SCOTUS overturns Louisiana law restricting abortion access

Stare decisis (Latin for “to stand by things decided,” as Roberts notes) is the judicial doctrine of adherence to precedent — though, as today’s ruling bitterly illustrates, it is better understood as the judicial license to adhere or not adhere depending on what policy result is desired.

Roberts concedes that “stare decisis is not an inexorable command.” His ode to its merits would be hilarious if not for what the new ruling portends. The principle, he says, is “grounded in a basic humility that recognizes today’s legal issues are often not so different from the questions of yesterday and that we are not the first ones to try to answer them.” So, in their “humility,” the justices elevate over the Constitution’s framework the “right” they have manufactured from whole cloth — courtesy of some dizzying blather about deriving “penumbras” from “emanations.”

Roberts also elides mention of the inconvenience that none of those who first answered “the questions of yesterday” would have thought it possible that the Constitution guaranteed a right to terminate the unborn. And while, last year, he was telling us the takings precedent had to go, even though people had been inured to it for 34 years, today he said the four-year-old abortion precedent had to be preserved — even though there hasn’t been time for societal arrangements to become ingrained, and the question arose precisely because the Court’s abortion jurisprudence is so slipshod.

Note that Roberts had an out here. He could easily have decided that the plaintiffs did not have standing. As Justice Clarence Thomas explains in a withering dissent, the parties objecting to Louisiana’s law were not women whose purported right to abortion was being burdened; they were abortion providers who sought to raise the claim on the women’s behalf. A court does not have jurisdiction unless the parties before it have standing — i.e., unless they are asserting a denial of their own rights. Roberts, moreover, is typically a stickler on this point — the New York Times has described him as “the Supreme Court’s leading proponent of the standing doctrine.”

Democrats fully grasp that the Court is a political institution. Their supporters demand that they see it as a vehicle for imposing the Left’s policy agenda, their senators conduct confirmation hearings that way, and their judges decide cases that way — whether that requires, in any given case, being a “living Constitution” enthusiast, an originalist, a strict constructionist, a post-sovereign one-worlder, a states’-rights federalist, or a devotee of stare decisis. They do not see the Court as an institution for deciding legal cases under the law; they see it as a tool for achieving results that they can then portray as immutable constitutional mandates.

Republicans, by contrast, strive to confirm putatively conservative lawyers who’ve mastered all the right abstractions about how judges “apply rather than make law.” But the only time they get grilled on precedent is when Democrats badger them on the Left’s favorite rulings, Roe v. Wade in particular, drawing concessions that these decisions are settled law.

 

agreed. sad clinics couldn’t get a doctor

 

Perhaps what the right need to do here is simply exit the conversation. What happens then? The left moves smartly to continue the beat the drum for minority women to consume abortion services, and the genocide continues in the black community. The price, obviously, is that these abortions are done wherever, without protections for those who use these services, and if or when women start dying as a result of the overarching financial discussion to not have real or basic standards, does anyone think democrats will stop it? Will they then start setting standards because women are dying and it was their fault they are? Hard to say.

Roberts seems to fancy himself the swinger on the court these days. One has to wonder why.

 

Nobody opposes laws meant to keep clinics safe, that’s a strawman argument. These admitting laws are meaningless. Might as well require the clinics prove they have a magic abortion wand.

 

LOL... nah, you guys set your own table here. Feast away. When the first woman dies because the doctor who butchered her didn't follow procedure because there can't be restrictions, and then doesn't have admitting privileges at a close hospital, you folks will own this. You folks put money and loyalty ahead of basic safety here. It should leave a mark. And it will.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Nope, but she CAN abort them if she can't afford them...or for any other reason she chooses.
No, their not.....and married women have abortions, too
So what? Women are not obligated to provide others with children.
AND IF there are these Zionist Christians willing to adopt WHY HAVEN'T THEY?
There are kids who "age out" of the system because they were NOT adopted....where were these Zionist Christians ?????

I see you didn't/couldn't answer the questions in the post of mine you quoted....did you read it or did your knee just jerk :

 

There can be restrictions, and there are. Again, strawman. Nobody is against safety laws for clinics. Tell me how admitting privs help? You seem sure they do, so please tell me how.

 

women are obligated to provide others with children according to the law, this Supreme Court is leftover from the obama era.

many of those pro abortion judges are going to be replaced by President Trump, and the Chief Justice will no longer be able to excuse genocide by women through abortion.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Nope, but she CAN abort them if she can't afford them...or for any other reason she chooses.
No, their not.....and married women have abortions, too
So what? Women are not obligated to provide others with children.
AND IF there are these Zionist Christians willing to adopt WHY HAVEN'T THEY?
There are kids who "age out" of the system because they were NOT adopted....where were these Zionist Christians ?????





I see you didn't/couldn't answer the questions in the post of mine you quoted....did you read it or did your knee just jerk :

LOL! Oh, DO show me that law !!!

Only in your (wet) dreams …

 

The Senator from Maine believed him. Collins is in a dogfight right now. This just underscores how unreliable she is as a check on the Trump administration. She believed Trump learned his lesson too.

 

They aren't involved in the abortion debate. It means the doctor has a relationship with emergency care if needed.
What should abortion be treated different from other medicine?

I’m an OB-GYN. Here’s Why I Support Requiring Hospital Admitting Privileges for Abortion Providers.


.....Since it was such a truly modest proposal, one to merely hold doctors performing abortions to the same standards as other doctors, I was shocked that it eventually became such a contested law.
This women’s health bill was led by a woman. It was written by a woman. It even had overwhelming bipartisan support.

It made perfect sense to me as a doctor. After all, every other doctor serving at outpatient surgical centers is required to have hospital-admitting privileges. Why should doctors at abortion centers be held to a lesser standard?

Why should women seeking these procedures be denied the same standard of care all other patients receive?
https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/06...-admitting-privileges-for-abortion-providers/

 

Redundant, it’s not like the ER is going to turn them away.

 

Ok so do these laws require hospitals to offer admitting rights? Do they lay out clear guidelines for doctors to get these rights?
no because the goal is shut down clinics

 

Hey Mello, I just got back from golfing... I was expecting SCOTUS decisions on all the Trump Tax cases....

Don't see anything... you know what's up?

 

Nothing yet, moving into July for the first time in awhile.
How’d you play?

 

All that garbage about Collins being a moderate is manufactured garbage. Collins always toes the party line. She knew damned well how all this would turn out. Who votes for this obnoxious woman who props up molesters?

 

Not horrible for me anymore... 91... 8 pars, 3 Triples

Only 88 out there today and lower humidity... Pretty decent for last day of June in Virginia...

 

Well, she actually leads the R's in opposing Trump by voting pct, although still at a jaw dropping 67%. Still, I suspect she'll be gone in January.... Too many smart folks in Maine to continue to buy her whining..

Somebody needs to sit down with Manchin and Sinema and explain to them they are damaging their country with these voting pcts....



https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/

 

This post shows you just how out of touch so many are today. "the MY OPINION" people...

 

But here's the REALITY of the situation... no matter whether the woman has any morals, integrity, decency, and etc., if she has an unwanted child, and if she's poor, then it's almost a certainty that she AND the unwanted child both end up on unending welfare!

Thus, given that she didn't WANT to get knocked-up in the first place, and, given that you and I don't want to have to support her and the unwanted child for year after year after year, what do we do if she shows up wanting a free abortion? There is a segment of society that always finds a way -- one way or another -- to get YOU to pay for their mistakes.

Sure it sucks. Sure it's wrong. Sure you would prefer that these people never are allowed to plunge their hands deep into YOUR pockets, but, the way our system works in this country, if she wants to, she can sponge hundreds of thousands of dollars away from taxpayers -- or -- you can cave to her wishes and give her a free abortion for a mere fraction of the cost of years of welfare programs. Some 'choice'... right?

In any case, SHE holds all the 'cards'. SHE has the right to have an abortion (and if she's poor, YOU have to pay for it), or, SHE has the right to give birth to an unwanted child, and keeps it, then YOU have to support both of them on welfare. So, there it is.... Take your pick, although you, as the 'schmuck taxpayer', are not allowed to make any decisions... about anything.

 

liberalminority said: ↑
women are obligated to provide others with children according to the law, this Supreme Court is leftover from the obama era.

many of those pro abortion judges are going to be replaced by President Trump, and the Chief Justice will no longer be able to excuse genocide by women through abortion.

Yup, and I still haven't seen that law he's talking about....I guess it was confused with an opinion..

 

How do taxpayers pay for abortions ? There's a law against it.

Yes,taking care of the poor requires taxes, it feeds those "precious lives" Repubs go on and on about.

We also take care of the extremely wealthy in this country by giving them huge tax breaks and loopholes....but Repubs never complain about that for some reason.

 

NO.....third time now

Dodge, why can't you give an intelligent answer?

Why should doctors at abortion centers be held to a lesser standard?

Why should women seeking these procedures be denied the same standard of care all other patients receive?

 

It’s a fake standard because the lawmakers know they can’t get whats required. If that’s their concern they’d mandate hospitals actually grant what they require. Why not require magic abortion wands, that’s as attainable.

 

Here's an interesting article on the obsolete concept of "hospital admitting privileges"

SNIP
Is it important for your doctor to have hospital admitting privileges?
Not anymore. With the rise of the hospitalist role, admitting privileges for primary care physicians are few and far between.

If they still have them, they aren’t particularly useful. They won’t help you “cut the line” to get admitted before any other patients at the ER.
ENDSNIP

https://blog.partnermd.com/blog/hospital-admitting-privileges

I personally have no idea if my PCP (or anybody in the practice) has admitting privileges at any nearby hospitals. In my mind, they are 2 completely separate concepts...