Jump to content


The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread


Recommended Posts


  • 1 month later...

This is why Mitch broke every norm to shove Kavanaugh and ACB down our throats. For everyone claiming the concerns about these radical right-wing justices was overblown... you just needed to wait a bit. 

Texas 6-week abortion ban takes effect after Supreme Court inaction

A controversial Texas law that bars abortions at six weeks went into effect early Wednesday morning after the Supreme Court and a federal appeals court failed to rule on pending emergency requests brought by abortion providers.

 
The lack of judicial intervention means that the law -- which is one of the strictest in the nation and bans abortion before many people know they are pregnant -- goes into force absent further court intervention.
 
The law allows private citizens to bring civil suits against anyone who assists a pregnant person seeking an abortion in violation of the ban.
No other six-week ban has been allowed to go into effect -- even briefly.
 
What ultimately happens to this law remains to be seen," said CNN Supreme Court analyst and University of Texas Law School professor Steve Vladeck, "but now through their inaction the justices have let the tightest abortion restriction since Roe v. Wade be enforced for at least some period of time."
The case comes as the justices are poised in the upcoming term to rule on the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that bars abortion at 15 weeks.
 
Under the Texas law, abortion is prohibited when a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is often before a woman knows she is pregnant. There is no exception for rape or incest, although there is an exemption for "medical emergencies."
Abortion providers asked the justices to block the ban while legal challenges played out because they argued that if it were allowed to go into effect it would "immediately and catastrophically reduce abortion access in Texas," ultimately forcing many abortion clinics to close.
 
They argued if the law were allowed to take effect it would have the impact of "barring care for at least 85% of Texas abortion patients" and would mean that lawsuits could be filed against a broad range of people including a person who drives their friend to obtain an abortion, someone who provides financial assistance and even to a member of the clergy who assists a patient.
 
Two hours before the ban was set to go into effect, one of the clinics -- Whole Woman's Health -- reported that it was providing abortions. "Our waiting rooms are filled with patients," the clinic tweeted, adding that "anti-abortion protestors are outside, shining lights on the parking ...we are under surveillance." In another tweet, the clinic said, "This is what abortion care looks like. Human Rights warriors."
 
The Supreme Court's failure to respond prompted a furious backlash from supporters of abortion rights just after the law went into effect.
 
"Access to almost all abortion has just been cut off for millions of people, the impact will be immediate and devastating," the ACLU said in a tweet.
 
  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, knapplc said:

This is why Mitch broke every norm to shove Kavanaugh and ACB down our throats. For everyone claiming the concerns about these radical right-wing justices was overblown... you just needed to wait a bit. 

Texas 6-week abortion ban takes effect after Supreme Court inaction

A controversial Texas law that bars abortions at six weeks went into effect early Wednesday morning after the Supreme Court and a federal appeals court failed to rule on pending emergency requests brought by abortion providers.

 
The lack of judicial intervention means that the law -- which is one of the strictest in the nation and bans abortion before many people know they are pregnant -- goes into force absent further court intervention.
 
The law allows private citizens to bring civil suits against anyone who assists a pregnant person seeking an abortion in violation of the ban.
No other six-week ban has been allowed to go into effect -- even briefly.
 
What ultimately happens to this law remains to be seen," said CNN Supreme Court analyst and University of Texas Law School professor Steve Vladeck, "but now through their inaction the justices have let the tightest abortion restriction since Roe v. Wade be enforced for at least some period of time."
The case comes as the justices are poised in the upcoming term to rule on the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that bars abortion at 15 weeks.
 
Under the Texas law, abortion is prohibited when a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is often before a woman knows she is pregnant. There is no exception for rape or incest, although there is an exemption for "medical emergencies."
Abortion providers asked the justices to block the ban while legal challenges played out because they argued that if it were allowed to go into effect it would "immediately and catastrophically reduce abortion access in Texas," ultimately forcing many abortion clinics to close.
 
They argued if the law were allowed to take effect it would have the impact of "barring care for at least 85% of Texas abortion patients" and would mean that lawsuits could be filed against a broad range of people including a person who drives their friend to obtain an abortion, someone who provides financial assistance and even to a member of the clergy who assists a patient.
 
Two hours before the ban was set to go into effect, one of the clinics -- Whole Woman's Health -- reported that it was providing abortions. "Our waiting rooms are filled with patients," the clinic tweeted, adding that "anti-abortion protestors are outside, shining lights on the parking ...we are under surveillance." In another tweet, the clinic said, "This is what abortion care looks like. Human Rights warriors."
 
The Supreme Court's failure to respond prompted a furious backlash from supporters of abortion rights just after the law went into effect.
 
"Access to almost all abortion has just been cut off for millions of people, the impact will be immediate and devastating," the ACLU said in a tweet.
 

This is pretty wild. SCOTUS is dominated by Republican nominees, despite only receiving more votes in an election once in 33 years.

 

The sad thing is: there is no way to plausibly fix it. 

  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment

On 9/1/2021 at 7:39 AM, knapplc said:

This is why Mitch broke every norm to shove Kavanaugh and ACB down our throats. For everyone claiming the concerns about these radical right-wing justices was overblown... you just needed to wait a bit. 

Texas 6-week abortion ban takes effect after Supreme Court inaction

A controversial Texas law that bars abortions at six weeks went into effect early Wednesday morning after the Supreme Court and a federal appeals court failed to rule on pending emergency requests brought by abortion providers.

 
The lack of judicial intervention means that the law -- which is one of the strictest in the nation and bans abortion before many people know they are pregnant -- goes into force absent further court intervention.
 
The law allows private citizens to bring civil suits against anyone who assists a pregnant person seeking an abortion in violation of the ban.
No other six-week ban has been allowed to go into effect -- even briefly.
 
What ultimately happens to this law remains to be seen," said CNN Supreme Court analyst and University of Texas Law School professor Steve Vladeck, "but now through their inaction the justices have let the tightest abortion restriction since Roe v. Wade be enforced for at least some period of time."
The case comes as the justices are poised in the upcoming term to rule on the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that bars abortion at 15 weeks.
 
Under the Texas law, abortion is prohibited when a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is often before a woman knows she is pregnant. There is no exception for rape or incest, although there is an exemption for "medical emergencies."
Abortion providers asked the justices to block the ban while legal challenges played out because they argued that if it were allowed to go into effect it would "immediately and catastrophically reduce abortion access in Texas," ultimately forcing many abortion clinics to close.
 
They argued if the law were allowed to take effect it would have the impact of "barring care for at least 85% of Texas abortion patients" and would mean that lawsuits could be filed against a broad range of people including a person who drives their friend to obtain an abortion, someone who provides financial assistance and even to a member of the clergy who assists a patient.
 
Two hours before the ban was set to go into effect, one of the clinics -- Whole Woman's Health -- reported that it was providing abortions. "Our waiting rooms are filled with patients," the clinic tweeted, adding that "anti-abortion protestors are outside, shining lights on the parking ...we are under surveillance." In another tweet, the clinic said, "This is what abortion care looks like. Human Rights warriors."
 
The Supreme Court's failure to respond prompted a furious backlash from supporters of abortion rights just after the law went into effect.
 
"Access to almost all abortion has just been cut off for millions of people, the impact will be immediate and devastating," the ACLU said in a tweet.
 

I've seen lots of commentary since the initial announcement that USSC was spot on in ruling it could not make a ruling.

 

It seems to key on the public reporting portion.

 

Have you seen similar?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

None of these links says what you said. Where's the commentary saying the Supreme Court couldn't make a ruling?

Link to comment

10 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

None of these links says what you said. Where's the commentary saying the Supreme Court couldn't make a ruling?

They all do. Here is one.

 

"In the end, in an unsigned opinion, a majority of justices held that “federal courts enjoy the power to enjoin individuals tasked with enforcing laws, not the laws themselves” and did not enjoin the state judge. But they also said that the decision was emphatically “not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.”

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

They all do. Here is one.

 

"In the end, in an unsigned opinion, a majority of justices held that “federal courts enjoy the power to enjoin individuals tasked with enforcing laws, not the laws themselves” and did not enjoin the state judge. But they also said that the decision was emphatically “not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.”

 

That's simply regurgitating what the Supreme majority wrote. It isn't an analysis saying they can't.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

That's simply regurgitating what the Supreme majority wrote. It isn't an analysis saying they can't.

Here is another. I read all of these examples as the majority decision was due to the structure of the way the TX law was written, and therefore the "ask" to block the law wasn't proper. I may be reading too much into the "not allowed" but it is an interesting conundrum and all the links feel another challenge could be upheld.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/02/supreme-court-had-no-reason-block-texass-abortion-law/

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, DevoHusker said:

Here is another. I read all of these examples as the majority decision was due to the structure of the way the TX law was written, and therefore the "ask" to block the law wasn't proper. I may be reading too much into the "not allowed" but it is an interesting conundrum and all the links feel another challenge could be upheld.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/02/supreme-court-had-no-reason-block-texass-abortion-law/

 

 

The dissenting Supremes were correct. It's an unconstitutional law, prima facie, and the Court could have easily blocked it.

 

But the right-wingers got their wish and effectively banned abortion, which is what we all predicted would happen when trump and McConnell rammed Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett down our throats.

 

So it goes.

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
42 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

But the right-wingers got their wish and effectively banned abortion, which is what we all predicted would happen when trump and McConnell rammed Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett down our throats.

 

I certainly won't argue your stance. But will point out that both have actually voted on decisions against the "right-wingers" held beliefs since their appointments.

 

I think that Roe v Wade is such a hot button that it will be difficult for the losing side, either one, when the actual issue is contested. And most of those links say that will be coming in the not so distant future.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...