Thread by @AndrewLSeidel

If we stop expecting intellectual and doctrinal consistency from this Supreme Court, we'll stop being so disapppointed.

If we stop expecting decisions based on legal principle instead of politics, we might stop getting blindsided by vicious decisions.

On that note, the Court is hearing arguments against the Texas abortion ban, SB8, and began by honoring Thomas's 30 years on the court. That's far too many. And he spent them trying to undermine reproductive rights, among other things.
supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments…

Will they actually focus on procedure and such? Will the justices look for a way to backtrack to curtail some of the justified criticism? Perhaps walk it all back only to undo it on the regular docket later this year?

Mostly seem focusing on procedure and jurisdiction at the moment. I'm sensing some regret (not that that will influence their opinion later).

https://twitter.com/RewireNewsGroup/status/1455175709383528459

This is all so absurd. If this law awarded bounties to citizens and let them sue anyone who goes to church, or sue those who aid and abet people worshiping in church, this court would FREAK OUT and kill the law instantly.

SB8 is no different. It robs people of a right.

Here's a better way of making my last point (go follow @Hegemommy and @AngryBlackLady )

https://twitter.com/Hegemommy/status/1455178119220924423

So far, they really are sticking to the threshold issues they fast-tracked (and it's maddening). Almost done with the argument against the law.

One of the smartest lawyers I know got to the nub of the case today and why the church analogy is so stark. It's simply this:

"No one cares about the constitutional rights affected here.

Somehow, Texas is talking about late term abortions even though this is about a ban on abortions about two weeks after a missed period. Kafkaesque.

My jaw hit the keyboard and ruined the thread, so let me borrow from @ElieNYC

https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1455185331041542148

Texas has stolen a constitutional right from its citizens. In a novel way, fine, but"'We've never seen this before so we can't do anything about it?' I guess I don't understand that argument," says Kagan.
Thank you.

SCOTUS will get 'good' coverage out of this because it will largely ignore abortion, the harm inflicted on Texans, and will confuse and bore nearly everyone. This will lower the temp and give credence to SB8 supporters "you're hysterical, lady, it's procedural" arguments.

Think about how abysmal public opinion of the court is, justifiably, and the justices' defensive apologia tour, and their reasons for taking the procedural questions in this case on the expedited schedule make sense. It's public relations.

Also, Sotomayor is a cut above everyone else on that court. She's out of their league intellectually. (Yes, I'm looking at you in particular, Alito.)

Texas just said that the minimum $10K bounty and attorneys fees and costs are "comparatively mild" consequences and seems to forget forced birth is a thing too.

They're done.

And they're back.

DOJ gets to argue now. And it's already happening.

Alito is the worst.

Elizabeth Prelogar, the new Solicitor General, is unbelievably talented. Hands down the outstanding advocate of the day. Alito and Gorsuch have taken to cutting her off and interrupting her (with condescension and bitterness). Brilliant performance so far.

Gorsuch just interrupted her to ask a crazily condescending question, "So no, you can't point to an example in the entire history of the United States?"

Prelogar: "In the history of the United States no state has done what Texas has done here."
(imprecise quotes/audio is better)

Y'all, Gorsuch is mad at her for having answers.

Gosuch: [Let me ask you this question I believe is unanswerable but is not all that smart]

Woman: [Begins answering the Q]

Gorsuch, interrupting: "Just give a straight answer, lady!" [reasks question w/ more angrier]

Woman: [Answers again]

Gorsuch: [misogyny intensifies]

https://twitter.com/Hegemommy/status/1455204786962251776

Sotomayor cuts through the all the bs procedure/jurisdiction. A "state qua state" can't act, it can only designate people to act. Texas has designated every citizen to act under SB8. That designation, which is the law, must be subject to legal challenge or what are we here for.

Prelogar is back. "Our constitutional guarantees cannot be so fragile" that a state can deny citizens a right through such a scheme. Texas is saying nobody can sue to stop this law and reclaim a constitutional right that is now gone. That simply cannot be our reality.

Adjourned.