Yo, Lawyers - Legal Question on Trigger Laws

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Is “the state legislature acted prematurely, at a time when the statutory result they implemented WOULD HAVE BEEN illegal if implemented at that time” a valid challenge to a trigger law?

Anybody know of similar prior laws/challenges?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Is “the state legislature acted prematurely, at a time when the statutory result they implemented WOULD HAVE BEEN illegal if implemented at that time” a valid challenge to a trigger law?

Anybody know of similar prior laws/challenges?

It's 10 PM, man, I'm not going to the library. But off the top of my head, I could see a difference between actual trigger laws ("This law will take effect X days after the AG certifies SCOTUS has reversed Roe.") and pre-Roe bans that were left on the books despite being unenforceable. In the case of the former, it's hard to argue that implementation isn't exactly what the legislature intended, but in the latter, you could argue that the laws were effectively repealed and demand the legislature re-codify whatever restriction they want on the books.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

It's 10 PM, man, I'm not going to the library. But off the top of my head, I could see a difference between actual trigger laws ("This law will take effect X days after the AG certifies SCOTUS has reversed Roe.") and pre-Roe bans that were left on the books despite being unenforceable. In the case of the former, it's hard to argue that implementation isn't exactly what the legislature intended, but in the latter, you could argue that the laws were effectively repealed and demand the legislature re-codify whatever restriction they want on the books.

For purposes of injunctive relief, I can also see a difference in a state where an AG has already announced “I will/must enforce our trigger law” and a state where that announcement has not occurred.

I know a judge I do not envy right now. He would never ask, and I would never offer advice on such a pending issue, but it has me thinking.

I suspect the judges who have a case are communicating - and the various AG’s and parties are filing helpful briefs, but thinking about what constitutes “legally irreparable harm” and “Substantial likelihood of success on the merits” have me pondering.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Is “the state legislature acted prematurely, at a time when the statutory result they implemented WOULD HAVE BEEN illegal if implemented at that time” a valid challenge to a trigger law?

Anybody know of similar prior laws/challenges?

anything is a valid challenge, depending on whom your directing it at.

recent history tells us that.

the "whom" isn't a friendly target right now.

and while the puppets have fought me, i've long stated here the obvious that SCOTUS has always been a political entity, and always has been activist.

currently a 5 person un-elected absolute dictatorship answerable to no one, ever, for life.

the founders weren't perfect, and unfortunately made fixing their imperfections nearly impossible.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

anything is a valid challenge, depending on whom your directing it at.

recent history tells us that.

the "whom" isn't a friendly target right now.

and while the puppets have fought me, i've long stated here the obvious that SCOTUS has always been a political entity, and always has been activist.

a 5 person un-elected absolute dictatorship answerable to no one, ever, for life.

i was looking for precedent, but, “OK”

 

[i'vegotwinners]

i was looking for precedent, but, “OK”

a justice can find "precedent" for either side of a case when they want to.

there's always something they can cite to fit their need.

and they get to define what is and isn't.

not sayin, just sayin.

i know,

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

i was looking for precedent, but, “OK”

After doing some quick googling, I was reminded that we read this case in law school:

Opinion, Case No.20665 Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. Charles F. Printz, Jr.

I suppose under this analysis, the two key questions would be:

1. Does the state in question consider abortion malum in se (inherently criminal)?
2. Does the state's belief that it is prohibited from enforcing a law constitute a "conspicuous policy of nonenforcement?"

A state wishing to enforce a pre-Roe ban would obviously argue that, yes, abortion is inherently wrong, and also that the state always desired to enforce the ban, but was only prohibited from doing so by Roe, and so therefore there was never any conspicuous policy of allowing abortion.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

After doing some quick googling, I was reminded that we read this case in law school:

Opinion, Case No.20665 Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. Charles F. Printz, Jr.

I suppose under this analysis, the two key questions would be:

1. Does the state in question consider abortion malum in se (inherently criminal)?
2. Does the state's belief that it is prohibited from enforcing a law constitute a "conspicuous policy of nonenforcement?"

A state wishing to enforce a pre-Roe ban would obviously argue that, yes, abortion is inherently wrong, and also that the state always desired to enforce the ban, but was only prohibited from doing so by Roe, and so therefore there was never any conspicuous policy of allowing abortion.

do you really just not grasp how SCOTUS works?

obviously not.

for the Cliff Notes version, see my prior response above, right before you posted.

that said, whether what you posted would have any merit or not, 100% depends on if who you're pitching it to, wants it to.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

do you really just not grasp how SCOTUS works?

obviously not.

for the Cliff Notes version, see my prior response above, right before you posted.

We're not talking about a federal question of law here. For a Cliff Notes version, go look it up yourself, dumbass.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

We're not talking about a federal question of law here. For a Cliff Notes version, go look it up yourself, dumbass.

yet my response remains valid, and you know it.

sorry to inject reality into your intellectual exercise.

that said, please continue. sorry i interrupted.

not really though. bwg

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

a justice can find "precedent" for either side of a case when they want to.

there's always something they can cite to fit their need.

and they get to define what is and isn't.

not sayin, just sayin.

i know,

We’re talking about a trial court being asked to halt enforcement of a law that took effect this week after Roe was overturned. Nothing else.

Very unique circumstance.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Is “the state legislature acted prematurely, at a time when the statutory result they implemented WOULD HAVE BEEN illegal if implemented at that time” a valid challenge to a trigger law?

Anybody know of similar prior laws/challenges?

JFC, even the lawyers can't find labor to do their work

 

[i'vegotwinners]

We’re talking about a trial court being asked to halt enforcement of a law that took effect this week after Roe was overturned. Nothing else.

Very unique circumstance.

i get that.

does that make what i said any less true?

with SCOTUS, "validity" is in the eye of the beholder, and only in the eye of the beholder..

i get that i'm walking on an intellectual debate you guys want to engage in, and sorry bout that.

you guys can be the greatest legal minds ever, and it still comes down to what i said.

because it isn't a legal ruling as much as a political/religious one, regardless of how legally grounded it was or wasn't.

i think my point trumps said exercise, and doesn't let the issue get muddied.

 

[UncleMark]

JFC, even the lawyers can't find labor to do their work

It's like the Cooler is Upwork for shysters.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

“When we got to the police officers station, there was a third possibility that we hadn't even counted upon …”

Injunction issued - based on alleged violation of state constitutional rights, not based on premature legislating.