Supreme Court won't consider state efforts to defund Planned Parenthood

[Applewood]

And whether it's Planned Parenthood...2nd Amendment issues or Immigration...when the court refuses to tackle the tough cases such as this one it allows the lower courts to run wild...circumvent and in some cases outright ignore previous rulings made by the SCOTUS on some of these issues (see Heller).


People want to scratch their heads and wonder how a lower court can stop the President or the Congress from implementing laws and orders that they pass and write....THIS is how that happens.

You're right.  The federal judiciary is a mess.  SCOTUS should set a positive example.  But it doesn't.

[libertybele]

The problem is each individual state isn't getting the right to decide right now.  The pro abortion groups went to court over it and there's been a ruling blocking the states enjoined in the lawsuit from defunding PP if they choose.

They liberal activist courts have taken control out of the states hands.  And by the SCOTUS not hearing this case...they've allowed the lower courts to continue to deny each state from making it's own decision.

Thank you very much for the clarification. Well, so much for being hopeful that we have a new and improved 'conservative' SCOTUS.

[Cyber Liberty]

The worst part is, many of us here and elsewhere had these very same reservations about Kavanaugh before he was nominated. Unfortunately, those concerns were immediately shouted down when Trump officially nominated him, because too many *wanted* Kavanaugh to be the tipping point that started to undo the Warren Court.

We also have Christine Blasey Ford to thank for creating a sideshow that made it impossible for those on the right to criticize Kavanaugh without looking like moles.

I think that's true, and also profound.  It's like 2012, and Romney was looking strong to get the nomination (dittos 2008 & McStain).  I said to Mrs. Liberty, "Watch this.  We detest the man, but the bogus liberal attacks on him will have me defending him."  Same with President Trump.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Each state has a right to accept or reject funding from Medicare on certain issues.  States have rejected $$ from the Feds for funding before.  The states have rights, that is why to me the decision by SCOTUS to force all 50 states to allow gay marriage was disturbing. As much as I don't like the issue of Medicaid funding Planned Parenthood, it's really up to the states.

They obviously didn't rule, but refused to hear the case and again, my hunch is it boiled down to the rights of the states.  They would have had to either rule or rule against states using Medicaid $$ to fund planned parenthood. Eventually this would have opened the door to include all states and possibly encompass in the future the issue of abortion and they didn't want to go there.

According to the article, federal courts have been blocking state legislatures from not funding abortion providers.  Not taking up the case is failing to protect the rights of states, IMO.

[Applewood]

The worst part is, many of us here and elsewhere had these very same reservations about Kavanaugh before he was nominated. Unfortunately, those concerns were immediately shouted down when Trump officially nominated him, because too many *wanted* Kavanaugh to be the tipping point that started to undo the Warren Court.

We also have Christine Blasey Ford to thank for creating a sideshow that made it impossible for those on the right to criticize Kavanaugh without looking like moles.

I really wanted to know more about Kavanaugh, but as you said, everyone was sidetracked by those bogus Ford claims -- myself included.  After Roberts was fraudulently sold as a conservative, I find I can't trust anyone (not just Trump) when they say a nominee is a conservative jurist.  I'm going to find out for myself.

By the way, even though Kavanaugh is on track to being a lousy choice for SCOTUS, I'm still glad I and so many others defended him against those bogus claims by Ford and others.  The people and organizations behind that smear campaign thought they could get away with it -- after all, a similar campaign against Roy Moore was so successful.  I just hope whoever is behind this [expletive] will think twice before they try to smear someone like that again.

Kavanaugh will still have chances to regain his reputation in future rulings.  I just hope he's smart enough to do so. 

[Oceander]

That's easy.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/20/kavanaugh-wife-death-threats/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/09/20/death-threats-brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford/1371995002/

Planned Parenthood Action too, a subgroup of Planned Parenthood, seemed to be involved in a lot of the protests against Kavanaugh. I think a lot of that was discussed in the forum 2 months ago.

At least, Gorsuch voted correctly.

I myself wondered a bit about Kavanaugh but I was for him all the same. This is one ruling and hopefully, LA. and KS. can still defund in their state legislatures.

And you think now that Kavanaugh is a kept creature?

Pass the tinfoil, please.

[Oceander]

Wow.  So Kavanaugh’s the devil now.  That honeymoon was short!

[Cyber Liberty]

Wow.  So Kavanaugh’s the devil now.  That honeymoon was short!

The same thing happened with Goresuch.  He was much reviled on TBR for his first decision on SCOTUS.

[Oceander]

The same thing happened with Goresuch.  He was much reviled on TBR for his first decision on SCOTUS.

You mean Gorsuch?

[Cyber Liberty]

You mean Gorsuch?

Sorry.  Bad speling.  Yes.  What about my point?

[Sighlass]

Numerous folks here at TBR (myself included) said he was not the one to pick, but who are we...

[Oceander]

Sorry.  Bad speling.  Yes.  What about my point?

That he was reviled as well?  I don’t recall off-hand, but I’ll take your word for it.

[Cyber Liberty]

That he was reviled as well?  I don’t recall off-hand, but I’ll take your word for it.

There were only a relative few, so I'm not surprised not recalling it.  There were some PO'ed posts after his first decision (DACA EO, I think it was).  Lotta "I toldja so" stuff.   

You did explain the rationale when I asked.  I agreed about the law but I wasn't fond of it in principle.  I don't recall much of it other than that.

[Oceander]

There were only a relative few, so I'm not surprised not recalling it.  There were some PO'ed posts after his first decision (DACA EO, I think it was).  Lotta "I toldja so" stuff.   

You did explain the rationale when I asked.  I agreed about the law but I wasn't fond of it in principle.  I don't recall much of it other than that.

On this case, I’ve seen some discussion that this is a lopsided circuit split, and that since the one court that differs from the others only recently made its decision, the Supreme Court may prefer to wait and see if the split fixes itself by means of that one court reconsidering its opinion.  If that happens, then there isn’t a split to fix any more.  It seems a reasonable use of limited judicial resources to wait a little while on this one to see if that happens. 

[Cyber Liberty]

It wasn't "ripe?"  I totally agree with that.  An unripe issue leads to decisions like this (not taking the case) we may not like, but we end up "winning" eventually when it gets to SCOTUS with a clearer case, right?  A precedent-setting decision is the last thing I want  to see if the lines aren't clear.

[TomSea]

Numerous folks here at TBR (myself included) said he was not the one to pick, but who are we...

Roy Moore certainly came out supporting Kavanaugh and the first story even says, endorsed Kavanaugh:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/20/brett-kavanaugh-wins-roy-moore-endorsement-not-that-he-asked-it/ (could be a paywall)

One can search out other stories, I'll leave it at that.

@Sighlass

This is but one episode and I admit, it looks like Kavanaugh wimped out.

[Oceander]

It wasn't "ripe?"  I totally agree with that.  An unripe issue leads to decisions like this (not taking the case) we may not like, but we end up "winning" eventually when it gets to SCOTUS with a clearer case, right?  A precedent-setting decision is the last thing I want  to see if the lines aren't clear.

What is “winning”?  Even if the Court had taken the case, all it would have decided is whether a private right of action existed that would allow individuals to sue if a state removed a provider from the states list of approved Medicaid providers.

It wouldn’t have reached the abortion issue at all.  And it wouldn’t even reach the issue of whether planned parenthood itself had a cause of action for being removed. 

[Cyber Liberty]

What is “winning”?  Even if the Court had taken the case, all it would have decided is whether a private right of action existed that would allow individuals to sue if a state removed a provider from the states list of approved Medicaid providers.

It wouldn’t have reached the abortion issue at all.  And it wouldn’t even reach the issue of whether planned parenthood itself had a cause of action for being removed.

That's why I put "Winning" in scare quotes there.  Its not "winning" in the Trumpian sense.

[DB]

The Supreme Court declined to review three cases relating to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood at the state level Monday, over a vigorous dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas.

The dissent was significant because it indicates that Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the high court’s liberal wing to deny review of a lower court decision that favored the nation’s largest abortion provider.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/10/planned-parenthood-kavanaugh/

[DB]

This isn't a good start.

[roamer_1]

This isn't a good start.

Nope... It sure isn't... But predicted.

[Chosen Daughter]

There is nothing Constitutional about forcing people with religious objection to the murder of innocent babes in the womb to fund it.  These judges went into it knowing that Planned Parenthood is selling fetal body parts.  I have no idea how SCOTUS could come to the conclusion this is Constitutional.  It isn't.

So much for the other reason Trump was elected.  To appoint liberal judges with agendas.  Somehow this really diminished the pain Kavanaugh went through in confirmation.  It doesn't even compare to the pain of a fetus burned to death in the womb during partial birth abortion.

[Sighlass]

Roy Moore certainly came out supporting Kavanaugh and the first story even says, endorsed Kavanaugh:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/20/brett-kavanaugh-wins-roy-moore-endorsement-not-that-he-asked-it/ (could be a paywall)

One can search out other stories, I'll leave it at that.

@Sighlass

This is but one episode and I admit, it looks like Kavanaugh wimped out.

Just because a liberal headline says one thing, does not make it so. WAPO (who threw the Judge under the bus) says "he endorsed" yet I can not find where Moore actually endorsed anyone. All I see is where Roy shared an article that showed says what I said over and over time and time again, that Kavanaugh was Roy Moored. That does not equal an endorsement.

This is what was said that the WAPO said was an endorsement... you carefully tell me if you still stand by your belief that this was a true endorsement. @TomSea



All I see is the WAPO trying it's best use Moore as a tool against Kavanaugh via more lies via spin and misinformation in titles. I certainly wouldn't like to think I am helping WAPO in their mission. All Moore did was tell conservatives to man up and fight against false accusations otherwise it would be a tool forever more.

"It's so obvious that these tactics are used just days before a very important event ...but these come up right before an election or a confirmation, and I think the Republicans need to take a stand. I think a lot of them don't. They don't like criticism."

Yep

"I think they don't care about transparency, they just use it because its effective," he said. "They know that on the one hand you offend women if you believe somebody that says they weren't guilty of sexual misconduct. On the other hand, if you don't believe them, you're condemning the person accused of guilt to prove his own innocence. It's a Catch-22."

Yep again...

[Bigun]

I see this as a big win for Federalism and the 10th amendment!

Show me how I'm wrong.

[Bigun]

There is nothing Constitutional about forcing people with religious objection to the murder of innocent babes in the womb to fund it.  These judges went into it knowing that Planned Parenthood is selling fetal body parts.  I have no idea how SCOTUS could come to the conclusion this is Constitutional.  It isn't.

So much for the other reason Trump was elected.  To appoint liberal judges with agendas.  Somehow this really diminished the pain Kavanaugh went through in confirmation.  It doesn't even compare to the pain of a fetus burned to death in the womb during partial birth abortion.

@Chosen Daughter

You are absolutely right but the federal case against that needs to be framed along these lines.

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

 James Madison, 1792

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

James Madison