Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Wildcat Rant Board' started by NUCat320, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:12 AM.
John Roberts joins the liberal justices.
This has to really piss off Trump, Pence and all of anti-abortion folks!
Trump will only be pissed because some may use this to criticize him and it hurts his re-election. Otherwise, I doubt he cares about the actual issue at hand.
Give credit to Roberts for doing what’s right for the country and the Court. I am certain this ruling is in conflict with his personal beliefs but I think with Kennedy gone he now has the responsibility of balancing the Court’s decisions to preserve the Court’s reputation as an nonpartisan institution and to respect the importance of legal precedent.
president Biden will likely need to nominate two new justices during his first term. Ginsberg because of health issues and Thomas because of his incompetence and his wife's political activities.
There's nothing nonpartisan about penumbras.
Truth be known, I'd bet he has funded a few himself. Or abandoned the woman/kid. or some of each*
*almost forgot my disclaimer. Biden also sucks
I think this is his rationale...he can make an argument either way...but he's trying to preserve the integrity of the court and knows it's on an edge right now
I am posting as a physician and cannot explain the rationale for this decision. As a surgeon, I must have admitting privileges at a hospital to perform surgery in an outpatient surgicenter.. Complications are rare but it is the surgeons responsibility to be able to address them.
I cannot imagine the liability risk and guilt of performing a procedure and then "abandoning" the patient if a complication occurred. I could not in good faith perform surgery, if I did not have the ability to follow the patient to a more advanced facility..
"Miss Jones, I perforated your uterus and I left products of conception behind. We are sending you to a nearby hospital"
"What can happen doctor ?"
You may need a hysterectomy, get septicemia, hemorrhage or even die."
"Will you take care of me ?"
"No, the ER will try to get someone to come see you. I just do abortions and problems are passed on to someone else"
" You did my surgery but can't help me now ? Hysterectomy -oh my god"
"That's right but if you have a hysterectomy, you won't have to worry about getting pregnant again. Look on the bright side. Good day, good luck but please pay my bill promptly"
It’s because abortion is safe and admitting privileges have no impact on its safety.
The rationale Roberts gave is that he was following precedent (stare decisis). He actually dissented in the case that set the precedent, but he doesn't want to rock the boat right now and be called partisan.
I can't think of any cases when the liberal justices let stare decisis prevent them from rocking the boat.
I think stare decisis has its role (to let similar cases be decided similarly), but a wrongly decided precedent should be overturned. Roberts has lost the courage of his convictions and is now deciding cases on the basis of politics.
Yep, nobody has ev
Safe for whom?
Roberts simply respects institutions and views Trump as someone who does not. He rightfully finds Trump abhorrent and a threat to our country.
For the person who is ostensibly protected by a doctor with admitting privileges.
I have a problem with the term "ostensibly" I can't imagine any gynecologist willingly agreeing to deal with life threatening complications created by another physician, who was either unwilling or unqualified to provide comprehensive care. These patients may be dumped in an ER, foisted upon another physician, while the truly responsible MD simply grabs another curet(curette)
The AMA disagrees https://www.ama-assn.org/press-cent...-supreme-court-ruling-louisiana-abortion-case
You may have a problem with the policy, but you have no data to support your position.
The whole point of stare decisis is to prevent the court from quickly reversing itself simply because the justices turnover (then politicizing the court). The nearly identical Texas law the court struck down was merely four years ago (2016). Perhaps by 2026 when other abortion cases create different fact patterns or precedents, there could be a reasonable reason to reverse itself.
I’ve watched all of the SCOTUS confirmation hearings since I can remember. They all talk about stare decisis, but it was very clearly something Roberts had a very high conviction in, so I don’t think it’s fair to say he lost the courage of his convictions. If anything, he stuck by his convictions when it was hard.
The AMA is a joke. It does not represent the vast majority of physicians. Membership in the AMA has steadily declined to about 15% of licensed(and unlicensed) physicians. The AMA has now given "sponsored memberships" to students and residents to give the impression that their numbers are stable. To imply that it is the authority on medical practice in the United States is simply wrong. The AMA is only interested in its survival, taking money from lobbying groups and other special interests and presenting policy reflecting those contributions
It wasn’t just the AMA. Face it, your position is political, not medical.
The data is there-look it up
Don't forget to look up:
post abortion miscarriage rate
Post abortion ectopic pregnancy rate
Teen suicide rate post abortion
Karnak , adjust you turban. As a physician, I would never perform a surgical procedure ,that I could not deal with an iatrogenic complication. For instance , I stopped doing lumbar fusions with the advent of sophisticated implants that would have required an extensive "learning curve" to perform safely
I am amazed at the ability of many on this board to make assumptions about others.
If it helps crystallize your thinking, Roberts has a painting of Marbury and Madison on the wall in the anteroom outside his chambers.
So precedent from "only" four years ago must be respected, but precedent from seven years ago is no longer governed by stare decisis? Sorry, I call bullshit. What an arbitrary, capricious take.
It is impossible to credit Roberts’s claim that respect for precedent dictated his decision. He has been perfectly willing to overrule precedents in the past. Some of them were of much longer standing. Janus v. AFSCME (2018), on public-sector unions, overruled Abood v. Detroit (1977). Some of them involved cases that presented nearly identical fact patterns. Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion of a type that had been struck down in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000).
Bad precedent is bad precedent, and the Constitution allows what it allows. If Roberts believes the Constitution allows Louisiana to make this law, then he has a duty to uphold the Constitution. He took an oath.
Stenberg dealt with the constitutionality of a Nebraska state statute. The majority held that the statute was void for vagueness; ambiguity in statutes that creates interpretations in conflict with the Constitution is an extremely common method to strike down laws.
In 2003, Congress passed a federal law that legislatively overturned the holding in Stenberg, as is their wont so long as the statute meets constitutional criteria.
The holding in Gonzales upheld the constitutionality of the federal statute. Kennedy, writing for the majority, specifically distinguished the holding in Gonzalez as being based on the 2003 federal law, which was specific enough to pass judicial review. The Court did acknowledge that this particular federal law was sufficiently tailored to meet its legislative goals without creating an undue burden on individuals that violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
In this case, no intervening federal law overturned the holding from the Texas law 4 years ago. In Whole Woman’s Health, SCOTUS ruled that Texas’s admitting privileges requirement “places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion,” which violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Louisiana law at issue here in June Medical placed analogous restrictions on women that violate the Due Process Clause in the same way, so stare decisis controls.
The legislative branch passes laws, the judicial branch determines whether the laws are constitutional. The passage of a law that effectively replaced the Stenberg holding means that stare decisis based on the 2000 decision was inapplicable to the 2007 decision. Because Congress has not legislated in the area contemplated by Whole Woman's Health and June Medical, the Court correctly ruled here. If Congress wishes to legislate in this area, it can choose to, and no doubt SCOTUS will get a chance to revisit whether such a federal law meets all required standards to be constitutional.
Except Roberts doesn't believe this violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I don't buy it.
I also certainly don't think the authors of the 5th and 14th Amendments knew that they were writing about "Substantive Due Process." It wasn't discovered in that text until the 20th century; I surely don't know how they found it there. But it is precedent, because a majority of justices can make up whatever they want and call it precedent. Liberals seem to do this more.
"Please do not emanate into the penumbra."
Washington Post opinion piece wonders if Roberts is trying to save the court from packing by the Democrats after the November elections.
That would certainly be an explanation for why Roberts would make political rulings instead of following his convictions. But he still swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. If he believes a precedent is contrary to the Constitution, the Constitution must win out.
Those would be interesting to see, but would have nothing to do with whether admitting privileges have any impact on the safety of abortion.
While you’re finding that data, perhaps you’ll want to find data on how many fewer abortions are estimated to happen via coat hanger or self-starvation as a result of this ruling. Abortions became safer in Louisiana.
And, while you’re finding that data for me, please also look up the number of children in foster care.
“Please don’t publish flawed analogies that rest on plainly obvious misstatements of the legal posture of two sets of cases, attempting to show that one means the other was wrong.”
It's not a function of time, but a function of other rulings that evolve the constitutional interpretation of something. It's just that often takes time. Also, I said 10 years (from 2016 to 2026) not 6 years.
Perhaps in 2023, the SCOTUS upholds a state law saying the state of Texas has the right to restrict hernia surgeries unless that location is within X miles of an advanced medical facility in the event of surgery complications, and the fact pattern is that abortion complications are more common than hernia surgery complications. That's the kind of thing the court could use to overturn the abortion (location) restriction because if restricting hernia surgeries for medical reasons isn't unreasonable, it's not unreasonable to restrict where a riskier medical procedure (abortion) can performed as well.
Just to flip itself in 4 years in a case where the precedent and fact pattern is identical turns the court into an unelected form of congress.That's the definition of a left wing legislating court that true conservatives are supposed to hate. The court is supposed to start with its own precedent it has established and work from there. If the precedent and fact patterns are the same and there's been no new facts or similar precedents established, it should rule the same way.
Also, this was sort of my point. Janus v. AFSCME (2018) overturned Abood v. Detroit (1977) 41 years later where there was no doubt a crap-ton of public-union case law in-between that probably chipped away at the 1977 ruling. Nobody has ever said stare decisis means the court should never overturn itself. It's just that it shouldn't overturn itself if there's exactly the same facts and circumstances and there's no new relevant precedents established (in the intervening period).
The quote is from a sign that Clarence Thomas has in his office. I just found it amusing and I thought you would too.
It's "agree to disagree" time!
Didn't think Clarence Thomas has any thoughts. if he does he sure hides them well.
My criticism is of National Review and of Thomas, then, and not of you.
The publication should know better. They're flat out wrong in making such a specious comparison. More realistically, they do know better and are writing in bad faith.
Thomas, well, he is who he is. But the Framers also couldn't anticipate automatic weapons or the Internet. If we accepted the Framers' language as the final word, Thomas himself wouldn't be able to own property, or vote, or be a free man. We've had to amend their original seven articles 27 times. The world changes, as do the meanings of the words, and the law has to change with it in order to reflect the customs and mores of society. There were whispers today that he may retire before the end of Trump's term, which will set of a lovely firestorm of politics. I wouldn't be surprised at all for him to do so in October to try to juice GOP turnout.
By any fair standard, when Trump picks the next ultra conservative judge he can rightly say that he is just trying to strike a balance, and I can imagine that he might say the exact sorta thing you just did to make his point.
It also helps him politically to rally his base.