General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWill anybody stop that Trump judge from banning abortion pills?
The federal courts are dominated by Republicans, so the appeals process could be rough.https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/3/16/23642927/supreme-court-abortion-matthew-kacsmaryk-mifepristone-texas-trump
If youve followed the fight over where and whether abortion should remain legal in the United States, youve probably heard the name Matthew Kacsmaryk. Kacsmaryk is a former lawyer for a religious right law firm, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump to a federal court in Texas. He is widely expected to issue a decision ordering the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw its approval of mifepristone, a medication used in more than half of all abortions within the United States.
The Trump judge held a hearing on Wednesday to hear arguments in a case seeking to remove the widely used drug from the US marketplace, and a Washington Post reporter at the hearing says that he appeared to seriously entertain claims that mifepristone is unsafe. That wont surprise anyone familiar with this judges record of partisan rulings.
Link to tweet
Make no mistake, there is no legal basis whatsoever for a federal judge to endorse a lawsuit trying to ban this medication, which has been lawful in the United States since 2000. But if Kacsmaryk rules as he is expected to rule in this lawsuit, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, that will immediately test whether the rule of law still exists in a judiciary dominated by Republican appointees.
Heres what happens next in the federal court system: There will likely be two parallel appeals processes a relatively quick process seeking to temporarily block Kacsmaryks order, and then a much more drawn-out process seeking to permanently reverse his decision.
snip
Ocelot II
(115,267 posts)showing it's safe.
rurallib
(62,342 posts)Blues Heron
(5,898 posts)JohnSJ
(91,937 posts)beyond abortion, but it highlights the stupidity of folks like Susan Sarandon, Nina Turner, David Sirota, etc. who not only refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016, but some also went out of their way publicly endorse Jill Stein, and encourage others to do likewise.
Yes, I am still pissed because all of this turmoil could have been avoided, and I am still skeptical if anything has been learned.
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)It's crystal clear not a lot, if anything was learned. There's another thread as we speak full of outrage and threats of not voting over
tik- tok. About 6 yesterday about not voting because of the Willow project. And on and on and on.
Alpeduez21
(1,739 posts)Fuck you very much
elias7
(3,976 posts)It is not the judicial branchs place to make medical decisions
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)the court is hearing a case before it. That's what they do.
MayReasonRule
(1,459 posts)This fella' is nothing more than a Viagra fueled hard-on of the Fascist GOP.
He's a corrupt fascist that has no place living within our society, much less imposing his Machiavellian fascist ideas of intimidation, incarceration and extermination.
May this fascist shit-stain quickly receive his just desserts.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)Should inform themselves before writing misleading, inflammatory articles. The same is true for understanding court process.
The question is properly before the court. It is the job of the court (judicial branch) to resolve disputes about whether the executive branch (FDA) had exceeded the authority granted in a law passed by the legislative branch (Congress). That's what the separation of powers is about.
And, of course the court has to take a case seriously. The question asked by the judge is absolutely expected. It is part of the conversation between the parties and the court. One side makes a claim. The judge asks the other side if the first side is correct. It is the job of attorneys to respond to (and correct) misleading arguments by the other side, or to provide an alternative way to look at the law when it is open to more than one interpretation. That's the foundation of the best decisions - when the court's decision is informed by a robust argument between advocates for each side.
I don't have a crystal ball. I don't know how this judge will decide, or it if that decision will be influenced more by politics than the law. (The point at which outage is appropriate.) But riling everyone up with misinformation about a process every high school graduate should have learned in civics is not responsible journalism. (Of course, it also isn't helpful that no one seems to be teaching civics any more.)