Powerful words from J. Sotomayor in her opinion in Whole Women's Health today: "The Court should have put an end to this madness months ago, before S. B. 8 first went into effect. It failed to do so then, and it fails again today." supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…#SB8#SCOTUS
Also this: "This Court has confronted State attempts to evade federal constitutional commands before . . . . Until today, the Court had proven equal to those challenges."
J. Sotomayor is not pulling punches in her description of her colleagues' analysis: "The Court instead hides behind a wooden reading of Young, stitching out-of-context quotations into a cover for its failure to act decisively."
#SB8 is about abortion, & it is also about so much more than abortion. As J. Sotomayor explains, "This
choice to shrink from Texas’ challenge to federal supremacy will have far-reaching repercussions. I doubt the Court, let alone the country, is prepared for them."
We have been here before, J. Sotomayor powerfully reminds us. Indeed, Section 1983's "'very purpose' ... was 'to protect the people from unconstitutional action under color of state law, "whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial."'"
This is the bottom-line right from J. Sotomayor right here: "[B]y blessing significant portions of the law’s effort to evade review, the Court comes far short of meeting the moment."
Importantly, the Chief Justice also makes incredibly clear that today's decision is about much more than abortion & that it threatens the supremacy of federal law & the vindication of constitutional rights.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@MyConstitution@aphatak@Slate@WaysMeansCmte The judge said he was pausing the case to wait for a decision in a different D.C. Circuit case, but as @aphatak explained, "[t]he two cases raise different issues," and there was no judicial principle that required the judge to wait. 2/x
"Let me underscore that point: The White House has not turned over a single piece of paper to our committee or made a single official available for testimony during the 116th Congress." -- @RepCummings, via @PostOpinionswashingtonpost.com/opinions/elija… 1/x
And there's this: @politico "contacted the 17 House committees that unsuccessfully requested records or witnesses ... over the last two months. In most cases involving the White House itself ... the request was ignored altogether." politico.com/story/2019/03/… 2/x
The White House's consistent failure to respond to Congress's exercise of its oversight authority is stunning. Simply stunning. 3/x
BREAKING: HUGE win in #2020Census citizenship question case. The Court says Secretary Ross violated federal law in attempting to add a citizenship question to the #2020Census and enjoins him from adding the question. 1/x
Powerful words from Judge Furman in holding that addition of citizenship question to #2020Census is unlawful: "Secretary Ross violated the law. And . . . [he] violated the public trust." 2/x
At the very outset of his opinion, Judge Furman makes clear just how important this case is: "Given the stakes, the interest in an accurate count is immense. Even small deviations from an accurate count can have major implications . . . for the country as a whole." 3/x
The Foreign Emoluments Clause is a critical anti-corruption provision in our Constitution, adopted by the Framers to ensure that our nation's leaders put the national interest above their financial self-interest. 2/
Since taking office, @realDonaldTrump has been brazenly violating the Clause, accepting all kinds of benefits from foreign governments w/o first obtaining the consent of Congress, as the Constitution requires 3/