S.B.8: A Call For Anarchy

 In his ruling on S.B.8, the judge cites an Amicus Brief which argues to "urge this Court to immediately enjoin the State from enforcing S.B. 8, (id. at 26–27)."

The weird thing, it seems to me is that S.B.8 is written in such a way that the law takes the state power of prosecution, and gives that power to it's citizens, sort of.  In a sense, the state is saying that it has written and passed a law that it will not enforce.  Either that, or the state does have a hand in enforcing the law, in which case, the state cannot avoid or disclaim responsibility for the enforcement of the outcome of the law.  

S.B.8 depends on the court system to enforce the law.  

The court system is part of the state.

If a court finds in favor of the plaintiff, then the court system, through the use or threat of state power will assist the plaintiff to collect the plaintiff's award/bounty, recoup court costs, and collect any other penalties awarded by the court.

S.B.8 insists that it can have its cake and eat it too:  the state will not enforce this law, and the state will (through the courts) enforce the law.

Does this mean that courts must be enjoined from taking S.B.8 cases?

Does this mean that other state powers will be taken by citizens/plaintiffs to enforce S.B.8?  The ability to take a person/defendant into custody to ensure their appearance in court?  The ability to compel a business to garnish a person's/defendant's wages?

The End Of The World

 Human beings are not evolved to understand a slow-moving disaster.  

We (human beings) are, however, well-evolved to respond to immediate.

That is why humanity cannot seriously respond to a comming ubiquitous climate catastrophe.

On the other hand, it seems likely that likely that human being would seriously respond to the threat of an asteroid that will destroy the earth in 75 years unless a  united response could be mounted.