Posted on 06/29/2020 7:41:34 AM PDT by Enlightened1
The measure would have required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of a clinic.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Louisiana's tough restriction on abortion violates the Constitution, a surprising victory for abortion rights advocates from an increasingly conservative court.
The 5-4 decision in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the courts liberal justices struck down a law passed by Louisiana's legislature in 2014 that required any doctor offering abortion services to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. Its enforcement had been blocked by a protracted legal battle.
Two Louisiana doctors and a medical clinic sued to get the law overturned. They said it would leave only one doctor at a single clinic to provide services for nearly 10,000 women who seek abortions in the state each year.
The challengers said the requirement was identical to a Texas law the Supreme Court overturned in 2016. With the vote of then-Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court ruled that Texas imposed an obstacle on women seeking access to abortion services without providing any medical benefits.
Kennedy was succeeded by the more conservative Brett Kavanaugh, appointed by President Donald Trump.
The Center for Reproductive Rights said the burdens on access to abortion in Louisiana would have been even more restrictive than those in Texas, where about half of the state's abortion clinics were forced to close. It also said the law was unnecessary, because only a small fraction of women experience medical problems after an abortion, and when they do, they seek treatment at a hospital near where they live, not one near the medical clinic.
Louisiana defended the law, arguing that the requirement to have an association with a nearby hospital would provide a check on a doctor's credentials.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Souteroberts.. again.
It’s gotten to the point where it’s best for conservatives to not appeal things to the Supreme Court until there is a solid conservative majority.
Getting a ruling from the Supreme pretty much casts in concrete whereas if you stop at a lower court even if you lose you have a chance to overturn it when you get a truly conservative Supreme Court.
Roberts has been a complete and utter bust.
Acc. to Roberts, stare decisis is more important than States’ Rights.
I think GWB was the model for the Biden Presidency. His "expert team" of neocons made all of the decisions, did all of the strategic planning and thinking...all George had to do was show up in front of the cameras once in a while and try not to embarrass himself too much.
The Left clearly thinks they can use Biden in the same role, with a hardcore team of collectivists reshaping the country while Joe stands above the controversy spitting out folksy malaprops at irregular intervals to reassure older people that, no, there really aren't any plans to ship them off to the Gulag.
As disappointing as this is, it may actually be a good thing. Had this passed, it would have militarized the feminists who have deep tentacles even inside the Republican Party. They would have mobilized to elect Biden over Trump.
Now, we can wait for Ginsburg to croak (she can’t last another four years, can she?) and have Trump nominate a pro-lifer that will give the conservatives a 5-4 majority (even without Roberts) when the case comes up again. Of course, it doesn’t mean someone like Gorsuch or Kavanaugh won’t switch sides the next time but if it comes out during Trump’s second term, there won’t be a way to fight back.
Roberts at his confirmation hearing in 2005, “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them.” Time and time again, Roberts has demonstrated that is not an umpire(or at least a good one) but a pitcher or batter in the game. Is goal is not to be the impartial arbiter but to affect social outcomes, no different than the batter or the pitcher. Senate should draft impeachment proceedings just to put him on notice. They won’t impeach but it would be a severe rebuke nonetheless.
Evil is never good and should never be called good. This will continue to insure lives lost in butchery shops that claim they are health care. This is a dark day for us, and Justice Roberts is now full on Justice Souter.
The 5-4 decision in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the courts liberal justices...
Here we go again.
Who are the SCOTUS Judges appointed by Republican Presidents that have been the greatest turncoats?
I know of two that are in the running-—
David Souter, appointed by George Herbert Walker Bush
John Roberts, appointed by George Walker Bush
Any others?
On the other side of the aisle, Who are the SCOTUS Judges appointed by Democrat Presidents that have been turncoats?
I think the Federalist Society approach is reasonable when dealing with a large number of lower court appointments, but the Supreme Court is another matter. The Right can’t afford to get it wrong with the Supreme Court because the Left hasn’t had an unreliable justice on the bench since Byron White stepped down in 1993.
Breyer wrote the opinion.
Roberts wrote his own Concurring opinion. Starts on page 46.
Thomas wrote the dissent
About 15 pages.
Alito wrote a separate dissent
Gorsuch wrote a separate dissent.
Thanks again W!/s
Hang him!
135 pages. Approx
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6959225-18-1323-c07d.html#document/p1
See above
George W. Bush also appointed Samuel Alito, as solid a conservative as there has ever been on the Court. Roberts used to be a solid conservative vote too. He has changed. It has happened throughout the history of the Court. When you give someone a lifetime appointment there is no predicting what they will do decades down the line.
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.