Cont: Roe v Wade overturned - this is some BS part II

[Random]

This went the correct way but not for reassuring reasons.

From https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-abortion-pill-decision-06-13-24#h_a032692f52ce82041dc3e5e64b9fa32b :


This in no way means that abortifacient access is safe from this activist court or from other threats (ie. if Project 2025 get implemented, the FDA will likely get stacked with political operatives rather than technocratic subject matter experts).

The Ridiculous Six looked at the 2024 polling and realized that ruling against the FDA would hurt Trump in the polls. Why risk everything on supporting an abortion pill ban now, when they have a good shot at a fascist dictatorship in seven months? Especially when you can use a standing justification which kicks the can down the road but says nothing about the legality of the can itself.

That's how you get the media to label you "impartial".

 

[bruto]

I have no confidence in much of anything the court does or thinks, but I do think they did the right thing here, and perhaps even in part for the right reason. It is reassuring, if minimally so, that there are at least still some things so preposterous that the whole court can make a unanimous ruling.

 

[cosmicaug]

I have no confidence in much of anything the court does or thinks, but I do think they did the right thing here, and perhaps even in part for the right reason. It is reassuring, if minimally so, that there are at least still some things so preposterous that the whole court can make a unanimous ruling.

I have been under the impression that they have not shown a great deal of consistency regarding issues of standing. I can't think of cases off the top of my head but I'm sure there has been some recent stuff that has been weird in this respect (maybe even abortion related?).

 

[JayUtah]

I have been under the impression that they have not shown a great deal of consistency regarding issues of standing.

They have not.

I can't think of cases off the top of my head but I'm sure there has been some recent stuff that has been weird in this respect (maybe even abortion related?).

The student loan forgiveness case is the best most recent example. The Court found that a state government had standing and could demonstrate injury in fact even while (a) the student loans were being serviced by a separate organization; (b) the organization did not suffer any injury; and (c) the organization did not join the suit, and in fact had to be subpoenaed to compel their production of evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

The Ridiculous Six looked at the 2024 polling and realized that ruling against the FDA would hurt Trump in the polls.

Except that this was a unanimous ruling, and the case against standing is pretty solid. Keep in mind the courts that ruled the plaintiffs did have standing were the notorious Texas courts who are as far right as you can get and still be on the page of American jurisprudence.

The plaintiffs' argument for injury to themselves was based on two very speculative lines of reasoning: that they would be forced to perform procedural abortions in the case of mifepristone misuse, or that they would suffer economic harm by having to treat consequences of mifepristone abuse instead of other cases. The former fails as a matter of law, and the latter fails under current Article III jurisprudence that disallows indirect injury to establish standing.

 

[Random]

Except that this was a unanimous ruling, and the case against standing is pretty solid. Keep in mind the courts that ruled the plaintiffs did have standing were the notorious Texas courts who are as far right as you can get and still be on the page of American jurisprudence.

The plaintiffs' argument for injury to themselves was based on two very speculative lines of reasoning: that they would be forced to perform procedural abortions in the case of mifepristone misuse, or that they would suffer economic harm by having to treat consequences of mifepristone abuse instead of other cases. The former fails as a matter of law, and the latter fails under current Article III jurisprudence that disallows indirect injury to establish standing.

The three Liberal Justices voted against the doctors because the doctors didn't have standing. The Ridiculous Six voted against the doctors because they didn't want to hurt Trump's election prospects. If the case had landed in front of them on November 6, 2024, they might have ruled differently.

 

[Stacyhs]

The three Liberal Justices voted against the doctors because the doctors didn't have standing. The Ridiculous Six voted against the doctors because they didn't want to hurt Trump's election prospects. If the case had landed in front of them on November 6, 2024, they might have ruled differently.

Conjecture.

 

[Random]

Conjecture.

Based on solid evidence.

The Supreme Court no longer makes impartial legal decisions, if it ever did. It's an unelected super-legislature with veto power over the other branches now.

 

[Segnosaur]

The Ridiculous Six looked at the 2024 polling and realized that ruling against the FDA would hurt Trump in the polls.

Except that this was a unanimous ruling, and the case against standing is pretty solid.

In an ideal world, with a supreme court composed of unbiased individuals who pay proper attention to the principles of the constitution and various precedents, it would have made sense. (Yes, "case against standing" would have applied.)

I think the assumption is that with the right-wing jurors (like Drunky McRapeface, "Pubic hair" Thomas, and "What's a flag" Alito), they might have ignored that the complaints lacked standing in order to let the case proceed. It was only because it would potentially harm the republicans in the election that they ended up doing the right thing.

So yes, it was unanimous that the case lacked standing. The left-wing judges were giving an honest assessment of the situation. The right-wing judges were thinking "We would really like to ban this drug, we could do so but it would harm the republicans, so we we will go along with the "standing" argument.

 

[Stacyhs]

Based on solid evidence.

The Supreme Court no longer makes impartial legal decisions, if it ever did. It's an unelected super-legislature with veto power over the other branches now.

What 'solid evidence' is that exactly?

Vague claims like that are not evidence.

 

[smartcooky]

What 'solid evidence' is that exactly?

Vague claims like that are not evidence.

Look at what is happening with the current criminal cases against Trump. His lawyers are claiming absolute Presidential immunity, even after he is no longer the president, a concept that would put ALL presidents and former presidents above the law. Its laughable and downright ridiculous, which is why the federal appellant court pretty much insta-denied it.

So they took it to SCOTUS, who should have said no thanks. Instead, they decided to validate this ridiculous claim by accepting it, and now they are slow walking it to the end of July for submissions and a decision. It is clear they are trying to run out the clock so that the cases cannot proceed, or at least, to make it very difficult to proceed and be completed before the election.

I think Random's "solid evidence" amounts to "Look at their track record". Its pretty obvious that SCOTUS' right-wing six are in the tank for Trump.

 

[Trausti]

What 'solid evidence' is that exactly?

Vague claims like that are not evidence.

It's perhaps when the Justices insert imaginary rights into the Constitution that were never there while interpretating explicit rights in the Constitution as ambiguous.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Random View Post
The three Liberal Justices voted against the doctors because the doctors didn't have standing. The Ridiculous Six voted against the doctors because they didn't want to hurt Trump's election prospects. If the case had landed in front of them on November 6, 2024, they might have ruled differently.

Look at what is happening with the current criminal cases against Trump. His lawyers are claiming absolute Presidential immunity, even after he is no longer the president, a concept that would put ALL presidents and former presidents above the law. Its laughable and downright ridiculous, which is why the federal appellant court pretty much insta-denied it.

So they took it to SCOTUS, who should have said no thanks. Instead, they decided to validate this ridiculous claim by accepting it, and now they are slow walking it to the end of July for submissions and a decision. It is clear they are trying to run out the clock so that the cases cannot proceed, or at least, to make it very difficult to proceed and be completed before the election.

I think Random's "solid evidence" amounts to "Look at their track record". Its pretty obvious that SCOTUS' right-wing six are in the tank for Trump.

The current Court, including the "Ridiculous Six" also voted down every case (IIRC 60) presented by Trump's lawyers and his allies regarding the "rigged and stolen election".

I agree the Court should have just upheld the lower courts' rulings on the idea of complete immunity as it seems so clear just what a stupid claim it is, but I'm not a lawyer and neither are you or Random. But there is another release of SC rulings next Friday (June 20). Let's see what happens next week before jumping to the conclusion that "The Ridiculous Six voted against the doctors because they didn't want to hurt Trump's election prospects." If even the liberal Justices said the doctors didn't have standing, claiming the R-6 didn't rule for the same reason is, as I said, conjecture.

I suggest how one interprets this has more to do with confirmation bias than actual evidence. And I don't think anyone can accuse me of being a supporter of the 6 conservative Justices.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's perhaps when the Justices insert imaginary rights into the Constitution that were never there while interpretating explicit rights in the Constitution as ambiguous.

That has nothing to do with why the Justices voted on the doctors not having standing. It was a unanimous decision.

 

[TragicMonkey]

If the SC rules that presidents have immunity then Joe Biden is going to go to their houses and pull down all their flags and put them back up rightside-up, and they won't be able to stop him!

 

[acbytesla]

If the SC rules that presidents have immunity then Joe Biden is going to go to their houses and pull down all their flags and put them back up rightside-up, and they won't be able to stop him!

They probably have no intention to rule that POTUS has absolute immunity. They are just playing the delay game. Wait until say October to rule.

 

[slyjoe]

They probably have no intention to rule that POTUS has absolute immunity. They are just playing the delay game. Wait until say October to rule.

Possible, but they usually recess in late June to early July. I would expect rulings every Friday leading up to then.

 

[smartcooky]

If the SC rules that presidents have immunity then Joe Biden is going to go to their houses and pull down all their flags and put them back up rightside-up, and they won't be able to stop him!

If they rule that presidents have absolute immunity, then Joe Biden could bring a 357 magnum to the presidential debate and blow the Fat Orange Prolapsed Anus away, and the law couldn't touch him.

ETA: OK, so that's bit OTT, but he could probably order an assassination and be immune from prosecution.

 

[Rosencrantz]

Don't go after Trump, go after the Supreme Court justices. Problem solved!

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

They probably have no intention to rule that POTUS has absolute immunity. They are just playing the delay game. Wait until say October to rule.

No they'll pull a Gore v Florida ruling, in that they'll rule that T****y absolutely has immunity but this ruling doesn't confer precedence.