SCOTUS grants certiorari to Louisiana abortion law case

[Atreus21]

Supreme Court to hear major Louisiana abortion case

The justices have agreed to take up a Louisiana law that could leave the state with just one clinic

www.cbsnews.com

The Supreme Court on Friday announced it would take up an anti-abortion Louisiana law, the first time the high court will look at abortion regulations since Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh flipped the Supreme Court conservative. If the justices rule in favor of Louisiana's law, the state would become the seventh in the country with just one abortion clinic.

The law in question is nearly identical to one that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 2016. The high court in February indicated it would take a thorough look at the case when it agreed to block the law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

I hate to be optimistic, but this could be good news for pro-lifers.

The SCOTUS had three options available to it:

1. It could've summarily overturned the 5th circuit.
2. It could've declined certiorari, allowing the 5th circuit decision to stand.
3. It could've accepted the case for review.

So:

1. The four liberal justices could only have summarily overturned with a conservative justice assisting them, probably Roberts. That didn't happen.
2. The four liberal justices had sufficient votes to decline certiorari, allowing the 5th circuit decision to stand, which obviously they wouldn't do.
3. The court accepted the case for review.

Conclusion: Roberts is not with the liberal wing.

I wonder.

 

[brycejones]

It’s a happy day when women’s rights are trampled on in America.

 

[Victorian Gray]

It’s a happy day when women’s rights are trampled on in America.

Now if we could only take that pesky vote thing away from them.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

It would be a little weird for the SCOTUS to flop on its own ruling from 3 years ago. Roberts does seem genuinely interested in preserving some semblance of respectibility in at least one branch of the government, so we'll see what the game is here.

 

[Vic]

Good plan if your agenda is to remind voters that elections matter.

 

[ecogen]

Supreme Court to hear major Louisiana abortion case

The justices have agreed to take up a Louisiana law that could leave the state with just one clinic

www.cbsnews.com

I hate to be optimistic, but this could be good news for pro-lifers.

The SCOTUS had three options available to it:

1. It could've summarily overturned the 5th circuit.
2. It could've declined certiorari, allowing the 5th circuit decision to stand.
3. It could've accepted the case for review.

So:

1. The four liberal justices could only have summarily overturned with a conservative justice assisting them, probably Roberts. That didn't happen.
2. The four liberal justices had sufficient votes to decline certiorari, allowing the 5th circuit decision to stand, which obviously they wouldn't do.
3. The court accepted the case for review.

Conclusion: Roberts is not with the liberal wing.

I wonder.

When are you donating one of your kidneys and your bone marrow?

 

[K1052]

This SCOTUS will make it legal for states to basically legislate abortion out of existence while not outright prohibiting it and pretend it's a triumph for the law.

If pro lifer's actually cared about their issue they'd have been supporting every contraceptive that came to market to be freely available to all. Its not about that, it's about the fucking they disapprove of and want to punish women for. The available evidence shows that as more cheap effective contraceptive options have reached the market the abortion rate has fallen to historic lows. Instead it's no abortions and abstinence education.

 

[glenn1]

This SCOTUS will make it legal for states to basically legislate abortion out of existence while not outright prohibiting it and pretend it's a triumph for the law.

If pro lifer's actually cared about their issue they'd have been supporting every contraceptive that came to market to be freely available to all. Its not about that, it's about the fucking they disapprove of and want to punish women for. The available evidence shows that as more cheap effective contraceptive options have reached the market the abortion rate has fallen to historic lows. Instead it's no abortions and abstinence education.

While correct you're still conflating two different issues. WRT abortion the Supreme Court basically invented a right not in the Constitution and used it to short circuit the democratic process. Roe v. Wade should be overturned on that basis alone. If you want to sponsor and get passed a "Privacy Amendment" to the Constitution you'd have my enthusiastic support plus you'd not be bastardizing the Supreme Court for partisan ends anymore. Hopefully the Privacy Amendment completely ends the surveillance state we suffer under as well.

Contraceptives are a completely different issue and I agree with you completely. This is one of the instances where public taxpayer funding of the service in question obviously serves an enormous public good and should be done aggressively, especially since the cost is relatively trivial.

 

[K1052]

While correct you're still conflating two different issues. WRT abortion the Supreme Court basically invented a right not in the Constitution and used it to short circuit the democratic process. Roe v. Wade should be overturned on that basis alone. If you want to sponsor and get passed a "Privacy Amendment" to the Constitution you'd have my enthusiastic support plus you'd not be bastardizing the Supreme Court for partisan ends anymore. Hopefully the Privacy Amendment completely ends the surveillance state we suffer under as well.

If "it's not in the constitution so it was invented" is really an argument here it's not much of one since a shit ton of stuff the court decides on is not explicitly in there.

Contraceptives are a completely different issue and I agree with you completely. This is one of the instances where public taxpayer funding of the service in question obviously serves an enormous public good and should be done aggressively, especially since the cost is relatively trivial.

Social conservatives are dead seat against this. Every bit as much as abortion. They seek to impose their sexual morality on the entire nation by law.

 

[fskimospy]

Supreme Court to hear major Louisiana abortion case

The justices have agreed to take up a Louisiana law that could leave the state with just one clinic

www.cbsnews.com

I hate to be optimistic, but this could be good news for pro-lifers.

The SCOTUS had three options available to it:

1. It could've summarily overturned the 5th circuit.
2. It could've declined certiorari, allowing the 5th circuit decision to stand.
3. It could've accepted the case for review.

So:

1. The four liberal justices could only have summarily overturned with a conservative justice assisting them, probably Roberts. That didn't happen.
2. The four liberal justices had sufficient votes to decline certiorari, allowing the 5th circuit decision to stand, which obviously they wouldn't do.
3. The court accepted the case for review.

Conclusion: Roberts is not with the liberal wing.

I wonder.

Summary judgments like that are extraordinarily rare and you only need 4 justices to grant cert.

All that aside even if the court does side with the anti-choice movement as others here mentioned all that does is provide a precedent where states can legislate away constitutional rights through bad faith regulation. Conservatives might want to consider what the consequences of that could be.

 

[fskimospy]

While correct you're still conflating two different issues. WRT abortion the Supreme Court basically invented a right not in the Constitution and used it to short circuit the democratic process. Roe v. Wade should be overturned on that basis alone. If you want to sponsor and get passed a "Privacy Amendment" to the Constitution you'd have my enthusiastic support plus you'd not be bastardizing the Supreme Court for partisan ends anymore. Hopefully the Privacy Amendment completely ends the surveillance state we suffer under as well.

Contraceptives are a completely different issue and I agree with you completely. This is one of the instances where public taxpayer funding of the service in question obviously serves an enormous public good and should be done aggressively, especially since the cost is relatively trivial.

The Constitution is EXTREMELY specific that there are rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution that the Constitution nonetheless protects. I mean they went way out of their way to guarantee that there was no ambiguity there.

Saying that because a right is not enumerated in it that it is not protected is itself a violation of the Constitution.

 

[IronWing]

I hate to be optimistic, but this could be good news for pro-lifers.

And all it costed you was liberal democracy and your eternal souls. Best deal ever.

 

[nakedfrog]

'memba when Boofie said something about settled law and respecting precedent?

 

[mect]

When are you donating one of your kidneys and your bone marrow?

No, that's the wrong question. The proper question is when will the government call for the forced removal of your kidney and bone marrow. A woman electing to take her pregnancy to term is wonderful. A woman being forced to is morally abhorrent. A person freely donating a kidney is laudable. A person forced to give up a kidney is reprehensible.

 

[ecogen]

No, that's the wrong question. The proper question is when will the government call for the forced removal of your kidney and bone marrow. A woman electing to take her pregnancy to term is wonderful. A woman being forced to is morally abhorrent. A person freely donating a kidney is laudable. A person forced to give up a kidney is reprehensible.

Your analogy is indeed better, however I expect these "pro-life" people to lead by example. People are dying while they are selfishly holding on to their kidneys.

 

[mect]

Your analogy is indeed better, however I expect these "pro-life" people to lead by example. People are dying while they are selfishly holding on to their kidneys.

It sure is easy to dictate morality when its someone else's body.

Edit:
Its also interesting that the support for moral policing declines when its males that are affected. For example, support for forced sterilization of any man not paying his child support never seems to gain any traction.

 

[glenn1]

No, that's the wrong question. The proper question is when will the government call for the forced removal of your kidney and bone marrow. A woman electing to take her pregnancy to term is wonderful. A woman being forced to is morally abhorrent. A person freely donating a kidney is laudable. A person forced to give up a kidney is reprehensible.

Seems like if you replace “kidney” with wallet we already do this.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Pro-birthers wait with baited breath and holier-than-thou anticipation

 

[ch33zw1z]

Seems like if you replace “kidney” with wallet we already do this.

Forever FYGM.

 

[fskimospy]

Seems like if you replace “kidney” with wallet we already do this.

But the Constitution that we all adhere to explicitly states that this is something the government can do.

 

[glenn1]

But the Constitution that we all adhere to explicitly states that this is something the government can do.

Well then I guess the fact the Constitution doesn't explicitly state anything about abortion is directly relevant here.

 

[fskimospy]

Well then I guess the fact the Constitution doesn't explicitly state anything about abortion is directly relevant here.

No, it would not be. Why would you think that?

 

[glenn1]

No, it would not be. Why would you think that?

Just trying to establish that should SCOTUS overturn Roe v. Wade it will be completely justified since "the right to privacy" is a completely made up Constitutional right. If a "Privacy Amendment" were proposed (and included doing away with surveillance as well as allowing abortion) I'd support it wholeheartedly.

 

[fskimospy]

Just trying to establish that should SCOTUS overturn Roe v. Wade it will be completely justified since "the right to privacy" is a completely made up Constitutional right.

No, they would be very wrong and would ignore the explicit, stayed intent of the bill of rights. A right does not need to be enumerated in order to be a right. They wrote a whole amendment about it!

If a "Privacy Amendment" were proposed (and included doing away with surveillance as well as allowing abortion) I'd support it wholeheartedly.

Not necessary.

 

[glenn1]

No, they would be very wrong and would ignore the explicit, stayed intent of the bill of rights. A right does not need to be enumerated in order to be a right. They wrote a whole amendment about it!

Not necessary.

Yeah, like the 10th amendment which seems to be the applicable one here since if Roe v. Wade was overturned the issue would become an issue for states to decide. I see no reason why abortion would be a federalized medical procedure. We don't allow or prohibit appendectomies or wisdom tooth removal at a federal level and for good reason.