The anti-abortion doctors who first brought the case seeking to get mifepristone yanked from the markets filed a reply brief Tuesday, starting the clock on the Supreme Court’s response.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg. 6-3 instead of 5-4.
But the states….
Haphazard performance at the 2016 DNC. We should have left with a united party and nominee supported by more than we had
On the issue of standing, the ob/gyn plaintiffs assert they will be ‘harmed’ if they have to treat women suffering from (alleged) side effects of Mifepristone. So they are ‘harmed’ by doing their jobs? How ‘harmed’ are they when dealing with pregnancy complications? In a normal world the claim of ‘harm’ as used here would have been treated as ludicrous.
These ass hats don’t believe in the power of the Federal government, the power of the States, or the power of the judiciary, unless any or all agree with them. They only believe that their opinions represent universal truth and law to be applied to all. Self-righteousness run amok!
Interesting how a lobbying group can demand that SCOTUS not take part in something that pertains to the law, isn’t it?
There is one morally correct move here, for the SC to stay the ruling until they can deal with the two cases. I mean, really they should toss the BS judge shopped decision and the Fifth Circuit’s BS upholding of most of it, but that probably requires a bit of time to handle it, and until they can do that they should stay it entirely and put everything back to where it was before the decision was handed down.
I have no confidence that they will in fact do this. We are in the realm of the shadow docket right now, which means an unwritten decision based on conservative power instead of the law is on order. The only thing holding them back from what they obviously want to do is the backlash that will result…they thought they would be able to sneak Dobbs through and any reaction would die before the election, but it’s still reverberating a year later. This will be even worse, because this would show they are going after these things nationally instead of at the state level, and make it personal for all the women in the blue states who thought they would be unaffected by the assholiness of the Christian theocrats in the red states and their judicial puppets.
We’ll find out tomorrow how much the Republican SC justices care about the politics…you know Roberts is campaigning right now to put everything on hold, but it’s not clear the other five give a hoot about anything but grabbing power right now. The SC is on the verge of falling so far out of step with the nation that people will ignore it, and the criminal behavior of at least one justice is making all of that even worse. This could be the proverbial straw…but true believers who want a dictatorship don’t care about us little people.
Do you mean we should have had a different candidate, or that the other candidates should have supported her more clearly? I think the latter, although I’m not sure how much difference that made compared to the NYT and NPR bad faith reporting on trivial emails and favors that weren’t actually granted.
Republicans have created the Frankenstein monster of the Right-Wing judiciary. Now they can’t control it.
Here’s another
Go Oilers
I will never forgive Sanders for sandbagging HRC. Never.
Standing is a constitutional concept that is fundamental to all kinds of cases, not just abortion. The main reason to stay this decision pending appeal all the way to the SC is that Kaszmaryk has accepted an expanded definition of standing to allow this case to be considered at all. [Edit: No standing, no case.] All the justices care about standing, separate from the underlying merits of the case at issue. Doesn’t mean the Fed Soc legal complex isn’t open to creating a new definition of standing to suit their purposes, but permitting a nationwide ruling to go into effect without due consideration should not happen.
Fingers crossed.
In what alternate universe did the Republiclan party think we would not revolt over this ruling? They are caught in the middle of a no win situation they did to themselves. May they rot for eternity.
I hate these bastards. They think they have the right to interfere in someone else’s medical care? They should all be stripped of their licenses. What does that pesky oath say? Oh, yes, “First, do no harm.” Forcing women to have unhealthy, life-threatening pregnancies and unwanted children does not sound like it works with that part.
borderline o/t
“Overlook this one” would appear a lot more sensible had both lower courts not chosen to impose nationwide restrictions
[quote=“trnc, post:9, topic:236521”]
or that the other candidates should have supported her more clearly? I think the latter…
Unconscionable to leave the NOMINEE fighting against her own party**. When Barack became the Nominee, HRC fell in line far more than Sanders.
If we do not solve the Climate Crisis adequately, this will go down as one of the greatest wastes of an opportunity in our History.
** I have never been a fan of Hillary…But against Donald TRUMP???
While the Court has an obvious anti-abortion default posture, some court watchers — the Biden administration among them — are hoping that the ripple effects of allowing this kind of FDA challenge with such dubious plaintiff standing might give the Court pause. [emphasis mine]
Anyone would think that a Court, whose majority relied on a 17th century British jurist who sat in judgement over witch trials, would be given pause on anything is naïve.