Lack of standing does seem to be the way out of making a decision simply by not hearing a case to begin with, like many of the emolument cases against Trump, or to overturn or just erase a lower court decision they don't like. In this case, it would have let the state law stand even if it erased the appeals court's decision that also let the law stand by saying courts should never have heard the case in the first place. But it would make it more difficult to contest the law, as Liz mentioned, by severely limiting or making it impossible for anyone else to do so.
A few years ago, my state Supreme Court did a little selective standing conclusions on state tax money going to private school tuition. At that time, Republicans had the majority. There were something like 4 separate issues, the biggest one being a requirement that tax money has to be spent for public education. The court ruled that all education was a public benefit, so that Baptist school with 20 students are 6 to 12 was essentially the same thing as a public school.
What they had trouble with was discrimination based on religion (and unsaid, race and nationality) or disabilities. They couldn't quite spin their bullshit to cover that, so magically, the same group that had standing on all the other issues did not have standing on that one. And so far, despite having a Democratic majority in the court now, that issue has not been brought back up.
There are a lot of competing theories on why Roberts ruled the way he did and none of them have anything to do with wanting to protect the right to choose. Really, it could be any number of things: trying to ensure the Court's legitimacy; anger that the Fifth Circuit didn't follow the case SCOTUS just fucking handed down; a legitimate belief in stare decisis that is not shared by the rest of the Republican stooges conservatives on the Court (unless, of course, it's about letting Black people vote); or throwing the majority of the country a bone before going full fascist in the Trump cases.
My favorite? Angling for partizan advantage in an election year.
Wait, what? Did a constitutional academic really just express that much contempt for SCOTUS's jurisprudential process and ethics?
Justices Kegstand, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch all felt the need to write separate dissents setting forth their beliefs in government regulation of uteruses, because of course they did. They are cis white men, after all.
Wait, what? Was that an accident, JLC? Or was that a brutal dis of Thomas?
you can bet that these same justices complaining about standing now would also happily say that a woman who has already had her baby or obtained an abortion elsewhere no longer has standing to sue.
This issue was raised in Roe, and while the SCOTUS of the day ruled that mootness could not be seriously argued without a blanket declaration that the courts could never rule on the issue, and that as a result they would not declare the case moot, I've long believed that conservatives would be perfectly happy to rest on mootness forever if they could just get the law into their preferred configuration to start with.
Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 case that invalidated a Connecticut law that made ALL CONTRACEPTION illegal
Holy crap, was Griswold really 1965? I swear, no matter how many times someone reminds me, I always immediately revert to thinking it was decided in 1963.
Gorsuch writes that the Court really should have accepted the absolutely bogus claims from the state of Louisiana that these bullshit TRAP laws have anything to do with women's safety. If the anti-woman extremists in Louisiana, who also want to ban all abortions, say so! And obviously, we should trust them.
fFs, Rehnquist, Scalia & Thomas wouldn't even accept Congressional findings of discrimination against and maltreatment of people with disabilities, which followed explicit hearings on the topic and expert testimony.
Instead, the court's right wing in Tennessee v. Lane preferred to assume that legislators were lying about the need for 14A-related protections for persons with disabilities unless and until they provided not only proof of widespread harm of the type legislated against, but that the specfic perpetrators of the specific harms testified to during legislative fact finding include States themselves, and knowingly acting to cause harm at that, and not merely a broad swath of US society acting to disparage the rights of persons with disabilities.
The parallel argument here would be to deny the possibility that state legislators have identified a health benefit to women even after many hours of hearings in which evidence of health benefits of women were established by scientific data and expert testimony because the legislators didn't make a specific, factually supported finding that abortion providers intended to harm women's health.
Nice job, Gorsuch. Way to support the values and methodologies of your hero, Scalia.
Oh IDK. I grew up in Louisville and me and all my friends there are not even close to Republican. But Louisville is to Kentucky as Austin is to Texas. I'm hoping Booker will be gracious enough to help Amy campaign. Mitch has got to go.
Scalia had a variety of legal principles he sometimes believed in; as Groucho put it "These are my principles, and if you don't like them, I have others." He decided which principles applied to a particular case depending on whose Al was Gored.
Justices Kegstand, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch all felt the need to write separate dissents setting forth their beliefs in government regulation of uteruses, because of course they did. They are cis white men, after all.
Yay! Now I can send her $$$.....
Roberts is a Conservative, NOT a Republican. There IS a difference.
Lack of standing does seem to be the way out of making a decision simply by not hearing a case to begin with, like many of the emolument cases against Trump, or to overturn or just erase a lower court decision they don't like. In this case, it would have let the state law stand even if it erased the appeals court's decision that also let the law stand by saying courts should never have heard the case in the first place. But it would make it more difficult to contest the law, as Liz mentioned, by severely limiting or making it impossible for anyone else to do so.
A few years ago, my state Supreme Court did a little selective standing conclusions on state tax money going to private school tuition. At that time, Republicans had the majority. There were something like 4 separate issues, the biggest one being a requirement that tax money has to be spent for public education. The court ruled that all education was a public benefit, so that Baptist school with 20 students are 6 to 12 was essentially the same thing as a public school.
What they had trouble with was discrimination based on religion (and unsaid, race and nationality) or disabilities. They couldn't quite spin their bullshit to cover that, so magically, the same group that had standing on all the other issues did not have standing on that one. And so far, despite having a Democratic majority in the court now, that issue has not been brought back up.
He'd be fine with that. Because "libertarian".
If we just made them actually filibuster, instead of just declaring their intent to filibuster, that would help things considerably.
It also keeps the base enraged, which will motivate them to vote.
Just wingnut justices. 🤢
I will not be taking book on how C Thomas will vote on a challenge to Loving.
Everytime I see Roberts forced to rule against Trump's lawyers because of their crappy lawyering I keep thinking of this Doonesbury cartoon:
https://www.gocomics.com/do...
Yeah, but wingnut justices are much worse, because unlike you're standard wingnut internet troll, they actually have the power to change things.
There are a lot of competing theories on why Roberts ruled the way he did and none of them have anything to do with wanting to protect the right to choose. Really, it could be any number of things: trying to ensure the Court's legitimacy; anger that the Fifth Circuit didn't follow the case SCOTUS just fucking handed down; a legitimate belief in stare decisis that is not shared by the rest of the Republican stooges conservatives on the Court (unless, of course, it's about letting Black people vote); or throwing the majority of the country a bone before going full fascist in the Trump cases.
My favorite? Angling for partizan advantage in an election year.
Wait, what? Did a constitutional academic really just express that much contempt for SCOTUS's jurisprudential process and ethics?
Yup. Bite me, Roberts. If you dare.
@Jamie Lynn Crofts:
Justices Kegstand, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch all felt the need to write separate dissents setting forth their beliefs in government regulation of uteruses, because of course they did. They are cis white men, after all.
Wait, what? Was that an accident, JLC? Or was that a brutal dis of Thomas?
you can bet that these same justices complaining about standing now would also happily say that a woman who has already had her baby or obtained an abortion elsewhere no longer has standing to sue.
This issue was raised in Roe, and while the SCOTUS of the day ruled that mootness could not be seriously argued without a blanket declaration that the courts could never rule on the issue, and that as a result they would not declare the case moot, I've long believed that conservatives would be perfectly happy to rest on mootness forever if they could just get the law into their preferred configuration to start with.
Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 case that invalidated a Connecticut law that made ALL CONTRACEPTION illegal
Holy crap, was Griswold really 1965? I swear, no matter how many times someone reminds me, I always immediately revert to thinking it was decided in 1963.
Gorsuch writes that the Court really should have accepted the absolutely bogus claims from the state of Louisiana that these bullshit TRAP laws have anything to do with women's safety. If the anti-woman extremists in Louisiana, who also want to ban all abortions, say so! And obviously, we should trust them.
fFs, Rehnquist, Scalia & Thomas wouldn't even accept Congressional findings of discrimination against and maltreatment of people with disabilities, which followed explicit hearings on the topic and expert testimony.
Instead, the court's right wing in Tennessee v. Lane preferred to assume that legislators were lying about the need for 14A-related protections for persons with disabilities unless and until they provided not only proof of widespread harm of the type legislated against, but that the specfic perpetrators of the specific harms testified to during legislative fact finding include States themselves, and knowingly acting to cause harm at that, and not merely a broad swath of US society acting to disparage the rights of persons with disabilities.
The parallel argument here would be to deny the possibility that state legislators have identified a health benefit to women even after many hours of hearings in which evidence of health benefits of women were established by scientific data and expert testimony because the legislators didn't make a specific, factually supported finding that abortion providers intended to harm women's health.
Nice job, Gorsuch. Way to support the values and methodologies of your hero, Scalia.
Oh IDK. I grew up in Louisville and me and all my friends there are not even close to Republican. But Louisville is to Kentucky as Austin is to Texas. I'm hoping Booker will be gracious enough to help Amy campaign. Mitch has got to go.
Drunks, imbeciles, and sexual offenders; the cream of the crop that bible-Nazi republicans can find to fill the court.
Scalia had a variety of legal principles he sometimes believed in; as Groucho put it "These are my principles, and if you don't like them, I have others." He decided which principles applied to a particular case depending on whose Al was Gored.
Great column, but I have to point out an error.
Justices Kegstand, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch all felt the need to write separate dissents setting forth their beliefs in government regulation of uteruses, because of course they did. They are cis white men, after all.
Well, except for Thomas...