Supreme Court Oral Argument starts today for the Spy on Your Neighbors and Spit on the Constitution Law, aka Texas SB 8.
Start time: 10 am Eastern
Listen to the oral argument live here.
If someone finds a good link that I can embed, let me know and I’ll embed the oral argument here.
In fact, if you find any good resources for following this today, add them to the comments and I’ll add the best ones to the post itself.
ScotusBLOG was live tweeting. Here’s the first tweet:
In a few minutes at 10 a.m., the Supreme Court will hear two challenges to Texas’ S.B.8 prohibiting abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. First up, abortion providers will argue that Texas can’t shield law by letting private citizens enforce it. #SCOTUS https://t.co/Jz5id1wpAA
— Jimmy Hoover (@JimmyHooverDC) November 1, 2021
.
Baud
I believe this is live audio, not video.
WaterGirl
@Baud: I knew it was audio only, and still I wrote watch! Thanks for catching that.
Do you know how long the oral argument usually takes? Hours? Days?
Baud
@WaterGirl:
It won’t be days. My guess is an hour and a half to two hours today.
Brant
If this was in the spirit of the law, they’ll exhume the corpse of the actress that played Gladys Kravitz, and have her do the ‘pro’ Texas SB8 side.
Gin & Tonic
@WaterGirl: You can still watch, just won’t be very exciting.
Geeno
@Brant: That’s very unkind to Sandra Gould.
PaulWartenberg
From what I’m seeing online, most of the conservative justices – Roberts included – are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to find a way to let SB8 stand for a few years before the Supreme Court HAS to do anything about it.
Baud
@PaulWartenberg: Weird, since Roberts voted to stay the law the first time around.
CaseyL
The way SCOTUS stood back and admired how SB8 got around judicial review rather than say, Fuck no!, when first presented with a chance to stomp this Stasi monstrosity enraged me. I don’t expect any better from them at this hearing.
Just Chuck
@CaseyL: To say nothing of weakening their own standing in the civic structure. A law that says “Nyeah nyeah SCOTUS, you can’t touch any of this” and they were fine with that? Talk about being shit at your own job.
Betty
Thanks for doing this, but I can’t bear to listen, even more so after seeing these comments.
Chief Oshkosh
I listened a bit. Couldn’t take it anymore. The whole “nyaeah nyeah SCOTUS, you can’t touch this” is still on full display, mixed in now with a condescending explanation of how the structure of the DA and state Atty Gen structure in Texas specifically allows the law to stand. It just amplifies that this whole thing was very carefully engineered to cheat our justice system.
Just Chuck
@Chief Oshkosh: You’d think someone from the Federalist Society would just say “Interesting state structure you have there. Means jack to me. Article VI Paragraph 2, bitches.” Then bring down the gavel. Don’t tell me SCOTUS justices don’t have gavels, let me have the image…
trollhattan
@Just Chuck:
“The Redcoats are coming, get ready!”
“Hey colonel, these guys are all wearing green.”
“It’s okay then, men, let them through.”
Originalists are surprisingly flexible when the time comes to change the rules.
Omnes Omnibus
The only thing I will say about this is what I say every time there is a Supreme Court oral argument thread: Don’t read too much into what any Justice says or asks. Unless you are a veteran Court watcher, you won’t be able to tell a legit question to counsel from a pointed remark to another Justice phrased as a question from simple hazing of the lawyers. Among other things.
Esme
For anyone looking to follow along without live-streaming, @SCOTUSblog is live-tweeting now and will probably have a good summary on their site later today.
KayInMD (formerly Kay (not the front-pager))
I turned on MSNBC while doing some hand-sewing, and was surprised to see oral arguments (audio) live. This is (one of the only) good things to come out of the pandemic- the ability of us mortals to hear SCOTUS oral arguments. Gorsuch was as he’s been described: kind of an asshole. But I was surprised by Kavanaugh’s and Coney Barrett’s questioning. They seemed very concerned that the structure of SB8 could be used against other constitutionally protected rights, such as freedom of religion, and gun rights.
This says nothing about how they will rule on abortion, but the tricksy mechanism for enforcing SB8 might be in trouble.
Woodrow/asim
Didn’t get to listen to as much of this as I wanted, have been reading live tweets when I have a moment.
The degree to which this SB8 bounty crap smells of state-level Fugitive Slave Laws is beyond disturbing.
laura
Angry Black Lady and Hegemommy bring the heat
https://rewirenewsgroup.com/multimedia/podcast/texas-abortion-ban-at-the-supreme-court-what-happened/
TriassicSands
Those who chose not to listen should reconsider. Why? Elizabeth Prelogar, the nw Solicitor General. Wow.
Years ago I listened to Don Verrilli, one of Obama’s Solicitors General argue for Obamacare. It was depressing and embarrassing in the way that Mueller’s testimony was both. Verrlli was inarticulate, hesitant, poorly prepared, etc. If the Court’s decision had depended on his performance, the ACA would have died right there.
Prelagor. Up until now, I thought Jen Psaki was Biden’s best appointment, but in a more demanding position¹, Prelagor was truly impressive. The best performance I’ve ever heard from a lawyer arguing before the SCOTUS. Not being a fan of beauty pageants, I was taken aback when I read that she was once Miss Idaho. So what. She has moved so far beyond that.
You can listen to her and skip the cretin from Texas. For all the sexists out there, both women are living proof that an accomplished, competent woman is every bit as capable as a male in the same position. There are good and bad female and male appointees. The goal is to get Prelagors and Psakis and not Garlands and Walenskys. However, it’s difficult, because people who look good on paper (or in a different position) may be poor choices for jobs they seem highly qualified to do.
¹ That isn’t meant to diminish Psaki’s job or her competence, but arguing before the SCOTUS is likely to be far more consequential.