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
enforcement scheme from preventing review, not roe itself. we will keep it from being effective. we will permit federal courts to rule. let s hear a little bit of the oral arguments to that point. the entire point of this law, its purpose and its effect is to find the chink in the armor of ex parte young, ex parte young set out a basic principle of how our government is supposed to work and how people can seek review of unconstitutional state laws. and the fact that after oh, these many years some geniuses came up with a way to evade the commands of that decision as well as the command that the broader, the even broader principle that states are not to nullify federal constitutional
generally enforced by some state official, someone in the department of the health or the attorney general of the state and under a case in the early 1900s individuals can sue that state official who s charged with enforcing the law opposing to suing the state itself. what texas has done here is absolutely prohibited, any state official to enforce the law and now delegated to private evenings and the question in the lawsuits is whether the abortion providers can sue other state officials like judges or county clerks to facilitate the lawsuits in lieu of suing a state official. so this is not simply a question of whether other states can replicate this scheme. this is really a crisis for the united states supreme court because an enforcement scheme like this means any state can