In a complicated decision by Justice Gorsuch, the Court has left in place the Texas Fetal Heartbeat Law (the validity of which was not directly before the court, only whether pre-enforcement challenges could be made against state officials where those state officials had no enforcement power under the law), dismissed most defendants, but left an avenue for challengers to pursue on lower courts. Much of Gorsuch’s opinion was responding to the dissent by Justice Sotomayor.
Justice Thomas would have thrown the whole challenge out: Chief Justice Roberts, joined by the liberal bloc (Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan), would have allowed suit against additional defendants. In what may be a precursor to the Mississippi case that was just argued that squarely puts Roe v. Wade in issue, Roberts reiterated the Roe v. Wade force of law:
Let's be clear here folks. This is not necessarily a judgement on the law itself. This is a judgement on who does and doesn't have standing to sue. To some degree Sotomayer was the only one who thought that the lawsuits had merit across the board for all comers. For the rest of them, there was just a degree of who did and didn't have standing here. Ultimately five of the nine Justices came to the agreement that they did.
The underlying idea that the court is there to "do what is right" or decide whether or not the fetal heartbeat law is "wise, fair or just" is the wrong concept. The law was clearly written in a manner that makes it difficult to actually challenge it. The court for all practical purposes has their hands tied to some degree. That doesn't mean that some people will not have standing to challenge this or that they will not win on the merits when they do, but even those rulings will likely not have the broad sweeping effect that critics would like to see. They will be most defensive in nature.
This is not unlike many of those election fraud lawsuits that didn't go anywhere. The issue isn't merit of the case as much as it becomes standing to sue.
Meanwhile, these clinic workers, abortion doctors, and others associated will need to decide if they want to be personally liable for breaking this law and putting themselves in civil (not criminal) jeopardy. Keeping in mind that under civil law, they can be sued and the plaintiff only needs a preponderance of evidence and a majority of the jury to side with them. They may not be arrested under this law, but it might be worse being held civilly liable.
Btw... the Merrick Garland lawsuit from the DOJ... dismissed completely.
22 comments:
I am glad to see that Lil Schitty does not give a shit about women's rights to control their own body....I sure wonder what his child bride thinks of his untenable belief that women do not deserve to determine their own destiny.....BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
I am still wondering if Lil Schitty still thinks there was an illegal data dump of votes in Wisconsin now that a conservative review says there wasn't????? I do believe his whole reason for trump not winning was based around the statistics he said were bullet proof!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAA!!!
Btw... the Merrick Garland lawsuit from the DOJ... dismissed completely.
And to think that 0linsky actually nominated that fucking twerp to the USSC. Having one undisputed idiot - Sotomayor - on the court is enough.
actually nominated that fucking twerp to the USSC
While your claim to fame is flunking out of Ag school......twerp is your middle name.....BWAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
From the pulpit
James Boswell
__________
Tired of the constantly disturbing news, and wanting to get away from it all, we turn to the Christmas story for relief. Surely in the beautiful Christmas narrative we can find respite from all the hateful language and infighting, all the negative, divisive thinking that is so rampant in American politics today. Surely we can there find relief from the incessant demand that we have to side either with the thinking of the Republicans or with the thinking of the Democrats.
And so we turn to the gospel scriptures for this coming Sunday, and there we find a text in which the author of Luke relates what Mary, the mother of Jesus, must have said prophetically about his arrival:
“God has shown great strength with his arm; he has dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart. He has brought down the mighty from their thrones, but lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away.”
Oh no! we tell ourselves, for Mary’s words challenge us to choose whose side we are on, requiring us to side with the thinking of that party which is most committed to “bringing down” the powerful from their “thrones.” Mary’s words challenge us to side with those politicians who are most committed to dislodging selfish billionaires from their positions of greedy power and dominance, thereby “sending the rich away empty” and “lifting up the lowly” and “filling the hungry with good things.”
Politics just won’t leave us alone, will they? They come barging right into the Christmas story, right into the narrative of the low-born baby who as an adult criticized the wealthy for their selfish greed, warning them that “you cannot serve two masters; you cannot serve both God and money,” and calling all of us to care for the poor, the ostracized, the outcasts, including even the least and last of people, no matter who they are. “For I myself,” Jesus said, “did not come to be served, but to serve,” and to give my life for all.
Against the distorted hypes of certain politicians, Jesus warns us to “guard yourselves against every form of greed, for your life does not consist in the abundance of your possessions.”
_________
Boswell is a retired pastor of The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) living in Normal, IL. His views are available at jesuslaidbare-truthsaboutJesus.com.
This acticle is scheduled to appear next Friday in our local paper. Due to criticism orginating here, I have improved it. Thank you.
Since he rolled back from his libertarian views on the day after Trump was nominated, he thinks the government has the authority to control a women's body...
This is just another example of gaslighting.
Plus the wild wide west and vigilantes are enabled to sue women.
This is not the America I knew. He is not a Democrat or a Republican.
The reality is though, I will wake up tomorrow in the America of the year 2021, a nation unrecognizable to those who came before us and fought to protect it, which is what you must do now," Williams said. "They’ve decided to burn it all down with us inside. That should scare you to no end as much as it scares an aging volunteer fireman."
BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS: Well, look at the time. I’ll try to keep this brief. After 28 years of peacock logos on much of what I own, it is my choice now to jump without a net into the great unknown. As I do for the first time in my 62 years, my biggest worry is for my country.
The truth is, I’m not a liberal or a conservative. I’m an institutionalist. I believe in this place. And in my love of my country, I yield to no one.
But the darkness on the edge of town has spread to the main roads and highways and neighborhoods. It is now at the local bar, and the bowling alley, the school board, and the grocery store. And it must be acknowledged and answered for.
Grown men and women who swore an oath to our Constitution, elected by their constituents, possessing the kinds of college degrees I could only dream of, have decided to join the mob and become something they are not while hoping we somehow forget who they were.
They’ve decided to burn it all down with us inside. That should scare you to no end as much as it scares an aging volunteer fireman.
To my coworkers, my love and thanks...
As a proud New Jersey native, this is where I get to say, "regrets, I’ve had a few, but then again, too few to mention."
What a ride it’s been. Where else, how else was a kid like me going to meet presidents and kings and the occasional rock star? These lovely testimonials that I can never truly repay make me hyper-aware that it has been and remains a wonderful life. It’s as if I’m going to wake up tomorrow morning in Bedford Falls.
The reality is though, I will wake up tomorrow in the America of the year 2021, a nation unrecognizable to those who came before us and fought to protect it, which is what you must do now. My colleagues will take it from here.
I will probably find it impossible to be silent and stay away from you and lights and cameras after I experiment with relaxation and find out what I’ve missed and what’s out there.
Every weeknight for decades now, I’ve said some version of the same thing. Thank you for being here with us. Us, meaning the people who produced this broadcast for you. And you, well, without you, there’s no us.
I’ll show myself out. Until we meet again, that is our broadcast for this Thursday night.
As a proud South Dakotaian midwesterner, I don't recognize you too Scott.
Grown men who possessing the kinds of college degrees you have Scott, I could only dream of why you have decided to join the mob and become something they are not while hoping we somehow forget who they were. You have forgotten who you are.
I have been hoping to see you back to normality.
Slate has an interesting story.
The Chief Justice Roberts is no longer in control...
When the Supreme Court released its opinions this morning on the two Texas cases around S.B. 8—the vigilante bill that allows anyone to collect $10,000 bounties against suspected abortion providers—there wasn’t a lot of clarity or consistency in the news media on how to frame what had happened. Was it a “win” for abortion rights or another warning of the coming blow to abortion access in this country? The court did allow the plaintiff abortion providers to continue to try to bring suits against a handful of state licensing officials tasked with helping to implement the six-week ban, but it declined to enjoin the law, which has prevented virtually any abortions in the state of Texas after six weeks since Sept. 1 and makes no exceptions in cases of rape and incest.
The trouble that the media is having in settling on a coherent frame for this specific decision is both entirely the problem and entirely beside the point. The real story of the two decisions in U.S. v. Texas and Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson is that Chief Justice John Roberts has now lost control of his court. As was the case in the very first shadow docket order that allowed S.B. 8 to go into effect, despite abundant evidence that it was materially harming pregnant people and clearly violated Roe v. Wade, the vote today was 5-4, again with the court behaving as though there is nothing unusual about the Texas scheme. The chief justice had over three months to change a single mind on the conservative flank of the court. He failed to do so. Writing for those five justices, Neil Gorsuch lays out myriad stumbling blocks and problems with the abortion providers’ theory before granting them very limited relief against four state licensing officials who have some authority to enforce S.B. 8.
ADVERTISEMENT
The chief justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part, pointed out that the purpose of the law was to evade judicial review: “Texas has passed a law banning abortions after roughly six weeks of pregnancy. That law is contrary to this Court’s decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey. It has had the effect of denying the exercise of what we have held is a right protected under the Federal Constitution.” He describes Texas’ enforcement mechanisms as “an array of stratagems, designed to shield its unconstitutional law from judicial review.” He goes on to note that “these provisions, among others, effectively chill the provision of abortions in Texas.” All of these statements are facts. To address the problems they lay out, he would add the attorney general and a state court clerk back to the list of folks who could properly be sued.
The chief justice’s opinion closes with this grim warning:
The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings. It is, however, a basic principle that the Constitution is the “fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” and “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Indeed, “[i]f the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery.” The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.
His statement is joined by the court’s three liberals.
Indeed, “[i]f the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments.
Justice Scalia said it best... (and I am paraphrasing)
Sometimes you are forced to make a ruling that follows the constitution and laws, but isn't the decision you want to make. Scalia was an adult judge who understood that his own opinions were secondary to the rule of law. What he "wanted" to do or what he found personally correct= was not always how he ruled.
Roberts needs to suck it up. If the Texas law is cleverly designed to specifically skirt some of these rulings, then that is not enough for the court to ignore the constitution and law. That is up to the legislation to change the laws or up to the people to change the constitution.
More to the point, this is procedural, not on merits. The court has to remain consistent to how they rule on these things. They cannot (for instance) refuse to hear an election fraud case due to lack of standing - and then rule differently under similar circumstances of standing - just because certain Justices feel stronger about the underlying issue.
If Roberts wants credibility for the court... Then Roberts need to start worrying about consistency and keeping the politics out of it. It shouldn't matter what the case is about. Standing is standing.
It sounds more to me that Roberts is joining the three other liberals in not wanting to give up Judicial control over when to and when not to follow specific standards. The majority of the Justices here are just following the constitution, the law, the precedents on standing (especially the recent ones). They are upholding the rule of constitutional law.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/12/texas-abortion-john-roberts-lost-control-supreme-court.amp
Far to many people don't trust the Supreme Court because a majority of highly conservative justices are making decisions on their personal political beliefs.
Roberts needs to suck it like Deep Throat and swallow right wing semen.
Sure Rog...
If by right wing semen you mean the constitution, then yeah. He needs to suck it up. Not everything the USSC rules on can be a political compromise, which is exactly what the Roberts court has been and why people don't trust it to just follow the law.
The vast majority of Americans want Justices to rule based on the constitution and be umpires, not players in the political game. Sotomayer admits and pushes the fact that she is a Justice who believes her Latina background is what qualifies her as a Justice. She pushes specifically what she believes, unapologetically. Doesn't even pretend that the rule of law is more important.
Which is why she was on her own in many of these rulings. 8-1. But I would guess that you find her a hero for following the politics.
Cali drop kicked James
"Caliphate4vrDecember 10, 2021 at 8:15 AM
Blogger rrb said...
Blogger Decent, honest teller of truth said...
Oh the billionaires and millionaires are doing quite well thank you. They have profited from the pandemic.
Time to share.
And nothing says "time to share" like restoring the SALT deduction (average $38,500.00) for those billionaires and millionaires who are doing quite well, thank you.
MILLIONAIRE Bernie Sanders needs that SALT deduction.
MILLIONAIRE Nancy Peloshee *hic* needs that SALT deduction.
MILLIONAIRE John François Kerry needs that SALT deduction.
He’s so fucking stupid, it has to be intentional"
The # 1 issue facing Americans
Real , tangible Inflaion.
Broke Back Biden has no plan.
The real issue facing Americans is idiots like you who support anarchy and authoritarian rule!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Inflation will not matter once the GOP runs the country into the ground!!!!
Roger's Rectum
What?
Your team holds all the Power.
Unless you see it going away in 2022, do you?
Actually Roger's Rectum, Inflation Always matters.
Booster Needed to Protect Against Omicron
December 11, 2021 at 10:00 pm EST By Taegan Goddard Leave a Comment
“An early estimate published yesterday by the UK found that two doses of the Pfizer vaccine are only about 30% effective against symptomatic infection with Omicron, and the AstraZeneca vaccine isn’t effective at all,” Axios reports.
“A booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine, however, increases effectiveness to 70-75%.”
GOP Lawmaker Missing After Covid Treatment
December 11, 2021 at 9:49 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 5 Comments
“No information has been available for three weeks about the location or condition of Washington state Sen. Doug Ericksen (R), who was reportedly being treated for Covid-19 at a Florida hospital after testing positive for the virus in El Salvador,” the Bellingham Herald reports.
“Calls to Ericksen have not been returned recently, leading to public speculation about his condition.”
Daily Beast:
“Ericksen has been a vocal opponent of Covid restrictions and mandates, saying late last year he would introduce a bill opposing vaccine mandates. It’s unknown if he was vaccinated.”
Election Denier Met with Meadows at White House
December 11, 2021 at 9:45 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 10 Comments
“A retired U.S. Army colonel who circulated a proposal to challenge the 2020 election, including by declaring a national security emergency and seizing paper ballots, said that he visited the White House on multiple occasions after the election, spoke with President Donald Trump’s chief of staff ‘maybe eight to 10 times’ and briefed several members of Congress on the eve of the Jan. 6 riot,” the Washington Post reports.
“Phil Waldron, the retired colonel, was working with Trump’s outside lawyers and was part of a team that briefed the lawmakers on a PowerPoint presentation detailing ‘Options for 6 JAN.’”
Peter Navarro Refuses Subpoena
December 11, 2021 at 9:42 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 5 Comments
“Former White House trade adviser Peter Navarro has refused to comply with a subpoena for documents related to the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus, saying the former president ordered him not to,”
Reuters reports.
Washington Post:
“The showdown with Navarro is the first time a witness has rebuffed a subpoena issued by the select subcommittee on the coronavirus crisis amid attacks from Trump and his allies that the probe is politically motivated.”
Post a Comment