Supreme Court Blocks Louisiana Abortion Law

[Harshaw]

I'm going on his record of being a supreme court judge and as far as I'm concerned, strike one against his credibility.

So no one should have believed him months ago because of things which happened today? And that's what you call engaging the "brain"?

Never mind that today, he made no argument on Roe v. Wade one way or the other. But you don't know that, because you have no idea what he said in his dissent.

But if today is that strike against him, please quote from his dissent and explain exactly how. That, of course, is way you do it using your "brain."

 

[MTAtech]

No, they generally set precedent, or at the very least add to the strength of existing precedent, and they certainly bind all lower courts.

The level of unanimity certainly does factor in when weighing the precedent against an argument that it should be overturned later, especially if it's not that much later.

Can you give us some examples? My understanding is that a SCOTUS ruling has the same weight and binding of law whether it was a 5-4 or 9-0 ruling. Are you saying Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a lesser ruling because it was 5 to 4?

 

[Harshaw]

Can you give us some examples? My understanding is that a SCOTUS ruling has the same weight and binding of law whether it was a 5-4 or 9-0 ruling. Are you saying Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a lesser ruling because it was 5 to 4?

No, I'm saying that when a unanimously-decided case is up for review later, it'll have more weight against being overturned than a narrowly-decided one.

This is not a hard-and-fast rule (nothing really is), but it's most definitely a factor.

Besides, most cases which are unanimously-decided are unanimous because the correct answer was very clear, and agreement was easy.

 

[danarhea]

No, they didn't block the law, or rule on any law for that matter. They just put it on hold until the case can be heard. Then they'll rule on it.

When SCOTUS blocks the implementation of a law while it is being heard, it is because they believe that the law will be overturned. Final ruling will be the same. The law will not go into effect, and this time it will be permanent. Once again, Roberts will be the deciding vote.

 

[DarkWizard12]

The New York law has this language:

I cease to see the relevance to my post. I was not at all addressing the legality of the matter. Let the lawyers take care of such things.

 

[Lursa]

It is becoming more and more of a challenge to find what we are actually talking about with the Louisiana Law, but I think this is it..

http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=907056&n=HB388 Enrolled

I want to say this is the 5th circuit decision...

June Medical Services, LLC v. Gee, No. 17-30397 (5th Cir. 2018) :: Justia

And I believe this is the 5-4 decent by Kavanaugh from the stay order we are talking about...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18a774_3ebh.pdf

That was painful to find all that ****, but it boils down to the Texas anti-abortion model which targeted abortion providers by regulating what hospital by distance they had to have surgical admitting privileges at under the guise of "women's health." In this case the regulation being challenged is "Have active admitting privileges at a hospital that is located not further than thirty miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced and that provides obstetrical or gynecological health care services." By definition that would reduce abortion providers from 3 or 4 to what the challengers say would be 1.

Abortion being a disaster of a political and legal issue already makes Louisiana (and Texas, and others) attempts to regulate along these lines a bit of a mess.

This example from Louisiana and the challenges against it all boil down to predictions on impact, Kavanaugh was right on that part even if by accident. The 5-4 decision itself by the Supreme Court may be accidentally correct as well because the courts already struck down Texas' attempt to do this with very similar wording. Yet the 5th Circuit decision allowed Louisiana go forward, and what is still in front of the Supreme Court is the actual appeal that seeks to review that 5th Circuit ruling. That is bound to be messy and I suppose all eyes will be on Roberts again.

I still believe this will end up much like other controversial prior decisions (or even things like the 2nd Amendment) where we will see continued State efforts to chip away at something prior decided by regulating additional challenging conditions. In this case making it more difficult without entirely taking away the means to obtain an abortion. Conservative leaning states have been doing this for awhile now and so have liberal leaning states with the 2nd Amendment. The chip away effort.

Because of how polarizing abortion is, the issue is ran on and ultimately you see the effort to make this difficult for providers and those seeking abortions.

If memory serves the Texas attempt was struck down 5-3 (seat open,) and I suspect we will see another 5-4 decision on the merit of the Louisiana Law placing greater pressure on Republicans to nominate and confirm further right leaning justices in the future. Or said another way, continue to engage in Judicial activism going forward as much as we've seen going back into history.

In the balance will be what you think it is, the debate rages on...

And these are all end-run bull**** maneuvers that some states attempt. When challenged in court, almost all are overturned.

In this case, the hypocrisy perpetrated by the state is pretending abortion, which is 14 times safer than childbirth, requires some special access to hospitals or more than one Dr, etc...when they dont require the same for home births and midwives.

Thus it's obviously an attack on abortion, not an attempt to protect women's lives.

 

[Crossfire]

abortion, which is 14 times safer than childbirth

Not for the baby that was just killed, it is not.

 

[OrphanSlug]

And these are all end-run bull**** maneuvers that some states attempt. When challenged in court, almost all are overturned.

In this case, the hypocrisy perpetrated by the state is pretending abortion, which is 14 times safer than childbirth, requires some special access to hospitals or more than one Dr, etc...when they dont require the same for home births and midwives.

Thus it's obviously an attack on abortion, not an attempt to protect women's lives.

I am not debating that point, most of us knew long ago when Texas tried this that "women's health" had nothing to do with it. It is a chip away effort on the part of Republicans.

What I was getting at is we have a new issue caused by the courts, potentially allowing the Louisiana case to be disposed of in a slightly different manner as the Texas case that they struck down.

When thinking about how justices are nominated and confirmed I am seeing a benchmark being established, which reeks of judicial activism. Roe v Wade has always been a lightning rod but where I am concerned is a new legislative strategy that now struck down, sort of, might morph into a judicial qualification benchmark by like-minded politicians.

I am worried about the direction this is all headed.

 

[Lursa]

Not for the baby that was just killed, it is not.

No babies are killed in abortions.

It's better to stick to facts rather than emotional manipulation, just IMO.

 

[upsideguy]

Every 5-4 SCOTUS ruling is bad for America.

Please wake up.

tyvm

Yes, it would be helpful if we appointed centrist judges that applied the law to the circumstance, rather than ideological judges that have morphed into a second legislative branch. We would be much better off with a court full of Garland's than one comprised of Kavanaugh's..

 

[Hawkeye10]

Yes, it would be helpful if we appointed centrist judges that applied the law to the circumstance, rather than ideological judges that have morphed into a second legislative branch. We would be much better off with a court full of Garland's than one comprised of Kavanaugh's..

Understand that the courts were shoved into being political (a second legislative branch) by the other two branches....but these are supposed to be the better people....if anyone was capable of avoiding being corrupted certainly it was SOTUS

But look at how they failed the test.

 

[SLC]

It is becoming more and more of a challenge to find what we are actually talking about with the Louisiana Law, but I think this is it..

http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=907056&n=HB388 Enrolled

I want to say this is the 5th circuit decision.......


And I believe this is the 5-4 decent by Kavanaugh from the stay order we are talking about...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18a774_3ebh.pdf

That was painful to find all that ****, but it boils down to the Texas anti-abortion model which targeted abortion providers by regulating what hospital by distance they had to have surgical admitting privileges at under the guise of "women's health." In this case the regulation being challenged is "Have active admitting privileges at a hospital that is located not further than thirty miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced and that provides obstetrical or gynecological health care services." By definition that would reduce abortion providers from 3 or 4 to what the challengers say would be 1.

Abortion being a disaster of a political and legal issue already makes Louisiana (and Texas, and others) attempts to regulate along these lines a bit of a mess.

This example from Louisiana and the challenges against it all boil down to predictions on impact, Kavanaugh was right on that part even if by accident. The 5-4 decision itself by the Supreme Court may be accidentally correct as well because the courts already struck down Texas' attempt to do this with very similar wording. Yet the 5th Circuit decision allowed Louisiana go forward, and what is still in front of the Supreme Court is the actual appeal that seeks to review that 5th Circuit ruling. That is bound to be messy and I suppose all eyes will be on Roberts again.

I still believe this will end up much like other controversial prior decisions (or even things like the 2nd Amendment) where we will see continued State efforts to chip away at something prior decided by regulating additional challenging conditions. In this case making it more difficult without entirely taking away the means to obtain an abortion. Conservative leaning states have been doing this for awhile now and so have liberal leaning states with the 2nd Amendment. The chip away effort.

Because of how polarizing abortion is, the issue is ran on and ultimately you see the effort to make this difficult for providers and those seeking abortions.

If memory serves the Texas attempt was struck down 5-3 (seat open,) and I suspect we will see another 5-4 decision on the merit of the Louisiana Law placing greater pressure on Republicans to nominate and confirm further right leaning justices in the future. Or said another way, continue to engage in Judicial activism going forward as much as we've seen going back into history.

In the balance will be what you think it is, the debate rages on...

I think this law is similar to the one that raised a stink in Texas.

Doctors in Texas have to maintain hospital staff admitting privileges with a hospital with in 30 miles from their home. If they don't insurance companies and Medicare will not pay them. The also must be on call or have some on call for their patients 24/7.

The thought is if your patient has a problem after a surgery you need to be able to admit them and take care of their needs.

Because abortions are done in outpatient facilities and are not covered by insurance abortionist aren't generally on medical staffs at hospitals. So if they screw up their patient are dumped on hospitals to clean up their mess. In theory that is not the best because the abortionist should know his patient better than some random guy on call for GYN at a hospital does. So it would be safer for the patient if the abortionist was on staff at a near by hospital and was on call for their own patients.

Now let me tell you my personal experience.. During my obstetrical rotation of my internship I was following and OB GYN resident at Fort Hood Texas. We were called to the ER to see a young female solider that had a high fever and profuse cramping and bleeding and clotting . When we examined her we found a fetal leg in her cervix. She had a legal abortion 3 or 4 days earlier and it was botched. She was septic and anemic and was a very sick patient. And of course the abortionist wasn't anywhere around to provide care for his patient. We sat in the ICU all night long providing care for her.

In my opinion the law would increase safety by requiring accountability from abortionist.

I'm not surprised only one abortionist is on staff at a hospital within 30 miles of his home in Louisiana. Texas didn't have many abortionists that fit the requirements either. Nothing prevents these guys from joining hospital staffs and complying with the law by the way.

 

[SLC]

No babies are killed in abortions.

It's better to stick to facts rather than emotional manipulation, just IMO.

That is NOT true. Fetuses are unborn human babies .

 

[Lursa]

That is NOT true. Fetuses are unborn human babies .

The statement is true when you include "unborn" in front of it.