Supreme Court blocks Louisiana abortion law as John Roberts joins liberal justices in 5-4 ruling

[Wingnut]

Notorious RBG must be phoning it in from her coffin to get a 5-4 ruling. 


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-blocks-louisiana-abortion-law-1st-major-ruling-abortion-n968766

[Frank Cannon]

Isn't this Roberts a gem. I want to be the first to say how awesome GW Bush is for nominating this piece of shit.

[Wingnut]

Isn't this Roberts a gem. I want to be the first to say how awesome GW Bush is for nominating this piece of shit.

The guy is a tool.  A Rat tool.

[sneakypete]

Isn't this Roberts a gem. I want to be the first to say how awesome GW Bush is for nominating this piece of shit.

@Amb. Frank Cannon

What else did you expect from a member of Boy Jorge's homo love club?

[Frank Cannon]

@Amb. Frank Cannon

What else did you expect from a member of Boy Jorge's homo love club?

Well it could be worse. He could have nominated Harriet Myers......no. Wait. He did do that. Never mind.

[aligncare]

The guy is a tool.  A Rat tool.

He sure screwed the pooch on Obamacare. What a mess it made of health care. Prices rising ever since. It made health care ruinously unaffordable for the working middle class. *spit*

[montanajoe]

Roberts is a Conservative Judge not necessarily a political Conservative. When he was nominated the mantra of the right is that a Justice should not legislate from the bench.

Today that equation has changed and many on the right are fine with a the SC legislating from the bench as long as the decisions are "Conservative." Roberts believes, and his opinions reflect his view, that the Congress and not the SC should make law especially on social issues.


As CJ he has considerable power to influence the direction of the SC and I suspect he will disappoint political conservatives and liberals for another generation or two...and maybe at some point Congress will take the hint and begin do their job......

[TomSea]

Mark Levin, rightfully, skewered John Roberts over this. Doofus Roberts. I believe I heard Kavanaugh came in on the correct side.

[Applewood]

Isn't this Roberts a gem. I want to be the first to say how awesome GW Bush is for nominating this piece of shit.

Well, Roberts is the reason why I don't trust Trump's "conservative" justices.  Roberts was sold as a conservative and he turned out to be anything but.

I also learned from the Roberts fiasco that "conservative" and "Republican" are not one and the same.

[jmyrlefuller]

Today that equation has changed and many on the right are fine with a the SC legislating from the bench as long as the decisions are "Conservative." Roberts believes, and his opinions reflect his view, that the Congress and not the SC should make law especially on social issues.

And yet he issues a ruling blocking a duly legislated law.

The guy serves corporate interests, even if that corporation's Planned Parenthood. He's a Republican's Republican.

[Jazzhead]

One way to look at the Constitutionality of a law like this is to pretend that the restriction instead applied to guns.   Billed as "common sense safety", the LA law requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital,  notwithstanding the reality that almost all first trimester abortions do not require hospitalization.    Pretend that's instead a "common sense public safety" rule intended to make it harder for gun stores to operate,  say a rule that the gun store owner be strictly liable for the medical expenses of persons shot with the guns it sells.   Most gun stores would be effectively forced to close.

Constitutional?   I think you know the answer. 

Pro-lifers would do better to enact laws that conform to the duality of interests set forth in Roe v. Wade.   A woman must have a meaningful and effective right to choose.   But the state can regulate or even ban the procedure following viability,  since the woman will have had by that time up to four months to make her choice.   Better, then, to pass laws banning abortion after 20 weeks.   That fits within Roe v. Wade.   But arbitrary procedures intended to shut down abortion clinics in the name of "safety",  thereby reducing the entire State of Louisiana to having just 1 to 3 abortion clinics, effectively eviscerates the right to choose.   

Just think if there were only 1 - 3 places in the State of Louisiana where you could buy a gun to protect your family!   

[Jazzhead]

And yet he issues a ruling blocking a duly legislated law.

The fact that a law is "duly legislated" doesn't make it Constitutional.   The standard you propose would allow the left, were they to gain the power, to run roughshod over our rights.   

[sneakypete]

One way to look at the Constitutionality of a law like this is to pretend that the restriction instead applied to guns.   Billed as "common sense safety", the LA law requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital,  notwithstanding the reality that almost all first trimester abortions do not require hospitalization.    Pretend that's instead a "common sense public safety" rule intended to make it harder for gun stores to operate,  say a rule that the gun store owner be strictly liable for the medical expenses of persons shot with the guns it sells.   Most gun stores would be effectively forced to close.

Constitutional?   I think you know the answer. 

Pro-lifers would do better to enact laws that conform to the duality of interests set forth in Roe v. Wade.   A woman must have a meaningful and effective right to choose.   But the state can regulate or even ban the procedure following viability,  since the woman will have had by that time up to four months to make her choice.   Better, then, to pass laws banning abortion after 20 weeks.   That fits within Roe v. Wade.   But arbitrary procedures intended to shut down abortion clinics in the name of "safety",  thereby reducing the entire State of Louisiana to having just 1 to 3 abortion clinics, effectively eviscerates the right to choose.   

Just think if there were only 1 - 3 places in the State of Louisiana where you could buy a gun to protect your family!

@Jazzhead

Amen,amen,and AMEN!

The "life begins at erection" crowd will never agree with this,though. It makes too much sense.

[TIU]

There are two possibilities.

1. Roberts is a weak Chief Justice who is so concerned about appearance and the false promise of legacy that he ends up voting in ways that he thinks history would want him to. He doesn't want "his" Court to be solidly right wing because he thinks people (present and future) will say bad things about him. IOW, he's a vain bleep. 

2. He's compromised in some way and his cover is (1).

That's really it. The man has had too much experience with the legal world to really believe some of the things that he says (e.g. no such thing as a Trump or Obama judge).

[TIU]

Roberts believes, and his opinions reflect his view, that the Congress and not the SC should make law especially on social issues.

Sorry, but that doesn't work. By extension, that would result in a vote to allow this law to be implemented.

[Smokin Joe]

He sure screwed the pooch on Obamacare. What a mess it made of health care. Prices rising ever since. It made health care ruinously unaffordable for the working middle class. *spit*

I am sure his pooch is fine.

He broke with the Constitution in so many ways to rule the ACA "constitutional" he should have been removed from the bench.

[TIU]

The fact that a law is "duly legislated" doesn't make it Constitutional.   The standard you propose would allow the left, were they to gain the power, to run roughshod over our rights.

That isn't his point. I'm sure he can defend himself, but it's quite obvious that he was pointing out the flaw in the argument made by the post he was responding to, not proposing his own standard.

[TomSea]

One way to look at the Constitutionality of a law like this is to pretend that the restriction instead applied to guns.   Billed as "common sense safety", the LA law requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital,  notwithstanding the reality that almost all first trimester abortions do not require hospitalization.    Pretend that's instead a "common sense public safety" rule intended to make it harder for gun stores to operate,  say a rule that the gun store owner be strictly liable for the medical expenses of persons shot with the guns it sells.   Most gun stores would be effectively forced to close.

Constitutional?   I think you know the answer. 

Pro-lifers would do better to enact laws that conform to the duality of interests set forth in Roe v. Wade.   A woman must have a meaningful and effective right to choose.   But the state can regulate or even ban the procedure following viability,  since the woman will have had by that time up to four months to make her choice.   Better, then, to pass laws banning abortion after 20 weeks.   That fits within Roe v. Wade.   But arbitrary procedures intended to shut down abortion clinics in the name of "safety",  thereby reducing the entire State of Louisiana to having just 1 to 3 abortion clinics, effectively eviscerates the right to choose.   

Just think if there were only 1 - 3 places in the State of Louisiana where you could buy a gun to protect your family!

Mississippi, Missouri and other states already have only one clinic. You're way of thinking is why now,  infanticide is part and parcel of the debate.

[Jazzhead]

There are two possibilities.

1. Roberts is a weak Chief Justice who is so concerned about appearance and the false promise of legacy that he ends up voting in ways that he thinks history would want him to. He doesn't want "his" Court to be solidly right wing because he thinks people (present and future) will say bad things about him. IOW, he's a vain bleep. 

2. He's compromised in some way and his cover is (1).

That's really it. The man has had too much experience with the legal world to really believe some of the things that he says (e.g. no such thing as a Trump or Obama judge).

What if he genuinely believes the LA law may be unConstitutional as an effective abrogation of a Constitutional right?   If the State of Louisiana can effectively regulate abortion clinics out of existence on the pretense of "safety",  what's to stop the State of New York to effectively ban commerce in guns using the same pretense?

One can either meaningfully exercise a Constitutional right or one cannot.  What we need to decide for ourselves is whether a majority of the legislature can pass a law to impose the latter.   I say that's a classic case of the tyranny of the majority, and what the courts allow the legislature to do to eviscerate the choice right will become precedent to allow a similar evisceration of your right to own a gun. 

Perhaps Justice Roberts recognizes this.   

[rustynail]

Why are republicans such turncoats.

[thackney]

One way to look at the Constitutionality of a law like this is to pretend that the restriction instead applied to guns.   Billed as "common sense safety", the LA law requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital,  notwithstanding the reality that almost all first trimester abortions do not require hospitalization.    Pretend that's instead a "common sense public safety" rule intended to make it harder for gun stores to operate,  say a rule that the gun store owner be strictly liable for the medical expenses of persons shot with the guns it sells.   Most gun stores would be effectively forced to close....

You are comparing actions by the purchaser, as if the seller made them.

The doctor has to cover his own actions.  Not the actions of his patient after he leaves the office.

[Bigun]

One way to look at the Constitutionality of a law like this is to pretend that the restriction instead applied to guns.   Billed as "common sense safety", the LA law requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital,  notwithstanding the reality that almost all first trimester abortions do not require hospitalization.    Pretend that's instead a "common sense public safety" rule intended to make it harder for gun stores to operate,  say a rule that the gun store owner be strictly liable for the medical expenses of persons shot with the guns it sells.   Most gun stores would be effectively forced to close.

Constitutional?   I think you know the answer. 

Pro-lifers would do better to enact laws that conform to the duality of interests set forth in Roe v. Wade.   A woman must have a meaningful and effective right to choose.   But the state can regulate or even ban the procedure following viability,  since the woman will have had by that time up to four months to make her choice.   Better, then, to pass laws banning abortion after 20 weeks.   That fits within Roe v. Wade.   But arbitrary procedures intended to shut down abortion clinics in the name of "safety",  thereby reducing the entire State of Louisiana to having just 1 to 3 abortion clinics, effectively eviscerates the right to choose.   

Just think if there were only 1 - 3 places in the State of Louisiana where you could buy a gun to protect your family!

@Jazzhead

Can you show me the language in the Constitution that guarantees a right to an abortion? Or even privacy for that matter? I'll wait!

[TomSea]

Pro-lifers should work for 20 week bills, how patronizing said by someone who has railed against Christians with bigoted language and might as well take his position as infanticide for how he's treated others.   You really can make the same arguments for infanticide, it's sickening listening to this victory lap. Some states already have but one clinic but it's not surprising to know, once again, someone doesn't know what they are talking about.

[Jazzhead]

Mississippi, Missouri and other states already have only one clinic. You're way of thinking is why now,  infanticide is part and parcel of the debate.

Straw man.   The states have always had the right to ban infanticide,  as well as to ban abortion of viable fetuses.   Partial birth abortion bans, for example, are not uncommon.   The fact that Virginia has now, outrageously,  banned the imposition of restrictions on late term abortions is, to sure, evidence of moral bankruptcy, but it is also a reflection of abortion politics.   Pro-lifers are quite explicit in wanting to eviscerate a woman's Constitutional right to decide for herself whether to reproduce.   Laws like Virginia's are tit for tat,  countering that in states like Virginia and New York it is the viable unborn who are to be stripped of all rights.   

[Bigun]

I am sure his pooch is fine.

He broke with the Constitution in so many ways to rule the ACA "constitutional" he should have been removed from the bench.

IF Congress would do its damned job, even once, in this area we would be in a FAR better place now!