The Supreme Court Is Highly Unlikely to Take the Alabama Abortion Law. Here’s Why.

[TomSea]

The Supreme Court Is Highly Unlikely to Take the Alabama Abortion Law. Here’s Why.
Kim Wehle

Legally speaking, Americans on both sides of the abortion debate are understandably curious about what comes next for the Alabama abortion law banning virtually all abortions, including those resulting from rape or incest. Does the Supreme Court have to take a challenge to this or any other abortion law? And if it does, what would that mean for Roe v. Wade, which established a privacy right to abortion under the Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment?

The answer to the first question is: No. The Supreme Court has discretion to accept or reject cases submitted for review on what’s known as a petition for a writ of certiorari, which is essentially a request that the Supreme Court grade the legal papers of a lower court. The Supreme Court sets its own rules regarding which cases to accept. The current rules require four of the nine justices to vote yes on a case. (Five justices must agree to stay an execution in a death penalty appeal.) The rules also provide that a petition for writ of certiorari “will be granted only for compelling reasons,” such as a conflict amongst lower courts as to an important question of federal law. (Lower courts sometimes need an umpire.)

The rules go on to state that a petition “is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law.” So if a lower court states the law correctly, but applies it incorrectly, the Supreme Court won’t step in. It will step in when a lower court “has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, or should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.”

Read more at: https://thebulwark.com/the-supreme-court-is-highly-unlikely-to-take-the-alabama-abortion-case-heres-why/?utm_source=afternoon-newsletter&utm_medium=email

The Bulwark is liberal, make no mistake about that and fairly new but this is an interesting article nonetheless. IF Scotus doesn't take it up, it stands it would seem to me, at least in the state of Alabama.

Judge Thomas, God Bless Him, Likewise, is in the news a lot today.

[Bill Cipher]

The Supreme Court would only take a case if the law had not been invalidated by the lower courts.  And it is a virtual certainty that the Alabama law will be summarily invalidated in its entirety by the lower courts.  Thus, if the Supreme Court does not take a case relating to that law, it will only be because the law is already dead in its entirety. 

[Jazzhead]

The Supreme Court would only take a case if the law had not been invalidated by the lower courts.  And it is a virtual certainty that the Alabama law will be summarily invalidated in its entirety by the lower courts.  Thus, if the Supreme Court does not take a case relating to that law, it will only be because the law is already dead in its entirety.

I predict that the Alabama law, as well as the several "heartbeat" bills,  will be invalidated by the Courts of Appeal.   The SCOTUS will let those decisions stand,  thereby wasting all the efforts of those legislatures trying to get a test case before the Supreme Court.   

These laws are simply too extreme and repugnant to liberty to be Constitutional.   A better case, IMO, may be those laws that severely restrict the procedure after 20 weeks (that are, in other words, similar to abortion restrictions that exist in Europe.)    Those laws, which aren't extreme and allow (IMO) a meaningful opportunity for a woman to make her choice,  may be either upheld or rejected by a Court or Appeals.   If there is a split in the circuits, the SCOTUS may be prompted to intervene and resolve the conflict.