Supreme Court blocks Texas abortion law

[Borgholio]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sup ... cs-n383901

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday afternoon to put a hold on court rulings that have reduced the number of abortion clinics in Texas.

Four of the court's conservatives — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — dissented.

A state law passed in 2013 required clinics providing abortion services to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers, and it required doctors providing the services to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Women's groups asked the Supreme Court to put an emergency hold on the effect of the law while they prepare an appeal to challenge its constitutionality. They say the law, which takes effect Wednesday, would force all but nine abortion clinics in the state to close.

"Overall, there would be a net reduction in abortion facilities of more than 75% in a two-year period," they argue in their court filings. And the clinics that remain open would find it hard to expand their services.

So for now, enforcement of the Texas law is on hold and will remain so until the court decides whether to hear the full appeal.

Texas had urged the court to let the law take effect.

"An abortion facility will remain open in each area where an abortion facility will close," the state contended, meaning women in Texas "will not have to travel any materially greater distances to obtain an abortion."

The state argued that the requirements are medically necessary to protect the health of patients. But the women's groups say the law will burden a woman's right to end her pregnancy.

A federal appeals court upheld the law but modified its application to the clinic in McAllen, because it was the only facility providing abortion services in a large part of southwestern Texas.

Excellent.

[Elheru Aran]

To be pedantic, they haven't actually made a decision on it-- only putting it on hold for the moment as they're going on holiday until the fall IIRC. But it's still a fairly encouraging move.

[Borgholio]

Yeah they realized that these restrictions would put an undue burden on people seeking abortion services, so they'll probably keep the hold until the law is revised. Unfortunately though, Texas never intended it to be for it's stated purpose...making sure abortion doctors can get their patients to hospitals if things go bad. The idea was to close as many clinics as possible by putting extremely strict requirements in place. So with that said, this is essentially a permanent stay on that law.

[Elheru Aran]

It's also interesting that the split was 5-4 again, with the same conservatives (Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Scalia) dissenting. It strikes me that this is going to get somewhat predictable for a while, perhaps...

[Borgholio]

It also makes me question if there is any precedent for the SCOTUS to go back and reverse an earlier ruling?

[Joun_Lord]

It's also interesting that the split was 5-4 again, with the same conservatives (Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Scalia) dissenting. It strikes me that this is going to get somewhat predictable for a while, perhaps...

Just makes me realize just how it could easily go the other way in shit like this and the gaymosexual tyrannosaurus ruling. Just one liberat judge has to croak the bucket and a new conservatard gets in and then these rulings would disappear. Depending on who is elected next for President this could very much become a reality.

Makes me wonder what Borgholio is wondering, if the SCROTUS can go and reverse an earlier decision.

[Elheru Aran]

See Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott. They don't reverse rulings per se, but they can invalidate previous rulings, or if the law changes (notably amendments being added to the Constitution) the previous decision becomes moot. I don't think there's ever an case of the *same* Court reversing itself, though-- more usually it takes a while.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

It's also interesting that the split was 5-4 again, with the same conservatives (Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Scalia) dissenting. It strikes me that this is going to get somewhat predictable for a while, perhaps...

Just makes me realize just how it could easily go the other way in shit like this and the gaymosexual tyrannosaurus ruling. Just one liberat judge has to croak the bucket and a new conservatard gets in and then these rulings would disappear. Depending on who is elected next for President this could very much become a reality.

Makes me wonder what Borgholio is wondering, if the SCROTUS can go and reverse an earlier decision.

There are times I have to question why America chose to go for a SCOTUS that is politically appointed and not elected.

[Elheru Aran]

Of course there's cases like this... http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overt ... cases4.htm

In this 1986 case, the Supreme Court upheld a Georgia anti-sodomy law that forbade oral or anal sex between consenting adults -- regardless of the sexual orientation of either party. Through unusual circumstances, Michael Hardwick was seen engaging in oral sex with another man in his own bedroom by a police officer, and was arrested. Although the state declined to prosecute, the American Civil Liberties Union took up the case to test the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws, and the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court.

Homophobia clearly marked the Court's decision to uphold the law. The majority declared that homosexual sodomy was traditionally considered an abominable and illegal practice, specifically ruling that the Constitution didn't provide any inherent right to practice homosexual activity. Although the law in question covered both heterosexual and homosexual sodomy, the majority made it clear that the homosexual nature of the act was the key issue.

In 2003, the Supreme Court decided the case of Lawrence v. Texas by rejecting Texas's anti-sodomy law, essentially declaring that the Bowers decision was incorrect. Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion stated, "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled." The dissent also specifically noted that the court was going against stare decisis by overturning Bowers.

Still took twenty years to overturn, though...

Fingolfin: They aren't elected, but on the other hand they do go through an approval process by the Senate. And previously to becoming Justices, they do usually serve a reasonably long career in legal practice or judging cases. Thurgood Marshall was a noted lawyer before he became a Justice, for example. So it's not like the President just picks up a random joe or anything like that. The appointments do tend to be rather political-- Roberts and Alito conservative, Kagan and Sotomayor liberal-- aligned with the sitting President, but that's what the Senate is supposed to counter if it sees fit.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Fingolfin: They aren't elected, but on the other hand they do go through an approval process by the Senate. And previously to becoming Justices, they do usually serve a reasonably long career in legal practice or judging cases. Thurgood Marshall was a noted lawyer before he became a Justice, for example. So it's not like the President just picks up a random joe or anything like that. The appointments do tend to be rather political-- Roberts and Alito conservative, Kagan and Sotomayor liberal-- aligned with the sitting President, but that's what the Senate is supposed to counter if it sees fit.

Well, that's the problem. These are political appointees being asked to make very political decisions. And they are not accountable to the public. At some point, one has to wonder whether they ought to be completely insulated from the decisions they make. It should be noted that problems with the court date back for over a century, right back to the point before the Civil War when, stocked with Southern judges, they constantly ruled against ending slavery.

Honestly, as an outsider, this sort of judicial spectacle is something found mostly the United States, and on some level, it's very undemocratic.

[Borgholio]

Letting the court rule *somewhat* consistently over the course of several administrations and congresses could be seen as a buffer against wild political swings.

[Sea Skimmer]

It's also interesting that the split was 5-4 again, with the same conservatives (Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Scalia) dissenting. It strikes me that this is going to get somewhat predictable for a while, perhaps...

I believe that even with recent decisions, the past decade has actually seen far more unanimous or large majority decisions then multiple decades before it were averaging. This has largely been the result of the justices agreeing to make very narrow rulings though. 5-4 is nothing unusual at all.

Well, that's the problem. These are political appointees being asked to make very political decisions. And they are not accountable to the public. At some point, one has to wonder whether they ought to be completely insulated from the decisions they make. It should be noted that problems with the court date back for over a century, right back to the point before the Civil War when, stocked with Southern judges, they constantly ruled against ending slavery.

Before FDR the court operated on a fundamentally different level. It assumed it had a duty and right to decide good policy for the nation. And that policy was just about always super libertarian, including awesome ideas like 'liberty of contract' preventing any labor laws from existing. This really only ended because after the court began blocking every single part of the New Deal FDR proposed to expand the number of justices, which is not defined by the US constitution, so that he could add bunch of his own people, whom the senate would have confirmed. The court got the message and greatly backed off trying to define policy and stick more closely to the idea of 'is this a legal power' kind of answers. And while it hasn't always been able to do so, it's certainly been far less radical and asshole about what it does since.

Honestly, as an outsider, this sort of judicial spectacle is something found mostly the United States, and on some level, it's very undemocratic.

Sorta, but the whole reason that happens is a result of just how sweeping of power the US constitution actually gives to the people and leadership, including that issue of 'all other power' being reserved for the states. And a fairly early court ruling was that the US government 'must' have all possible power at the a sovereign government can have, so that random people couldn't contend treaties were illegal.

The US constitution doesn't say much in detail though, unlike so many European and other constitutions which have hundreds and hundred of articles and are also rather more prone to being changed outright precisely because they are so detailed. So that means its possible to make all kind of laws in the US via elected official or referendum which simply are open to constitutional question. And someone has to decide that. But the dynamism that provides has let the constitution survive over 220 years with few changes. If you cut out the bill of rights, which was agreed as part of the original ratification process anyway, its only 17 changes, and of those two were for Prohibition, several expanded voting rights or involved abolishing slavery and racial discrimination, one merely changed the rules on pay raises for congress, another simply changed the date the president takes office to shrink the lame duck period, and well, not many of the rest were exactly sweeping changes. Going to directly elected senators was a big deal I suppose, as far as structure of government does.

Some people might argue that this is bad, and constantly changing your system of government is good, but I fail to see what that would ever actually solve that is a problem in the US right now.

[Elheru Aran]

In general the system *usually* works okay, and the Court can typically sense the winds of public opinion in order to issue the best decision. Take Plessy v. Ferguson-- it's possible that their decision would never have been abided by if it had been the reverse, that segregation was illegal, given the environment at the time. Or the gay-marriage decision; deciding in the reverse would have been *extremely* unpopular and caused considerable backlash.

Electing judges in general is not a wonderful idea. It allows judges to be politicized, even more so than simply appointing them, and opens them up to various interests in order to be re-elected.

[Thanas]

Electing judges is not a smart idea and no big european country does it either.

[Flagg]

Electing judges is almost hilariously stupid, especially when you add in the fact that in the U.S., it's mostly local judges running under no party affiliation most people have never heard of unless they frequent courts. Since I'm not in front of judges... Ever, I have to rely on newspaper and local political blogger endorsements, which is a fucking pathetic thing to have to do. I mean judges don't exactly campaign much, and when they do its just signage and maybe (?) some campaigning with a vague "tough on crime" message, though I can't really remember if I've seen that or not.

[Irbis]

See Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott. They don't reverse rulings per se, but they can invalidate previous rulings, or if the law changes (notably amendments being added to the Constitution) the previous decision becomes moot. I don't think there's ever an case of the *same* Court reversing itself, though-- more usually it takes a while.

McConnell v. FEC (2003), Super PACs illegal. Citizens United v. FEC (2010), Super PACs legal. Does 7 years count?

If you cut out the bill of rights, which was agreed as part of the original ratification process anyway, its only 17 changes, and of those two were for Prohibition, several expanded voting rights or involved abolishing slavery and racial discrimination, one merely changed the rules on pay raises for congress, another simply changed the date the president takes office to shrink the lame duck period, and well, not many of the rest were exactly sweeping changes. Going to directly elected senators was a big deal I suppose, as far as structure of government does.

It's like saying auntie Europa changes vacuum cleaners every decade, while uncle Sam still has two hundred year broom, while ignoring good uncle swapped handle to new one 13 times and the bristles 18 times. Same broom, eh?

Some people might argue that this is bad, and constantly changing your system of government is good, but I fail to see what that would ever actually solve that is a problem in the US right now.

It would get rid of these imbecile three percenters, arming bears, Electoral College, debt limit, ban on non-metal currency (funny how this teeny little problem was swept under carpet, eh?), illegal taxes arguments, living constitution, and the rest of brain numbing idiocy that was papered over with tens of thousands of legal documents to make it even remotely work. It's almost as if something intended for agrarian colony three hundred years back wasn't good fit for economic power today. Who would think, eh?

Maybe it wouldn't solve all US problems, but I bet over 90% of them would vanish with new law crafted based on lessons learned since then.

[loomer]

It also makes me question if there is any precedent for the SCOTUS to go back and reverse an earlier ruling?

My understanding is that the SCOTUS is free to disregard any ruling it has previously made when ruling on a matter. This is the usual manner of operation of precedent - you cannot be bound by your own past decisions or the decisions of equal courts, and being the highest court in the land SCOTUS is not bound by any precedent when deciding a matter.