Supreme Court shoots itself in the foot.

[g5000]

The decision left open the option for abortion providers to challenge the Texas law in other ways in the future, meaning the case possibly — or even likely — will return to the Supreme Court, though not for months or longer.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court denied an injunction. They could have placed an injuntion on the law until it came before them for review. They chose not to.

That's what has pro-abortionists' bowels in an uproar.

I have little doubt the Supremes will ultimately strike the Texas law down.

Also wrong.

By refusing the enjoin, the Court has allowed a law to go into effect that bans abortion absent argument, review, and deliberation – those whose rights are being violated were denied the opportunity to plead their case.

The Court should have enjoined pending the case from Mississippi, allowing for comprehensive judicial review.

And there are no ‘pro-abortionists,’ that’s a lie – to support and defend a woman’s right to privacy is not to be ‘pro-abortion’; it’s perfectly appropriate and consistent to oppose abortion while defending that right limiting the authority of the state to interfere in personal decisions as to whether to have a child or not.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

The supreme court has just handed out a ton of free ammunition, both for expansion of the court and limiting of it's "shadow docket".

Personally I was firmly against expanding the court. I see that leading to a never ending battle and a court with dozens of possibly even hundreds of justices that can't decide on anything. However this latest shenanigan has pushed me in the other direction. I'm still against it, but I see no alternative to it unless we want to let the current appointees, some of them blatantly illegal BTW, ignore and or circumvent the constitution and pervert our great nation into something it was never meant to be.

Supreme Court Shoot Themselves in Foot as Democrats Prepare for Battle to Expand Court

This SC has shown it is bipartisan. No need to change.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

though not for months or longer.

During that time those whose rights are being violated are denied the opportunity to plead their case, absent argument, review, and deliberation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This SC has shown it is bipartisan. No need to change.

lol

True rightwing ignorance and idiocy – the Court is supposed to be not partisan at all.

 

[OKTexas]

The Court has also handed the Dems a victory in 2022 and 2024

Dems will run on “Republicans are going to end Roe v Wade”
While they have always threatened it, now it is a reality.

Dems will get out the vote

So you're saying it will be the same old shit, different day. LMAO

.

 

[Fueri]

Wrong.

The lower court already ruled, hence the petition for an injunction.

Judicial review has ended, the law is in full effect and being enforced.

Completely wrong, of course.

"In a one-paragraph, unsigned order issued just before midnight on Wednesday, the court acknowledged that the providers had “raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law.” But that was not enough to stop the law from going into effect, the court explained, because of the way the law operates. Specifically, the court observed, it wasn’t clear whether the state officials – a judge and court clerk – and the anti-abortion activist whom the abortion providers had named as defendants “can or will seek to enforce the Texas law” against the providers in a way that would allow the court to get involved in the dispute at this stage.
....
"The Texas case will now return to the lower courts, where litigation will continue. Meanwhile, the justices have already agreed to weigh in on a challenge to the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that would ban most abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy; they are likely to hear oral argument in that case in December, with a decision to follow sometime next year."

 

[g5000]

During that time those whose rights are being violated are denied the opportunity to plead their case, absent argument, review, and deliberation.

Yep. That's the way it is with many laws. It takes forever to get a hearing before the Supremes. And a lot of them do not get an injunction beforehand.

 

[OKTexas]

I agreed that we need ed to expand the court by 2 to provide balance. One for the justice that Obama should have been allowed to fill and the one to replace Ginsburg since Republicans lied. However two decisions tell me that we need to remove power from the far right wing fascists that inhabit the court now. One was the decisio0n on voting rights and the other on the Texas abortion law. Both were extreme positions. In addition their decisions on immigration law show a clear bias. They allowed Trump to do whatever he wanted on immigration but they are not treating Biden the same way. Clearly they treat Presidents with a R in front of their name differently than one with a D in front of them..

You're a fucking liar, the court didn't allow Trump to abolish the illegal DACA program.

.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

The Court has also handed the Dems a victory in 2022 and 2024

Dems will run on “Republicans are going to end Roe v Wade”
While they have always threatened it, now it is a reality.

Dems will get out the vote

Let make a bet and if Democrats win in 2022 and 2024 I will write that you are the smartest person I have known but if the Republicans win you must come back to this and apologize for your damn stupidity!

 

[Meathead]

I agreed that we need ed to expand the court by 2 to provide balance. One for the justice that Obama should have been allowed to fill and the one to replace Ginsburg since Republicans lied. However two decisions tell me that we need to remove power from the far right wing fascists that inhabit the court now. One was the decisio0n on voting rights and the other on the Texas abortion law. Both were extreme positions. In addition their decisions on immigration law show a clear bias. They allowed Trump to do whatever he wanted on immigration but they are not treating Biden the same way. Clearly they treat Presidents with a R in front of their name differently than one with a D in front of them..

HA HA!!!

 

[g5000]

The moment a Texas vigilante sues an abortion clinic, the clinic will instantaneously have standing before the Supreme Court.

 

[beautress]

The supreme court has just handed out a ton of free ammunition, both for expansion of the court and limiting of it's "shadow docket".

Personally I was firmly against expanding the court. I see that leading to a never ending battle and a court with dozens of possibly even hundreds of justices that can't decide on anything. However this latest shenanigan has pushed me in the other direction. I'm still against it, but I see no alternative to it unless we want to let the current appointees, some of them blatantly illegal BTW, ignore and or circumvent the constitution and pervert our great nation into something it was never meant to be.

Supreme Court Shoot Themselves in Foot as Democrats Prepare for Battle to Expand Court

The new you is asking for a very bloody civil war and you are on the verge of one if yer party EVER screws with the polls again.

 

[progressive hunter]

There is no such thing as a conservative constitutionalist.

if anyone else said that I would believe you,, but sadly your reputation precedes you,,

 

[OKTexas]

There is a legitimate gripe that the left has for how McConnell and the Republicans handled the Garland nom

Do you think the commies wouldn't have done the same if the rolls were reversed? What was maobamas favorite sayings, elections have consequences? Of course that saying only goes for the commies when elections go their way, otherwise it's time to change the rules.

.

 

[progressive hunter]

As already correctly noted: there’s no such thing as a ‘conservative’ constitutionalist.

Indeed, conservatives have nothing but contempt for the Constitution and its case law – the conservative justices’ failure to enjoin the Texas anti-choice law is proof of that.

youre playing word games,,,'

you think modern republicans are conservative,, they arent, they are left wing fanatics, just not as far left wing as the dems,,

so once again your premise is a lie,,

 

[AZrailwhale]

The issue is that we have a Supreme Court that clearly does not reflect the will of the people; a Court whose composition is the result of a non-democratic process – a president elected by the states, not the people, making Supreme Court appointments; a Senate elected by the states, not the people, that confirms those appointments.

The people have the right through the legislative process to address the issue of a Supreme Court that does not reflect the will of the people.

The SCOTUS was never intended to reflect "the will of the people". That's why the appointments are for a lifetime, not a presidential term. The Senate wasn't either; the Senate was never supposed to be staffed by popular election, Senators were supposed to be selected by the governors of the states to balance the popularly elected House. The framers distrusted "the people" viewing them as easily swayed by demagogues and shifting social trends. The presidency was designed by be elected by the states in order to temper the power of the heavily populated states like Pennsylvania. Looking at recent events that was another of many wise decisions they made. So what you are unhappy with is the entire design of our country's government that was designed to make changes of any sort difficult.

 

[beautress]

The moment a Texas vigilante sues an abortion clinic, the clinic will instantaneously have standing before the Supreme Court.

You didn't know? There may be some community abortion slaughterhouses burned to the ground in protest of murdering unborn citizens. Doh.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Correct.

McConnell’s refusal to confirm President Obama’s appointment ran contrary to the will of the people; an act by a Senate not reflecting the will of the people, a Senate whose composition was determined by a non-democratic process.

What the Senate did with Garland's appointment was typical historically, presidential appointments with a hostile senate iin election years have always been difficult UNLESS the appointment was one that could truly be seen as having bipartisan support. Garland didn't. Obama could have made more appointments until he found a justice that was acceptable on a bipartisan level, but he didn't.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Court has also handed the Dems a victory in 2022 and 2024

Dems will run on “Republicans are going to end Roe v Wade”
While they have always threatened it, now it is a reality.

Dems will get out the vote

Dominion will get out the vote