No of course not – because that group shares the fatal flaw of the decisions being made by the Trump appointed judges. None of them believe that women’s lives matter. For DeSantis this extends to his personal life – exposing his cancer afflicted wife to situations where she might get Covid.
If the rule of law means anything worthwhile there are decisions which are logically possible under our foundational beliefs and ones which are not. It is not simply an agreement to submit the personal beliefs of whomever is installed in office whether legitimately or not.
In the current situation not only are the decision logically ludicrous and in defiance of the moral beliefs of the vast majority of our citizens those who made the decisions were illegitimately appointed. At the Supreme Court level this has been true since the refusal to consider Garland.
In a society founded on the belief that government rests on the consent of the governed it behooves any group of judges appointed by administrations which were elected without the support of a majority of the electorate to adhere to our foundational beliefs. The current group believe they have the right (and the moral duty) to impose their personal religious beliefs in the rest of us. We owe them little or no obedience. We are citizens --not subjects.
Any formulation of law which requires a woman to carry a dead or dying fetus until the point where her own survival is at risk is morally abhorrent and absurd and not to be tolerated.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk does not give a rat’s ass about the science - all he cares about is ramming though rulings that align with his ideology.
If someone could figure out how to bring him a case that would revoke the 13, 14 & 15 amendments - he would do it in a heartbeat.
He appears to be a complete zealot - entirely without any discernment - and totally lost in a demented quest to turn the nation into a christo-facsist totalatrian state ruled by a bunch of extreme fundamentalist ayatollahs.
Yes. It does make me wonder what would happen if some judge [preferably a woman] issued a ruling against viagra and it competitors, based on similar safety issues.
I’ve been saying for months that democrats need to start preparing themselves to defy a court order. Wyden is right and we need to consider simply refusing to enforce Kacsmaryk’s decision, and using the executive to make clear that it is a dead letter.
This situation will just get worse. Better to draw the line here, where public opinion will probably be on our side, than to wait for a more important, but less politically potent issue. Like when this so-called jurist tries to swing the outcome of the next election. Or something similarly dire. Worse is coming, though, and we need to be ready for it, with a plan that doesn’t rely on this supreme court doing the right thing.
Yeah that feature doesn’t seem to weigh in with certain followers, even though there are current examples that have been around for all of us to see, i.e. Russia.
The obvious thing for the FDA to do here is to say that given the conflicting rulings from two different circuits that they’re going to err on the side of public health and avoid a disruptive shutdown of mifepristone. I would do this even before the courts decide on a stay pending appeal.
Some Dem politicians are openly speaking out to challenge and defy this ruling. I think more need to do so. We cannot keep granting legitimacy to a rigged and corrupt process. Judges have unchecked power which conservatives are asserting for absolutist and political ends. This corrupt forum shopping has allowed radicals funded by wealthy, reclusive hard right organizations to keep serving up cases through the system which give ideological and/or corrupt higher court judges at the appellate and supreme courts more bites at the apple to whittle away and undermine our laws and rights. They’re legislating from the bench. This corrupt process is how we got to Dobbs.
Dems need to openly challenge the legitimacy of such radical rulings, and only then might the system begin to self correct from within. Legislative reforms that expand the Supreme Court, impose mandatory rotations on the higher courts, impose ethics standards for SCOTUS judges, and imposes additional, enforceable ethics standards on lower court judges are the ultimate goals. However, by the time we get to that point we might be living under a Christianized version of Sharia law (Sharia law, version c, if you will). Challenge nutter rulings and judges now can help mend the broken system in advance of that legislation.
Republicans are so overplaying their Judges hand that Democrat’s main platform for '24 will have to be Judicial ethics overhaul, court expansion to fix Dobbs, Citizens United, Gerrymandering.
In the Indic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism) the law of karma is a given. The question arises whether the law needs someone to operate it or not. With some strands of Hinduism, and in Buddhism and Jainism, the answer is no.
The only relevant question is whether the rogue right winger in Texas’s frankly lawless opinion is too far for his fellow reactionaries on SCOTUS. I think it’s possible. Finding standing when none exists, throwing out an FDA finding over 20 years old (when remanding to them on whether authorization should be revoked is legally required — assuming there was standing), and a crazy decision that reads like an anti abortion crank wrote it in crayon all point to per se reversible error.
I would add that litigants in this case and every single matter of any political impact should move to recuse “justice” Thomas. The motion should be accompanied by a news conference to achieve maximum effect and place Thomas in a no-win position. That goes without saying.
They aren’t going after the mail. They’d go after the mailer. But you are right that there are big commerce clause / negative commerce clause problems here.
