Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Regulation Law

TPM Article Topics
1

On Monday, the Supreme Court delivered a win for abortion rights activists by striking down a clinic restriction law out of Louisiana. It was a five to four decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberals in a concurring decision.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1317676
2 Likes
2

https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1277609073148657665

Tribe-Kav-Roberts
Tribe-Kav-Roberts592×316 63.3 KB

What say you Susan Collins?

Are you disappointed and concerned yet that Kavbeernaugh did NOT respect SC precedent?

Roberts must be very concerned about his legacy for again he is siding with the liberal justices!

Just a reminder that under Roberts, there had been 73 partisan 5-4 decisions as of Nov 2019 per Slate.

Addendum:

Speaking of Kavbeernaugh


Trump-Kav-leak
Trump-Kav-leak595×533 92.5 KB

Addendum2:

This article from Dahlia Lithwick is worth a read


Roberts is, and has always been, a master of doing small things that look like big things, and of making big things look trivial.

But the drumbeat that fĂȘtes Roberts as a “liberal” or a “moderate” or “evolving” fails to capture what he is. And he is a lifelong conservative, an avowed abortion opponent, and a supporter of capacious religious liberties that will swallow crucial civil liberties who also still cares—mercifully—about appearances, institutions, truth, stability, the appearance of adulthood and competence, and above all, the long game.

Lithwick’s take below is what we need to watch out for!

At some point, they will lawyer carefully and effectively again, as John Roberts has been doing since he was a very careful young lawyer himself. When that happens, they will have five votes at the high court, and John Roberts will have shown them how to do the big one.

Addendum3:

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1277968266976100359

A day later

Another Robert’s Court partisan decision:

“5-4 that Montana’s exclusion of religious schools from state scholarship program funded by tax credits violates federal Constitution”

50 Likes
3

I’d say now would be the time for Trump to start freaking the F out about his tax returns


33 Likes
4

Can’t speak to tax returns, but you damned betcha that the Teavangelicals are going to be convinced that Roberts has turned on them.

30 Likes
5

Samuel Alito is going to go ape shit! Again!

8 Likes
6

Roberts was a question mark as the case unfurled, though some speculated that an eye on his legacy and discomfort with overtly political moves would prompt him to join the liberals.

Just your weekly reminder: Roberts will sometimes vote the right way on abortion rights and gay rights, but he will never rule against voter suppression, gerrymandering, and other tools of continued GOP minority rule.

61 Likes
7

I’ll take these kinds of wins, anyway, anyhow


Just less damage for President Biden to have to undo


39 Likes
8

I don’t know, I get the feeling he’s siding with the liberals now so he has cover to side with Trump on the tax returns.

9 Likes
9

tomorrow AM headline:

three crushed as trumpanzees pull down John Roberts statue

“I told’em not ta stand there, now I gotta drink two beers”

2 Likes
10

Well, if folks woulda just voted for HRC in 2016, we’d have a liberal majority on the SCOTUS and this case never comes up. Vote!

As for the conservatives, they’ve been fighting a losing battle for decades. The assumption of this case is Roe v Wade is ‘settled law’. That means any burden on that law is looked at with a skeptical eye. It’s why they keep losing a lot of these cases. If they want to do this for real they need to be able to argue that Roe v Wade is as unconstitutional as the pro-segregation cases like Plessy v Ferguson were. They won’t do that b/c the GOP would lose a third of their voters on the spot. If they ever muscle in a ruling which restricts abortion, that would also spur a big political backlash. They’re losing over time but the Dem coalition has to stop shooting themselves in the foot at the ballot box. They can’t avoid showing up in midterms as happened in 2010 and 2014 or get distracted by 3rd parties and conservative propaganda as they did in 2016.

All of this drama was preventable.

69 Likes
11

There was also this vote that will pass under the radar and shows Robert’s true colors:

#SCOTUS rules that structure of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unconstitutional because the agency is led by one director who can only be removed “for cause,” but leaves rest of statute creating the CFPB in place.

And a tweet: This seems to be the modus operandi of Roberts. The occasional face turn on incendiary cultural issues, tempered with the quiet dismantling of our regulatory state when we’re all distracted.

36 Likes
12

In an ironic turn, Roberts concurred with the Louisiana decision due to precedent — established by the Texas decision which he dissented from.

I’d guess, “you don’t need a weatherman to tell which way the wind’s blowing,” about covers it.

20 Likes
13

Dissents by Thomas, Alito+Gorsuch with some Thomas&Kavanaugh, and by Gorsuch, and by Kavanaugh. Stare confusus.

24 Likes
14

So you don’t think the House and the NYC DA get to see Trump’s financial documents? I’ll not be surprised if that goes Trump’s way, but I hope it doesn’t.

11 Likes
15

The Dems absolutely have to win this election and capture control of the Senate. If they don’t, conservatives will populate the courts with more hacks like Kavanaugh and Rao.

45 Likes
16

“I joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided,” Roberts wrote. “The question today however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.”

“The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike,”

I strongly support the decision, but that is one pathetic argument from Roberts. If he believes Whole Woman’s Health was wrongly decided then he should have used this case to reverse it. You do not cite bad law as a precedent to sustain bad law.

@bcgister The only way Roberts could legitimately rationalize his vote would be to admit he was wrong in Whole Woman’s Health.

31 Likes
17

Still waiting on those Bloomberg / Steyer GOTV dollars to come flowing in
 


26 Likes
18

"“The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike,” he added. "

Threading a needle is tough for the near sighted, but he did it.

I understand Kavanaugh put his two cents in. “Beer, I like Beer-yah!”

6 Likes
19

I think that one will be punted until after the election. By then Roberts will know which way to jump.

8 Likes
20

If Roberts is actually going with stare decisis, shouldn’t that mean Roe is safe? :wink: (I have trouble believing this, but the possibility will drive Teavangelicals around the bend, which I’m totally here for.)

8 Likes