Supremes strike down LA abortion law

[UncleMark]

Roberts comes down on the side of precedent.

Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana law that would have limited state to one abortion clinic

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/29/supreme-court-abortion-decision-louisiana-law-struck-down.html

Justice Stephen Breyer, who authored an opinion joined by his fellow Democratic appointees, wrote that the law placed an undue burden on women seeking abortions. Roberts wrote separately to say his thinking was based on the court’s 2016 decision to strike down a similar law in Texas.
[...]
Roberts said his vote with the liberals on Monday was based on the top court’s precedent in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case the court decided in 2016. In that case, the court struck down a nearly identical Texas law by a 5-3 vote. Roberts voted at the time to uphold the law.

But in his opinion on Monday, Roberts said that the legal doctrine known as stare decisis, or the principle of adhering to precedent, “requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike.”​

 

[DCDAVID]

But in his opinion on Monday, Roberts said that the legal doctrine known as stare decisis, or the principle of adhering to precedent, “requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike.”

Kudos to Roberts for adhering to precedent. Predictably the two Trump judges did not. It’s interesting, but not at all surprising, that MItch M spent years bitching and planting the “activist judges” seed into conservative thought/media but when he got his chance he has been appointing the most activist judges possible. If Trump is around another 4 years there will be little use for precedence.

 

[zeke4ahs]

SC has been very pleasantly surprising these last few decisions. Still wondering what will happen with Trump taxes.

 

[DCDAVID]

SC has been very pleasantly surprising these last few decisions. Still wondering what will happen with Trump taxes.

Most of those rulings would have gone the other way if Trump had one more judge on the court. Hate to be morbid but Ruth better hang on until January.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Most of those rulings would have gone the other way if Trump had one more judge on the court. Not to be morbid but Ruth better hang on until January.

Exactly. You know they would rush one in if they have any possible way. I’m up for donating body parts if she needs them. She’s a trouper!

 

[DCDAVID]

Exactly. You know they would rush one in if they have any possible way. I’m up for donating body parts if she needs them. She’s a trouper!

If Trump loses, and she happens to pass in December, Mitch would try to push someone through before the January inauguration.
She should give her underlings an order that she is to be kept in a home cooler until mid-January, with the public being told she is “recovering”, if she happens to pass in November or December.

 

[UncleMark]

SC has been very pleasantly surprising these last few decisions. Still wondering what will happen with Trump taxes.

There's black letter law that says the IRS has to hand over anyone's returns to the chairman of the House committee that oversees tax law. It would be the height of hypocrisy for the "textualists" to rule in Trump's favor. Not that I put it past them.

 

[SqueakyClean]

I've said for about a year now:

Ruth will announce her retirement either on November 10th of this year or January 26th of next year. November 10th if Trump wins. January 26th if he loses.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

The lie that Republican appointees would vote politically has been exposed.

Again.

The vast vast majority of judges abhor politicization of the judiciary.

Any time I had a client ask me who appointed the federal judge we drew, I knew I was in for an unpleasant ride. And I was usually right.

When the case rides on “who,” it’s much tougher to win and impossible to keep a client happy. The facts and law matter. The who doesn’t.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

For some reason in a thread with this title I cannot find how Diana Ross voted.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Roberts said his vote with the liberals on Monday was based on the top court’s precedent in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case the court decided in 2016. In that case, the court struck down a nearly identical Texas law by a 5-3 vote. Roberts voted at the time to uphold the law.

I've seen a few articles that cite Roberts voting 'with the liberals', like this snippet does.

I know there are people who are considered 'conservative' or 'liberal' on the court, but shouldn't it be reported that Roberts voted in accordance with how he sees the law written?

 

[iuwclurker]

I've seen a few articles that cite Roberts voting 'with the liberals', like this snippet does.

I know there are people who are considered 'conservative' or 'liberal' on the court, but shouldn't it be reported that Roberts voted in accordance with how he sees the law written?

Roberts takes his position as a statesperson and CJ seriously.

 

[zeke4ahs]

The lie that Republican appointees would vote politically has been exposed.

Again.

The vast vast majority of judges abhor politicization of the judiciary.

Any time I had a client ask me who appointed the federal judge we drew, I knew I was in for an unpleasant ride. And I was usually right.

When the case rides on “who,” it’s much tougher to win and impossible to keep a client happy. The facts and law matter. The who doesn’t.

I don’t know. Kavanaugh has pretty much proven to be Trump’s boy, just as expected.

 

[cosmickid]

The lie that Republican appointees would vote politically has been exposed.

Again.

The vast vast majority of judges abhor politicization of the judiciary.

Any time I had a client ask me who appointed the federal judge we drew, I knew I was in for an unpleasant ride. And I was usually right.

When the case rides on “who,” it’s much tougher to win and impossible to keep a client happy. The facts and law matter. The who doesn’t.

I think to an extent you are correct, and once people are actually elevated to the SCOTUS they gain a fresh perspective in line with keeping with the august nature of what they are a part of...

However, pre-SCOTUS (esp under Trump) we seem to be dealing with abject naked politicization of the Judiciary. And it seems like some, Lindsey Graham in particular are aware of this and want to ensure that it continues post-Trump.

“This is a historic opportunity,” Graham said. “We’ve put (nearly) 200 federal judges on the bench. ... If you can get four more years, I mean, it would change the judiciary for several generations. So if you’re a circuit judge in your mid-60s, late 60s, you can take senior status. Now would be a good time to do that, if you want to make sure the judiciary is right of center.”

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/...tire/507-d29bffd1-ba4b-4607-a38d-30b1b7ce5b5a

And can we talk about the large number of unqualified partisans Trump and McConnell have pushed thru that are included among those nearly 200 federal judges Lindsey referenced? Starting with people like Neomi Rao, who appear to have been elevated to the bench based more on her fealty to Trump than any recognition as a distinguished jurist. She was like a 1 woman wrecking crew when it came to the issue of Congressional Oversight...

"A federal appeals court ruled that the House Judiciary Committee must be allowed to see certain confidential documents relating to former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into potential Russian interference in the 2016 election — despite the Trump administration’s efforts to keep these documents secret.

That decision isn’t particularly surprising; indeed, it’s a pretty straightforward application of a federal procedural rule governing grand jury secrecy. The one thing that stands out about this decision is Judge Neomi Rao’s dissent.

Rao is both a former Trump White House official and a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. And her name is well-known to anyone who has followed President Trump’s efforts to avoid congressional oversight. Last fall, she wrote a widely mocked dissenting opinion that could have shut down much of Congress’s power to investigate the president altogether."

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/11/21173437/trump-judge-neomi-rao-mueller-grand-jury-dc-circuit

Her latest ruling which seems destined for more mockery and eventual reversal should it be reviewed is her over the top opinion regarding Judge Sullivan and Flynn. She seems to believe that Federal Prosecutors are unaccountable to anyone but the POTUS...

"On Wednesday, in a 2–1 decision, Judge Neomi Rao forced a district court to dismiss the prosecution of Michael Flynn. Rao’s opinion is an exercise in outcome-driven sophistry that barely pretends to be a judicial opinion. While gutting a vital check of executive misconduct, Rao whitewashed the Justice Department’s flagrantly political decision to drop charges against Flynn—hours before the House Judiciary Committee heard whistleblowers testify about political interference at the DOJ, including in Flynn’s case. Rao accused the district court of “unprecedented intrusions on individual liberty” simply because it dared to “prob[e] the government’s motives” for meddling in the prosecution of the president’s ally.

Wednesday’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will almost certainly be appealed to the full court and possibly the Supreme Court after that. If upheld, Rao’s ruling will set a terrible legal precedent. But equally devastating are its broader, long-term implications for judicial independence."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/michael-flynn-neomi-rao-trump-barr-sullivan.html

 

[UncleMark]

Ruth will announce her retirement either on November 10th of this year or January 26th of next year. November 10th if Trump wins. January 26th if he loses.

It would depend more on whether or not the Dems flip the Senate.

 

[UncleMark]

For some reason in a thread with this title I cannot find how Diana Ross voted.

Oh, wise guy huh? Nyuk nyuk nyuk...

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Oh, wise guy huh? Nyuk nyuk nyuk...

I'm a big fan of the old Motown groups. Supremes mean one thing.

 

[DCDAVID]

The lie that Republican appointees would vote politically has been exposed.

Again.

.

The lie?? How can you say that when the two Trump appointees predictably ignored precedent that was set with the 2016 ruling involving the state of Texas? The Trump Republican appointees 100% voted politically with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch delivering exactly what their political benefactors expected.

 

[UncleMark]

The lie?? How can you say that when the two Trump appointees predictably ignored precedent that was set with the 2016 ruling involving the state of Texas? The Trump Republican appointees 100% voted politically with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch delivering exactly what their political benefactors expected.

Didn't both claim to respect stare decisis during their nomination hearings?

 

[UncleMark]

I'm a big fan of the old Motown groups. Supremes mean one thing.

Sorry. Can't help myself.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

The lie?? How can you say that when the two Trump appointees predictably ignored precedent that was set with the 2016 ruling involving the state of Texas? The Trump Republican appointees 100% voted politically with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch delivering exactly what their political benefactors expected.

Go read the cases establishing abortion rights, gay marriage and LBGQT workplace protections, and upholding the ACA.

They were all written by Republican appointees in “surprise” votes (allegedly).

If you demand 9-0 opinions, you’re in the wrong game.

If you demand undefeated seasons, same thing.

I’ve practiced law in front of federal judges appointed by Presidents going back to Nixon. Almost without exception, the party affiliation was meaningless. Certainly, at SCOTUS level, conservative vs. liberal is more meaningful, but it is not the sole factor the votes whores and thier toxic partisan adherents claim.

 

[DCDAVID]

Go read the cases establishing abortion rights, gay marriage and LBGQT workplace protections, and upholding the ACA.

They were all written by Republican appointees in “surprise” votes (allegedly).

If you demand 9-0 opinions, you’re in the wrong game.

If you demand undefeated seasons, same thing.

I’ve practiced law in front of federal judges appointed by Presidents going back to Nixon. Almost without exception, the party affiliation was meaningless. Certainly, at SCOTUS level, conservative vs. liberal is more meaningful, but it is not the sole factor the votes whores and thier toxic partisan adherents claim.

Jumping to “demand 9-0” and “undefeated seasons” is a “bit” of a jump.
It says something, however, that when I heard it went 5-4 I absolutely knew how each of the 9 voted without having to read the article.

PS....The CFPB court ruling today was also 5-4 and I was able to use my magical powers to also correctly guess how each of the 9 justices voted. I should start buying lotto tickets,

 

[SqueakyClean]

It would depend more on whether or not the Dems flip the Senate.

I doubt it. If the Senate remains Republican and Biden wins, then she will retire in late January and Biden will get his pick in by February. McConnel was able to spin the last "Don't even bother" in an election year and he will be derided until the day he retires for that decision. If he were to try to uphold the next pick it would be political suicide. Don't get me wrong, the Republicans would try to nitpick Biden's choice to every extent possible, but a pick would eventually go through.

 

[DCDAVID]

I doubt it. If the Senate remains Republican and Biden wins, then she will retire in late January and Biden will get his pick in by February. McConnel was able to spin the last "Don't even bother" in an election year and he will be derided until the day he retires for that decision. If he were to try to uphold the next pick it would be political suicide. Don't get me wrong, the Republicans would try to nitpick Biden's choice to every extent possible, but a pick would eventually go through.

Those in his circle and with his beliefs will forever praise, not deride, Mitch for the disgusting way he handled the Garland nomination.

 

[dbmhoosier]

Anyone know the last time we had a Democrat President that appointed a swing or even conservative justice? Seems like we've had a lot of swing and even some liberal justices appointed by Republicans.

 

[cosmickid]

Anyone know the last time we had a Democrat President that appointed a swing or even conservative justice? Seems like we've had a lot of swing and even some liberal justices appointed by Republicans.

I don't think the respective GOP POTUS knew in advance they were nominating a "swing" justice. I think most people felt Roberts would be conservative. And under Trump, we've seen a singular reliance on Federalist Society screening/recommendations on who to nominate. In every level of the Judiciary...

 

[DCDAVID]

Anyone know the last time we had a Democrat President that appointed a swing or even conservative justice? Seems like we've had a lot of swing and even some liberal justices appointed by Republicans.

Anyone know the last time the Republicans knowingly appointed a swing or liberal justice? Souter was one of the conservatives biggest misses of the past few decades, from their perspective, but Sununu was adamant with Bush that Souter was a reliable conservative. McConnell and The Federalist society have done all they can to be sure that “mistake” will be avoided.
I have zero doubt the Dems will do the same thing if they win the WH and senate.

 

[DCDAVID]

Jumping to “demand 9-0” and “undefeated seasons” is a “bit” of a jump.
It says something, however, that when I heard it went 5-4 I absolutely knew how each of the 9 voted without having to read the article.

PS....The CFPB court ruling today was also 5-4 and I was able to use my magical powers to also correctly guess how each of the 9 justices voted. I should start buying lotto tickets,

PPS....The court ruled 5-4 that state tax monies must be available for voucher (mostly religious) schools. Astoundingly (LOL) the vote was 5-4 strictly divided by conservative/liberal. Once again I knew exactly who voted which way as the court has often-time become merely a political apparatus (on both sides) and many of the “laws of the land” will simply be dependent on which party controls the senate/white house and has the opportunity to appoint judges.

Rulings involving the release of the Trump tax returns will be interesting (on a side note, why is this being litigated? I 100% trusted him when he said he was releasing them once the “audit” was complete).

 

[UncleMark]

Rulings involving the release of the Trump tax returns will be interesting

At least in one of the cases, for them to rule in Trump's favor they'll have to invalidate black letter law. Bad look for the texturalists.