This kind of American Supreme Court green lighting of vigilantism isn't new. Ever since the SCOTUS sanctioned it in the now overturned Dred Scott decision, people escaping Southern slavery had to go to Canada lest they be captured on Yankee soil and returned to their slave owners.
A Texas woman seeking a legal abortion in New York can be extradited (or kidnaped?) back to Texas and her abetting friends and family prosecuted in similar fashion to Dred Scott under a similarly written law.
You've helped me articulate my concerns regarding the most bizarre feature of the Texas law: the weaponizing of the civil courts via vigilantism among private citizens. A devil's brew, indeed.
This is a bizarre feature because ordinarily the plaintiffs in a suit must demonstrate standing, in a legal sense, i.e. must show that they are directly affected by the matter taken up in the suit. It is not enough to be offended by a law or a practice; you have to be directly harmed by it to have standing in the legalistic sense, a principle long followed in SCOTUS decisions about which cases to take up and which to reject. An anti-abortion vigilante trying to sic the civil courts on an abortion provider would not have standing in the sense long demanded by SCOTUS. No?
The American Protective League during the World War I era is another major precursor in official endorsement of vigilantism.
This kind of American Supreme Court green lighting of vigilantism isn't new. Ever since the SCOTUS sanctioned it in the now overturned Dred Scott decision, people escaping Southern slavery had to go to Canada lest they be captured on Yankee soil and returned to their slave owners.
A Texas woman seeking a legal abortion in New York can be extradited (or kidnaped?) back to Texas and her abetting friends and family prosecuted in similar fashion to Dred Scott under a similarly written law.
You've helped me articulate my concerns regarding the most bizarre feature of the Texas law: the weaponizing of the civil courts via vigilantism among private citizens. A devil's brew, indeed.
This is a bizarre feature because ordinarily the plaintiffs in a suit must demonstrate standing, in a legal sense, i.e. must show that they are directly affected by the matter taken up in the suit. It is not enough to be offended by a law or a practice; you have to be directly harmed by it to have standing in the legalistic sense, a principle long followed in SCOTUS decisions about which cases to take up and which to reject. An anti-abortion vigilante trying to sic the civil courts on an abortion provider would not have standing in the sense long demanded by SCOTUS. No?