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 ...
So this is why Louisiana copied the Texas law, and now Roberts flips his own vote
Exactly. This is strictly a stare decisis case to Roberts.
I think he viewed the LA law as being in bad faith since Whole Woman's Health was the same law and struck down by SCOTUS.
They were just trying to take advantage of the fact that we had an election and several justices had changed. In the absence of some new legal controversy Roberts saw it as purely political so voted against to protect the court.
Given a better challenge he will likely go back to his position in Woman's.
Sandra Day O’Conner....Reagan?
Earl Warren- Eisenhower.
Whatever it is, it’s long water under the bridge.
What about the first 2 years when Republican’s controlled the House.
SCOTUS won’t hear case about border wall handing a win to Trump!!
If ObamaCare decision didn't expose him, nothing will. Remember how thrilled we were that he was so young?
Won't matter Gorsuch will just go full Roberts, when needed.
The only cure for this is we the people if we survive long enough. Six out of seven BLM rioters are white and of those most are college educated young women. We have lost the culture war because we have became a bunch of wimps. The shoe pounder was correct.
We got Trump’s number one priority item, money for the wall. We also got thousands of Obama era regulations on business and industry thrown out.
There have never been enough votes in the Senate to block Democrat filibusters. 53 Republicans including the RINOs, you need 60 votes to end a filibuster.
Republicans did not control the House, Paul Ryan did. We have two tyrants, some times three, plus a Supreme Court that control the government.
Bizarre stuff. He's been untrustworthy since the Obamacare treason, but he was never THIS bad.
If this keeps up, Ann Coulter might have ironically been right about Roberts going full Souter on us. I doubt ANYONE (aside from Coulter herself, and she's known for saying shocking stuff just to get attention) could have predicted that back in 2005. I mean, the guy's wife is literally a card-carrying member of a pro-life organization. By all accounts he was a loyal Rehnquist clerk.
And I never gave much credit to the "Democrats are bribing Roberts with his kids being illegally adopted from overseas" conspiracy theory, but how else do you explain Roberts bizarre change of behavior? It's like Jekyll and Hyde. There was NO evidence Souter or Stevens were conservative in the FIRST place, just hearsay "trust me, the guy will be awesome for Republicans because the White House says so" anecdotes. (ditto with faux "originalist" Gorsuch, although I don't think he's nearly as bad as those two commies)
I've been having that sinking feeling for a while as well. Even in Trump got a third appointment and finally DID replace a commie judge with a 100% solid "pro-life judge in the Scalia mold", Gorsuch would just move further left to please his cocktail party pals inside the beltway. IMO, the fix is in.
>> draft impeachment proceedings just to put him on notice. They won’t impeach but it would be a severe rebuke nonetheless. <<
Ironically, Gerald Ford, who gave us that scumbag liberal traitor John Paul Stevens and never repented of it, had earlier himself tried to impeach a GOP-appointed SCOTUS judge for turning traitor and becoming a liberal activist. Specifically, he tried to start an impeachment inquiry against Earl Warren. It didn't get very far.
>> 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. <<
My point exactly as well. I don't think Trump has given us a solid Alito-type judge yet, while people sneer sarcastically "thanks Bush Jr. and Sr. for nothing", even though both of them DID accomplish that. IMO the scorecard so far is as follows:
Reagan: 2-2 (Rehnquist & Alito solid picks, O'Connor & Kennedy were meh)
GHWB: 1-1 (Thomas solid pick, Souter meh)
GWB: 1-1 (Alito solid pick, Roberts meh)
Trump: 0-2 (no solid picks... although the jury is still out on Kavanaugh and its POSSIBLE he could vote to overturn stuff like a "right" to homo marriage, so far its meh & meh)
IMO, instead of this "Impeach Roberts" stuff, how about "amend the constitution so these traitors can't stick around for decades destroying America, and make SCOTUS appointments last a maximum of 20 years or whenever they reach the age of 75, whichever comes first")
I think the latter effort would be far more useful.
>> On the other side of the aisle, Who are the SCOTUS Judges appointed by Democrat Presidents that have been turncoats? <<
I've said this numerous times on other threads: James Clark McRenyolds, Byron White. Yes, it's rare, but RAT judges assumed to be "Progressive" occasisonally turn traitor (just far less often than GOP judges do). No system is perfect.
But if we STOPPED the current method of just assuming the judge will vote awesome for the rest of their life because of what they CLAIM their "judicial philosophy" is, maybe our batting average would be more like 90% instead of 50%.
Just a suggestion.
Those kids that Roberts adopted on the down low must be all grown up by now - I doubt that he can be blackmailed for that anymore. If he’s been rumored to have taken a little vacay on Epstein’s plane, that’s a different story.
“Souter Meh”
Don’t you mean “Souter Uckfayuyaying awful”? ;-D
Gorsuch was on the right side here.
Roberts? He’s a self-important dickwad who thinks his farts smell like expensive cologne. I’m tired of hearing of this “blackmail” nonsense. It’s very simple, he decided as a political matter that he doesn’t want to restrict abortion hence he decided to nuthug precious “precedent” (that he was against establishing in the first place).
Well yeah, Souter was a terrible SCOTUS judge, but I split the GOP judges into two categories: good picks, and duds, so he ended up on the “dud” side along with lesser duds that voted the right way more often, like O’Connor.
So by those ratings, Reagan was 2-2, GHWB 1-1, GWB 1-1, Trump 0-2 (although that could change if Kavanaugh votes to overturn liberal “precedents” like Obamacare and homo marriage, which I don’ think he will)
I think you gotta have a third category for Souter (and Stevens) cause they are solid marxists which is so much worse than O’Connor or Kennedy or Roberts. A dud is a disappointment, not pure evil.
Roberts: in his confirmation hearing, made it clear that he was a Roberts-ian. He told us that this was his approach.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4545857/user-clip-roberts-stare-decisis
Kennedy was the key vote in Obergefell. That will earn him a place in hell for all eternity.
And the dirtbag who authored Roe v. Wade, Harry Blackmun, was one of Nixon’s “strict constructionist” appointments.
“....instead of this “Impeach Roberts” stuff, ....”
I’m not against impeachment for justices who don’t do their job, and ignore the Constitution.
But, yes we should term limit them in one way or another. It’s insane what they are getting away with.
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.