Show Navigation
LinuxWalt (@lnxw48a1) {3EB165E0-5BB1-45D2-9E7D-93B31821F864} (lnxw48a1@nu.federati.net)'s status on Wednesday, 23-Nov-2022 02:29:32 UTC
-
> ... the ban is unenforceable because it’s so old that it was essentially passed without the consent of the people.
That is certainly a bizarre argument. Instead of arguing something reasonable, such as arguing that pre-1973 laws were essentially quashed forever by the Roe v. Wade decision, he's arguing that old laws are illegal.
To be sure, old and unenforced laws can become permanently unenforceable in some circumstances, in the same way that not enforcing one's property rights for a long enough period of time can become an easement and not enforcing one's trademarks can cause them to become generic (e.g., no longer an enforceable trademark), but I don't think he's arguing that.
The other bizarre thing is that--as state Attorney General, Kaul's responsibility is to defend the state's laws in court--he's the wrong person to be suing to overturn it. Surely there's another group that he could find that had standing to sue. Planned Parenthood? NARAL?