Supporters of #SB8 have long insisted that it didn't punish the pregnant woman, just those who *facilitated* abortions.
But by barring medically supervised abortions after six weeks, it forces those who can't travel to self-induce, which opens the door to prosecutions like this.
In other words, this is not a prosecution *under* SB8, but it sure as heck is a prosecution *because of* SB8.
And it's an incredibly ominous harbinger of what the world will look like far beyond Texas if #SCOTUS overrules Roe.
As @thewindingchain points out, the Texas murder statute "does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is . . . conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child."
So either the prosecutors are causing trouble, or they're using a different theory here:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. Folks have criticized Wednesday's #SCOTUS ruling in the WI state redistricting case because the majority had nothing to say about Purcell, after relying on it to justify stays in the AL cases in February.
IMHO, Purcell *is* what's wrong here, but not for the obvious reason:
2. The Purcell principle is the idea, articulated by #SCOTUS in 2006, that courts should not block election rules as the election approaches to avoid the risk of voter confusion. It's been heavily criticized for its subjectivity by @rickhasen, @ProfNickStephan, @wuc3, and others.
3. One critique of Wednesday's ruling is that the Court didn't even mention Purcell in blocking WI state maps adopted by the WI Supreme Court, after appearing to rely on Purcell in February to allow an AL map blocked by a lower court back into effect months before election day.
On Cornyn's claim that Judge Jackson called President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld "war criminals": While a public defender, she filed a habeas petition on behalf of a #GTMO detainee alleging that he had been tortured in violation of int'l law; Bush and Rumsfeld were respondents.
Needless to say, the implication that, by filing this brief on behalf of her client, #KBJ *specifically* called Bush and Rumsfeld "war criminals" is, at the very least, misleading.
It's also worth noting that allegations of government torture of detainees like the ones in the petition have been to a significant degree borne out by subsequent investigations, including the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the CIA RDI program:
Over three dissents (Thomas, Alito, & Gorsuch, JJ.), #SCOTUS has *denied* a request to block congressional maps drawn by the North Carolina Supreme Court. Justice Kavanaugh concurred. In his view, although the question is significant, it ought to be decided on the merits docket.
I don't think reversal rates tell us much except in extreme cases; reversals can be for any reason (and from any direction), and they are hardly proof that the reversing court was *right.*
But if this is going to be a line of attack, it's worth stressing how ... empty ... it is.
Here's a 2010 study, for instance, finding an average reversal rate for district judges of 14.4%:
Again, I think this data, too, is noisy. But the notion that Judge Jackson is an outlier here is correct only in the *opposite* direction from the critique.
In my research into the history of #SCOTUS’s shadow docket, I’ve long been puzzled at why, circa 1980, the Court stopped formally adjourning over the summer — and instead simply “rose” for its recess, preserving its ability to rule without formally returning for a “Special Term.”
With a big assist from superstar RA @bonnie_e_d, we now have the answer: It was a response to the sharp rise in emergency applications related to impending executions — which (unsurprisingly) ticked up sharply starting in 1979, as states began to carry out post-Gregg executions.
Why did that require the Court to remain in session? Before 1972, individual Justices routinely handled execution-related applications.
The problem by 1980 is that the Court was bitterly divided over the death penalty, so there were reasons to not give one Justice the last word.