Supreme Court strikes down restrictive Louisiana abortion law

angrysoba

Philosophile
angrysoba
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
38,658
Location
Osaka, Japan
The Evangelicals are going to be spewing!

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law that could have left the state with a single abortion clinic.

The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voting with the court’s four-member liberal wing but not adopting its reasoning. The chief justice said respect for precedent compelled him to vote with the majority.

The case was the court’s first on abortion since President Trump’s appointments of two justices shifted the court to the right.

The Louisiana law, which was enacted in 2014, requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law that could have left the state with a single abortion clinic.

The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voting with the court’s four-member liberal wing but not adopting its reasoning. The chief justice said respect for precedent compelled him to vote with the majority.

The case was the court’s first on abortion since President Trump’s appointments of two justices shifted the court to the right.

The Louisiana law, which was enacted in 2014, requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.
Click to expand...

Link
 
Supreme Court strikes down restrictive Louisiana abortion law
Click to expand...
Yup.

And voting with the minority to uphold the law was Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

You remember Kavanaugh.... the one that claimed during his confirmation hearings that he would respect precedent. The one that Susan Collins confirmed despite her supposedly being 'pro choice'.
 
I'm overjoyed at the decision, I just wish our safety margin was greater than "Roberts flipping the coin on a 50/50 chance he's going to have a moment or sanity or not"
 
JoeMorgue said:
I'm overjoyed at the decision, I just wish our safety margin was greater than "Roberts flipping the coin on a 50/50 chance he's going to have a moment or sanity or not"
Click to expand...

Do you think they interpreted the Constitution correctly?
 
Segnosaur said:
Yup.

And voting with the minority to uphold the law was Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

You remember Kavanaugh.... the one that claimed during his confirmation hearings that he would respect precedent. The one that Susan Collins confirmed despite her supposedly being 'pro choice'.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Collins is "very concerned" about all this.
 
A 5-4 SCOTUS decision protecting abortion rights is exactly the kind of red meat right wingers need to ensure disenchanted voters hold the party line.

While there are some real loons out there, my general impression is that evangelicals accept Trump as a means to an end. They don't really care that he is obviously living a life in complete contradiction to religious teachings, so long as they get their laws and court appointees rammed through.

Since Ginsberg dropped the ball by refusing to resign when a liberal justice could be appointed, a conservative SCOTUS is very much on the ballot. Another Trump term practically guarantees a 5-4 conservative court that will issue rulings to totally undermine, if not overturn, Roe v. Wade.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Another Trump term practically guarantees a 5-4 conservative court that will issue rulings to totally undermine, if not overturn, Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...

And worse still a second Trump term almost guarantees that 5-4 conservative court becomes a 6-3 or 8 to 2 conservative court.

Ginsburg's 87, Bryer is 81. Rolling the dice they both aren't going to see 2024.

With a 5-4 you sort of have to pretend to give lip service to the other side in some cases. 6-3 or 8 to 2 that pretense will be gone completely.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
A 5-4 SCOTUS decision protecting abortion rights is exactly the kind of red meat right wingers need to ensure disenchanted voters hold the party line.
Click to expand...
It also is a risk that the Liberals may look at the ruling and thing "Oh, no need to worry about the supreme court after all..." and thus depress turnout for Biden.
 
Segnosaur said:
It also is a risk that the Liberals may look at the ruling and thing "Oh, no need to worry about the supreme court after all..." and thus depress turnout for Biden.
Click to expand...

Republicans, generally speaking, have been much more effective in turning radical court realignment into a ballot initiative for their voters. Voting to protect the court isn't something that Democrats have been very effective on, messaging wise.

Perhaps that is changing now that the 1-2 punch of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have landed and liberals are learning a hard lesson about how to wield political power.
 
Segnosaur said:
It also is a risk that the Liberals may look at the ruling and thing "Oh, no need to worry about the supreme court after all..." and thus depress turnout for Biden.
Click to expand...

That's one thing that drives liberals to the polls, but it's not the way it is with right-wingers.
 
and just like this, Trump has the entire Evangelical Vote back.
After all, they need him to get more Judges on the Supreme Court.

"Who will rid me of this turbulent Chief Justice?"
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Republicans, generally speaking, have been much more effective in turning radical court realignment into a ballot initiative for their voters. Voting to protect the court isn't something that Democrats have been very effective on, messaging wise.

Perhaps that is changing now that the 1-2 punch of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have landed and liberals are learning a hard lesson about how to wield political power.
Click to expand...

I think the reason for this is that people on the left have a different mindset than people on the right when it comes to what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. To right wingers, the court is a tool to be wielded in order to get what you want. To left wingers, the court is a adjudicator of the constitution and is at least supposed to be non partisan. Thus, left wingers want a non-political court while right wingers want a right wing court.
 
uke2se said:
I think the reason for this is that people on the left have a different mindset than people on the right when it comes to what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. To right wingers, the court is a tool to be wielded in order to get what you want. To left wingers, the court is a adjudicator of the constitution and is at least supposed to be non partisan. Thus, left wingers want a non-political court while right wingers want a right wing court.
Click to expand...

You mean conservatives want judges to take an active role in shaping law? really? But that runs contrary to their cries of "activist judges".
 
uke2se said:
I think the reason for this is that people on the left have a different mindset than people on the right when it comes to what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. To right wingers, the court is a tool to be wielded in order to get what you want. To left wingers, the court is a adjudicator of the constitution and is at least supposed to be non partisan. Thus, left wingers want a non-political court while right wingers want a right wing court.
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks the courts are nonpolitical is naive. The disinterest of liberals to make plays for power is why they keep getting the snot beat out of them by conservatives.
 
Hearing about Roberts's justification, I get the impression his ruling in this case is more a smackdown of the Appeals court that brought it up. He notes that the SC has already ruled on a very similar law (Texas) and that the court needs to be consistent with precedent. So why did the Appeals court rule against it?

I think his message was that, damn it, the SC already ruled on this and listen to what it said. You can't play the "two new judges are there so let's hope it gets overturned" game on my court!

If the appeals court had ruled correctly in
the first place I don't think this gets heard. It's decided law.
 
pgwenthold said:
Hearing about Roberts's justification, I get the impression his ruling in this case is more a smackdown of the Appeals court that brought it up. He notes that the SC has already ruled on a very similar law (Texas) and that the court needs to be consistent with precedent. So why did the Appeals court rule against it?

I think his message was that, damn it, the SC already ruled on this and listen to what it said. You can't play the "two new judges are there so let's hope it gets overturned" game on my court!

If the appeals court had ruled correctly in
the first place I don't think this gets heard. It's decided law.
Click to expand...

Aligns with my thinking on the matter.

That Roberts, who in the Texas case voted to uphold that State law restricting abortion, is principled enough to adhere to the precedent set there speaks to at least some measure of fair jurisprudence. He may also be sticking it to the Drumpf Administration and the other thugs in his wake whose ready recourse to dragging the SC into everything has gotten stale, if not annoying, if not alarming.

That the highest court in the land is looked to for the settling of partisan political issues is a damning indictment against the US. This has become a battleground where no such fight should ever occur. The appointment of Judges *at any level* should not be the province of politicians. Because the pols in power can install unqualified lackeys, as so many of late have been.
 
Roberts for all the practical, moral, and even legal disagreements I have with him at least treats his position seriously. He's Tywin Lannister not Joffrey or Ramsey.
 
Nothing wrong with reiterating the previous ruling. The basic idea is a seemingly reasonable law, or a set of such, if they stack up to block a constitutional right, are unconstitutional.

I hope people remember this crucially important principle when cases from California get to the SC, where "no gun stores within 1000 feet of a school" turn out to ban all gun stores in a county.
 
Beerina said:
Nothing wrong with reiterating the previous ruling. The basic idea is a seemingly reasonable law, or a set of such, if they stack up to block a constitutional right, are unconstitutional.

I hope people remember this crucially important principle when cases from California get to the SC, where "no gun stores within 1000 feet of a school" turn out to ban all gun stores in a county.
Click to expand...

You say that like it's a bad thing.
 
Segnosaur said:
It also is a risk that the Liberals may look at the ruling and thing "Oh, no need to worry about the supreme court after all..." and thus depress turnout for Biden.
Click to expand...
No, I don't think that's going to happen. If Dems are that complacent they deserve to lose.
 
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
It also is a risk that the Liberals may look at the ruling and thing "Oh, no need to worry about the supreme court after all..." and thus depress turnout for Biden.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is what any liberal is thinking.

Minoosh said:
No, I don't think that's going to happen. If Dems are that complacent they deserve to lose.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Anyone who thinks the courts are nonpolitical is naive. The disinterest of liberals to make plays for power is why they keep getting the snot beat out of them by conservatives.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anyone actually thinks that the court is non-political, only that they want the court to be non-political.
 
I find it absolutely insane that US judges are political appointments. A court should be completely unpartisan.
 
Last edited:
RolandRat said:
I find it absolutely insane that US judges are political appointments. A court should be completely unpartisan.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Federal judges are political appointees but state judges are often elected and run as non-partisan.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Since Ginsberg dropped the ball by refusing to resign when a liberal justice could be appointed, a conservative SCOTUS is very much on the ballot. Another Trump term practically guarantees a 5-4 conservative court that will issue rulings to totally undermine, if not overturn, Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...

McConnell's presence during the entire time shows how correct she was to *not* resign, as he stonewalled Obama's attempts to suggest a replacement, choosing to wait over a year to ensure the nomination was handed like a trophy to the next president.
 
Maybe, maybe not, but it allows us to fire judges that aren't pulling their weight anymore. I voted to remove a judge a year or two ago who got a failing grade, which he responded angrily to, because he was prejudging----he was a sentencer. Every person who stood before him was a criminal and he was there to punish them.
 
RolandRat said:
I find it absolutely insane that US judges are political appointments. A court should be completely unpartisan.
Click to expand...
It should be. The question is, how do you actually accomplish that.

If you give the tack of selecting judges over to some non-elected group to make the pic, then people will suggest that you're being run by a bunch of un-elected people.

The U.S. HAD a good method of selecting judges... nominated by the president but had to be approved by 2/3rds in the senate... so even if there was some partisanship, you couldn't get a nominee through without at least some support from the opposing party. But Moscow Mitch blew that up... first by obstructing Obama, then by eliminating the 2/3rds requirement.

Perhaps what is needed is a constitutional amendment (if that could ever get through) restoring the 2/3rds requirement, and limiting the amount of obstruction that the Senate can apply.
 
Things can't be "unpartisan" when "Rejects reality" is one of the major parties.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
McConnell's presence during the entire time shows how correct she was to *not* resign, as he stonewalled Obama's attempts to suggest a replacement, choosing to wait over a year to ensure the nomination was handed like a trophy to the next president.
Click to expand...

This is demonstrably untrue. David Souter retired in 2009 and was replaced by a a liberal, Sotomayor. There was absolutely a window when Ginsburg could have stepped down and avoided this fraught scenario. Obama's first few years in office had Democratic control of the Senate.

There were calls at the time, some explicitly citing the risk of future Republican victories making it impossible to confirm a liberal in Ginsburg's lifetime, for her to step down. If a Federalist society hack fills her seat, the lion's share of the blame lies at her feet for failing to act shrewdly.
 
Last edited:
Donal said:
You mean conservatives want judges to take an active role in shaping law? really? But that runs contrary to their cries of "activist judges".
Click to expand...
Every accusation is a confession.

If you want a glimpse of the chaotic crapshow that will be the transition to a Biden presidency, look at their cries of "Deep State" with the understanding that they're brainstorming.
 
JoeMorgue said:
And worse still a second Trump term almost guarantees that 5-4 conservative court becomes a 6-3 or 8 to 2 conservative court.

Ginsburg's 87, Bryer is 81. Rolling the dice they both aren't going to see 2024.

With a 5-4 you sort of have to pretend to give lip service to the other side in some cases. 6-3 or 8 to 2 that pretense will be gone completely.
Click to expand...

IMO no Supreme Court justices will ever be appointed if they are nominated by the Democratic Party and the Senate is GOP held. :(

If there is a prospect of the GOP losing control of the Senate, I can also see them changing the rules so that a super-majority is required to secure an appointment, they can always revert to the original rules in the event that they don't lose their majority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom