Less than 48 hours after a federal court enjoined S.B. 8, Texas has filed an emergency motion for a stay with the Fifth Circuit. Texas asked for an administrative stay "as soon as possible," and an emergency stay pending appeal by Tuesday.
Here is the summary of the argument:
A Texas doctor has revealed that he recently performed an abortion in violation of the state's new controversial law that prohibits nearly all abortions after roughly six weeks into a pregnancy, arguing that he "had a duty of care to this patient." read more
U.S. District Court Judge Linda Parker has granted the motion for sanctions against the so-called "Kraken" lawyers who sought to challenge the 2020 election results in Michigan: : Sidney Powell, L. Lin Wood, Emily Newman, Julia Z. Haller. read more
Twin,
Medical billing is done through "codes." An extended office visit will have a code and definition. See i.e. www.cms.gov
The basis for the motion is essentially the power of the federal government to sue the State.
See also drudge.com
It's pretty clear that abortion is functionally illegal in Texas now, and it's pretty clear why that erodes the public's faith in the Supreme Court too.
The public's faith in the Court erodes because the public does not understand why the Court does or does not do what it does. The public only sees a result, "the Court did not protect Roe." If that result does not fit the public's desired political outcome then they lazily blame the Court ("bunch of political hacks") instead of trying to figure out why the Court does what it does. The public doesn't do that because the "why" can't be wrapped up in a 30 second sound bite.
The Court not issuing an injunction in the Texas abortion law case is a perfect example. The Court didn't "protect Roe" in that case because procedurally and precedentially it couldn't. Who would they enjoin? One state district court judge, one district court clerk, one anti-abortion activist--the only defendant's before the Court. Neither the judge nor the clerk enforce the law and the activist said he had no intent to enforce the law. Entering an injunction against those persons would have accomplished nothing. There would still be hundreds of judges, clerks and activists that would not be bound by such an injunction. Does that make sense--do something politically appeasing and accomplish nothing--just to make it look good to an ignorant public. Would that instill confidence in the Court?
In this thread I argue that the authors of this law created a work of art that has succeeded, so far, in stymieing some 50 years of abortion law and procedure. I don't agree with it but in terms of draftsmanship it's genius. Snoofy participated in the thread but obviously learned nothing.
If you really want to know why this statute is a burr under the saddle for not just the Supreme Court but any court faced with litigating the law see this series of six posts on how (or not) to challenge the law. https://reason.com/people/howard-wasserman/
Iow, instead of b****ing about the undesired political result go learn why. Then do it with the next case, the next case, the next case ...
Why not release the records and then let Trump sue after the fact?
Once the information is released the claim of privilege, no matter how plausible or implausible, is lost. That effects even the most mundane privilege claims of any person in any court anywhere.
There is no legal basis for his suit ...
In the margins there is a plausible basis for some of the Buffoon's claims i.e. national security. Those narrow margins are not presented here. The Buffoon's general claims are weak but not entirely implausible.
... it is just a stalling tactic ...
Yes and generally an effective one.