Attorney General Garland & Texas SB8 -here we go.

Also to the QANON for the Left: smearing attorney general Garland —that only shows how woefully uninformed you really are. I don’t understand why people take you seriously. You’re a joke & pathetic

By way of recent Background,

Roe v Wade in Jeopardy- maybe? Remember the judicial triangle; District Court —> US Circuit Court of Appeals —> Supreme Court -MAJOR UPDATE-TRO GRANTED

additionally see September 3, 2021 Order here -the latter specific to the Temporary Restarting of Order from the 459th Civil District Court from Judge Maya Guerra Gamble,

Dept of Justice weighs in on Texas SB-8

On Labor Day Attorney General Merrick Garland released the following public declaration concerning Texas SB-8;

“While the Justice Department urgently explores all options to challenge Texas SB8 in order to protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons, including access to an abortion, we will continue to protect those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services pursuant to our criminal and civil enforcement of the FACE Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248… The department will provide support from federal law enforcement when an abortion clinic or reproductive health center is under attack. We have reached out to U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and FBI field offices in Texas and across the country to discuss our enforcement authorities….We will not tolerate violence against those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services, physical obstruction or property damage in violation of the FACE Act.”

Anthony Coley @AnthonyColeyDOJ

NEW: Statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Regarding Texas SB8

justice.govStatement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Regarding Texas SB8The U.S. Department of Justice today issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland regarding Texas SB8:

This is more important than you’d think and I’ll explain why but first let’s review the plain language of 18 U.S.C. §248 - Freedom of access to clinic entrances -which reads in part:

18 U.S.C. §248 (a)(1) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES

Read the language closely because it is not at all ambiguous, it’s very specific and has a very narrow power that’s vested in the U.S. Attorney General

—Whoever—

(1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services… shall be subject to the penalties provided in subsection (b) and the civil remedies provided in subsection (c), except that a parent or legal guardian of a minor shall not be subject to any penalties or civil remedies under this section for such activities insofar as they are directed exclusively at that minor.

But and this is really important because what Attorney General Garland’s September 6, 2021 Public Declaration means is he is in fact invoking this relevant subsection of 18 U.S.C. §248 (2)(A), (B)(1)

• (2) ACTION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES.—

  • (A) IN GENERAL.—If the Attorney General of the United States has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is being, has been, or may be injured by con￾duct constituting a violation of this section, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States District Court.

  (B) RELIEF.—In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief;

  • temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, and compensatory damages to persons aggrieved as described in paragraph (1)(B).

  • The court, to vindicate the public interest, may also as￾sess a civil penalty against each respondent—

    • (i) in an amount not exceeding $10,000 for a nonviolent physical obstruction and $15,000 for other first violations; and

    • (ii) in an amount not exceeding $15,000 for a nonviolent physical obstruction and $25,000 for any other subsequent violation.

(3) ACTIONS BY STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—If the Attorney General of a State has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is being, has been, or may be injured by conduct con￾stituting a violation of this section, such At￾torney General may commence a civil action in the name of such State, as parens patriae on behalf of natural persons residing in such State, in any appropriate United States Dis￾trict Court.

(B) RELIEF.—In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and civil penalties as described in paragraph (2)(B).

State versus Federal -who wins?

What most might overlook is the State of Texas essentially deputized every Texan to be “bounty hunters” and SB-8 offers them a monetary incentive to do so. Additionally the language in SB-8 one could reasonably argue that it actually contravenes 18 U.S.C. §248 et seq - proving Federal Supremacy over State Law —that will be solely the DOJ’s responsibility. But understand that the case law is incredibly complex. See https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI_C2_1_1_3/ again it’s easy to say well duh Supremacy Clause reigns supreme but the question becomes can the DOJ point to specific Federal Law that the Texas SB-8 contravenes. That answer is pretty complicated because of the actual language in Texas SB-8 —as I previously noted TX SB-8 makes multiple carve outs for both State and Federal Law. That language will undoubtedly complicate matters for the DOJ OCR (Office of Civil Rights) and while today’s announcement does specifically state that the Office of Civil Rights will take the lead, it’s just a natural assumption that they will.

Hello Supremacy Clause…

Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

But the fact that Attorney General Garland invoked 18 U.S.C. §248 colloquially known as FACE Act —my educated guess is the DOJ studied the TX-SB8 and made the determination that their FACE argument had the strongest legs to stand upon —and the secondary argument of the Supremacy Clause isn’t the primary go to, rather it’s FACE. I would expect that the State of Texas will argue that SB-8 doesn’t contravene any federal law —but that argument strains credulity as the language of TX-SB-8 actually creates a double dip of Jurisdictional and Sovereign Immunity issues. I feel like I’m a broken record but the language of Texas SB-8 is “novel” —meaning never before has a State abdicated responsibility (enforcement) of a law to private individuals. And that certainly creates a conundrum on how to defeat the law.

Like I said the language of TX-SB-8 is one of the most onerous and confounding legislation in recent memory. Thusly my previous assertion that this is the Frankenstein of all Frankenstein Anti-Abortion laws codified to date, I think is an accurate depiction. And there’s nothing the Texas legislature can do to ameliorate the over reach and questionable constitutionality of their law.

So congratulations Texas, you decided to let Leo Leonard and the Judicial Crisis Network push you into the National spotlight for all the wrong reasons. And your law will be adjudicated as unconstitutional and an affront to FACE Act and to our Constitution. If you had a scintilla of commonsense you would have made the except for rape and incest victims. But no you decided to go there. Hope it was worth…

And lastly because this needs to be said - Texas SB-8 is also a completely racist law. Hear me out. Those who are quasi wealthy can travel to a neighboring state to obtain a lawful abortion. But those who are poor or otherwise socioeconomically disadvantage do not have the means to travel out ofTexas to obtain a lawful abortion. The disproportionate impact on women in the African American and Latino communities. That’s something that doesn’t get the attention it should. One need to look no further than the recent UN-HCR…

UN Human Rights @UNHumanRights

#USA: Texas law (SB8) endangers women with unprecedented obstacles to safe abortion in nearly all cases. New forms of pressuring those who uphold sexual and reproductive health & rights, including service providers, are a serious concern.

Because forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy is in fact considered a Crime Against Humanity. So congratulations Texas you’ve now made international news with your onerous and draconian “law” — and there’s not redemption for your flaccid misogynistic souls… trust me on that. Also I’m super tired of the unrelenting criticism of Attorney General Garland. Today’s statement does have teeth, he specifically invoked the power vested to the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §248(2) — meaning his ascertained that Texas SB-8:

…Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States District Court…

…If the Attorney General of the United States has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is being, has been, or may be injured by conduct constituting a violation of this section, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States District Court…

The reason I keep hammering that particular subsection of 18 U.S.C. §248 —it is very likely that the DOJ Office of Civil Rights might file a complaint in Federal District Court…in the coming days, possibly weeks. But again if you read the actual language of Texas SB-8 then you’ll note the numerous carve outs as it relates to both State of Texas Courts and Federal Courts…

But in case you want to know the exact language -I’ve previously redline the relevant subsection,.

So once again I’d recommend you read the previous article because it will help you better contextualize today’s statement from Attorney General Garland…if you get the sense I’m irritated by the constant snipping and criticism of Attorney General Garland, that’s because I am. Apparently some on the left won’t be happy unless Attorney General Garland does exactly what they want, when they want —irrespective of the prerequisite pragmatic analysis of Texas SB-8, the current State of Texas lawsuits and what Federal Statues the DOJ-OCR might make. Because yes of course your “snap your fingers” is entirely productive and adds to your followers miseducation. Assholes, maybe read the law, read the constitution, then read the Federal Laws before you tweet your vitriolic bullshit.