For this Supreme Court to reject abortion restrictions, the argument has to be pretty bad.
“That it?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett cut in tersely as anti-abortion group lawyer Erin Hawley (yes, that Hawley) enumerated the supposed harms to a group of doctors from the Food and Drug Administration lifting restrictions on abortion drug mifepristone.
a refreshingly dismissive take on corporate interest from a right-wing judge
Alito is contractually bound to pay lip service to the law once every five years.
Srsly, if there are future generations of scholars analyzing early 21st century jurisprudence, I wonder whether they will classify the current Supreme Court as part of the judicial branch of the federal government, or as an anti-regulatory arm of Corporate America.
As desperate as it may look for the anti-abortionist prosecution, they could still win this case, just because. Won’t matter that the arguments were shoddy, won’t matter that the argument was bad, won’t matter that the fight went out of Alito.
They’ll catch their collective breath and come back with the decision that their benefactors insist upon, regardless of the legitimacy of the arguments.
Here’s hoping I’m wrong, but this could actually be a lot closer than the 7-2 margin some are calling out.
I think you’re wrong. Even if some of the right wingers have to hold their nose and toss it, the precedent for unregulating ALL pharmaceuticals and defanging the FDA is too much for even them. Industry needs and wants the regulations because it establishes the ground rules and evens the playing field. The consumer needs the FDA to protect them. We have the best drug approval agency in the world. Remember, it was our FDA that would not approve thalidomide to treat nausea in pregnancy.
Maybe some of the “just-usses” don’t want to get snubbed at all the cool summer spots the way Dershowitz did at the Vineyard a while back?
I think they’ll simply be known as openly corrupt, lawless idealogues “IF” there are future legal scholars and the court hasn’t outright abolished democracy by then.
What’s truly scary is that no one has any faith that this court will do the obviously correct thing with this case. They make up their own facts, history, and law. It’s not even an activist judiciary; they’re just fantacists at this point.
Sadly, the SCOTUS has become ridiculous, but even worse are the anti-abortion sycophants that are under some sort of delusion that someday they will end abortions. Sorry, girls, but time and morality are not on your side. You should give it up and join PETA or something else to grift contributions for. Time and tide have moved on, without you.
A genuine question. Who would have standing to bring suit under the Comstock law? Or would this be a criminal case, brought by a state AG or a future Trump Dept of Justice?
Under certain circumstances the Catholic Church still holds that suicide is a mortal sin. So would these hyper-moralistic physicians have qualms about treating a failed suicide?
The next lawsuit will use the Comstock Act to try to stop shipping drugs intended to be used for abortion through US Mail.
But would the Comstock Act prevent FedEx, Amazon, and UPS shipments?
Yep. You know the Federalist Christo-fascist are already preparing the Comstock Act case. They’ll work on it along with rescinding no-fault divorce, and allowing the Wimmenfolk to vote.
It appears to me that Uncle Clarence would really like to drag this country back to the 18th century. Sadly, he does not realize what that would do to his marriage. It’s also highly doubtful that he would have a seat on the court. Anthony Comstock was a blue-nosed busybody.
In the article it refers to the US postal service and any common carrier. That language may include private carriers. IANAL
“I respond that you would have to also overrule Griswold and Eisenstadt and toss out the First Amendment, you cretin.”
It’s a federal criminal law, not a civil cause of action. DOJ would have to prosecute.
Yep, apart from the fact that the whole thing is so obviously unconstitutional. 18 U.S.C. §1462.
I’m sure he will find a way to carve out an exception for himself, one that will not apply to say Pete Buttigieg when that comes up.
Why would you assume that women are driving the anti-abortion movement?
Of course you’re 100% right. Even if they think the timing isn’t right, then the oligarchs will tell them to back off to not add fuel to the fire for 2024, but they will get exactly what they want once the left sufficiently embraces the stupid idea that “we won.”
There isn’t a state in the country that still has a statute on the books prohibiting interracial marriage. No statutes means no cases to present to Uncle Thomas.
Even if there were a statute somewhere, overturning Loving wouldn’t work an annulment of any existing marriage, and states would still be required to give full faith and credit to marriages performed in other states.
Uncle Thomas knows perfectly well that Loving is founded on both Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process grounds. His ideological beef is with the latter, not the former. So he wants the government to be able to come after your birth control, not anyone’s interracial marriage.
OT: NBC News to rescind Ronna McDaniel’s contract after outcry from top talent, report says. Bye, Ronna.
The majority of 18 USC §1462 has fatal 1st Amendment problems, but “(c) any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use;” seems to fall within Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. Not sure how the Court would address an exemption for vibrators, dildos, and related medical devices, but that’s their problem.