Supreme Court strikes down restrictive Louisiana abortion law

[demmiblue]

Source: NBC

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Louisiana's tough restriction on abortion violates the Constitution, a surprising victory for abortion rights advocates from an increasingly conservative court.

The ruling struck down a law passed by Louisiana's legislature in 2014 that required any doctor offering abortion services to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. Its enforcement had been blocked by a protracted legal battle.

Two Louisiana doctors and a medical clinic sued to get the law overturned. They said it would leave only one doctor at a single clinic to provide services for nearly 10,000 women who seek abortions in the state each year.

The challengers said the requirement was identical to a Texas law the Supreme Court struck down in 2016. With the vote of then-Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court ruled that Texas imposed an obstacle on women seeking access to abortion services without providing any medical benefits.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-strikes-down-restrictive-louisiana-abortion-law-n1231392?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

[PunkinPi]

1. Wow, K&R! nt

[BumRushDaShow]

2. That is heartening

I don't know if they have any other abortion-related cases before them but if not, then thank goodness because this "admitting privileges" tactic has been the latest way these backwards states have used to remove the right to a woman to seek whatever medical care that she sees fit!

[SKKY]

3. Something is going on with Roberts. He agreed with the Texas abortion ruling, which was....

...basically the same. Now, he's leaning on precedent to side with the Liberals. Is Roberts, due to the Trump administration, changing? Doesn't make sense.

[Lobo27]

4. My opinion of Roberts...

Unlike Thomas, I think Roberts is a good person that just happens to be a conservative. But I think above others he values the constitution. My impressions at least.

[SKKY]

6. Probably. And I think as Chief Justice he values the public opinion on the Supreme Court...

...But still, this is a pretty significant ruling.

[Lonestarblue]

11. I think Roberts is worried that the Court could appear to be an extension of the Republican Party.

The SC has jumped to Trump’s support fairly often with quick decisions allowing him to enforce executive orders while they work their way through the courts rather than opting to protect the status quo until the orders have been found to be legal. He has gone straight to the SC and gotten more stays than any other president. A good example is their decision to allow him to circumvent Congress’ budget appropriations power and use military money for his border wall. I regularly refer to the SC in writing as the Republican Supreme Court and I’ve seen others do that too.

We all know how important this election is. iIf Trump gets even one more SC appointment, civil rights will be set back for decades and the corporate takeover of the US government will be nearly complete.

[Upthevibe]

21. Lobo27.... I agree with you...

Also, he seems to be quite mindful regarding the legacy of "The Robert's Court...."

[PunkinPi]

7. Here's Brian Fallon's theory and I tend to agree...

Link to tweet

We are winning these cases by the skin of our teeth and because Roberts fears for the Court's legitimacy with the public. But the other four conservatives don't and if Trump gets to add another justice, that person wont either. The Court's future is hanging in the balance in 2020

[homegirl]

28. McConnell and the GOP

Have established that SC appointments may not be made in an election year. How hard will that action bite them?

[PunkinPi]

29. That's only for when democrats are in the WH. nt

[mr_lebowski]

31. I believe the argument was made specific to the last year of a President's 2nd term

Such that there was a 100% chance that we would have a new POTUS within the year.

It's still bullshit, but ... just sayin'

[Coventina]

8. He stated his reason was that the law was already litigated in the Texas case.

And even though he disagreed with it, as the issue had already been decided, he didn't think it was right to overturn precedence.

A grudging "good for him" from me.

He doesn't seem to be pure evil, just mostly evil....

[still_one]

12. When he was nominated he indicated he would honor stare decisis

[Coventina]

13. Fascinating! A conservative who follows through?

When was the last time that happened?

[still_one]

14. +++

[CTyankee]

22. Does he have a daughter or granddaughter of child bearing age?

If he does, he has a hostage to the future, as I like to call it. He may feel a personal obligation somewhere, somehow that makes him understand, if only dimly, what it will mean to women in this country if we go back to the days when some women could, and many others couldn't, get a safe, legal abortion somewhere in this country.

[Coventina]

32. IIRC (so I certainly wouldn't swear to it in court, haha!)

I think he and his wife have twin adopted boys.

From my recollection (from DU at the time!!!) when he was going through the confirmation process, there was speculation about the boys.

There was a family photograph, showing the boys, who were maybe 5 or so? They were both tow-headed and wearing short coveralls.

But, they were said to have been adopted from Brazil.

One DUer, I wish I could remember to whom to give credit, came up with the DUzy:

"The Boys are From Brazil? No wonder they are blond and wear lederhosen!"

[CTyankee]

38. He might have had a personal experience with a girlfriend, sister, friend (even his own mother)

who had an illegal abortion back in the day. You never can tell. In those days, it was hell for women who dared to have sex before marriage.

[Coventina]

39. Oh yes, for sure. My mother was pregnant with me before marriage. It was a scandal!!

And, to update my earlier post:

Either my memory is severely fogged, or we had bad info back in the days of his confirmation.

The "twin boys" are not twins (born 4 months apart) but were adopted at nearly the same time as newborns.
Also, one is a girl!! They are now both 16 years old, so he does have a daughter of childbearing age.

Furthermore: they were adopted from Ireland, not Brazil.

So, one of my fondest DU memories no longer holds water....

Oh well....

[CTyankee]

41. Oh, my memory is shot but I excuse myself for being old. I thought my memory would improve

greatly when I stopped drinking wine last September. It's better but still not so good...

[Princess Turandot]

42. He has a boy and a girl..

They are adopted. I believe they are siblings, but not twins. The son just graduated from high school (I read an article about Roberts giving a virtual address to his class this month); they are close in age but I can't recall if his daughter is older or younger.

[Grins]

30. But look who didn't...

But look who didn’t: “Blackout Brett” Kavanaugh.

Who assured Susan Collins that stare decisis was at the core of his judicial philosophy.

I’m sure she is “very concerned” about this turn of events.

[still_one]

36. No surprise from coming from a liar

[usaf-vet]

17. To me here is the important input from Roberts.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the court’s liberals in striking down the law, saying it was required by the court’s decision overturning a Texas law in 2016.

“The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike,” Roberts wrote in concurring with the decision. “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'm no attorney but this reasoning based on stare decisis is important as it should have an impact on all future SCOTUS decisions. That is the point of stare decisis

[Tom Traubert]

25. Roberts is intriguing.

He’s more concerned about the preserving the credibility and public perception of the Roberts Court and his place in history than he is in a particular ideology. But the downside is that abortion and the Courts now will be even more of wedge issue in the upcoming election and will get out at least some Republican voters who otherwise would stay home on Election Day rather than vote for Trump. The only thing Trump can run on is his reformation of the federal judiciary and we will being hear a lot about it. This election is not going to be a landslide.

[BComplex]

33. Welcome to DU Tom Traubert.

Good post!

You may be right; this might bring out more republican voters.

[Midnight Writer]

37. Welcome to DU, Tom. Hope you got over those blues.

[bucolic_frolic]

26. I think Roberts

is from the old Main Street wing of the GOP. Pro-business, deeply rooted in private property rights, but also knowing that laws must be accepted as legitimate if they are to be good laws that the public will obey. He is also fully commited to the rule of law, and almost as much, to precedent. A Supreme Court has to listen to all sides of issues and of society. He said in confirmation he was a "balls and strikes" guy, he is showing us that. It's like he's remaking the judiciary, not as makers of law, but as defenders of the old normal, as a check on what is way out of line.

[whopis01]

40. I believe he felt the decision had been made with the Texas ruling.

And even though he held the opposite opinion in the Texas ruling, he respects the fact that the court has, as a whole, already made its decision.

Basically he doesn't believe in the "keep trying and eventually it will slip through" approach to Supreme Court decisions.

Here is what he said about this decision:
"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,"

[Polybius]

43. His changed started before Trump but has accelerated

He was loved by conservatives before voting to save Obamacare.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Fantastic!

[steventh]

9. Roberts sat and heard all the impeachment evidence. I wonder if, seeing how corrupt

the president* is, and how destructive he is to the Constitution, Roberts has decided not to help tRump's re-election. The president* can't brag about this and other decisions which the base might not appreciate. Of course tRump (and Barr) could always lie and misrepresent Roberts' unfavorable-to-tRump decisions.

I'm not suggesting this might have been Roberts' only consideration, merely part of it.

[Maribelle]

10. It's hard to believe this took six years to reach the Supreme Court for a decision.

Like molasses running uphill.

On the other hand, it seems as if in the time it takes Trump to sneeze his crying is already before the SC.

I had no idea, before we had Trump, that the SC was at the beck and call of the president.

[riversedge]

15. @SenatorCollins said that Brett Kavanaugh would "follow precedent" but he did NOT!

Lost in the abortion ruling... @SenatorCollins
said that Brett Kavanaugh would "follow precedent" when it came to abortion rights, but today JOHN ROBERTS followed precedent, explicitly so, and Kavanaugh DID NOT.

Never forget that Susan Collins lied to you about Kavanaugh.

Link to tweet

?s=20

[durablend]

19. I'm sure she's "concerned" about that.

[BComplex]

34. Susan Collins is batting 1000 at being wrong about everything she considers.

She really needs to be replaced with a really good democrat.

[SKKY]

46. Poor thing. She must be beside herself with concern...

[riversedge]

16. jim jordan is having a sad........

Link to tweet

?s=20

[DeminPennswoods]

18. Wake me up when Jim Jordan

gets pregnant.

[jcgoldie]

45. "What's next, Chief Justice Roberts?"

Trump's taxes you piece of shit!

[AlexSFCA]

20. more than just precedent

Roberts added "The evidence also shows that opposition to abortion played a significant role in some hospitals' decisions to deny admitting privileges." This is indicative of his strong support for roe v wade. I think trump went so far right that it pushed roberts to the left. Is he the new Kennedy? Appears to be. Remember, how he was irritated with trump that he said we don‘t have obama judges or trump judges. Meaning, we don’t have conservative or liberal judges.

[J_William_Ryan]

23. The ruling is good news, of course, but...

We can’t keep doing this.

We can’t keep counting on Republican appointed, conservative justices to do the right thing.

During the 40-year period from 1969 to 2009, Democrats controlled the WH for only 12 of those 40 years –
that’s how we’ve ended up with the Supreme Court we have; and the rest of the judiciary, for that matter.

We need to ensure that Democrats are in control of the WH for the next 40 years.

[moonscape]

27. If not for McConnell we'd have a different court. We

need the Senate or I swear McConnell will hold open a SC seat for decades if he has to.

[BComplex]

35. I'M SO GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP! That is what democrats don't shout to the rooftops

when so-called conservatives complain about the "swamp". It's all been republicans! We didn't get this way overnight.

[mvd]

24. Wonderful!

Sometimes Roberts reminds me of the old Republicans. You might not agree with them, but they had respect for the process.

[Polybius]

44. I might not always agree with Roberts, but he is definitely qualified to be Chief Justice

The man has a brilliant mind.