well, i think that argument was one that really made it clear to the court that this is not just about what is happening in texas. it is actually an existential crisis for the court. what is the point of a supreme court whose duty it is to say what the law is if states like texas can decide they don t like precedence and they can design end runs. you are basically undermining your own legitimacy by allowing this law to be in effect. and i think it did hit the way that it was supposed to. on two of the justices who had earlier voted to allow the law to go into effect, justices amy coney barrett and brett kavanaugh seem to be softening, seem to be concerned not only could a private enforcement scheme be deployed, but it would be really problematic for the court itself if rogue states would not feel obliged to comport with those courts decisions. we re going to continue to watch this. we ll see a lot of you. next, what happens when a private person is tossed into the spotlight. hum
it is actually an kpichbl crisis for the court. what is the point of a supreme court whose duty it is to say what the law is if states like texas can decide they don t like precedence and they can design ends. you are basically undermining your own legitimacy by allowing this law to be in effect. and i think it did hit the way that it was supposed to. on two of the justices who had earlier voted to allow the law to go into effect, justices amy coney barrett and brett kavanaugh seem to be softening, seem to be concerned not only could a private enforcement scheme be deployed, but it would be really problematic for the court itself if rogue states would not feel obliged to comport with those courts decisions. we re going to continue to watch this. we ll see a lot of you. next, what happens when a private person is tossed into