy thing going into his head?

The dead baby objects nothing, it's dead

And up in a tree.

Cause I hit it with my bat.


Dead baby joke thread!
 
2022-12-08 8:16:33 PM  
The Bavarian town where I spent my middle school years, had intact records of life, as recorded by the Gestapo, of German citizens before and during that war.

Most, if not all, informed on their neighbors.  Many expected rewards or at least a better apartment if the neighbor were arrested and taken away - the neighbor's apartment.  The Gestapo really was annoyed by all the amateurs actually.  A few left civil service seeing how uncivil their neighbors were.

Texas managed to form a law against women from that theory -- extra legal harassment -- as a refreshing change from dusting off the old Fugitive Slave Laws and repurposing them as immigration policy tools.
 
2022-12-08 8:55:49 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Three lawsuits were filed against Braid immediately. Two were never formally served, Hearron said, but one, filed by a Chicago resident named Felipe Gomez, proceeded through the courts. Thursday's ruling in the Gomez case is the first and only SB 8 case to be resolved in court. Hearron said he anticipated that Gomez, who represented himself, would appeal the decision.

Always nice to know you can have an out of state resident from Illinois sue you for money regarding something that doesn't affect them at all.


patcarew: I like that this Gomez plaintiff is from Illinois. Clearly none of his freaking business, and that's what the court said. So this doctor is closing down his Texas clinic and opening up a new one... in Illinois. Hopefully he puts it across the street from Gomez's house.


A number of these suits were filed by out-of-state plaintiffs who actually oppose the law - they filed suit to show how absurd it is that they're even allowed to.  Per other articles, it looks like Gomez is one of those guys.

On the other hand, he also seems to be a bit of an asshole for other reasons:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/lawyer-who-sued-texas-abortion-provider-faces-3-year-suspension-2022-01-07/
 
2022-12-08 9:10:46 PM  
A sex crimes crisis center presented at a class that I took once. They described a case that I had previously read about in the news. The rapist cut the victims' throat from ear to ear, nearly decapitating her. The emergency room staff described her survival as a miracle. Crisis center staff went to the hospital to assist the medical staff. The victim was offered free therapy at the center. When the victim later tested positive for pregnancy, she resolved to kill herself. She was instead offered the choice of an abortion. She readily agreed. A doctor, like Dr. Braid, looked past the horrific scars on this woman's throat and took the action necessary so this rape victim would not be made a parasitic host. I shudder to think of the nightmares a doctor like that has witnessed or barely averted and yet gone on with his work. We may demonize him, but when someone in our family needs him, we will silently thank God for him.

I can't find the link to that exact case. Unfortunately, there have been similar cases.

https://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/25/texas.rape.victim/

https://www.kget.com/news/crime-watch/arrest-made-in-1997-rape-attempted-murder-of-local-woman-cari-anderson/

https://blurredbylines.com/articles/jennifer-morey-survived-1995-attack-texas/
 
2022-12-08 9:13:43 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Three lawsuits were filed against Braid immediately. Two were never formally served, Hearron said, but one, filed by a Chicago resident named Felipe Gomez, proceeded through the courts. Thursday's ruling in the Gomez case is the first and only SB 8 case to be resolved in court. Hearron said he anticipated that Gomez, who represented himself, would appeal the decision.

Always nice to know you can have an out of state resident from Illinois sue you for money regarding something that doesn't affect them at all.


A Chicago solution, that is a severe beating, may be in order for Mr. Gomez.
 
2022-12-09 3:14:33 AM  

Drunk and Bitter Jesus: chawco: Jeff Van Fooks: Does the dead baby object to pointy thing going into his head?

The dead baby objects nothing, it's dead

And up in a tree.

Cause I hit it with my bat.

Dead baby joke thread!


Yada yada yada...


"Just kidding, it was already dead!"
 
2022-12-09 5:45:58 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Forgive my ignorance here (I'm a Jew, not a lawyer), but isn't "standing" whatever the law says it is? Why couldn't the legislature define (a certain) crime in such a way as to allow standing to anyone who claims it?


Sometimes courts have to creatively re-interpret the crap any given legislature spews out so they can continue to function.

Otherwise, under that TX law, you could get 300+ million lawsuits related to ONE medical procedure.

Ain't nobody got time for that.
 
2022-12-09 5:48:07 AM  

ralanprod: If allowed to stand it opens the floodgates for legislatures to create "standing" for any crazy reason they dream up.


Exactly.
 
2022-12-09 5:50:04 AM  

Jeff Van Fooks: Does the dead baby object to pointy thing going into his head?


Your mom have any smart kids?
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.