SCOTUS Overturns LA Law on Abortion Doctors Needing Admitting Privileges (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >

insidejob

Well-known member
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,685
Reaction score
2,263
Age
85
Location
Back in 70124
Offline
It's all over the news right now but no links yet. Roberts was the 5th vote to overturn it. Boy, you know the "Conservatives" are going to be going after him again for this.

Couldn't be happier they struck down this ridiculous law. It would have left one abortion clinic in the whole state.
 

JRad

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
759
Reaction score
1,104
Age
37
Location
Baton Rouge
Offline
It actually goes down as 4-1-4, with Roberts's concurrence breaking the tie. I guess that's 5-4 though.

Since I'm hoping I'm not the only one who is wondering - what's concurrence mean in this instance?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #8
OP
insidejob

insidejob

Well-known member
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,685
Reaction score
2,263
Age
85
Location
Back in 70124
Offline
It actually goes down as 4-1-4, with Roberts's concurrence breaking the tie. I guess that's 5-4 though.

Yeah, it was BREAKING NEWS and they were saying 5-4 with Roberts being the 5th. Didn't see the 4-1-4 until people started tweeting about it.
 

GrandAdmiral

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
1,548
Reaction score
1,852
Location
Center of the Universe
Offline

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,817
Reaction score
1,436
Location
Nashville
Offline
Simply because a statute is similar or even the same does not mean cases based on each statute are going to be the same. Alito points this out in his dissent, which on the issue of stare decisis he was joined by Kavanaugh.
More to the point: what was controlling in the Texas case was the effect of the statute. It required empirical evidence as to that effect. The idea that the empirical evidence would be the same in every state just does not make much sense, and hence the argument of stare decisis seems weak.
And I think Alito makes a very compelling argument when he points out that in TExas the plaintiffs lost in federal court when they sued on a pre-enforcement facial challenge. Once the law went into effect, the Court denied the State's motion to dismiss based on claim preclusion due to changed circumstances.
In fact, it seems that Roberts and the other 4 holding stare decisis are, in fact, wrong in relying on stare decisis. The Louisiana case is a pre-enforcement facial challenge. There is no "settled law" on that issue.
 

cuddlemonkey

Well-known monkey
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,219
Reaction score
1,516
Offline
Since I'm hoping I'm not the only one who is wondering - what's concurrence mean in this instance?
My understanding is that he agreed with the decision, but not the rational used to reach it. The concurrence is his opinion stating what he sees as the right reason to reach the majority conclusion.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #14
OP
insidejob

insidejob

Well-known member
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,685
Reaction score
2,263
Age
85
Location
Back in 70124
Offline
can't be voted out fast enough. She is/was either willfully ignorant, completely gullible or lying
I honestly think she is all three. I really think her time is up but Maine is a weird place so I think it's a toss up. The worst thing that could happen is she gets beat by a Trump disciple (which she's basically been while pretending she's not) who's willing to carry water for him. Even if Biden wins in November, Congress is full of Trump disciples and unless both the House remains blue and the Senate flips, it's going to be tough to get anything done. Even worse than it was for Obama when the stated goal of the GOP was to block his entire agenda. (Or maybe we can hold out hope that all of the Trump disciples in Congress will go back to their pre-election thoughts about Trump where they all literally said he was everything he is. His most ardent supporters were screaming from the hilltops that he wasn't fit for office back then.)
 

Sandman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
150
Reaction score
493
Age
54
Location
Houston, Texas
Offline
Simply because a statute is similar or even the same does not mean cases based on each statute are going to be the same. Alito points this out in his dissent, which on the issue of stare decisis he was joined by Kavanaugh.
More to the point: what was controlling in the Texas case was the effect of the statute. It required empirical evidence as to that effect. The idea that the empirical evidence would be the same in every state just does not make much sense, and hence the argument of stare decisis seems weak.
And I think Alito makes a very compelling argument when he points out that in TExas the plaintiffs lost in federal court when they sued on a pre-enforcement facial challenge. Once the law went into effect, the Court denied the State's motion to dismiss based on claim preclusion due to changed circumstances.
In fact, it seems that Roberts and the other 4 holding stare decisis are, in fact, wrong in relying on stare decisis. The Louisiana case is a pre-enforcement facial challenge. There is no "settled law" on that issue.
Well, of course they are going to argue stare decisis doesn't apply. They have to make some sort of argument that the other precedent doesn't apply. As Roberts stated:

"The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana's law cannot stand under our precedents"

No case is ever 100% on point. I have attempted to argue that the precedent that goes against my client "doesn't apply" a number of times. What it comes down to was that the Louisiana law imposed a burden on a Constitutional right to abortion as severe as the law that had been previously struck down by the Supreme Court. I believe reliance on precedent is completely reasonable and proper in this instance. I believe Alito's opinion that this case is "different" is more of a stretch.

The problem is that you have justices (on both sides admittedly) who have already made their decision before presented any facts on any case involving abortion. What you get is a scramble to justify the pre-determined opinion rather than an application of law.

I find Robert's opinion refreshing. He put aside his personal opinion and decided a case based on the law.
 

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,817
Reaction score
1,436
Location
Nashville
Offline
As Roberts stated:

"The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana's law cannot stand under our precedents"
I do not find Roberts' reasoning here as being good at all.
SCOTUS' ruling on th Texas law came after the law had been implemented. The facts surrounding abortion access once the law was implemented amounted to an undue burden, according to the majority. It heard the case after finding that issue preclusion did not apply to the previous lawsuit which was a pre-enforcement challenge. The Lousiana case was a pre-enforcement challenge. Why would stare decisis apply? The cases are very different.

Its more than just that every case is not 100% just like another. Its the difference between a facially invalid statute and one where the empirical evidence can/will lead to invalidation. SCOTUS itself admits as much in the Texas case.
 

LA - L.A.

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
1,335
Location
Studio City, CA
Offline
I do not find Roberts' reasoning here as being good at all.
SCOTUS' ruling on th Texas law came after the law had been implemented. The facts surrounding abortion access once the law was implemented amounted to an undue burden, according to the majority. It heard the case after finding that issue preclusion did not apply to the previous lawsuit which was a pre-enforcement challenge. The Lousiana case was a pre-enforcement challenge. Why would stare decisis apply? The cases are very different.

Its more than just that every case is not 100% just like another. Its the difference between a facially invalid statute and one where the empirical evidence can/will lead to invalidation. SCOTUS itself admits as much in the Texas case.
Was the Texas law challenged by anyone before it went into effect?
 

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,817
Reaction score
1,436
Location
Nashville
Offline
Was the Texas law challenged by anyone before it went into effect?
Yes. There was a facial challenge. The plaintiffs lost in the 5th Circuit and SCOTUS denied to hear the case, effectively keeping it the law.

Once it went into effect the same (or mostly the same) plaintiffs sued again. The State argued issue preclusion (meaning the previous lawsuit had decided the case) but that was denied, ultimately by SCOTUS, due to the fact that there were changed circumstances, namely - the law had gone into effect.
The lawsuit and appeals were empirical based, where some areas of TExas the law was upheld and in others, it was not due to the undue burden.
That is the point. There is no settled law that the statute is facially invalid. The Texas case was about the fact that the law did, in fact, create an undue burden.


I am not arguing for the Louisiana law, just that I think the stare decisis reasoning is poor jurisprudence. And seeing how THAT issue is being used by some to attack Kavanaugh and people who voted for Kavanaugh - I thought I would bring up the point.
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom