Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Preface to press narrative propelling the bogus shadow docket theory of partisan preference in the court of last resort deeper into the febril minds of the populus is this: "You can't handle Due Process"

Federal US District ct judge blocks Texass' 6-week abortion ban* law, S.B. 8 per US v Texass pleading

The court was able to decide[sic] this through the use of the shadow docket, which allows[sic] the high court to rule[sic] on issues without going through the ["]traditional["] appeals channels appellate court review or allowing for oral argument.
With S.B. 8 about to go into effect, Plaintiffs filed an application for injunctive relief or, in the alternative, to vacate the Fifth Circuit's stays of this Court's proceedings with the Supreme Court. Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, No. 21A24, 2021 WL 3910722, at *1 (U.S. Sept. 1, 2021). At midnight, S.B. 8 became law, and that night the Supreme Court issued its [plurality and dissenting] opinions denying Plaintiffs' request [Application (21A24)] for an injunction or stay. Id.
What was the question?
While acknowledging that Plaintiffs had "raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue[,]" the Supreme Court expressed concern about the "complex and novel antecedent procedural questions." Id. [Pitman, p 11; emphasis added]

[SCOTUS] Justices did allude to the Texas law in question returning to them in the traditional appeals process. With federal US District ct judge ruling against the state [motion to dismiss Plaintiff's motion to proceed before Plaintiff's motion to enjoin the entire TX judiciary], it is likely officials the TX AG will appeal [US District ct's order] to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, considered to be one of the most ideologically conservative federal appeals courts.

The reporter continues to propound numerous, redundant if popular interpretations of "Roe v Wade" case law which cap Texass et al.'s uhh momentous challenges to federal supremacy--before finally "alluding" to the diabolically uhh crafted constitutional questions presented by Dobbs (MS, appellant) v  Jackson Women's Health Organization , preceding by a cupla years in the python S.B.8's purported "deputing" construction on SCOTUS docket (schedule).
This case [US v Texass] has the potential < wipes tears > to be that very case that returns the Texas Heartbeat Act to the Supreme Court. However, the debate over abortion rights wages[sic] on as justices will hear arguments in a case concerning a Mississippi law that bans abortion within 15 weeks of gestation.[FALSE]
FIFO. alrighty then. FF >>| VI. CONCLUSION
US v Texass syllabus and order, issued by the US District Ct, Austin Div.(113 pp)
Based on the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law:  
 IT IS ORDERED that the United States' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction, (Dkt. 8), is GRANTED as set out above in Section V.  
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the States of Texas's Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. 54), is DENIED.
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Amici States' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae, (Dkt. 9), is GRANTED.
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States' Opposed Motion for a Protective Order of Audiovisual Recordings, (Dkt. 36), is DENIED.
Where did the US District ct rationale err in fact or law?

* This syntax is comically ambiguous. How'd that get past a COPY EDITOR?

by Cat on Thu Oct 7th, 2021 at 10:56:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Oui 4


Occasional Series