Normally, by this time, there are somewhere between four and six big cases that have not been decided yet. But this year, there are 16 cases⌠And while the court almost always finishes its work by the end of June, I think this year the justices will go into July.
https://text.npr.org/g-s1-3890
Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, will host a Capitol Hill roundtable today, June 11, 2024, at 4:00 p.m. ET [to] examine an âethics crisisâ within the U.S. Supreme Court, and discuss the ways that megadonors and dark money are âcorruptingâ the judicial system.
the rest of the article is an interview with aoc
I suppose it is a statement about the current SCOTUS that I was surprised by this good news. The decision was unanimous too.
Thank Dog. They all did the right thing here.
as âjusticeâ alito would say, theyâre just trying to find any little thing
Crow owns a high-end Bombardier Global 5000, a jet that can cost over $10,000 per flight hour to charter, according to charter company estimates. Thomas has repeatedly flown to a destination and back again on the same day.
Thomas has not reported the recent private jet trips from Crow, which many legal experts have described as a violation of the federal financial disclosure law.
any little thing at all.
-ish. Their decision was based on lack of standing. Which is good. They made the right decision. The plaintiffs didnât have standing. But they did not rule on the merits of the case. There is still an opportunity for someone with standing to file a lawsuit and start it all up again.
Been thinking about this, and you are right. I canât remember who mentioned the election but someone did on a thread around here and I think they are right too.
I suspect ruling the plaintiffs lack standing was the only compromise they could come up with. The conservative asshats would never rule on the merits in favor of the FDA but also didnât want to rule for the plaintiffâs because itâs an election year. Whether it is true or not, thereâs the impression the rage over *Dobbs has faded and a ruling for the plaintiffâs would have reignited that fire.
The sane justices couldnât force a ruling on the merits in favor of the FDA because they are in the minority. So they agreed to rule the plaintiffâs lack standing.
I hope by the time a plaintiff with standing works their way up, the court has been repaired a little and we have some actual laws to protect both abortion and the drugs to induce one.
Yeah, maybe, but this was pretty clear. The plaintiffs werenât doctors who could prescribe mifepristone. They werenât pharmacists who might fulfill a prescription. They werenât women of child bearing age who might take it. These were anti-abortion groups. Itâs really clear, black letter law that they do not have standing to sue here. They arenât affected by the approval of the drug at all. In any way. Itâs frankly baffling that this case made it this far. I think thatâs why it was 9-0. This one just wasnât close. The anti-abortion crowd will have to find an anti-abortion OBGYN to bring a lawsuit, or maybe a woman who took the drug and had some complication. Maybe a pharmacist, I donât know. But you have to have standing to sue. You have to be affected by the issue at hand to have standing.
Itâs going to be rather difficult to come up with a patient with standing, itâs a really safe medication that does exactly what it claims to do with minimal side effects. 
Doing the right thing in regard to standing should reduce the likelihood of another BS litigant attempting this particular judge-shopping trip from happening again. This was a case that somehow ended up in the 5th circuit with one particular dipshit judge, yeah?
Why would they have standing? They could just not prescribe it.
It is baffling! But it the case did as far as SCOTUS anyway. Which speaks to how broken the federal system is in Texas right now
