Posted on 12/10/2021 10:14:09 PM PST by SeekAndFind
section class="post-body">
The US Supreme Court handed down a long-anticipated decision called Whole Woman’s Health vs. Jackson this morning.
By way of background, on September 1, S.B. 8, the so-called “heartbeat bill” went into effect in Texas. The law had some unique features. First and foremost, it outlawed abortion after the point of a detectable fetal heartbeat. This was a clear challenge to the whole inhumane sham structure of abortion jurisprudence brought into existence by Roe vs. Wade. However, the most interesting feature was creating a private right to action to enforce the law. That means anyone can bring a lawsuit against anyone or any entity involved in aborting a baby after a heartbeat exists. This includes:
A successful lawsuit could bring an award of up to $10,000.
The woman undergoing the abortion, however, could not be sued.
The enforcement mechanism is a critical part of the bill because that prevented Texas from being sued and an injunction obtained. Because the enforcement mechanism is civil and not criminal until someone filed a lawsuit, the abortion industry doesn’t have a clear target. In the meantime, abortion ground to a halt in Texas because the “little Eichmanns” of the abortion industry didn’t want to risk their homes and life savings defending against lawsuit after lawsuit.
A group of abortion providers banded together to sue a raft of state officials hoping to find someone who could vaguely be linked to the bill. Merrick Garland’s Justice Department tried to bigfoot its way into a major abortion case by suing Texas.
The ruling below is a little complicated.
SCOTUS Whole Woman’s Health 2-10-2021 on Scribd
Let’s unpack it.
First, the Supreme Court dismissed the Department of Justice lawsuit without comment. Only The Wise Latina® would have acted on it. There is no shock here, as Sotomayor has never encountered a fetus that an appointment with a shop-vac couldn’t have improved.
Next, the Court did not grant an injunction stopping the law, but it did kick the case back to the district court to proceed. All of the named defendants were given immunity except some licensing officials who might be involved in sanctioning abortionists and clinics in the event of a successful lawsuit. Notably, the one private citizen named was deemed to be immune from court action by the abortionists.
Long story short, the abortionists found a way to challenge the law. Still, the Texas law remains in effect, and the Mississippi abortion law will be decided (Justice Thomas Tears Into Pro-Abortion Lawyers With Hard Opening Questions) before Whole Woman’s Health passes through appellate channels. I also think this case will have some hard sledding. Mississippi is in the same federal circuit as Texas, and those judges saw which way the chips were falling when the Supreme Court debated Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. My guess is they will not approve any injunction against the Texas Heartbeat Bill.
Now we get to the inside baseball part. Four justices, Gorsuch, who wrote the opinion, Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Alito. Thomas concurred with them generally but thought they were p***ies who didn’t go far enough. The Wise Latina® would have ordered the summary executed every Republican in Texas. Robert, Kagan, and Breyer mostly dissented.
Roberts mewled that Roe was the law of the land and the Supreme Court had to enforce its precedents:
The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings. It is, however, a basic principle that the Constitution is the “fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” and “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). Indeed, “[i]f the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery.” United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136 (1809). The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.
The Wise Latina® became a little unhinged in her dissent.
This is a brazen challenge to our federal structure. It echoes the philosophy of John C. Calhoun, a virulent defender of the slaveholding South who insisted that States had the right to “veto” or “nullif[y]” any federal law with which they disagreed. Address of J. Calhoun, Speeches of John C. Calhoun 17–43 (1843). Lest the parallel be lost on the Court, analogous sentiments were expressed in this case’s companion: “The Supreme Court’s interpretations of the Constitution are not the Constitution itself—they are, after all, called opinions.” Reply Brief for Intervenors in No. 21–50949 (CA5), p. 4.
The Nation fought a Civil War over that proposition, but Calhoun’s theories were not extinguished.
Her screed provoked a reply from Gorsuch.
While this should be enough to resolve the petitioners’ appeal, a detour is required before we close. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR charges this Court with “shrink[ing]” from the task of defending the supremacy of the Federal Constitution over state law. Post, at 10. That rhetoric bears no relation to reality.
The truth is, many paths exist to vindicate the supremacy of federal law in this area. Even aside from the fact that eight Members of the Court agree sovereign immunity does not bar the petitioners from bringing this pre-enforcement challenge in federal court, everyone acknowledges that other pre-enforcement challenges may be possible in state court as well.5 In fact, 14 such state-court cases already seek to vindicate both federal and state constitutional claims against S. B. 8—and they have met with some success at the summary judgment stage. See supra, at 2. Separately, any individual sued under S. B. 8 may pursue state and federal constitutional arguments in his or her defense. See n. 1, supra. Still further viable avenues to contest the law’s compliance with the Federal Constitution also may be possible; we do not prejudge the possibility. Given all this, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’S suggestion that the Court’s ruling somehow “clears the way” for the “nullification” of federal law along the lines of what happened in the Jim Crow South not only wildly mischaracterizes the impact of today’s decision, it cheapens the gravity of past wrongs. Post, at 11.
Some of the pro-abort left are trying to portray this as a victory. But the most radical pro-aborts can see the writing on the wall and what this means.
The biggest practical question is whether Judge Pitman can fashion an injunction against "executive licensing officials" that somehow limits the threat of private lawsuits under S.B. 8. I do not see how he can, and if he can't, I'm not sure the clinics will risk reopening.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) December 10, 2021
I think what happens is: Judge Pitman issues a declaratory judgment holding S.B. 8 unconstitutional in its entirety, and an injunction barring "executive licensing officials" from enforcing it. Clinics have to decide whether to rely on that declaratory judgment to reopen. Right?
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) December 10, 2021
Yes, they not only have to decide to reopen, but they also have to get staff to come to work, and they have to pray the Fifth Circuit doesn’t reverse that decision.
In the long run, I think this decision is moot because I think abortion will cease to be a federal issue after the Supreme Court rules around June on.
The “Wise Latina” is Satan’s daughter.
I hate to be optimistic and then burned, but I’m kinda feeling that the chances we have 5 votes in Dobbs are looking pretty decent.
I have some doubts about Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Coney Barrett siding with Thomas and Alito to overturn Roe.
They may agree to do so to some extent but only to some extent.
I have no doubts about Roberts.
He will join Team Evil to uphold Roe.
I tend to agree. Roberts is a treacherous snake. IF (and that’s a big IF) he joins the conservatives to uphold the Mississippi law, it’d probably be in order to steer the majority opinion into some kind of middle-ground-uphold-the-law-but-leave-Roe-and-Casey-theoretically-in-place kinda thing. In other words, he may to be in the majority of a 6-3 “moderate” decision rather than in the minority of a 5-4 hardline anti-Roe decision.
The most important thing of overturning Roe V Wade is not the obscene act of abortion of the fetus which is an obscene act. That decision was making law out of whole cloth and was in effect overturning constitutional law.
All laws concerning abortion are the purvey of each individual state. Some will allow this obscene act to continue and many will not and oddly this is constitutional.
The real question is the taking of human life and its definition. If it is at conception all abortion is illegal. If not conception what is the definition of life?
.
“ The “Wise Latina” is Satan’s daughter.”
A form of the whore of Babylon.
She has plenty of company in that, I’m sure.
I’ll bet Biden will try to add ten additional communist judges to the Supreme Court to preserve the practice of child sacrifices.
Thomas is much smarter than Roberts and has probably already thought that through - HE will steer the decision away from the shoals Roberts would lay.
I don’t understand why it’s usually reported that Roberts “sided with the left”. Of course he did; Roberts IS the left. A crap weasel. (Thank you GWB!)
This the first time I heard that the SCOTUS decided already on it. The commie AP reported that it was being discussed but no news from the MSM until I found it here on FR by accident.
For a deeper dive into Texas SB8:
The ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
SEARCH USING GIBIRU.COM :::”john roberts, “clear purpose and actual effect”, texas”
Amy Howe :::: https://amylhowe.com/2021/12/10/court-leaves-texas-six-week-abortion-ban-in-effect-and-narrows-abortion-providers-challenge/
For a deeper dive into Texas SB8:
The ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
SEARCH USING GIBIRU.COM :::”john roberts, “clear purpose and actual effect”, texas”
Amy Howe :::: https://amylhowe.com/2021/12/10/court-leaves-texas-six-week-abortion-ban-in-effect-and-narrows-abortion-providers-challenge/
15 weeks. Unless there is a medical threat to the woman or the fetus is in distress will abortion be allowed after 15 weeks.
It would not be returning RvW back to the states, but it would set the limitations for the states, and a number have laws ready to activate at that decision.
This is what I believe the outcome will be, narrow and defined. It preserves the 'precedent' of Roe, but restricts and controls late-term abortions.
“All laws concerning abortion are the purvey of each individual state. Some will allow this obscene act to continue and many will not and oddly this is constitutional.”
This has always been how it is. Prostitution is legal in Nevada. Gambling is legal in selected areas. It was, and should have been, ALWAYS a state right. The SCOTUS ursurped the Constitution by eliminating the 10th Amendment. At least in the 1920’s with prohibition, people used the process of the Constitution to amend it first for then against. The SCOTUS is responsible for all the damage and unchecked Federal government since that decision. The usurpation of 10th Amendment by the executive and judicial branches was a direct result of ignoring the very thing that the SCOTUS was supposed to protect, the Constitution and separation of powers.
The question is why? Why risk an entire functional Republic, which had prospered, to legalize abortion and subvert the Constitution? The SCOTUS should have told those supporting abortion, to make a Constitutional amendment, and get it passed. The answer was then, and still is today, that the Constitution and process was damaged for POLITICAL purposes.
I don’t have to be for, or against Abortion to comprehend the damage to the Constitution and balance of power that Roe v Wade has caused. The SCOTUS has been oblivious to that damage, which has prevented checks upon the executive and shirking by the legislative. What we see now, use of government for political purposes like spying, is fundamentally part of the rot from the usurpation by Roe v Wade. The SCOTUS broke it, they need to start thinking about decisions that fix it.
Roberts is nothing but a lackey for the Satanic Deep State Cabal.
He is definitely compromised, and they tell him what to do and how to do it.
We all learned what he really is after his vote in favor of Obola Care, and he then covertly sneaked off to Malta alone for the summer.
I hope all the Amy Coney Barrett haters here read this. Note that conservative Barrett sided with the CONSERVATIVES on this important decision. But conservative Roberts did not.
Dred Scott was also the "Law of the Land". Roberts is suggesting Dred Scott should not have been reversed either.
She is a dumbass racist. She identifies not as an American but as a “Latina” whatever that means.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.