SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by fustakrakich
One dog barks, the others have to bark twice, and so on. How can we use this energy to.. mine bitcoins perhaps? Or produce a vaccine? Go to the moon?
Kind of a Pavlovian thing going on around here
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 25 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Dying is one of the few things that can be done as easily lying down.
-- Woody Allen
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 12 2021, @12:10PM (1 child)
No actual Texans were observed in that story. Marc Benioff apparently more or less lives [virtualglobetrotting.com] in San Francisco. I gather he's a real person.
My take is that we'll probably see the law reversed on two fronts - first, the constitutionality of the law (allowing people to snitch in court for something that Texas can't have as an actual legal ban) and second, via elections (I wonder how many voters appreciate their state representatives wasting time on anti-abortion garbage, especially garbage this ripe).
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 12 2021, @10:38PM
Yup, the DoJ complaint pretty much pegs it on a few fronts. Not least is that the various figleaves that the texan legislators tried to put in front of their ban are just so much nonsense. They can't absolve the state of responsibility, for example, when it's the state's courts adjudicating it. Pretending that it's a private cause of action doesn't prevent it from being a state-initiated liability (because no theory in tort law would support that), making all the items severable doesn't mean that the court can't simply hollow it out like a hallowe'en pumpkin. On pretty much every level it's a zombie that just doesn't yet know that it's dead.
The stupid part is that the other big recent states' rights move which actually called the feds' bluff in an intelligent way succeeded, because it stuck to the simple question of the extent of the commerce clause; marijuana. If the feds challenge it and win, they lose big points and look like the jackbooted thugs that they are, and if they lose a whole bunch of other stuff looks very wobbly in terms of federal power. Here the state is trying to extend state power by (in effect) offering letters of marque to private individuals to do things on the state's behalf that the state never had the power to do since the question of the compelling interest was investigated in Roe vs Wade.