Chief Justice Roberts continues to foil right-wing - LA law unconstitutional

[Jimmy Higgins]

In a 5-4 decision, the court said that the Louisiana law was "bullshit". Okay, I shouldn't have quoted that.

The Louisiana Law ignored the 2016 SCOTUS ruling on a Texas law that indicated that regulations designed to make abortions illegal by nickel and diming were "bullshit". Damn it. I did it again!

Louisiana should be punished for making this ruling even necessary as it ignored the SCOTUS ruling.

Clearly, Chief Justice Roberts is looking at his legacy of this court as he voted with the dissent in the 2016 Texas case ruling.

I think simply put, the Chief Justice recognizes the most important aspect of law... stability. If SCOTUS rules against this after just 4 years, there is no sense of even having a SCOTUS as it would clearly become a partisan tool .

Justice Thomas makes with his Jim Crow-esque defense of the Louisiana law.

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “Today a majority of the Court perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction.”

Yeah, that is what the South said Justice Thomas. It was wink wink, nudge nudge. Separate but equal. We are just thinking of the patients safety.

And in other news, with Kavanaugh's vote, Senator Collins can start packing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think that Trump has utterly failed so badly as President, when a court ruling like this kind of just falls off the front of the newspaper.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Thing is, this decision could easily have gone the other way. And like some previous decisions, Roberts' "opinion" is basically telling them how to get it past him.

The only good thing is that so many of the rightwing lawyers are utterly incompetent, they can't even get Roberts to sign on to it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Thing is, this decision could easily have gone the other way. And like some previous decisions, Roberts' "opinion" is basically telling them how to get it past him.

Except the first section of his opinion pretty much said precedence matters.

 

[Derec]

LA Law unconstitutional?

 

[Lion IRC]

...I think simply put, the Chief Justice recognizes the most important aspect of law... stability. If SCOTUS rules against this after just 4 years, there is no sense of even having a SCOTUS as it would clearly become a partisan tool.

Stability?

A divided court doesn't convey any sense of stability.

5/4 says The Law^TM and its underlying principles are anything BUT clear.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...I think simply put, the Chief Justice recognizes the most important aspect of law... stability. If SCOTUS rules against this after just 4 years, there is no sense of even having a SCOTUS as it would clearly become a partisan tool.

Stability?

A divided court doesn't convey any sense of stability.

5/4 says The Law^TM and its underlying principles are anything BUT clear.

That's certainly true. Kavanaugh is actually a Supreme Court justice.

 

[laughing dog]

...I think simply put, the Chief Justice recognizes the most important aspect of law... stability. If SCOTUS rules against this after just 4 years, there is no sense of even having a SCOTUS as it would clearly become a partisan tool.

Stability?

A divided court doesn't convey any sense of stability.

5/4 says The Law^TM and its underlying principles are anything BUT clear.

It sends a clear message that unless a "liberal" justice is replaced by a conservative one, that abortion rights are not going to be restricted by this court. That is stability whether one likes it or not.

 

[lpetrich]

These Louisiana and Texas laws are attacks on abortion by regulating it to death.

But there is much better news from elsewhere in the world: New Zealand passes landmark law to decriminalise abortion | News | Al Jazeera - "New law allows women who are up to 20 weeks pregnant to have an abortion without approval from a health practitioner."

New Zealand's parliament voted to decriminalise abortion in a move Justice Minister Andrew Little said modernised legislation and gave women control over their bodies. New Zealand had until now maintained abortion as an offence under the 1961 Crimes Act, with jail terms of up to 14 years for those who had a termination. The act required women to secure the approval of two doctors, but only if they assessed the pregnancy presented a danger to their physical or mental health before they could get an abortion. While the law was never enforced and women who underwent abortions were not liable for prosecution, Little said the change was needed. The minister said the requirement forced most women to lie about their mental health and caused unnecessary delays, which added health risks. "From now abortions will be rightly treated as a health issue," he said in a statement on Wednesday. "The previous law required a woman seeking an abortion to go through many hoops. The changes agreed to by parliament will better ensure women get advice and treatment in a more timely way.

 Abortion law - The World's Abortion Laws | Center for Reproductive Rights - Abortion Laws Around the World | Pew Research Center

Abortion Rises as a Pivotal Issue for At-Risk Senate Republicans - The New York Times like Susan Collins

When Ms. Collins, a Maine Republican, cast a decisive vote to confirm Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in 2018, she did so on the premise that he would uphold precedent to preserve abortion rights. But on Monday, Justice Kavanaugh dissented from a decision that did that, arguing that the court should have ruled differently than it did in a nearly identical case four years ago.

“Do you still think Brett Kavanaugh believes Roe v. Wade is settled law, @SenSusanCollins?” tweeted Ms. Gideon, Ms. Collins’s likely Democratic opponent.

Let's see if SC is any bit pissed at BK about this, whether she feels any bit stabbed in the back about this.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Thing is, this decision could easily have gone the other way. And like some previous decisions, Roberts' "opinion" is basically telling them how to get it past him.

The only good thing is that so many of the rightwing lawyers are utterly incompetent, they can't even get Roberts to sign on to it.

Sometimes I think Roberts' ideology is more about preserving normalcy. He seems to sense that the court should not pitch too far right or left.

 

[laughing dog]

These Louisiana and Texas laws are attacks on abortion by regulating it to death.

But there is much better news from elsewhere in the world: New Zealand passes landmark law to decriminalise abortion | News | Al Jazeera - "New law allows women who are up to 20 weeks pregnant to have an abortion without approval from a health practitioner."

New Zealand's parliament voted to decriminalise abortion in a move Justice Minister Andrew Little said modernised legislation and gave women control over their bodies. New Zealand had until now maintained abortion as an offence under the 1961 Crimes Act, with jail terms of up to 14 years for those who had a termination. The act required women to secure the approval of two doctors, but only if they assessed the pregnancy presented a danger to their physical or mental health before they could get an abortion. While the law was never enforced and women who underwent abortions were not liable for prosecution, Little said the change was needed. The minister said the requirement forced most women to lie about their mental health and caused unnecessary delays, which added health risks. "From now abortions will be rightly treated as a health issue," he said in a statement on Wednesday. "The previous law required a woman seeking an abortion to go through many hoops. The changes agreed to by parliament will better ensure women get advice and treatment in a more timely way.

 Abortion law - The World's Abortion Laws | Center for Reproductive Rights - Abortion Laws Around the World | Pew Research Center

Abortion Rises as a Pivotal Issue for At-Risk Senate Republicans - The New York Times like Susan Collins

When Ms. Collins, a Maine Republican, cast a decisive vote to confirm Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in 2018, she did so on the premise that he would uphold precedent to preserve abortion rights. But on Monday, Justice Kavanaugh dissented from a decision that did that, arguing that the court should have ruled differently than it did in a nearly identical case four years ago.

“Do you still think Brett Kavanaugh believes Roe v. Wade is settled law, @SenSusanCollins?” tweeted Ms. Gideon, Ms. Collins’s likely Democratic opponent.

Let's see if SC is any bit pissed at BK about this, whether she feels any bit stabbed in the back about this.

More importantly, will a sufficient number of Maine voters factor this in their vote for senator in November? Senator Collins has shown a disappointing ability to correctly assess what is going on in a variety of issues.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

...I think simply put, the Chief Justice recognizes the most important aspect of law... stability. If SCOTUS rules against this after just 4 years, there is no sense of even having a SCOTUS as it would clearly become a partisan tool.

Stability?

A divided court doesn't convey any sense of stability.

5/4 says The Law^TM and its underlying principles are anything BUT clear.

I guess you need to find some silver lining. This must be depressing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Stability?

A divided court doesn't convey any sense of stability.

5/4 says The Law^TM and its underlying principles are anything BUT clear.

I guess you need to find some silver lining. This must be depressing.

It's really silly. Ever watch the old-old Dragnet episodes? It's really striking how TV cop arrests changed when they started reading them their Miranda rights. Which followed the Miranda Decision. Which made it established law.
And while sometimes the specifics of one's Miranda Rights were a major plot point ("You didn't read him his rights, so ____ is inadmissable!"), at no point was anyone questioning the rights based on the number of justices voting with or against the final decision.
(It was also a 5-4 decision.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Stability?

A divided court doesn't convey any sense of stability.

5/4 says The Law^TM and its underlying principles are anything BUT clear.

I guess you need to find some silver lining. This must be depressing.

It's really silly. Ever watch the old-old Dragnet episodes? It's really striking how TV cop arrests changed when they started reading them their Miranda rights. Which followed the Miranda Decision. Which made it established law.
And while sometimes the specifics of one's Miranda Rights were a major plot point ("You didn't read him his rights, so ____ is inadmissable!"), at no point was anyone questioning the rights based on the number of justices voting with or against the final decision.
(It was also a 5-4 decision.)

I would agree that cases being decided 5-4 aren't exactly the greatest thing, the instability is when SCOTUS overrules itself 4 years after a particular ruling that upheld previous rulings.

Meanwhile:

Prosecutor: You didn't read him his rights, so that evidence is inadmissable!
Officer: But according to a dissenting judge in the Miranda case...

 

[Lion IRC]

...I think simply put, the Chief Justice recognizes the most important aspect of law... stability. If SCOTUS rules against this after just 4 years, there is no sense of even having a SCOTUS as it would clearly become a partisan tool.

Stability?

A divided court doesn't convey any sense of stability.

5/4 says The Law^TM and its underlying principles are anything BUT clear.

I guess you need to find some silver lining. This must be depressing.

No, Roe V Wade was depressing.
This is just more evidence that nobody has the "right" to life as long as someone else gets to decide whether youre a human being. 4 out of 9 people believe youre a human being...gee

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I guess you need to find some silver lining. This must be depressing.

No, Roe V Wade was depressing.
This is just more evidence that nobody has the "right" to life as long as someone else gets to decide whether youre a human being. 4 out of 9 people believe youre a human being...gee

Same four don’t think gays can have sex without jail time.

 

[laughing dog]

I guess you need to find some silver lining. This must be depressing.

No, Roe V Wade was depressing.
This is just more evidence that nobody has the "right" to life as long as someone else gets to decide whether youre a human being. 4 out of 9 people believe youre a human being...gee

Are you sure each one of those 4 believe a fetus is a human being? For all you know, someone's disagreement may lay elsewhere than your delusional belief that a fetus is a person.