Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the 2016 'Texas' Supreme Court case took place after Scalia died and there was a vacancy on the Court. The vote was 5-3.
Now Kennedy is off the Court, Gorsuch and Kavannaugh have been added to the Court. So both Gorsuch and Kavannaugh would have to vote together (with Thomas, Alito and Roberts) to reverse the 2016 Opinion.
Quote:
Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a concurring opinion. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined.
Precedent relative to the prior ruling against Texas requiring admitting privileges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
The are not addressing Roe vs Wade and Kavanaugh stated one year ago that it was settled, what would have changed his mind. They are addressing the Louisiana law which seems to be identical to the Texas law requiring admitting privileges to local hospitals, if you see some nuance I would like to see a link.
In your own words, "seems to be identical."
Your legal analysis skills are non-existent and you don't understand statutory construction, so stop already.
The voter ID laws seemed to be identical but they weren't. The language was different. That's why the Supreme Court struck down some voter ID laws, but upheld others.
The fact that you have to rely on NPR and news sources, pretty much says you don't know what you're talking about.
The issue is not "undue burden" as you claim.
Had you bothered to read the brief filed, you'd know the petitioner framed the issues as: (1) Whether abortion providers can be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients absent a “close” relationship with their patients and a “hindrance” to their patients’ ability to sue on their own behalf; and (2) whether objections to prudential standing are waivable – per the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th and Federal Circuits – or non-waivable per the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C., 2nd, and 6th Circuits.
Where do you see "undue burden?"
Because no one who understands English sees it.
If you had bothered to read the cross-petition, you'd know the issues presented are: (1) Should the Court overrule Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976), and hold that non-jurisdictional challenges to third-party standing cannot be waived? (2) Should the Court revisit its oft-reaffirmed decision in Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (1976), and consider whether abortion providers have third-party standing to assert the rights of their patients, where Cross-Petitioner failed to present relevant facts or arguments below and admits there is no circuit split on the issue?
Do you see "undue burden?" Do you see "Texas" mentioned?
Those are the issues.
So, according to you, because Craig v. Boren, and Singleton v. Wulff are US Supreme Court precedents, they cannot be overturned.
That means the Louisiana law is likely to be upheld.
Right?
Because you keep screaming precedents and must be "honored" at all costs and Craig and Singleton are precedents.
Or, is your position precedents are only to be honored when it gives you a warm tingly feeling running down your leg?
The real test of the integrity of the Supreme Court is whether it continues to violate the principle of separation of powers by continuing to usurp the policy making power of the legislative branch.
The Louisiana law requires that doctors at abortion clinics have admitting privileges at a hospital I assume because the patient might need to go to a hospital. A similar law for Texas was already struck down in 2016 by the supreme court so why did they agree to hear this again. This would have effectively closed the last clinic in Louisiana. It will be interesting to see if Kavanaugh and Gorsuch honor precedent as they claimed during their confirmation hearings. Arguments to begin March 4.
I am reading this book called Oil Power and War. It basically rips Rockefeller and his company's business practices. And often it quotes him as saying " God will provide" or "Its between me and God".
So it would not be a great surprise with 5 conservative judges voting for it due to their religious and personal values. But what is worse is they may vote based on what makes their boss happy. Its not God.
And I hope Cryvanaugh doesnt say that his family prays for the dead babies.
Your legal analysis skills are non-existent and you don't understand statutory construction, so stop already.
The voter ID laws seemed to be identical but they weren't. The language was different. That's why the Supreme Court struck down some voter ID laws, but upheld others.
The fact that you have to rely on NPR and news sources, pretty much says you don't know what you're talking about.
The issue is not "undue burden" as you claim.
Had you bothered to read the brief filed, you'd know the petitioner framed the issues as: (1) Whether abortion providers can be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients absent a “close” relationship with their patients and a “hindrance” to their patients’ ability to sue on their own behalf; and (2) whether objections to prudential standing are waivable – per the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th and Federal Circuits – or non-waivable per the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C., 2nd, and 6th Circuits.
Where do you see "undue burden?"
Because no one who understands English sees it.
If you had bothered to read the cross-petition, you'd know the issues presented are: (1) Should the Court overrule Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976), and hold that non-jurisdictional challenges to third-party standing cannot be waived? (2) Should the Court revisit its oft-reaffirmed decision in Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (1976), and consider whether abortion providers have third-party standing to assert the rights of their patients, where Cross-Petitioner failed to present relevant facts or arguments below and admits there is no circuit split on the issue?
Do you see "undue burden?" Do you see "Texas" mentioned?
Those are the issues.
So, according to you, because Craig v. Boren, and Singleton v. Wulff are US Supreme Court precedents, they cannot be overturned.
That means the Louisiana law is likely to be upheld.
Right?
Because you keep screaming precedents and must be "honored" at all costs and Craig and Singleton are precedents.
Or, is your position precedents are only to be honored when it gives you a warm tingly feeling running down your leg?
You of course just cherry picked the petitioners brief but while you are right about their claim that the supreme court will need to rule on 3rd party you are totally ignoring the primary point of placing an undue burden. If you did a little research you would have found the 3rd party issue never came up in the district court or the appeals court but now it pops up in their petition in the supreme court for 2020. The state previously agreed that the providers had the right to sue, but when your case is weak its best to pull out all the stops.
The federal appeals court did supposedly consider the burden of the requirement for admitting privileges but the district court ruling indicated there would be one doctor to perform 10,000 abortions per year. I guess the 5th district has a loose opinion of undue burden, sounds like there might be a waiting list of several months for the last remaining clinic.
This was decided in 2016 but here they are a mere one year later claiming they need to have admitting privileges to protect from a non-existent problem. The title of the Louisiana law is laughable "Unsafe Abortion Protection Act", who exactly are they protecting.
If the SCOTUS overturns or dramatically weakens Roe vs Wade, Susan Collins of Maine will be one of the people most responsible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
