Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(107,986 posts)
Mon Jun 29, 2020, 08:02 PM Jun 2020

Why Chief Justice Roberts Upheld Abortion Rights

When Donald Trump ran for president, he promised to appoint justices to the United States Supreme Court who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. His running mate, Mike Pence, vowed the same. Today, it seems that the president may have followed through with his promise … but was stopped in his tracks by Chief Justice John Roberts, who apparently does not want to let that happen.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that would have shut down all but one clinic in the state. That law — requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital — was almost identical to a Texas law that the Supreme Court found unconstitutional in 2016. In the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court found that the Texas law provided no benefits to patients but instead burdened access to abortion so significantly because most clinics in the state would shut down.

Thus, today’s decision should have been an open and shut case. Texas’ law was unconstitutional four years ago; Louisiana’s law was virtually identical to that law — it should be unconstitutional as well. But, the addition of the two new justices to the court, and in particular conservative Justice Kavanaugh replacing abortion-rights supporter Justice Anthony Kennedy, made this case a very big deal. To everyone following this issue, this case was going to be the barometer for how the newly conservative Supreme Court would treat abortion.

This morning gave us the complicated answer. A majority of the justices voted to strike down the law based on the 2016 case, however, those five justices did not agree on the rationale. Justice Breyer, who wrote the 2016 decision, authored an opinion for himself and the three other liberals on the court. His opinion was a straightforward application of the 2016 case. He said that this law is no different, and because it also provides no benefits while seriously burdening abortion access, it is unconstitutional, like the Texas law. The Louisiana abortion clinics can remain open, and people seeking abortions in the state will not have to face an even more drastic access landscape.

This is where Chief Justice Roberts comes in. The chief dissented in the 2016 case and would have allowed the Texas laws. But this time around, he voted with Justice Breyer to strike down the Louisiana law. He couldn’t bring himself to join Justice Breyer’s opinion, writing his own opinion instead. And until the court changes, because the chief justice is the swing vote on this issue, this opinion will be the key to future abortion cases.

-more-

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/scotus-abortion-rights-chief-justice-roberts-opinion-1021951/

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why Chief Justice Roberts Upheld Abortion Rights (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jun 2020 OP
And Rapey Brett didn't. Someone get Susan Collins to her fainting couch. John Fante Jun 2020 #1
K&R smirkymonkey Jun 2020 #2
OK, since this case was "nearly identical" lordsummerisle Jun 2020 #3
Because it only takes four votes to grant cert rsdsharp Jun 2020 #5
Thanks lordsummerisle Jun 2020 #7
Short answer, because 5th Cir. had upheld the LA law. sl8 Jun 2020 #11
Kickin' Faux pas Jun 2020 #4
To the Susan Sarandons, Cornell Wests, Michael Moores, Ralph Naders (when Ralph comes Blue_true Jun 2020 #6
When all is said and done, and the Roberts Court is one for the history books, Volaris Jun 2020 #8
Why do you all go out of your way to mythologize Roberts? Solomon Jun 2020 #12
Part of it is I don't think the conservatives want to lose this as a wedge-issue. backscatter712 Jun 2020 #9
Roberts is a Bush appointee... Xolodno Jun 2020 #10

lordsummerisle

(4,651 posts)
3. OK, since this case was "nearly identical"
Mon Jun 29, 2020, 08:23 PM
Jun 2020

to the Texas case of several years ago, then why was it heard over the thousands of cases the court declines to hear every term?

rsdsharp

(9,177 posts)
5. Because it only takes four votes to grant cert
Mon Jun 29, 2020, 08:32 PM
Jun 2020

and I’m assuming the four who dissented thought this was going to be a gimme, given that Roberts had voted the other way four years ago.

lordsummerisle

(4,651 posts)
7. Thanks
Mon Jun 29, 2020, 09:08 PM
Jun 2020

I didn't see that in the several articles I read on the case. I guess I need to read more serious SCOTUS sources ...

sl8

(13,779 posts)
11. Short answer, because 5th Cir. had upheld the LA law.
Tue Jun 30, 2020, 07:55 AM
Jun 2020

The 5th Circuit decided that the Louisiana law was sufficiently different from the Texas law/case that they could uphold it.

SCOTUS disagreed.

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)
6. To the Susan Sarandons, Cornell Wests, Michael Moores, Ralph Naders (when Ralph comes
Mon Jun 29, 2020, 08:42 PM
Jun 2020

out of his crypt again, he has been quiet in the face of Trump's atrocities), who wins the Presidency DOES MATTER, you are idiots to claim otherwise.

We KNOW where life is headed if Trump is in office after Jan 20, 2021 and gets to replace just one liberal Justice.

Volaris

(10,271 posts)
8. When all is said and done, and the Roberts Court is one for the history books,
Mon Jun 29, 2020, 09:56 PM
Jun 2020

I suspect we will be able to say that even if we didnt always agree with him, and despite some EPIC screwups (Citizens United), we WILL be able to say the following:

John Roberts at least respected the Court he managed, even if he had to twist himself into some interesting knots to get there on occasion.

Solomon

(12,310 posts)
12. Why do you all go out of your way to mythologize Roberts?
Tue Jun 30, 2020, 08:06 AM
Jun 2020

He's a fucking asshole. Always was, always will be, and will go down in history as an asshole.
Spent a career working against civil rights, then when he got to the supreme court, actually said, in the midst of raging racism, that there is no more need for civil rights laws.


backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
9. Part of it is I don't think the conservatives want to lose this as a wedge-issue.
Tue Jun 30, 2020, 12:47 AM
Jun 2020

How are you going to rile up the base voters by promising to do a thing if that thing is already done?

So my prediction, they'll dance around Roe v. Wade, dabble around the edges, but they want to keep dangling that red meat in front of their smoothbrained base, so they'll never actually overturn it.

Xolodno

(6,395 posts)
10. Roberts is a Bush appointee...
Tue Jun 30, 2020, 01:53 AM
Jun 2020

And as much as I want to piss on this, he did get someone who respected past decisions and not make it political. Remember, he was going to vote the ACA down, even Kennedy was going to do the same. Then he started writing his opinion and as he wrote it, realized he was at odds with his interpretation of Law, the ACA at heart, was a tax...and that falls squarely under the power of Congress. If Congress wants to tax you for not eating broccoli...then they can. So he changed his decision and asked the other four justices to pick someone to write a dissent.

He probably won't vote the way we want most of the time, but he does vote the way of a professional does. And quite frankly, that's the best we could ask for him....unlike "I like beer" justice...and something tells me, his days are numbered.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why Chief Justice Roberts...