It’s because they people suing didn’t have the standing to do - as you need to be personally harmed by something for the government to act. SCOTUS uses that all the time to knock stuff out
weird standing didnt see to matter with him in other cases, like student loan forgiveness. The only group with standing in the case didnt want to even be in the case. Republicans on the court didnt care.
the wedding website lady who wasnt actually making wedding websites and didnt actually have any customers and STILL DOESNT MAKE WEBSITES, had imaginary standing, where was mister kegger then? drunk?
Whenever I think of him I remember when he was being question by the Senate, in tears, insisting he likes beer. Can't believe we have someone so emotional on the bench.
Remember when he claimed, in anger, that he was being questioned so critically because it was "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" and also "what goes around comes around"
Shit was super disqualifying, but here we are
So was Clarence Thomas's treatment of Anita Hill, but that all was let slide. A dangerous precedent was set on that occasion. And of course, rampant misogyny is not a disqualifier for right-wing judges, but an unspoken requirement.
I'd rather he wasn't on the bench don't get me wrong. But I've followed a few SC cases and believe he is FAR from the worst case scenario. It generally feels like he takes the role seriously.
Historically speaking a lot of SC justices get more liberal as they get older and I think that'll be him as well.
Yeah, Kavanaugh is an angry punk ass who, by virtue of the political party that held the keys of power for his appointment, was naturally going to lean in that direction.
But his overall record on the court is surprisingly not too shabby. He's made some good ruling on racist legal practices, etc, and that's an objectively good thing. He strikes me as a craven piece of shit who politicked his way to this role, was fucking livid that he nearly lost out on it, and now that he's there he's taking it seriously. He shouldn't be there because we should have more mature adults on the court, but his legal writings could be WAY worse.
Now Thomas and Alito? Those motherfuckers are the absolute worst!
He's an absolute idiot as a person, but as a judge he is surprisingly astute and has broken with conservative rhetoric regularly. Also even when I don't agree with him, his opinions are well-reasoned, unlike the absolute shitwater that Thomas and Alito shit out.
Im not sure if Id interpret that one study that says that, that way. and IT you look at the study it is ONLY republicans that get more liberal. and the study was over a period of time when the court was 5-4 conservative. which is all your lives.
to me it could be nothing more than peer pressure. the right tend to but ideologues on the bench and over time, they might hate being so further right than their own collegues and temper to match the other republicans on the bench or perhaps sick of the public seeing them as a radical, rather than an actual liberalization.
especially since this goes against studies that show the trend is the exact opposite with the general public except the latest two gens which are bucking the trend. But you do see similar when people join say a social media area that leans a bit left or right, peoples own politics will temper with the crowd to a point.
In fact a good counter example would be how conservative the SITTING members became as soon as they got 6-3 instead of 5-4. Alito and roberts are older and both are more right wing. Roberts does flip now and then but only due to trying to protect perception of the court.
Yeah as soon as shit hit that point with him telling sob stories, and it was also just okay for Trump to say the horrid shit he was saying in his first campaign, I figured there was no going back to regular boring politics where the folks were at least presenting as respectful.
Remember when he claimed, in irritation,[ that "boofing" means farting](https://youtu.be/D6yFnizey7k?si=lRs4LCtkPUOLerhr) and not alcoholic enemas, and that at 16 years old he and his best friend wrote "Have You Boofed Yet?" on their highschool yearbook pages asking if anyone has ever farted.
Not super disqualifying, but paints an unflattering image either way.
"It was a long day. In a long week. Beer day was far away. Brett wasn't sure he was going to make it. God he needed a beer. And if he did make it he'd be responsible for serving coffee and tea until the appointment after his. Not beer. Coffee. God he needed a beer. Why was he doing this? Was it worth it? Was he going to throw everything he'd worked for away because of these morons? God he needed a beer."
- author /u/drsoftware channeling SNL, Douglas Adams, and many other comedic writers.)
Mine will be that he said a devil's triangle is a drinking game.
Apparently we ARE that stupid, or at least willing to pretend we are so a raging, crying asshole can ascend to the highest seat in the judiciary.
True but SCOTUS has previously sided with cases where standing is dubious at best. Like the recent case with the Christian graphics artist who said a gay couple propositioned her to make a website when she made that up.
The one that shot down Biden's student loan forgiveness has dubious standing as well.
Missouri claimed MOHELA wouldn't be able to put money into a state fund due to lost revenue, which would give Missouri standing. However, MOHELA hadn't contributed to that fund in 15 years and it's likely they would have actually gained revenue from Biden's forgiveness plan.
The weird part of that is the government seemingly dropped the fucking ball on that one on ALL steps. AFAIK standing was never brought up because nobody on the government side did their homework on finding said gay couple.
The Christian coach lied up this situation. He sayd he did it in a corner of the locker room. He did it on the 50 yard line and wouldn't play kids that didn't pray with him
That was a different case. We always knew he was lying in that one. Unfortunately Alito and the rest literally just ignored it being pointed out that he was lying. They just straight up didn't acknowledge evidence presented that disproved their statements.
That's really a separate issue: SCOTUS doesn't factfind or review issues that weren't preserved for it. (They have been historically inconsistent here, though)
Had that been true, standing would have existed, but SCOTUS wasn't evaluating if it was true (and the strongest evidence came out after the decision).
Conservatives, by nature, don't really deal in reality. They subscribe to non-earthly deity-based outcomes. Fantasy, faith, and feelings will dictate how they are supposed to deal with something.
The fake case you're referring to had no bearing on the final outcome, or on the court's determination of standing. I get that reading headlines as posted on Reddit would convince you that you're right and I'm just some person bullshitting you. I really do. I was convinced too, until I bothered reading about the case. Standing was determined over a pre-enforcement suit filed against Colorado to allow Smith to post a notice on their website that they would not service gay weddings. The fake request, while is was included in filings, did not play a role in determining standing in either the Colorado case or the subsequent appeals.
It's still a very frustrating situation, however. They were essentially allowed to have standing because they had a "fear of what might happen" due to the law. A lower court dismissed this claim and eventually the Supreme Court agreed with it.
But that is not how the system is supposed to work. Standing isn't intended to allow you to sue over what you fear might happen in hypothetical situations. It's the same as this prescription abortion case. The Drs were given standing to sue based on the fact that they feared they might possibly need to treat someone in the ER who had taken the medication.... Despite not being able to provide a single instance where any of them had actually been asked to do so in their careers.
The fake wedding request was just extra frustrating because it was so obviously an attempt to hedge the bets of one side, in the case that the standing issue was pushed at a higher level. It just turned out that the judges at a higher level didn't care, which is sadly unsurprising.
When you allow cases to be determined on hypotheticals, it just moves the entire system further away from being rooted in truth and fact.
They did not gain standing over a "fear of what might happen." I'm not sure who you're quoting there. They sued to have the immediate right to put the apparently illegal notice on their website. I get that we all want everything we disagree with to be just the stupidest shit, just completely outside the bounds of anything reasonable, but at that point we're just openly embracing confirmation bias with every argument we see here.
From NYT:
>What did the Supreme Court say about matter?
Neither the majority opinion nor the dissent mentioned the supposed request or appeared to give it any weight. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the majority on Friday, summarized approvingly an appeals court ruling that said Ms. Smith and her company *had established standing to sue because they faced a credible fear of punishment* under a Colorado anti-discrimination law if they offered wedding-related services but turned away people seeking to celebrate same-sex unions.
Why do you think the dissent also didn't mention your weak line of reasoning? As I'll explain again, the shop owner sued not because of some abstract hypothetical, but because they wanted (and have since) to post an apparently illegal notice on their website. There is a reason the dissent didn't dissent about this.
Legal standing generally requires some type of harm, such as if they *actually* posted the notice, the state followed through with punishing them, and *then* suing afterwards due to the state's actions.
However in this case, they somehow, and I quote:
>had established standing to sue because they *faced a credible fear of punishment*
Simply fearing punishment from the state does not typically grant someone standing.
For example with the recent Roe v Wade cases, women couldn't sue the instant the laws were reversed because they simply fear that one day they might be denied an abortion. Someone has to get pregnant, actively seek an abortion, and then be denied before they have standing to sue.
Yep, better explanation is they don't want to fuel democratic motivation before the election, there will always been another case they can rule the other way on
IMO this more likely comes down to the fact that every conservative judge on the bench knows that banning Plan B this close to the election would be political suicide. They struck down Roe V. Wade and then watched their party lose election after election. They're all on the payroll, Johnson most of all, they know who butters their bread.
This SCOTUS has done an end around standing issues a bunch of times already. They literally invented an entire story about wedding photographer or whatever last year.
Because the Executive Branch of the United States government does not have the power to unilaterally do that. It would have to go through Congress first and good luck getting this current Congress to agree to something like that.
It sucks but it was going to be turned down from the beginning
>
Public Law 108–76
108th Congress
>An Act
>To provide the Secretary of Education with specific waiver authority to respond
to a war or other military operation or national emergency.
>SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
>(2) AFFECTED INDIVIDUAL.—The term ‘‘affected individual’’ means an individual who—
>(D) suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result
of a war or other military operation or national emergency,
as determined by the Secretary.
>(4) NATIONAL EMERGENCY.—The term ‘‘national emergency’’
means a national emergency declared by the President of the
United States.
I'm sorry I missed my law school classes. Can you explain how this provision doesn't give the secretary of education waiver powers in a national emergency, because it sure looks like it does.
Then, how did opponents to abortion, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, etc...manage it?
How does some Religious group have any standing to argue that abortions "personally" harm them? Or that John and Jim's union is a personal harm?
Well, they sure didn't let that lack of standing thing impact the case of the Colorado woman who didn't want to be forced to make a wedding site for that non-existent gay couple.
As others have said,the plaintiffs don't have standing. And, while I would not at all put it past this court to ignore that to do what they want, I'm not surprised here. It's an election year and hard core anti-choice positions have hurt them in the past. And dismissing it via standing, rather than on the merits of the case, leaves the door open for someone else to try again at a more politically convenient time.
The end of the line here once GOP get another one or two spots on the court is that SCOTUS rules on “fetus personhood” and that a fetus has all rights as a baby would.
Because there were lower courts with different rulings. It's easier to take the case, say they have no argument and it clears the table without making a judgment.
It goes back to congress/ president where legislation belongs.
Them saying "you don't have standing" probably sets precedent for similar would-be litigants, and also effectively concludes whatever other similar lawsuits their were based on the idea of standing attempted
The people who brought this case didn't invent a fictitious victim this time around. The reasoning was so awful, if they had actually banned the drug for the reasons they gave, how would any medication be legal? How would people get chemo if anyone could sue because they have to treat patients dealing with the effects of chemotherapy?
I like to think the justices, even the nut bags, realized this was a way too slippery slope to take. Okay, we stop this one drug, but what about the next one someone morally objects to? What if someone decides Viagra is bad for whatever reason they choose that is strictly personal opinion and not factual or health based? There are plenty of drugs that have contraindications in pregnancy because of their teratogenic properties. Someone could argue against those. The FDA wouldn't matter, and that's a dangerous thing. Healthcare shouldn't be decided based on opinion. It should be science and health. Let this happen once, and I guarantee it will happen again.
This was a fantastically ill conceived lawsuit, so I'm not surprised to see it go down even in front of this court. The fact that the the appellate courts even allowed it shows you just what a lunatic asylum the 5th Circuit Court has turned into. It is, without question, the worst court in the United States today.
Which in its founding documents has political activism as its sole reason to exist.
Tiny fact: all current justices nominated by Republican candidates are or were at some point active members of Federalist Society.
If a right winger says it's what liberals do, it's usually something they are actively doing. See also: fucking male prostitutes, overturning elections, controlling (indoctrinating) education, authoritarianism, appealing to the unintelligent, and underaged sex trafficking.
The Fifth Circuit has since 2007 (that’s what I’m able to easily find data for) been the 4th most overturned circuit court with a 73.6% reversal rate. Since 2007, SCOTUS reversed 71.3% of all lower court decisions that were granted certiorari and arguments were heard for. The most overturned circuits are the Ninth and the Sixth with a 80.3% and 80.0% reversal rate respectively. Of note, SCOTUS decided far more cases from the Ninth Circuit than any other. The Ninth had 233 cases decided while the next most were the Fifth at 95 and the Second at 88.
Does this mean much? No, not really. However, it is unfair to call the Fifth Circuit the worst or to say they are largely out of step with the Supreme Court.
https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_Present)#:~:text=Since%202007%2C%20SCOTUS%20has%20released,than%20from%20any%20other%20circuit.
Edit: Changed wording to clarify that SCOTUS reversed 71.3% of lower court decisions that they granted cert. SCOTUS receives around 8000 petitions for a writ of certiorari per year and only grants cert and hears arguments for about 80 of them.
There's a lot to criticize with this point, but the most objectionable is that you're going all the way back to 2007. Their wildest rulings have all come since Trump started packing that court with arch conservative appointees in 2017.
At any rate, "reversal rates" aren't the cause of criticism. Their flagrantly political agenda and complete disregard for court precedence is.
I would say more data is better than less for criticizing courts. When criticizing individual judges, I am more apt to consider just their recent opinions. My source had data going back to 2007, so I used all of it.
That said, I hear your complaint, so here is the data since 2017:
The Fifth Circuit has been reversed in 30 of 38 cases heard since 2017, or 78.9%. The circuit courts as a whole have been reversed in 296 of 412 cases heard since 2017, or 71.8%. The Ninth Circuit has been reversed in 71 of 81 cases heard since 2017, or 87.6% (I chose the Ninth as they are the court most complained about by Conservatives in a similar manner to the Fifth being complained about by Liberals). You are welcome to do the math for the remaining courts; the link is in my original comment.
Reversal rates do not tell all, or even really much at at all. However, they are probably the best metric we have for evaluating if lower courts are following the precedence/guidance of the Supreme Court. I would say that criticism of the political nature of decisions should be aimed at the Supreme Court rather than lower courts, “shit rolls downhill” and all that. Lower courts should be judged on whether they follow the Supreme Court or not.
You are correct. I’ll edit the wording as that was what I intended to say, but not what I wrote. SCOTUS receives around 8000 petitions for a writ of certiorari per year and only grants cert for about 80.
Trump appointed completely unhinged conservatives at the behest of an organization called the Federalist Society that's made it its mission to take over the legal system.
Too many things make it to the SC that should be decided in our inept congress, even these victory executive actions Biden knows will wind up there, but who takes the blame?
While this is a win we shouldn't be feeling any relief.
The court rejected the challenge on standing not merits. I.e. the plaintiffs couldn't provide any remotely plausible argument to support that they had been injured
Kavanaugh wrote the opinion and more or less invited plaintiffs to try again when they had come up with some kind of standing argument the court could at least pretend is legitimate
>federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs' concerns about FDA's actions.
To me, that says stop sending us cases about individual drugs for anything. A unanimous ruling is a clear signal to all of the Federal and State judges to shut down any of this type of nonsense in the future. They simply do not have the power to overrule the FDA because they don't like a drug or like their process.
Yeah I doubt it won't come up again to the SC. If SC gets rid of chevron deference (basically govt agency are allowed to make rules or policies) then challenging drugs is 100% within their scope.
I’m not expecting chevron to be overturned. It would completely overwhelm the judicial system for all aggrieved government matters to be tried before courts, and would effectively be law writing from the bench, which is the entire purpose of the legislative branch. They would have to be crazy. Not hanging flags upside down crazy, truly padded room straight jacket crazy.
Well I got bad news. Every law reporter/current lawyers I’ve seen believe that it’s very likely chevron is overturned. You don’t think this SC would love to severely limit the size of government?
Well yeah this the same court who’ve already made catastrophic decisions in the last two years. So it isn’t a surprise. Same court we’ll have for 30 years if Trump gets elected again
> The mifepristone case began five months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe. Abortion opponents initially won a sweeping ruling nearly a year ago from U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump nominee in Texas, which would have revoked the drug’s approval entirely.
Judge shopping should be banned
There's really nowhere else to go with this. The aim here was to force the federal government to ban access to the pill. This pretty much closes the door on that. States, of course, have enormous regulatory authority over it and can functionally ban it. But this suit tried for a top down ban, outside of any legislative authority, and that's just not going to happen.
That said, this is all FDA regulatory authority. So if a Trump Administration wanted to change their ruling on it, there's nothing stopping them. That's where the path to victory for them is, not in the courts.
No it does not. This was based on standing, not merits. The door is still wide open. All the Right has to do is find a women that was harmed by mifepristone and boom, back to the SC. With standing, I bet the ban is upheld.
Edit: Only way ensure abortion as a right is to vote for pro-choice candidates everywhere.
The opinion stated in the ruling that I read said that the venue (federal courts) was wrong.
Editing to concede that I didn't read the full opinion.
Standing was questioned but venue was *as well*.
Opinion has 169 references to standing.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
these specific plaintiffs don't have standing as they are not directly hurt. These specific plaintiffs need to go congress if their opinion on the drug is to shelf it.
Leaves it open for people that are directly hurt.
It's one of the safests drugs in existance. Even if you could find somebody who got hurt by it, that'd effectively mean you can ban *all* the drugs overnight. Because on the planet of 8 billion people, you'd be always able to find some weird case of side-effects, which literally *all* the drugs have.
I just finished reading the entire decision, and Thomas's opinion makes no mention of that anywhere. He focuses specifically on his long-held belief that the concept of "associational standing" is unconstitutional under Article III. If anything, he doubled down on the majority's decision that no standing was to be had for the plaintiffs in this case.
While it's obviously a good thing, the case shouldn't have made it this far to begin with. So much failure from judges who ignore the law, go on vibes and YOLO.
Just skimming through what was said , it seems as though the argument is that the plaintiffs cannot show harm being done to them so they lack standing to sue.
Basically hooray for technicalities.
Well that’s the first hurdle in every case. There’s no point in debating or writing on other parts of the case when the plaintiffs don’t even have standing.
Not really even a technicality. What this suit attempted to do was force the FDA to ban a drug that's been legal for years because....reasons. But the fact that the plaintiffs couldn't demonstrate harm means that they don't have any standing to do that.
So this is a pretty significant win. Had this been allowed, Conservatives would have sniped all kinds of administrative rulings. That it wasn't means the federal government preserved a lot of its power.
Oops. It looks like they may have released this ruling in the wrong order. From the ruling:
>EMTALA does not require doctors to perform abortions or provide abortion-related medical treatment over their conscience objections because EMTALA does not impose obligations on individual doctors.
Looks like we already have an idea of what the ruling in *Idaho v. United States* will be.
Lol they're like the teacher who wants to see you pass so they give you a bunch of not so subtle hints of the answers and meticulously go over study guides before a quiz.
It’s good news, but there will be additional challenges.
Indeed, the conservative side of SCOTUS is even urging it…
>Kavanaugh acknowledged what he described as the opponents’ “sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone.”
>
>But he said they went to the wrong forum and should instead direct their energies to persuading lawmakers and regulators to make changes.
>
>Those comments pointed to the stakes of the 2024 election and the possibility that an FDA commissioner appointed by Republican Donald Trump, if he wins the White House, could consider tightening access to mifepristone.
Sadly, this battle is long from over and the only thing to safeguard and permanently give back rights to women is at the ballot box.
Vote wisely my friends.
Unfortunately, a lot of people won't show up on the ballot box, because they are going to swallow conservative propaganda how Biden is old and senile. Hook and bait and everything. Same how they swallowed all the anti-Clinton propaganda in 2016; including parts that were engineered in Russia.
Trump currently has about 66% probability of winning. Mostly due to all the people who can't see themselves showing up to vote for candidate they deem less than ideal. Conservatives don't have this problem: give them the worst candidate ever, a candidate that runs against every moral value they believe in, and they'll line up to vote for him. We've seen this play out in 2016. Looks like 2024 might be a repeat. Remember that 2020 was an extremely close call in several states.
>Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America, expressed disappointment with the ruling, but trained her fire on Democrats. “Joe Biden and the Democrats are hell-bent on forcing abortion on demand any time for any reason, including DIY mail-order abortions, on every state in the country,”
About as obvious as it gets that these people are prioritizing politics over any actual moral or ethical religious belief. If they truly did believe in that whole "killing babies" thing, it's very suspicious they wouldn't be equally as upset at the right-wing justices. If they're not equally upset about the idea anyone of any political standing might be killing babies, logically it means they're okay with some people killing babies.
This is a purely political decision.
They know the issue is hurting the GOP so expect to see four months of damage control followed by even more ratfuckery starting in December.
"I would like to once again heap praise on Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar... who expertly argued the mifepristone case and, somehow, avoided climbing up on the bench and garroting Sam Alito with an umbilical cord after his umpteenth stupid hypothetical."
-Elie Mystal
The cynic in me suspects that this decision was influenced by the upcoming election. The Thomas-Alito-Kavanaugh-Roberts cabal would vote differently on the issue but held off for now because even they now realize that these ultra hard-line anti-choice rulings are having a deleterious effect on too many Republican re-election efforts. The current ruling, based on technical legalities, leaves them wiggle room for a future ruling striking the pill's used based on some spurious religious derived imagined morality.
Rejected for standing in a presidential election year.
The next time the suit is brought it won’t be in a presidential election year. And then they will ban it.
> Kavanaugh’s opinion managed to unite a court deeply divided over abortion and many other divisive social issues by employing a minimalist approach that focused solely on the technical legal issue of standing and reached no judgment about the FDA’s actions.
Oh, you mean did what they were supposed to instead of making up stuff to rule on like they usually do?
?? I mean, you're not wrong, but how is that relevant here? The drug in question is mifepristone, and *is* an abortion medication. Plan B is levonorgestrel.
The most amazing part of this is how conservatives have hijacked the judiciary via judge shopping. This should have been thrown out at the very first court for the exact reason it was thrown out at the Supreme Court: standing. But conservatives have hot wired the courts so blatantly frivolous lawsuits regularly make their way before them, but thanks to the judges in North Texas, they have a direct line to try and force stuff through.
Like that one time with the wedding cake case. The conservative majority literally ruled on a case where the 'victim' wasn't even involved with the things being challenged.
If this makes it's way through the courts in a different form, they will have to figure out how to invent someone who has been harmed, since fictitious victims get special consideration.
Pro-lifers will never be satisfied with the pound of flesh they got from Roe being overturned. Expect these attacks to continue until abortion is outlawed at the federal level.
This probably isn't the win people are painting it as, many VERY SIGNIFICANT rulings are still up in the air and the cynic in me says that they're sending out something positive before the absolute cascade of bullshit we're about to receive on the remaining rulings, especially on Chevron and Trump's Immunity claims. The court shouldn't have even heard the Trump case in the first place so that doesn't bode well.
I think the important part of the ruling (other than acknowledging there was no standing) is the statement around that the courts are not the right forum to challenge FDA decisions.
The fact that this case even received writ of certiorari is a disgrace to the court. These justices need to go retake law 101 at whichever top tier law school shit them out in the first place.
This whole antiabortion debate is about standing. Who are these pro-lifers to dictate what happens to a woman on the other side of the state or country?
[Meanwhile at the Senate, they're busy making sure if you want a baby you can't have one](https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/13/politics/senate-ivf-bill-vote/index.html)
Vote these fucking fascists out.
> I didn’t know this recently happened,
Not your fault, but this is the problem, most people are completely unaware of what these Fascist ChuckleFucks are doing and they keep voting for them.
Wasn't the Gay Cake case completely fictitious as well? Nobody was harmed. The RW'ers made the whole story up just to get the 6 to rule in their favor.
So what? They did the right thing. The case should never have been brought to the Supreme Court in the first place. So I am not giving them credit for crap.!
I really didn’t expect this to be an unanimous vote.
It’s because they people suing didn’t have the standing to do - as you need to be personally harmed by something for the government to act. SCOTUS uses that all the time to knock stuff out
Thankfully hurt feelings don't count.
Basically what kavanaugh said over two paragraphs.
weird standing didnt see to matter with him in other cases, like student loan forgiveness. The only group with standing in the case didnt want to even be in the case. Republicans on the court didnt care. the wedding website lady who wasnt actually making wedding websites and didnt actually have any customers and STILL DOESNT MAKE WEBSITES, had imaginary standing, where was mister kegger then? drunk?
I had the same thoughts when I saw the ruling. Fuckin’ hypocritical fucks. (for the record this was a great ruling today!)
The SCOTUS is illegitimate.
They make decisions with their pockets.
The thought of that frat boy dickhead stringing a sentence together has and always will made me laugh.
Whenever I think of him I remember when he was being question by the Senate, in tears, insisting he likes beer. Can't believe we have someone so emotional on the bench.
Remember when he claimed, in anger, that he was being questioned so critically because it was "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" and also "what goes around comes around" Shit was super disqualifying, but here we are
So was Clarence Thomas's treatment of Anita Hill, but that all was let slide. A dangerous precedent was set on that occasion. And of course, rampant misogyny is not a disqualifier for right-wing judges, but an unspoken requirement.
Not really all that unspoken any more. They’ve been saying the quiet part out loud for a while now. Shouting it, in fact.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And yet he's only the fourth worst SCOTUS justice
I'd rather he wasn't on the bench don't get me wrong. But I've followed a few SC cases and believe he is FAR from the worst case scenario. It generally feels like he takes the role seriously. Historically speaking a lot of SC justices get more liberal as they get older and I think that'll be him as well.
Yeah, Kavanaugh is an angry punk ass who, by virtue of the political party that held the keys of power for his appointment, was naturally going to lean in that direction. But his overall record on the court is surprisingly not too shabby. He's made some good ruling on racist legal practices, etc, and that's an objectively good thing. He strikes me as a craven piece of shit who politicked his way to this role, was fucking livid that he nearly lost out on it, and now that he's there he's taking it seriously. He shouldn't be there because we should have more mature adults on the court, but his legal writings could be WAY worse. Now Thomas and Alito? Those motherfuckers are the absolute worst!
We can only hope. He does have two young daughters. That was enough to make my cousin become much more liberal.
He's an absolute idiot as a person, but as a judge he is surprisingly astute and has broken with conservative rhetoric regularly. Also even when I don't agree with him, his opinions are well-reasoned, unlike the absolute shitwater that Thomas and Alito shit out.
Im not sure if Id interpret that one study that says that, that way. and IT you look at the study it is ONLY republicans that get more liberal. and the study was over a period of time when the court was 5-4 conservative. which is all your lives. to me it could be nothing more than peer pressure. the right tend to but ideologues on the bench and over time, they might hate being so further right than their own collegues and temper to match the other republicans on the bench or perhaps sick of the public seeing them as a radical, rather than an actual liberalization. especially since this goes against studies that show the trend is the exact opposite with the general public except the latest two gens which are bucking the trend. But you do see similar when people join say a social media area that leans a bit left or right, peoples own politics will temper with the crowd to a point. In fact a good counter example would be how conservative the SITTING members became as soon as they got 6-3 instead of 5-4. Alito and roberts are older and both are more right wing. Roberts does flip now and then but only due to trying to protect perception of the court.
Right? Sure we can make fun of Kavanaugh but let's please not lose sight of the unbridled evil that is Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
Don't forget the random and unpredictable callousness of Gorsuch. Kavanaugh is sort of run of the mill scummy. He's also not particularly smart.
Yeah as soon as shit hit that point with him telling sob stories, and it was also just okay for Trump to say the horrid shit he was saying in his first campaign, I figured there was no going back to regular boring politics where the folks were at least presenting as respectful.
Remember when he claimed, in irritation,[ that "boofing" means farting](https://youtu.be/D6yFnizey7k?si=lRs4LCtkPUOLerhr) and not alcoholic enemas, and that at 16 years old he and his best friend wrote "Have You Boofed Yet?" on their highschool yearbook pages asking if anyone has ever farted. Not super disqualifying, but paints an unflattering image either way.
"It was a long day. In a long week. Beer day was far away. Brett wasn't sure he was going to make it. God he needed a beer. And if he did make it he'd be responsible for serving coffee and tea until the appointment after his. Not beer. Coffee. God he needed a beer. Why was he doing this? Was it worth it? Was he going to throw everything he'd worked for away because of these morons? God he needed a beer." - author /u/drsoftware channeling SNL, Douglas Adams, and many other comedic writers.)
Mine will be that he said a devil's triangle is a drinking game. Apparently we ARE that stupid, or at least willing to pretend we are so a raging, crying asshole can ascend to the highest seat in the judiciary.
Anyone would be emotional when you’re held through the fire in what is functionally a kangaroo court over things that were proved demonstrably false.
True but SCOTUS has previously sided with cases where standing is dubious at best. Like the recent case with the Christian graphics artist who said a gay couple propositioned her to make a website when she made that up.
The one that shot down Biden's student loan forgiveness has dubious standing as well. Missouri claimed MOHELA wouldn't be able to put money into a state fund due to lost revenue, which would give Missouri standing. However, MOHELA hadn't contributed to that fund in 15 years and it's likely they would have actually gained revenue from Biden's forgiveness plan.
MOHELA can go fuck itself.
They weren't the ones who filed the lawsuit; the state did. MOHELA had no issues with Biden's plan.
The weird part of that is the government seemingly dropped the fucking ball on that one on ALL steps. AFAIK standing was never brought up because nobody on the government side did their homework on finding said gay couple.
The Christian coach lied up this situation. He sayd he did it in a corner of the locker room. He did it on the 50 yard line and wouldn't play kids that didn't pray with him
That was a different case. We always knew he was lying in that one. Unfortunately Alito and the rest literally just ignored it being pointed out that he was lying. They just straight up didn't acknowledge evidence presented that disproved their statements.
That's really a separate issue: SCOTUS doesn't factfind or review issues that weren't preserved for it. (They have been historically inconsistent here, though) Had that been true, standing would have existed, but SCOTUS wasn't evaluating if it was true (and the strongest evidence came out after the decision).
I'm still gobsmacked that they let THAT obvious and egregious of a lie pass. And that they ruled in favor of the obvious and egregious liar.
I'm not. Truth or facts have no place in a conservative ruling by this SCOTUS.
Conservatives, by nature, don't really deal in reality. They subscribe to non-earthly deity-based outcomes. Fantasy, faith, and feelings will dictate how they are supposed to deal with something.
The fake case you're referring to had no bearing on the final outcome, or on the court's determination of standing. I get that reading headlines as posted on Reddit would convince you that you're right and I'm just some person bullshitting you. I really do. I was convinced too, until I bothered reading about the case. Standing was determined over a pre-enforcement suit filed against Colorado to allow Smith to post a notice on their website that they would not service gay weddings. The fake request, while is was included in filings, did not play a role in determining standing in either the Colorado case or the subsequent appeals.
It's still a very frustrating situation, however. They were essentially allowed to have standing because they had a "fear of what might happen" due to the law. A lower court dismissed this claim and eventually the Supreme Court agreed with it. But that is not how the system is supposed to work. Standing isn't intended to allow you to sue over what you fear might happen in hypothetical situations. It's the same as this prescription abortion case. The Drs were given standing to sue based on the fact that they feared they might possibly need to treat someone in the ER who had taken the medication.... Despite not being able to provide a single instance where any of them had actually been asked to do so in their careers. The fake wedding request was just extra frustrating because it was so obviously an attempt to hedge the bets of one side, in the case that the standing issue was pushed at a higher level. It just turned out that the judges at a higher level didn't care, which is sadly unsurprising. When you allow cases to be determined on hypotheticals, it just moves the entire system further away from being rooted in truth and fact.
They did not gain standing over a "fear of what might happen." I'm not sure who you're quoting there. They sued to have the immediate right to put the apparently illegal notice on their website. I get that we all want everything we disagree with to be just the stupidest shit, just completely outside the bounds of anything reasonable, but at that point we're just openly embracing confirmation bias with every argument we see here.
From NYT: >What did the Supreme Court say about matter? Neither the majority opinion nor the dissent mentioned the supposed request or appeared to give it any weight. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the majority on Friday, summarized approvingly an appeals court ruling that said Ms. Smith and her company *had established standing to sue because they faced a credible fear of punishment* under a Colorado anti-discrimination law if they offered wedding-related services but turned away people seeking to celebrate same-sex unions.
Why do you think the dissent also didn't mention your weak line of reasoning? As I'll explain again, the shop owner sued not because of some abstract hypothetical, but because they wanted (and have since) to post an apparently illegal notice on their website. There is a reason the dissent didn't dissent about this.
Legal standing generally requires some type of harm, such as if they *actually* posted the notice, the state followed through with punishing them, and *then* suing afterwards due to the state's actions. However in this case, they somehow, and I quote: >had established standing to sue because they *faced a credible fear of punishment* Simply fearing punishment from the state does not typically grant someone standing. For example with the recent Roe v Wade cases, women couldn't sue the instant the laws were reversed because they simply fear that one day they might be denied an abortion. Someone has to get pregnant, actively seek an abortion, and then be denied before they have standing to sue.
No no, the justices are idiots, the people on Reddit are correct.
Yep, better explanation is they don't want to fuel democratic motivation before the election, there will always been another case they can rule the other way on
Standing exists only when SCOTUS wants it to
Should have checked the comments before essentially saying the same thing, This court seems to be awfully selective with the use of standing.
They really use standing how they want though. There have been other cases were standing was dubious.
Oh 100%. It’s just their gate keeping mechanism.
IMO this more likely comes down to the fact that every conservative judge on the bench knows that banning Plan B this close to the election would be political suicide. They struck down Roe V. Wade and then watched their party lose election after election. They're all on the payroll, Johnson most of all, they know who butters their bread.
This isn’t Plan B fwiw.
And that their previous ruling essentially made it a state issue so a national ban was off the table
You are optimistic, but don’t let your guard down.
This SCOTUS has done an end around standing issues a bunch of times already. They literally invented an entire story about wedding photographer or whatever last year.
Scotus doesn't decide the facts of the case. That should have been figured out at lower levels
That didn't stop SCOTUS from stopping student loan forgiveness.
I mean, only if they don't like you. The people who sued to stop student loan forgiveness had absolutely no standing to do so.
Apparently no actual harm was required to toss student loan forgiveness 🥴
But isn't that what happened with Biden's loan forgiveness?
And yet, they shot down Biden’s student loan forgiveness.
Because the Executive Branch of the United States government does not have the power to unilaterally do that. It would have to go through Congress first and good luck getting this current Congress to agree to something like that. It sucks but it was going to be turned down from the beginning
> Public Law 108–76 108th Congress >An Act >To provide the Secretary of Education with specific waiver authority to respond to a war or other military operation or national emergency. >SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS. >(2) AFFECTED INDIVIDUAL.—The term ‘‘affected individual’’ means an individual who— >(D) suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency, as determined by the Secretary. >(4) NATIONAL EMERGENCY.—The term ‘‘national emergency’’ means a national emergency declared by the President of the United States. I'm sorry I missed my law school classes. Can you explain how this provision doesn't give the secretary of education waiver powers in a national emergency, because it sure looks like it does.
Then, how did opponents to abortion, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, etc...manage it? How does some Religious group have any standing to argue that abortions "personally" harm them? Or that John and Jim's union is a personal harm?
So they care about standing sometimes.
Well, they sure didn't let that lack of standing thing impact the case of the Colorado woman who didn't want to be forced to make a wedding site for that non-existent gay couple.
As others have said,the plaintiffs don't have standing. And, while I would not at all put it past this court to ignore that to do what they want, I'm not surprised here. It's an election year and hard core anti-choice positions have hurt them in the past. And dismissing it via standing, rather than on the merits of the case, leaves the door open for someone else to try again at a more politically convenient time.
They're leaving open the door that harmed fetuses could have standing, but they'd be represented by lawyers in some kind of class action lawsuit.
The end of the line here once GOP get another one or two spots on the court is that SCOTUS rules on “fetus personhood” and that a fetus has all rights as a baby would.
I'm cynical. It makes me suspect that they have other anti choice tricks up their sleeves
And it’s an election year. Alito might be the biggest friggin asshole there is but he’s not stupid.
The question is why did they take this case to begin with? I think it’s to give a false sense of security to people about abortion rights.
Because there were lower courts with different rulings. It's easier to take the case, say they have no argument and it clears the table without making a judgment. It goes back to congress/ president where legislation belongs.
Because lower courts said that they did have standing and it got appealed to SCOTUS.
Them saying "you don't have standing" probably sets precedent for similar would-be litigants, and also effectively concludes whatever other similar lawsuits their were based on the idea of standing attempted
Hopefully it’s not just to butter everyone up for the immunity decision. They still have Comstock to kill the meds later so it’s hardly the last word.
The SC has been unanimous in three fourths of their decisions this term.
They're under a microscope now. They're pretending to be legit for a while.
You know the Fifth Circuit and Judge Kacsmaryk are off the rails when even Alito and Thomas overturn their rulings.
The people who brought this case didn't invent a fictitious victim this time around. The reasoning was so awful, if they had actually banned the drug for the reasons they gave, how would any medication be legal? How would people get chemo if anyone could sue because they have to treat patients dealing with the effects of chemotherapy?
bingo, the FDA and all other agencies would have been subjected to other regulatory upheaval
yeah we are waiting for the Chevron defense to be overturned for the regulatory upheaval!
that will be after Brown v board of education is overturned
Chevron deference*
I like to think the justices, even the nut bags, realized this was a way too slippery slope to take. Okay, we stop this one drug, but what about the next one someone morally objects to? What if someone decides Viagra is bad for whatever reason they choose that is strictly personal opinion and not factual or health based? There are plenty of drugs that have contraindications in pregnancy because of their teratogenic properties. Someone could argue against those. The FDA wouldn't matter, and that's a dangerous thing. Healthcare shouldn't be decided based on opinion. It should be science and health. Let this happen once, and I guarantee it will happen again.
To be fair, they likely went a long with it as a way to "throw a bone" back. You know, saving their "f*** you" points for the big cases.
This was a fantastically ill conceived lawsuit, so I'm not surprised to see it go down even in front of this court. The fact that the the appellate courts even allowed it shows you just what a lunatic asylum the 5th Circuit Court has turned into. It is, without question, the worst court in the United States today.
Activist judges but I thought that was what liberals always do?
Theres a literal kabal that runs our courts called the federalist society
Which in its founding documents has political activism as its sole reason to exist. Tiny fact: all current justices nominated by Republican candidates are or were at some point active members of Federalist Society.
Cabal, but yeah, the federalist society is a cult that has coopted our courts
If a right winger says it's what liberals do, it's usually something they are actively doing. See also: fucking male prostitutes, overturning elections, controlling (indoctrinating) education, authoritarianism, appealing to the unintelligent, and underaged sex trafficking.
The Fifth Circuit has since 2007 (that’s what I’m able to easily find data for) been the 4th most overturned circuit court with a 73.6% reversal rate. Since 2007, SCOTUS reversed 71.3% of all lower court decisions that were granted certiorari and arguments were heard for. The most overturned circuits are the Ninth and the Sixth with a 80.3% and 80.0% reversal rate respectively. Of note, SCOTUS decided far more cases from the Ninth Circuit than any other. The Ninth had 233 cases decided while the next most were the Fifth at 95 and the Second at 88. Does this mean much? No, not really. However, it is unfair to call the Fifth Circuit the worst or to say they are largely out of step with the Supreme Court. https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_Present)#:~:text=Since%202007%2C%20SCOTUS%20has%20released,than%20from%20any%20other%20circuit. Edit: Changed wording to clarify that SCOTUS reversed 71.3% of lower court decisions that they granted cert. SCOTUS receives around 8000 petitions for a writ of certiorari per year and only grants cert and hears arguments for about 80 of them.
There's a lot to criticize with this point, but the most objectionable is that you're going all the way back to 2007. Their wildest rulings have all come since Trump started packing that court with arch conservative appointees in 2017. At any rate, "reversal rates" aren't the cause of criticism. Their flagrantly political agenda and complete disregard for court precedence is.
I would say more data is better than less for criticizing courts. When criticizing individual judges, I am more apt to consider just their recent opinions. My source had data going back to 2007, so I used all of it. That said, I hear your complaint, so here is the data since 2017: The Fifth Circuit has been reversed in 30 of 38 cases heard since 2017, or 78.9%. The circuit courts as a whole have been reversed in 296 of 412 cases heard since 2017, or 71.8%. The Ninth Circuit has been reversed in 71 of 81 cases heard since 2017, or 87.6% (I chose the Ninth as they are the court most complained about by Conservatives in a similar manner to the Fifth being complained about by Liberals). You are welcome to do the math for the remaining courts; the link is in my original comment. Reversal rates do not tell all, or even really much at at all. However, they are probably the best metric we have for evaluating if lower courts are following the precedence/guidance of the Supreme Court. I would say that criticism of the political nature of decisions should be aimed at the Supreme Court rather than lower courts, “shit rolls downhill” and all that. Lower courts should be judged on whether they follow the Supreme Court or not.
Minor nitpick. There's no way they overturned 71.3% of all decisions merely 71.3% of the ones they decided to hear.
You are correct. I’ll edit the wording as that was what I intended to say, but not what I wrote. SCOTUS receives around 8000 petitions for a writ of certiorari per year and only grants cert for about 80.
What makes the 5th the worst?
Trump appointed completely unhinged conservatives at the behest of an organization called the Federalist Society that's made it its mission to take over the legal system.
It's unfortunate this even made it to the Supreme Court.
Too many things make it to the SC that should be decided in our inept congress, even these victory executive actions Biden knows will wind up there, but who takes the blame?
While this is a win we shouldn't be feeling any relief. The court rejected the challenge on standing not merits. I.e. the plaintiffs couldn't provide any remotely plausible argument to support that they had been injured Kavanaugh wrote the opinion and more or less invited plaintiffs to try again when they had come up with some kind of standing argument the court could at least pretend is legitimate
>federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs' concerns about FDA's actions. To me, that says stop sending us cases about individual drugs for anything. A unanimous ruling is a clear signal to all of the Federal and State judges to shut down any of this type of nonsense in the future. They simply do not have the power to overrule the FDA because they don't like a drug or like their process.
Yeah I doubt it won't come up again to the SC. If SC gets rid of chevron deference (basically govt agency are allowed to make rules or policies) then challenging drugs is 100% within their scope.
I’m not expecting chevron to be overturned. It would completely overwhelm the judicial system for all aggrieved government matters to be tried before courts, and would effectively be law writing from the bench, which is the entire purpose of the legislative branch. They would have to be crazy. Not hanging flags upside down crazy, truly padded room straight jacket crazy.
Well I got bad news. Every law reporter/current lawyers I’ve seen believe that it’s very likely chevron is overturned. You don’t think this SC would love to severely limit the size of government?
Yeah, I’m hearing that, too. I’m not holding my breath, for sure. But the consequences of that are mind bogglingly catastrophic.
Well yeah this the same court who’ve already made catastrophic decisions in the last two years. So it isn’t a surprise. Same court we’ll have for 30 years if Trump gets elected again
The Sand People are easily startled, but they'll soon be back, and in greater numbers
Yep. Gotta invent a fictitious victim, then you can sue for whatever as long as it allows conservative culture war attacks.
This is excellent news.
It's a delay until they're presented with a case they can work with.
> The mifepristone case began five months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe. Abortion opponents initially won a sweeping ruling nearly a year ago from U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump nominee in Texas, which would have revoked the drug’s approval entirely. Judge shopping should be banned
Hallelujah! They can do something right!
For now. They will eventually bring another lawsuit
There's really nowhere else to go with this. The aim here was to force the federal government to ban access to the pill. This pretty much closes the door on that. States, of course, have enormous regulatory authority over it and can functionally ban it. But this suit tried for a top down ban, outside of any legislative authority, and that's just not going to happen. That said, this is all FDA regulatory authority. So if a Trump Administration wanted to change their ruling on it, there's nothing stopping them. That's where the path to victory for them is, not in the courts.
No it does not. This was based on standing, not merits. The door is still wide open. All the Right has to do is find a women that was harmed by mifepristone and boom, back to the SC. With standing, I bet the ban is upheld. Edit: Only way ensure abortion as a right is to vote for pro-choice candidates everywhere.
The opinion stated in the ruling that I read said that the venue (federal courts) was wrong. Editing to concede that I didn't read the full opinion. Standing was questioned but venue was *as well*.
Opinion has 169 references to standing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf these specific plaintiffs don't have standing as they are not directly hurt. These specific plaintiffs need to go congress if their opinion on the drug is to shelf it. Leaves it open for people that are directly hurt.
It's one of the safests drugs in existance. Even if you could find somebody who got hurt by it, that'd effectively mean you can ban *all* the drugs overnight. Because on the planet of 8 billion people, you'd be always able to find some weird case of side-effects, which literally *all* the drugs have.
My mistake ... I've edited my comment to more accurately reflect that.
They won't need to if Trump wins. He'll make it federal.
Thomas wrote a concurrence that basicly charts how a second suit should be framed to give standing
I just finished reading the entire decision, and Thomas's opinion makes no mention of that anywhere. He focuses specifically on his long-held belief that the concept of "associational standing" is unconstitutional under Article III. If anything, he doubled down on the majority's decision that no standing was to be had for the plaintiffs in this case.
While it's obviously a good thing, the case shouldn't have made it this far to begin with. So much failure from judges who ignore the law, go on vibes and YOLO.
This is the carrot the SC gives us while they make a different awful ruling sometime soon
100% their billionaire republican handlers knew they overstepped on Roe Vs Wade and are trying to mollify the masses
Nah, they're basically saying "this one can't stand, come back when you have something we can work with".
Just skimming through what was said , it seems as though the argument is that the plaintiffs cannot show harm being done to them so they lack standing to sue. Basically hooray for technicalities.
Well that’s the first hurdle in every case. There’s no point in debating or writing on other parts of the case when the plaintiffs don’t even have standing.
Yeah it's not so much a technicality as the very first requirement of a lawsuit.
[удалено]
Most cases are solved via procedural stuff
Not really even a technicality. What this suit attempted to do was force the FDA to ban a drug that's been legal for years because....reasons. But the fact that the plaintiffs couldn't demonstrate harm means that they don't have any standing to do that. So this is a pretty significant win. Had this been allowed, Conservatives would have sniped all kinds of administrative rulings. That it wasn't means the federal government preserved a lot of its power.
Oops. It looks like they may have released this ruling in the wrong order. From the ruling: >EMTALA does not require doctors to perform abortions or provide abortion-related medical treatment over their conscience objections because EMTALA does not impose obligations on individual doctors. Looks like we already have an idea of what the ruling in *Idaho v. United States* will be.
Lol they're like the teacher who wants to see you pass so they give you a bunch of not so subtle hints of the answers and meticulously go over study guides before a quiz.
EMTALA always had that provision.
the judge in texas who ruled in favor should be impeached.
It’s good news, but there will be additional challenges. Indeed, the conservative side of SCOTUS is even urging it… >Kavanaugh acknowledged what he described as the opponents’ “sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone.” > >But he said they went to the wrong forum and should instead direct their energies to persuading lawmakers and regulators to make changes. > >Those comments pointed to the stakes of the 2024 election and the possibility that an FDA commissioner appointed by Republican Donald Trump, if he wins the White House, could consider tightening access to mifepristone. Sadly, this battle is long from over and the only thing to safeguard and permanently give back rights to women is at the ballot box. Vote wisely my friends.
Unfortunately, a lot of people won't show up on the ballot box, because they are going to swallow conservative propaganda how Biden is old and senile. Hook and bait and everything. Same how they swallowed all the anti-Clinton propaganda in 2016; including parts that were engineered in Russia. Trump currently has about 66% probability of winning. Mostly due to all the people who can't see themselves showing up to vote for candidate they deem less than ideal. Conservatives don't have this problem: give them the worst candidate ever, a candidate that runs against every moral value they believe in, and they'll line up to vote for him. We've seen this play out in 2016. Looks like 2024 might be a repeat. Remember that 2020 was an extremely close call in several states.
Psst...That's the way it's supposed to be done. Not in a courtroom.
That means they r about to do something heinous
>Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America, expressed disappointment with the ruling, but trained her fire on Democrats. “Joe Biden and the Democrats are hell-bent on forcing abortion on demand any time for any reason, including DIY mail-order abortions, on every state in the country,” About as obvious as it gets that these people are prioritizing politics over any actual moral or ethical religious belief. If they truly did believe in that whole "killing babies" thing, it's very suspicious they wouldn't be equally as upset at the right-wing justices. If they're not equally upset about the idea anyone of any political standing might be killing babies, logically it means they're okay with some people killing babies.
Next week they'll probably repeal another key amendment. Never get comfortable in this timeline.
This is a purely political decision. They know the issue is hurting the GOP so expect to see four months of damage control followed by even more ratfuckery starting in December.
"I would like to once again heap praise on Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar... who expertly argued the mifepristone case and, somehow, avoided climbing up on the bench and garroting Sam Alito with an umbilical cord after his umpteenth stupid hypothetical." -Elie Mystal
The cynic in me suspects that this decision was influenced by the upcoming election. The Thomas-Alito-Kavanaugh-Roberts cabal would vote differently on the issue but held off for now because even they now realize that these ultra hard-line anti-choice rulings are having a deleterious effect on too many Republican re-election efforts. The current ruling, based on technical legalities, leaves them wiggle room for a future ruling striking the pill's used based on some spurious religious derived imagined morality.
Well fuckin said!
Detecting a distinct pattern here. Massive overreach and unconstitutionality peppered with occasional wildcards for verisimilitude.
Rejected for standing in a presidential election year. The next time the suit is brought it won’t be in a presidential election year. And then they will ban it.
Nice, but don't let this distract you for the other shit they just ruled on, making it harder to unionize.
Just note this was ruled on STANDING, not MERITS. That means they can pick up another case next year if they want. This isn't over for them.
Am I the only one worried that they are tossing this bone to us in preparation for the presidential immunity ass reaming we are about to take?
They threw the case out because it was stupid and brought by a bunch of idiots with 0 standing
> Kavanaugh’s opinion managed to unite a court deeply divided over abortion and many other divisive social issues by employing a minimalist approach that focused solely on the technical legal issue of standing and reached no judgment about the FDA’s actions. Oh, you mean did what they were supposed to instead of making up stuff to rule on like they usually do?
Trying not to get those lifetime appointments reversed when Trump loses the election. Won’t work, but thanks for doing your job for once scotus!
Plan B is *not* abortion medication. Though the right wing pundits would have you believe that. Be careful about lies and propaganda.
?? I mean, you're not wrong, but how is that relevant here? The drug in question is mifepristone, and *is* an abortion medication. Plan B is levonorgestrel.
It's a procedural vote because the plantiff(s) had no standing. Someone else is still free to bring another suit on the same issue.
It’ll be a grandparent on behalf of their unborn grandchild
*For now*. Until someone works out the whole standing issue.
This is a pre election decision and a roadmap for them to come back w standing after the election. It’s far from over.
The most amazing part of this is how conservatives have hijacked the judiciary via judge shopping. This should have been thrown out at the very first court for the exact reason it was thrown out at the Supreme Court: standing. But conservatives have hot wired the courts so blatantly frivolous lawsuits regularly make their way before them, but thanks to the judges in North Texas, they have a direct line to try and force stuff through. Like that one time with the wedding cake case. The conservative majority literally ruled on a case where the 'victim' wasn't even involved with the things being challenged. If this makes it's way through the courts in a different form, they will have to figure out how to invent someone who has been harmed, since fictitious victims get special consideration.
I am pleasantly surprised by this. I was betting this extreme court was about to strip women of another right.
Pro-lifers will never be satisfied with the pound of flesh they got from Roe being overturned. Expect these attacks to continue until abortion is outlawed at the federal level.
I feel like at some point the company behind the drug "donated" to some Justices.
Not gonna lie i am shocked they did something right for a change
This probably isn't the win people are painting it as, many VERY SIGNIFICANT rulings are still up in the air and the cynic in me says that they're sending out something positive before the absolute cascade of bullshit we're about to receive on the remaining rulings, especially on Chevron and Trump's Immunity claims. The court shouldn't have even heard the Trump case in the first place so that doesn't bode well.
I can’t help but think they give the people the small wins, so they look more impartial when the big decisions are made
"How can they say that access to medication is more important than our right to impose our religion on others?!?!" -- the religious right
I think the important part of the ruling (other than acknowledging there was no standing) is the statement around that the courts are not the right forum to challenge FDA decisions.
It was a ruling based on standing. The issue is far from settled.
Only on a technical . Not even about access. Even used " ideology" as an excuse to devalue plaintiffs. As if " ideology" isn't their main goals .
Blow me down with an upside down flag....
Really didn't want the Republicans to lose every vote the selection, huh? It's hard not to be cynical at this point.
The fact that this case even received writ of certiorari is a disgrace to the court. These justices need to go retake law 101 at whichever top tier law school shit them out in the first place.
For now. Partisan hacks understand very well that this is an election year.
A stunt to save face, but still useful
This whole antiabortion debate is about standing. Who are these pro-lifers to dictate what happens to a woman on the other side of the state or country?
When the MAGA judges have to choose between big pharma and restricting women's rights.
While I was mildly worried that Conservative agendas would win out here, I'm glad that law and logic won out.
Wow, good decision on the part of the Supreme Court! It's still a tainted court right now...
The Dems wanted to persevere the right and the GOPers wanted to remove it from being an election issue without setting precedent. So a punt it is.
[Meanwhile at the Senate, they're busy making sure if you want a baby you can't have one](https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/13/politics/senate-ivf-bill-vote/index.html) Vote these fucking fascists out.
I didn’t know this recently happened, thank you for the link!
> I didn’t know this recently happened, Not your fault, but this is the problem, most people are completely unaware of what these Fascist ChuckleFucks are doing and they keep voting for them.
This court confuses me.
Terrible title they didn't preserve anything.
This has to be a trap.
Wasn't the Gay Cake case completely fictitious as well? Nobody was harmed. The RW'ers made the whole story up just to get the 6 to rule in their favor.
How? I've been told over and over and over again that this was going to be a 6-3 decision against??
Looks like Clarence Thomas will be sleeping on the sofa tonight.
Same with Alito.
So what? They did the right thing. The case should never have been brought to the Supreme Court in the first place. So I am not giving them credit for crap.!