The Texas legislature is too cute by half. They have enacted an abortion law that allows third parties to sue anyone who aids and abets women who seek an abortion after 6 weeks. So, they have basically handed off legal enforcement to the third party. Local legislators have now followed in their footsteps by enacting laws that ban travel through their roads in order for women to travel out of state for an abortion. Once again, they pass off enforcement to third parties.
So, I guess they thought they had a slam dunk with this law which basically requires third parties (book sellers) to carry out enforcement, by categorizing the sexual content of books. Too cute by half!
Is anybody else appalled by the fact the the attorney from the AG’s office could not answer basic questions raised by the judge which directly relate to the law? Did the AG’s office think that because the judge is a trump appointee he would let them side and find in their favor so they didn’t need to prep for the hearing? Their behavior is insulting.
I was absolutely DELIGHTED to see the citation to Creative 303. That case, for all the excitement about it, ONLY says that one can't force someone to "express" opinions that they don't hold or don't want to. (It says squat about whether someone can refuse to sell to someone willing to buy precisely what the vendor wants to say.) So the conservative forces behind Creative 303 labored mightily to produce a mouse that is usable against the conservative state who wants to do just that--force the vendors to say something about a book that they don't want to say.
Wow, it would have been so easy for them to do everything they are doing, but Texas politics demands going the extra mile to do it in a convoluted, anti-business, authoritarian nightmare way.
And the Texas AG's office seems really unprepared and distracted, I wonder why that could be? :3
Can someone explain to me why Shelley v. Kraemer doesn't apply to all these outsourcing to third parties laws? Shelley v. Kraemer held that racially restrictive covenants between private parties were constitutional, but enforcing them in court brought the state into the picture, which then did violate the constitution.
The Texas legislature is too cute by half. They have enacted an abortion law that allows third parties to sue anyone who aids and abets women who seek an abortion after 6 weeks. So, they have basically handed off legal enforcement to the third party. Local legislators have now followed in their footsteps by enacting laws that ban travel through their roads in order for women to travel out of state for an abortion. Once again, they pass off enforcement to third parties.
So, I guess they thought they had a slam dunk with this law which basically requires third parties (book sellers) to carry out enforcement, by categorizing the sexual content of books. Too cute by half!
Is anybody else appalled by the fact the the attorney from the AG’s office could not answer basic questions raised by the judge which directly relate to the law? Did the AG’s office think that because the judge is a trump appointee he would let them side and find in their favor so they didn’t need to prep for the hearing? Their behavior is insulting.
I support any changes to any laws in any countries that makes books easier to read.
If this is spam for a T-shirt, I’m blocking you.
It is.
The might be the first time I've read a story about a Judge Albright ruling that doesn't relate to patent litigation.
Right? I kept wanting to put something in about that, but it really wouldn’t fit. (And got too long anyway!)
Indeed, I wonder if he is going to blaze through civil rights cases the way he did patent appeals? I love that they tried to rectify the issue last year by randomizing who received cases, but he still ended up getting most of them (presumably because he got through each one so quickly!) https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2023/04/04_26-the-impact-of-new-patent-litigation-assignments
I was absolutely DELIGHTED to see the citation to Creative 303. That case, for all the excitement about it, ONLY says that one can't force someone to "express" opinions that they don't hold or don't want to. (It says squat about whether someone can refuse to sell to someone willing to buy precisely what the vendor wants to say.) So the conservative forces behind Creative 303 labored mightily to produce a mouse that is usable against the conservative state who wants to do just that--force the vendors to say something about a book that they don't want to say.
Small government, indeed. Independent school districts, indeed. Texas really believes in both. 🙄
This statute has parallels to the insane injunction against the Biden Administration that the Fifth Circuit recently decimated.
Wow, it would have been so easy for them to do everything they are doing, but Texas politics demands going the extra mile to do it in a convoluted, anti-business, authoritarian nightmare way.
And the Texas AG's office seems really unprepared and distracted, I wonder why that could be? :3
Can someone explain to me why Shelley v. Kraemer doesn't apply to all these outsourcing to third parties laws? Shelley v. Kraemer held that racially restrictive covenants between private parties were constitutional, but enforcing them in court brought the state into the picture, which then did violate the constitution.
Not racism, "control". Racism is just one of many vehicles to arrive at this ultimate goal.
Au contraire, racisim is about control. Control takes many forms, that is just one permutation.