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 circuit court indicated this would result in one remaining doctor, the Texas law resulted in the closure of half of the clinics. If there is one remaining clinic in the city of New Orleans that would be an undue burden in spite of the appeals court claim.
Fine, let's say the Appeals Court was wrong. That isn't what your op was really about. The points you're ignoring are the Texas ruling was specific to Texas's circumstances and every time another state adopts a similar law the substantial hardship/undue burden test will begin again in those states because the circumstances are different --- number of clinics and doctors, driving and wait times, hospital admitting privilege standards, among other things.
Q. What's the difference between giving women the Constitutional right to vote and giving them the Constitutional right to abortion?
A. One was a Constitutional Amendment (the 15th) and the other was a judicial fiat.
Q. Why was the last substantive amendment to the Constitution in 1971 and why may there never be another constitutional amendment -- at least in our lifetimes?
A. "Activist" justices installed a backdoor to the Constitution in 1973 and have no apparent intention of ever using the front door again.
Fine, let's say the Appeals Court was wrong. That isn't what your op was really about. The points you're ignoring are the Texas ruling was specific to Texas's circumstances and every time another state adopts a similar law the substantial hardship/undue burden test will begin again in those states because the circumstances are different --- number of clinics and doctors, driving and wait times, hospital admitting privilege standards, among other things.
That's pretty much the discussion that came up in the oral arguments today, if passed does undue burden need to be addressed for admitting privileges in each of the anti-abortion states. But the circuit court was in agreement with the Supreme Courts 2016 decision based on the burden anticipated in their analysis, the appeals court disagreed but I did not see a substantial argument.
Judge Smith of the appeals court offered a pretty vague and general excuse compared to the circuit court.
“We are of course bound by Whole Woman’s Health’s holdings, announced in a case with a substantially similar statute but greatly dissimilar facts and geography". I fail to see what the different facts are but yes Louisiana is smaller than Texas but wouldn't one remaining clinic be an undue burden.
I did not cherry-pick the petitioner's briefs that you never even bothered to read.
Just to prove how wrong you are, here are the petitioner's own words from the briefs you still haven't bothered to read:
You'll find that on page "i" of both petitions.
Note the absence of the words "burden" and "Texas."
Those two questions are the only questions the Supreme Court will address, because those are the only issues put forth before the Supreme Court.
I'm guessing you've never written an appeal for a State or federal appellate court or the US or a State Supreme Court.
Not to worry, I have.
The issue is very obviously legal standing, which I don't have time to explain to you.
Not relevant.
The issue is legal standing as clearly illustrated by screen shots from both petitions that you still haven't bothered to read.
I'm guessing "assignment of error" is not part of your vocabulary.
You still haven't answered the question: Is the Supreme Court bound by its prior holdings in Craig and Singleton?
Already stated that there have been rulings that have gone against precedent, don’t know why you keep repeating and droning on. Besides you picked out one brief which doesn’t address the various points and motions through several years and 3 courts. Instead of beating a dead horse why not address the many points in today’s hearing if you can starting with the benefits of admitting privileges or why the hospital needs to be within 30 miles.
Q. What's the difference between giving women the Constitutional right to vote and giving them the Constitutional right to abortion?
A. One was a Constitutional Amendment (the 15th) and the other was a judicial fiat.
Q. Why was the last substantive amendment to the Constitution in 1971 and why may there never be another constitutional amendment -- at least in our lifetimes?
A. "Activist" justices installed a backdoor to the Constitution in 1973 and have no apparent intention of ever using the front door again.
It was Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) that established their is an implied right to privacy in the Bill of Rights. Do you think that decision should be overturned? Does the state have the authority to outlaw birth control? Gay sex? What say you?
I can't imagine Roe V Wade being overturned. Our society should never go backwards. But if that's the decision then we will have more people on welfare and food stamps. So please don't complain when your taxes go up to take care of them. Can't have it both ways, you know.
I can't imagine Roe V Wade being overturned. Our society should never go backwards. But if that's the decision then we will have more people on welfare and food stamps. So please don't complain when your taxes go up to take care of them. Can't have it both ways, you know.
And herein lies the difference - some folks do not consider killing innocent babies as going forward.
The points you're ignoring are the Texas ruling was specific to Texas's circumstances ...
Correct.
Some people are just legally-challenged and don't understand the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Besides you picked out one brief which doesn’t address the various points and motions through several years and 3 courts.
I did not "pick out one brief."
I presented the arguments as framed verbatim by both petitioners and you still haven't bothered to read both briefs.
Maybe your reading skills are poor. I get that. You're excused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosep
It was Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) that established their is an implied right to privacy in the Bill of Rights. Do you think that decision should be overturned? Does the state have the authority to outlaw birth control? Gay sex? What say you?
You do have a right to privacy. It's enshrined in the 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The right to be secure means to be free from fear or exempt from terror.
That's the definition from the dictionary used by the Framers of the Constitution. SeeA DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN WHICH The WORDS are deduced from their ORIGINALS, Explained in their Different Meanings, AND Authorised by the NAMES of the WRITERS in whose WORKS they are found.
Abstracted from the Folio Edition by the AUTHOR SAMUEL JOHNSON, AM. To WHICH are PREFIXED, a GRAMMAR of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, and The PREFACE to the Folio Edition.
10th Edition
London, 1785.
That's your right of privacy. It doesn't use the words "privacy" or "private" but that's what it is.
If you did not have a right to privacy, then government could search and/or arrest you and search and/or seize your papers, personal effects, belongings, home and property any time they felt like it without the need of a warrant based on probable cause.
But, government cannot do that, because they need a warrant based on probable cause, since you have a right to privacy.
I presented the arguments as framed verbatim by both petitioners and you still haven't bothered to read both briefs.
Maybe your reading skills are poor. I get that. You're excused.
You totally ignored the Supreme Court decision that overturned the Texas law, you also ignored the lower court decision blocking the Louisiana law.
Maybe you should use all that legal experience to actually read the opening arguments and see the issues around which this revolves, if you need help let me know.
You seem to think this is a win, are you sure you have a legal background.
From yesterdays opening remarks by the attorney for June Medical Services
Quote:
BEHALF OF JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L.L.C., ET AL. MS. RIKELMAN: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:
This case is about respect for the Court's precedent. Just four years ago, the Court held in Whole Woman's Health that the Texas admitting privileges law imposed an undue burden on women seeking abortions.
The Louisiana law at issue here, Act 620, is identical to the Texas law and was expressly modeled on it. After a trial, the district court ruled Act 620 unconstitutional, finding no material differences between this case and Whole Woman's Health. On burdens, it found that Act 620 would leave Louisiana with just one clinic and one doctor providing
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.
