Supreme Court strikes down restrictive Louisiana abortion law

[angrysoba]

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.

Link

 

[Segnosaur]

Supreme Court strikes down restrictive Louisiana abortion law

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'.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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"

 

[BobTheCoward]

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"

Do you think they interpreted the Constitution correctly?

 

[Belz...]

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 sure Collins is "very concerned" about all this.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Another Trump term practically guarantees a 5-4 conservative court that will issue rulings to totally undermine, if not overturn, Roe v. Wade.

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.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

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.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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.

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.

 

[Donal]

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.

That's one thing that drives liberals to the polls, but it's not the way it is with right-wingers.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

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?"

 

[Segnosaur]

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?"

He probably already had them back with the ruling on gay rights.

 

[uke2se]

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.

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.

 

[Donal]

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?"

He never lost them.

 

[Donal]

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.

You mean conservatives want judges to take an active role in shaping law? really? But that runs contrary to their cries of "activist judges".

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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.

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.

 

[Stacyhs]

You mean conservatives want judges to take an active role in shaping law? really? But that runs contrary to their cries of "activist judges".

Only when they are liberal activist judges. Conservative ones are great.

 

[pgwenthold]

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.

 

[Lurch]

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.

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.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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.