• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Blocks Louisiana Abortion Law

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
[The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked Louisiana from enforcing a law that women's groups said would leave only a single doctor legally allowed to perform abortions in the state.

By a 5-4 vote, the court said the restrictions must remain on hold while challengers appeal a lower court decision in favor of the law. Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the court's liberal members.

Roberts was the deciding vote, just as I predicted a couple of weeks ago. Damn, I'm good. LOL.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...bortion-law-1st-major-ruling-abortion-n968766
 
Every 5-4 SCOTUS ruling is bad for America.

Please wake up.

tyvm
"Please wake up" doesn't mean anything. Best to just say whatever it is you want to say.
 
"Please wake up" doesn't mean anything. Best to just say whatever it is you want to say.

Your failure to extract the meaning is all on you.

Dont be crying to me about it.
 
Your failure to extract the meaning is all on you.

Dont be crying to me about it.
You're the one that wanted me to do something. If you won't tell me what you want, it just makes you look like the one crying.
 
You're the one that wanted me to do something. If you won't tell me what you want, it just makes you look like the one crying.

I have not found what I am looking for, I am moving on in my search.
 
I have not found what I am looking for, I am moving on in my search.

So "wake up" means "find what you're looking for"? But I wasn't looking for anything in the first place. You're saying you want everyone to start looking for something? What?
 
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.
Correct.

It's pretty obvious that Roberts will be the swing vote on these matters going forward, but my gut instinct is that he'll uphold the law.

Death by a thousand cuts is how Roe will die.
 
Every 5-4 SCOTUS ruling is bad for America.

Please wake up.

tyvm
That’s absurd. Split votes are exactly why there are odd number of justices and why a simple majority is all that is needed.
Perhaps you can explain why it’s bad for America?
 
Honestly, I think it's very fitting for a law like Roe. let its death be slow and painful.
Except it won’t because the vast majority of Americans favor some sort of abortion rights.
 
That’s absurd. Split votes are exactly why there are odd number of justices and why a simple majority is all that is needed.
Perhaps you can explain why it’s bad for America?

Because we need to understand that the law is clear.
 
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...

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/17-30397/17-30397-2018-09-26.html

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...
 
Because we need to understand that the law is clear.
SCOTUS rulings are discrete — they either affirm or overturn the case in controversy, regardless of the tally. A ruling isn’t any more clear if the vote is 9 to 0.
 
SCOTUS rulings are discrete — they either affirm or overturn the case in controversy, regardless of the tally. A ruling isn’t any more clear if the vote is 9 to 0.

Now see this is why I love it when people feel free to say what they think.... suppression of ideas by way of suppression of speech deprives us of this.
 
Except it won’t because the vast majority of Americans favor some sort of abortion rights.

"some sort" Well you know, that could mean anything. I think if the mother's life is in danger, and of course, the child hasn't been born, how could you not abort the pregnancy? The mother's life is in danger, you can only do so much.
 
"some sort" Well you know, that could mean anything. I think if the mother's life is in danger, and of course, the child hasn't been born, how could you not abort the pregnancy? The mother's life is in danger, you can only do so much.
The New York law has this language:

39 3. THE STATE SHALL NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST, DENY, OR INTERFERE WITH
40 THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION IN THE REGULATION
41 OR PROVISION OF BENEFITS, FACILITIES, SERVICES OR INFORMATION.
42 § 2599-BB. ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTI-
43 FIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH-
44 IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN,
45 ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL
46 JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN
47 TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN
48 ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE
49 PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.
 
Roberts was the deciding vote, just as I predicted a couple of weeks ago. Damn, I'm good. LOL.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...bortion-law-1st-major-ruling-abortion-n968766

Wait.....wait......

Supreme Court blocks Louisiana abortion..............while challengers appeal a lower court decision in favor of the law.


In Thursday's ruling, Kavanaugh voted with the conservatives — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.

Kavanaugh filed a dissent, writing only for himself. He said he would have allowed the law to take effect in order to see whether it would impose a burden on women's access to abortion in the state.
 
Last edited:
It remains to be seen how long Roberts will uphold Roe, but Kavanaugh proved every liberal and moderate right today, when we told everyone he was lying about his respect for Roe as case law.

Didn't have anything to do with Roe v. Wade.

This was a procedural issue having to do with a stay of implementation while the actual merits of the case work their way through the courts.
 
SCOTUS rulings are discrete — they either affirm or overturn the case in controversy, regardless of the tally. A ruling isn’t any more clear if the vote is 9 to 0.

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.
 
It remains to be seen how long Roberts will uphold Roe, but Kavanaugh proved every liberal and moderate right today, when we told everyone he was lying about his respect for Roe as case law.

Who with a working brain believed him in the first place? I said working brain.
 
Who with a working brain believed him in the first place? I said working brain.

Well, then, make the intellectual case for disbelieving him, based on his substantive record as a judge.
 
Well, then, make the intellectual case for disbelieving him, based on his substantive record as a judge.

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