Thread by @apark2453

I do think this is an accurate statement of the intent, but it doesn't make it any less shitty. What they wanted was for the law to exist as a kind of fleet in being, a power which is never "deployed" but the threat of which hampers enemy movement by existing

1/

https://twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1440671356849311758

A fleet in being is especially useful for what is called "sea denial" tactics, tactics which close off movement and attack options for the enemy not by destroying their fleets but by making it too dangerous to attempt.

2/

A good example of this is the German High Seas Fleet in World War I. It made the U.K nervous, for obvious reasons, and multiple times caused the U.K to not undertake actions it otherwise would have. Because while it exists it can strike at opportune times.

3/

What you don't really want under a fleet-in-being doctrine is to be launched into a head-on battle. Your fleet is doing its job by being a threat, a head-on battle risks losing your fleet.

There outcomes are either status quo or a loss.

4/

It's the same thing here. SB8's job was to chill women and doctors and make them less willing or able to obtain or perform abortions, and it was accomplishing that. They don't *want* judicial review of the law, it's why they worked so hard to avoid straightforward review.

5/

Someone actually suing has only downsides for its proponents.

If the plaintiffs win, the threat is reinforced and SB8 continues to do its job.

If the law is overturned, they lose the threat.

6/6

Addendum:

Even with the inevitability of someone bringing suit under the law (even someone pro-choice to create a test case) SB8's proponents are likely banking on the initial barrage being tossed on standing and other procedural issues; giving time before the law is overturned.