Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2024/06/13/supreme-court-rejects-effort-to-ban-abortion-drug-mifepristone.html
…
12 Likes
That whole unanimous feature is indeed a bit of a head-scratcher. Ah-well the magical talking tin-foil hat blathers: “Federalist society just rung up and said ‘We’ve got a couple of big-pharma billionaires here who say that the puritanical march is starting to affect their bottom-line’” [weary shrug emoji]
(happy salute to inclusion of the chemical structure. just look at that triple bond! all set for reactive mischief)
19 Likes
The case must have been particularly weak for Alito and Thomas to join in the unanimous decision.
That would be a probable basis for Roberts denying them standing.
Unfortunately, this won’t be the last attempt to ban Mifepristone. The conservatives on the SCOTUS are just waiting for better plaintiffs to show up.
20 Likes
The reasoning might be “Once Trump is elected, he’ll ban it for us, and we won’t have to risk inflaming public opinion any further.”
11 Likes
Thomas writes
“In an appropriate case, however, the Court should address whether associational standing
can be squared with Article III’s requirement that courts respect the bounds of their judicial power.”
A number of civil rights organizations use “associational standing” to argue for the rights of their members.
For instance, Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in Equal Rights Center v. Uber Technologies, Inc 525 F.Supp.3d 62 (2021)
As a threshold matter, the Court finds that ERC has associational standing to bring the complaint’s ADA and DCHRA discrimination claims on behalf of its members. The Court also concludes that the complaint contains plausible allegations concerning Uber’s eligibility for regulation under section 12184 of Title III of the ADA and the DCHRA; that ERC has alleged circumstances that plausibly sustain discrimination claims under the cited statutes; and that ERC’s DCHRA claim is timely. Therefore, Uber’s motion to dismiss ERC’s complaint will be DENIED.
2 Likes
It would be appropriate to have the ironically named Alliance Defending Freedom reimburse the government for the cost of this frivolous litigation.
2 Likes
Either that or they’re really preparing to drop some shit at the end of the term.
5 Likes
Leave it to Thomas to turn this to the advantage of racists and union busters.
4 Likes
The high court is separately considering another abortion case, about whether a federal law on emergency treatment at hospitals overrides state abortion bans in rare emergency cases in which a pregnant patient’s health is at serious risk.
Leaving aside how you feel on abortion, that this is even a debate is insane. You’d rather lose two people than one? Even Tesla’s AI driving can figure that out.
9 Likes
Honestly, I think it is more self preservation. Thanks to Thomas and Alito and the BS rulings the past decade, they know that there are very strong calls to expand the court and nullify their influence. This is a gimme to try to deflect and say “see, we really do just call balls and strikes.”
9 Likes
It’s quite simple, if you are an right-wing evangelical.
If two people die without medical intervention, then it’s God’s will. If one person dies because of medical intervention to save the other, then it is murder.
I hesitate to call these people Christian, because Christ is nowhere to be seen in their beliefs.
15 Likes
If the case failed because the parties involved had no valid standing, I don’t see why it had to go all the way to the supreme court. Surely the lack of standing could have been noted at a lower level.
5 Likes
It was, but they keep pushing their The Cruelty is the Point agenda.
4 Likes
Apparently there have been the same fraction of unanimous decisions (~1/2) this year as usual.
The difference is that the wingnuts from the states have been emboldened to send ever-crazier stuff to SCOTUS. So the fact that half of it is not getting unanimous decisions is what’s concerning.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
