A Supreme Court judge who disagreed against allowing TexasThe abortion ban is now calling on the court for its ‘very bad’ decision.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer joined George Stephanopoulos to promote his new book The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics, but it wasn’t long before the TV host brought up the controversial abortion ban.
He told Stephanopoulos, ‘I thought it was a very bad decision and I protested good Morning America.
Breuer told Stephanopoulos that the court does not ‘trade votes’, but highlighted that other judges emphasized judicial philosophy, such as more text, more purpose or politics.
Liberal Justice, who is the oldest member of the court, said he emphasized greater objectives and that the late Justice Antonin Scalia was text-based.
He also stressed the need for a ‘rule of law’, citing other countries such as Ghana which does not, where civilians use guns and violence to solve problems.
He claimed that the ‘rule of law’ is a ‘treasure’ that US citizens should value.
Breuer continued: ‘There have been many ups and downs in the Supreme Court,’ before citing Plessey v Ferguson – the case which retained a “different but similar” stance – as a down, and Brown v Board of Education. as an up.
The court denied Texas abortion providers’ request for a temporary moratorium on the state’s proposed abortion law, which prohibits Texas women from having abortions before six weeks.
In the 5-4 decision, Justice Breyer, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan disagreed.
When asked about the January 6 riots at the US Capitol, Breyer admitted that he was “worried” about it, implying that it was a symptom of the ongoing Aboriginal political division in the United States.
He said: ‘I am worried. I’m worried that people don’t understand this. I worry that children in schools do not understand their government. I worry if they don’t teach what their government is about. And I’m very worried if they don’t participate.
‘If they don’t participate in practice with other people, they won’t have confidence in our institutions… and if they don’t trust institutions, living in society becomes difficult, if not impossible. Out of 331 million people with tremendous diversity.’
Texas’s abortion ban does not allow abortions after a heartbeat is detected, unless the mother’s health is at risk. There are no exceptions for rape or incest.
The Texas law attracted even more controversy because it was enforced not by the state but by Texas’ own private citizens.
The law, which took effect on September 2, allows any private citizen to sue Texas abortion providers who violate the law, as well as to sue anyone who ‘aides or abets’ a woman who received the procedure. gives.
The statute, which survived a Supreme Court challenge and Breuer’s disagreement, sets a minimum damages of $10,000 per restricted abortion, to be paid to the first person to prevail in trial over the procedure.
Abortion patients themselves cannot be prosecuted, but the section of ‘aiding and abetting’ is broad, and can also apply to a cab driver who knowingly drives a woman to have a restricted abortion.
By delegating enforcement to private citizens, Texas avoided the legal pitfalls that ruin similar efforts in other states – but critics say the move amounts to a hack of the legal system.
President Joe Biden said on Sept. 3, ‘The most dangerous thing about Texas law is that it creates a vigilance system where people get rewarded.’ I know it sounds ridiculous. What we are talking about is almost non-American.’
Known as the Heartbeat Act, Texas law prohibits abortion because ultrasound can detect a fetal heartbeat, which can be as early as six weeks.
The abortion ban makes medical exceptions to save the life of the mother, but provides no exemption in cases of rape or incest.
The new law allows anyone to sue abortion providers, even if they have been personally harmed.
.