Posted on 06/27/2024 7:37:09 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
The Supreme Court on Thursday officially affirmed a lower court injunction that allows abortions in medical emergencies to continue in Idaho, one day after inadvertently posting the opinion briefly before scrubbing it.
Technically the case will go back to a lower court for further evaluation, but the decision by the high court ensures that Idaho doctors can continue to perform emergency abortions for the time being.
The move drew criticism from both ends of the ideological spectrum on the Supreme Court, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Samuel Alito wanting the high court to make a decision based on the merits of the case, albeit with those two justices reaching different conclusions.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I am guessing that this “leak” was unintentional. I don’t see a benefit to anyone from releasing the opinion one day early.
Waiting and waiting and waiting for the immunity ruling...
The law certainly already allowed for abortions in the case of a true emergency to save a mother’s life. What the Biden DHS demanded was that abortions be done to stabilize the mother in the event of a danger to her health not just her life. So if a pregnant mother presented with very high blood pressure the doctor would now be permitted to perform an abortion to stabilize the mother EVEN IF OTHER TREATMENT OPTIONS WERE AVAILABLE.
From Julie Kelly just now:
Julie Kelly 🇺🇸
@julie_kelly2
No Fischer or immunity today.
Those who speculated the court would delay publishing the most politically consequential opinions until after the debate were correct.
9:26 AM · Jun 27, 2024
The dismissal of this case is effectively re-enforcing that this is a matter for each state to decide.
“What is up with all these leaks?”
If they’d just release them when they’re ready and not play the “end of June” game every year, we wouldn’t have this problem.
But they like the drama.
What is up with all these leaks?
If there are democrats around you get leaks
I’m sorry to disappoint, but our Supreme Court is just as corrupt as a judicial branch across this nation. The immunity and the J6 case rulings should’ve been out by now but because of the debate they don’t wanna give Trump cover. You know that all the crap they’ve thrown at him as far as the illegall harassment crap by lawfare will come up on the debate tonight. And God forbid if they would’ve ruled on the immunity and J6 today because it would’ve given Trump the biggest cover ever in the corrupt system. Instead because of the courts cruelty, it’ll drag it on for a good few more months and let the people continue to stew! Having the advantage on the bench in the Supreme Court means diddly squat now! I remember maybe 30 years ago when the Supreme Court was ruled under the thumb of a rat majority and the rats could always count on them to advance their agenda….never failed! We have nothing but spineless weasels good for nothing liberal progressive judges who constantly disappoint! Just two or three are true blue constitutionalists to the core. This nation is so screwed!
Everyone with a brain cell knew John Roberts wasn’t going to find a Leaker in the case that enthused the Roberts base so.
Corrupt to the Core.
I wonder which Democratic leaning “Justice” or one of their staff leak the info this time?
No, in this instance, the opposite is true. At issue in this case was Idaho's recently-enacted "Defense of Life Act," which effectively criminalized the act of performing an abortion except when, in the words of the Idaho law, "necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman."
A challenge was brought by the Biden administration in U.S. District Court in Idaho to this Idaho statute, contending that the state law was preempted by the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which has been in existence for some 40 years. By the express terms of the EMTLA, it was argued, hospitals receiving Medicare funding were required to provide medical treatment -- including abortions -- in all those emergency situations where a pregnant woman faced serious injury (but something short of death) unless an abortion was performed.
The federal District Court in Idaho, concluding that the federal government was likely to prevail, entered an injunction pending a trial on the merits, thus enjoining the enforcement of the Idaho statute. On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the District Court's entering of the injunction on enforcement was affirmed.
The State of Idaho then sought emergency relief in the U.S. Supreme Court's so-called "shadow docket," asking the Court to take up the case itself -- i.e., grant certiorari before judgment -- while also requesting that the Supreme Court enter a stay of District Court's injunction. The Supreme Court initially granted Idaho's requested relief, thus allowing for enforcement of the Idaho statute to go forward.
What the Supreme Court has now done is, in the parlance of the Court's practice, dismiss the petition for certiorari as having been "improvidently granted" in the first place. As a result of this, the Supreme Court's own stay is dissolved, the District Court's original injunction goes back into effect, and enforcement of the Idaho statute is now once again enjoined. Trial on the merits -- i.e., whether the federal statute, EMTLA, really does preempt (which is to say, render invalid) the Idaho statute -- will now proceed in the U.S. District Court in Idaho.
The one that is NOT a biologist, is my guess. It should never have been allowed on the court. In my time I remember when laughter from those in charge was enough to shame people. Did the Senators laugh out loud when IT said IT wasn’t a biologist? WHY NOT? The worst answer in a job interview a he/she/it/him/her/zim/zer/them could give, yet she sailed through.
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.