A conservative 11th Circuit panel pauses the appeal of Georgia's six-week abortion ban. Why? The panel hopes that SCOTUS will overturn Roe v. Wade, allowing it to uphold Georgia's ban, too. acluga.org/wp-content/upl…
This order, translated: "Under current precedent, Georgia's six-week abortion ban is obviously unconstitutional. But we don't like that precedent. So we're going to keep this case on ice in the hope that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe, allowing us to uphold Georgia's ban."
Georgia's six-week abortion ban will remain on hold in the meantime, but the 11th Circuit clearly thinks the end of Roe v. Wade is nigh and is preserving its opportunity to uphold Georgia's ban after Roe falls.
This is one reason why the Supreme Court can't really uphold Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban without toppling Roe. Once SCOTUS abolishes the viability line, ultra-conservative courts like the 11th Circuit will race to uphold even more stringent laws like Georgia's.
The more optimistic view is that this move prevents the 11th Circuit panel from writing yet another anti-abortion amicus brief to the Supreme Court. It may be the least bad choice among a bad set of options.
Trump Judge Amul Thapar also adopts the anti-abortion rhetoric about pro-choice judges worshiping at the "altar of abortion," which I find extremely offensive but whatever. These guys get to say whatever they want. opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/2…
Thapar spends a full 22 pages (41-63) railing against Roe v. Wade and begging the Supreme Court to overturn it as soon as possible, condemning past justices for "dismissing our constitutional text and history" while worshiping at the "altar of abortion." opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/2…
Why does it feel like all the centrist/contrarian twitter figures who spent last year complaining about judgmental "woke scolds" now spend their days policing the tone and content of every COVID tweet and scolding anyone who fails to evince sufficient sensitivity to anti-vaxxers?
These people act like Victorian-era schoolteachers desperate to impart moral lessons unto their pupils by self-righteously lecturing them about proper manners in polite society. The prissy tone, the endless scolding lectures, the absolutely certainty of their own correctness ...
It's too much! No one asked for these lectures! The scolding is out of control! Who anointed these people as the tone police of COVID twitter?! Why must I bear their priggish little sermons about how YOU don't understand anti-vaxxers the way they do? It is insufferable!!!!!!!!!!!
If California outlawed handguns by allowing strangers to sue anyone who "aids and abets" their purchase, does anyone seriously believe the ultra-conservative justices (or conservative legal commentators) would shrug and say "too bad, there's absolutely nothing SCOTUS can do!"
If Oregon outlawed conversion to Christianity by allowing strangers to sue anyone who "aids and abets" a baptism, does anyone seriously believe SCOTUS wouldn't block it?
If Virginia outlawed Fox News by allowing strangers to sue anyone who "aids and abets" its broadcast, does anyone seriously believe SCOTUS wouldn't block it?
By a 5–4 vote, the Supreme Court just allowed Texas to enforce a law that prohibits abortions after six weeks, with no exception for rape or incest. Roe v. Wade is, functionally, overturned. Justice Sotomayor all but says it. s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentclo…
Sotomayor: "The Act is a breathtaking act of defiance ... The Court should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligations to protect not only the rights of women, but also the sanctity of its precedents and of the rule of law." s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentclo…
Here's a link to the Supreme Court's unsigned 6–3 decision ending the CDC's eviction moratorium. All three liberals dissent. Breyer sounds despairing. justsecurity.org/wp-content/upl… courtesy of @steve_vladeck
Here is the heart of the majority's analysis: The CDC exercised a "sweeping power" that rested on the "wafer-thin reed" of a narrow statute.
Absolute insanity. SCOTUS’ conservative majority repeatedly cleared away lower court injunctions so that Trump could implement his immigration agenda. Now it lets a single district court judge dictate foreign policy for the Biden administration. This is beyond outrageous.
The big question was always: Are the Supreme Court’s conservatives consistent skeptics of nationwide injunctions against immigration policy, or are they just doing favors for the Trump administration. Now we know the answer. And it’s appalling.
Remember how Thomas and Gorsuch questioned the legitimacy of nationwide injunctions when they were issued against Trump? Their concern appears to have evaporated now that Federalist Society judges are issuing nationwide injunctions against Biden.