They have a submission in front of Rice basically saying ‘tell us to ignore Kacsmaryk’s ruling’.
Let’s hope either that or a stay of the injunction (from the 5th Circuit Court or SCOTUS) comes quickly.
11 Likes
Simply ignoring Christo-fascist rulings by Christo-fascist judges should never even be considered. Period.
6 Likes
“No,” a White House spokesperson said, when asked whether it plans to ignore Kacsmaryk’s ruling, and any future decisions upholding it, and have the FDA use its enforcement discretion to leave mifepristone on the market.
“We stand by FDA’s approval of mifepristone, and we are prepared for a long legal fight, if needed,” the spokesperson continued. “The focus of the Administration is on ensuring that we prevail in the courts. There is a process in place for appealing this decision and we will pursue that process vigorously and do everything we can to prevail in the courts.”
The answer is not to refuse to enforce. There is an appeals process, and the decisions will be stayed while it all plays out. It was my belief, even before the Washington decision, that the ruling would be stayed, mainly because it cannot be credibly argued that there is any ‘emergency’ requiring immediate removal of a drug that has been widely used and demonstrated safe over 23 years in the US (and longer in other countries).
14 Likes
WH shouldn’t grant this judge legitimacy. They should take the position that given the conflicting rulings from 2 separate districts, FDA guidance on mifepristone will remain unchanged unless otherwise directed by the higher court AND that they have filed the notice to seek a stay while on appeal.
25 Likes
When Trump was first elected, a friend (who is has a black belt) made this remark to me and I’ve thought of it often. I think it’s particularly apt here: In a fight between someone who follows the rules and someone who wants to win, always bet on the one who wants to win.
Obviously, we want to be a nation of laws. But we ceded that ground to the Republicans when they nominated and then elected Trump. Now our choice is between becoming lawless to win or continuing to lose. It’s a terrible choice; don’t get me wrong, I absolutely think the Biden Administration is doing the right thing here. It’s just that we’re never going to get our rights back this way in the political climate that Trump and his sycophants have created with their win-at-any-cost ethos.
12 Likes
That’s a rather dangerous precedent. It’s a bit like saying “I don’t agree with the judge so I’ll ignore him.” That’s way too close to what Andrew Jackson did after Worcester v. Georgia. I agree this judge’s ruling is a bit nuts but, once Presidents start picking and choosing which judicial rulings are lawful, Democracy itself is in a lot of trouble.
4 Likes
Cockholster lost the popular vote by 2.8 million. He was never legitimately elected, he was selected.
4 Likes
I can appreciate a functioning government that follows process but they’re going to need to be really careful here with the problem their lack of urgency helped create in the judicial branch.
2 Likes
Obviously, it should be appealed and will be. But, in the meantime, there’s a contradictory ruling from Judge Rice.
So why shouldn’t the White House and DoJ ignore enforcement of Kacsmaryk’s ruling until the contradiction is resolved by SCOTUS?
And if it isn’t? If neither Kacsmaryk’s nor Rice’s rulings are stayed, what then?
6 Likes
But this isn’t a single ruling - there’s a conflicting ruling by a judge of equal rank. Why do so many people keep ignoring this fact?
That’s not a rhetorical question. I seriously find this line of argument puzzling in light of Rice’s contradictory ruling. What am I missing?
10 Likes
If we want to be the party that touts a country based on laws, we need to make sure that the lawless party can’t simply end-run around those laws whenever it pleases them.
The judiciary, by design, has to rely on the executive and legislative branches to carry out its commands. This is the major check on its power which, as we have seen, is otherwise largely absolute when shorn of the norms which traditionally cabined it.
Now isn’t the time to take exercises of power which are permissible but traditionally “not done” due to norms off the table. It probably isn’t wise to fight authoritarianism with one hand tied behind your back.
8 Likes
I’m pretty sure democracy is already in lots of trouble. When sane people want to rely on a democratically elected president to ignore the attempts of an insane judge to set insane national policies which exceed any rational understanding of his authority, then the blame falls on the insane judge, not the people who want to ignore him.
I will admit that there is an element of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” here. But we need to come up with as principled a standard as possible for when we will ignore judicial rulings which are patently absurd, and then stick to it.
The real solution is to simply expand the courts and, while we’re at it, add several more judges to Judge Kacsmaryk’s district (among many others), but since that option is closed to us at this point, simply crossing our fingers is not an acceptable alternative.
As they say, hope is not a plan.
8 Likes
28 Likes
No. He was legitimately elected. We have rules for how elections work. He won under those rules. When it comes down to it, winning under the rules we’ve agreed on is literally the only definition of “legitimately elected” that matters.
I think it is important to keep this in mind, because realizing that he won legitimately means you have to accept that there is a very real possibility that he, or someone like him, could do it again. Treating his victory as illegitimate just because he lost the popular vote makes it, I think, too easy to dismiss his or another’s chances of replicating that feat.
11 Likes
You mean like the Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court granted a stay in Texas v. US?
Hoping that corrupt courts will save us from other corrupt courts is not a plan.
3 Likes
We are truly fortunate that the Federalist Society/Trump/McConnell pipeline gave us a Judge with the wisdom and courage to protect us against the depraved indifference of that 70+% of the population.
6 Likes
no no no, silly… boner pills are "deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition” and “essential to our Nation’s ‘scheme of ordered liberty.’
5 Likes
But her emails.
24 Likes
One of History Matters best snarks was that Americans wanting something is different from them getting it.
1 Like
Since when does one Justice in Texas decide medical issues for the entire country? Since when does a Judge know science/medicine better than the experts. This decision is bias beyond reason.
7 Likes