Said Adam Liptak on the NYT "Daily" podcast this morning, in an episode called "How Texas Banned Almost All Abortions/Legislation banning most terminations has gone into effect in Texas. How did it avoid being immediately struck down like so many previous anti-abortion laws?"
I transcribed that because I'm fascinated by the articulateness of the inarticulateness — you know... sort of....
Liptak knows the majority opinion makes sense as a matter of doctrine — and, believe me, it's a sophisticated area of procedural doctrine — and he can't say why the dissenters' opinion makes sense as a matter of doctrine. He can only express consternation that that something that feels wrong is working. It just seems very odd.
But judicial power is, like other governmental power, limited, and the law that limits judicial power is law too, and it matters. Judges don't get to say it's odd that I don't have power, therefore put the law of judicial power to the side because my need to exercise power must prevail. That is also one of the "fundamental principles of good government and justice," as I am positive Adam Liptak knows.
Posts
