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

[TomSea]

Senator Collins will not back anti-abortion Supreme Court nominee
Lindsay Dunsmuir

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A key moderate Republican U.S. senator said on Sunday that she will not support a nominee to fill a soon-to-be-vacated seat on the Supreme Court who would overturn a landmark legal ruling that supports a woman’s right to abortion.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-abortion-collins-idUSKBN1JR1KR

The votes weren't there for Amy Coney Barret or any other strong pro-life nominees. Kavanaugh may still come through. Sometimes, one has to work with what they have.  Maybe next time.

[Oceander]

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.

You don’t even have a clue what the case was about, and what the Supreme Court was being asked to decide. 

I’ll give you a hint: as stated by Justice Thomas himself, it has nothing to do with abortion. 

[Oceander]

@Chosen Daughter

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

 James Madison, 1792
James Madison

Very nice, but you fail to cite to Hamilton on the same issue, no doubt because he held that the tax and spend powers were much broader than Madison presumed, and you also fail to cite to US v. Butler, 297 US 1 (1936), in which Hamilton’s expansive view prevailed. 

Thus, Madison’s points are of historical curiosity only, and do not properly state the limits on the tax and spend power. 

[Bigun]

Very nice, but you fail to cite to Hamilton on the same issue, no doubt because he held that the tax and spend powers were much broader than Madison presumed, and you also fail to cite to US v. Butler, 297 US 1 (1936), in which Hamilton’s expansive view prevailed. 

Thus, Madison’s points are of historical curiosity only, and do not properly state the limits on the tax and spend power.

Your opinion is noted, counselor.

[Oceander]

Yo9ur opinion is noted, counselor.

As is your disingenuousity. 

[Smokin Joe]

Clarence Thomas was very strong in his dissent. Well done to Justice C. Thomas.

Thomas is beyond intimidation.

They all should be. They have a job for life, and are virtually unassailable except in the press. IOW, they are free to rule as their conscience and the Constitution allow. Thus, their rulings speak volumes about their character and Conservatism (or lack thereof). If the sunshine patriots on the court won't rule in favor of Life, then Liberty and the 'pursuit of happiness' are indeed in peril--still.

[Bigun]

As is your disingenuousity.

See you in court!

[Oceander]

See you in court!

Don’t worry; I have no interest in suing you for your mendacity.

[Bigun]

Don’t worry; I have no interest in suing you for your mendacity.

I'm SO relieved!  /s

[Oceander]

They all should be. They have a job for life, and are virtually unassailable except in the press. IOW, they are free to rule as their conscience and the Constitution allow. Thus, their rulings speak volumes about their character and Conservatism (or lack thereof). If the sunshine patriots on the court won't rule in favor of Life, then Liberty and the 'pursuit of happiness' are indeed in peril--still.

Except that, as Thomas himself pointed out, the case had nothing to do with abortion.

[Smokin Joe]

Except that, as Thomas himself pointed out, the case had nothing to do with abortion.

Actually, the case has to do with a fundamental issue which has plagued the Republic since its inception: the balance of power between the States and the Federal Government. As ever, the Federal Government has been pounding the Constitutional constraints which preclude the determination of things at the State Level not specified in the Constitution as Federal powers or duties.
I see nothing in my copy of the Constitution which allows the Federal Government to require that money be given from the public coffers to any agency, governmental or otherwise, for the specific purpose of the taking of innocent lives, but here we are.  For that matter, Medicaid isn't in there, either.

[Oceander]

Actually, the case has to do with a fundamental issue which has plagued the Republic since its inception: the balance of power between the States and the Federal Government. As ever, the Federal Government has been pounding the Constitutional constraints which preclude the determination of things at the State Level not specified in the Constitution as Federal powers or duties.
I see nothing in my copy of the Constitution which allows the Federal Government to require that money be given from the public coffers to any agency, governmental or otherwise, for the specific purpose of the taking of innocent lives, but here we are.  For that matter, Medicaid isn't in there, either.

It was of more limited scope than that.  It also involved a circuit split, which is usually a basis for the Court to hear a case, but it’s possible that the one different circuit may change its opinion, which would resolve the narrow issue without the Court having to get involved st this time, so there was some rationale to the decision to not grant cert. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Well if only three Justices dissented...that means 6 voted the other way...Kavanaugh included.

Not in all cases does one get all nine voting.  At times, one of the justices does not vote for several reasons including not being present or a recusal.

I think Kavanaugh has already recused himself once.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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

Show me how I'm wrong.

Nothing was won or lost as no decision was made other than to punt.

Meanwhile @Oceander indicates there are multiple lower court rulings that go one way or the opposite.

[Sighlass]

@Chosen Daughter

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

 James Madison, 1792
James Madison

I love quotes Bigun, thanks

[Oceander]

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

Show me how I'm wrong.

Actually, you’re wrong, as indicated in Thomas’ own dissent.

Currently, under the rule in five circuits, private individuals have a cause of action under federal law that allows them to sue a state if that state changes some aspect of its approved Medicaid providers list.  In only one circuit is that right denied.  The other five circuits haven’t ruled on the issue yet. 

I don’t think the existence of a right to sue a state for how it’s managing it’s medicaid program really squares with the concept of states rights and the Tenth Amendment.

By not taking the case, the Supreme Court has allowed this state of affairs to continue, so no, the Court’s action in denying cert is not consistent with states rights and the tenth amendment.