Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Celerity

(42,630 posts)
Fri Mar 17, 2023, 09:55 AM Mar 2023

Will 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 you’ve followed the fight over where and whether abortion should remain legal in the United States, you’ve 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 won’t surprise anyone familiar with this judge’s record of partisan rulings.



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.

Here’s what happens next in the federal court system: There will likely be two parallel appeals processes — a relatively quick process seeking to temporarily block Kacsmaryk’s order, and then a much more drawn-out process seeking to permanently reverse his decision.

snip
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

JohnSJ

(91,937 posts)
4. It will be appealed, if mifepristone is banned, because it would have far reaching consequences
Fri Mar 17, 2023, 10:41 AM
Mar 2023

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)
8. I'm not skeptical at all
Fri Mar 17, 2023, 11:17 AM
Mar 2023

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.

elias7

(3,976 posts)
6. WTF is the FDA for? You can justify banning all drugs based on non-zero risk.
Fri Mar 17, 2023, 11:00 AM
Mar 2023

It is not the judicial branch’s place to make medical decisions

MayReasonRule

(1,459 posts)
9. The "court" is a Y'all Qaeda Nat-C Fascist that Would Piss in the Wind and Say "It's Raining Gold!!"
Fri Mar 17, 2023, 11:21 AM
Mar 2023

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)
10. People who don't understand basic civics
Fri Mar 17, 2023, 11:52 AM
Mar 2023

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.)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Will anybody stop that Tr...