General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy 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 Womans 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, todays decision should have been an open and shut case. Texas law was unconstitutional four years ago; Louisianas 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 couldnt bring himself to join Justice Breyers 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/
John Fante
(3,479 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)lordsummerisle
(4,651 posts)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)and Im 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)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)The 5th Circuit decided that the Louisiana law was sufficiently different from the Texas law/case that they could uphold it.
SCOTUS disagreed.
Faux pas
(14,681 posts)for the Women
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)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)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)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)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)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.