U.S. Supreme Court justices divided in abortion case; Roberts may hold key

[webfact]

U.S. Supreme Court justices divided in abortion case; Roberts may hold key

By Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung

 

A demonstrator holds up an abortion flag outside of the U.S. Supreme Court as justices hear a major abortion case on the legality of a Republican-backed Louisiana law that imposes restrictions on abortion doctors, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 4, 2020. REUTERS/Tom Brenner

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared divided on Wednesday in a major abortion rights case, with Chief Justice John Roberts representing the potential decisive vote on a challenge to a Louisiana law that could make it harder for women to obtain the procedure.

 

The court, with a 5-4 conservative majority, heard arguments in an appeal by Shreveport-based abortion provider Hope Medical Group for Women seeking to invalidate the 2014 law. The measure requires that doctors who perform abortions have a sometimes difficult-to-obtain arrangement called "admitting privileges" at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic.

 

The liberal justices, including the court's three women, appeared sceptical toward that requirement. The conservative justices seemed more receptive.

 

Roberts and fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked questions that suggested they - and perhaps other conservative justices - do not believe the Louisiana law is automatically doomed by a 2016 Supreme Court precedent that struck down similar admitting privileges restrictions in Texas.

 

Roberts, considered the court's ideological centre, cast the deciding vote last year when the justices on a 5-4 vote blocked Louisiana's law from taking effect while the litigation over its legality continued.

 

That vote brought him into conflict with his position in the Texas case when Roberts was among the three dissenting justices who concluded that an admitting privileges requirement did not represent an impermissible "undue burden" on abortion access.

 

Roberts appeared to acknowledge in his questions that he might feel bound by the court's 2016 finding that admitting privileges laws provide no health benefit to women. But his questions also indicated he may stray from the 2016 finding about the specific impact of the Texas law, which led to multiple clinic closures, because Louisiana's situation could be viewed differently.

 

Two of Louisiana's three clinics that perform abortions would be forced to close if the law is allowed to take effect, according to lawyers for the clinic. Louisiana officials have said no clinics would be forced to close.

 

"I understand the idea that the impact might be different in different places, but as far as the benefits of the law, that's going to be the same in each state, isn't it?" Roberts asked.

 

Roberts indicated that the 2016 ruling requires the analysis to be "a factual one that has to proceed state-by-state."

 

The questions asked by Roberts and Kavanaugh could open the possibility of them voting to uphold the Louisiana law without specifically overturning the Texas precedent. Kavanaugh asked whether "in some states, admitting privileges laws could be constitutional, if they impose no burdens."

 

RESTRICTIVE STATE LAWS

The case, with a ruling due by the end of June, will test the court's willingness to uphold Republican-backed abortion restrictions being pursued in numerous conservative states. President Donald Trump's administration supported Louisiana in the case.

 

Abortion remains one of the most divisive issues in American society, with Christian conservatives - an important constituency for Trump - among those most opposed to it.

 

Abortion rights advocates have argued that restrictions such as admitting privileges are meant to limit access to abortion not protect women's health as proponents say. When the Supreme Court in 1992 reaffirmed the Roe v. Wade ruling, it prohibited laws that placed an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion.

 

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it was a "mystery to me" why a 30-mile limit was imposed if the law's intent was to show that doctors were properly credentialed. She asked why doctors could not get credentials from hospitals further away.

 

Fellow liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also questioned the 30-mile limit, noting that in most cases women who have complications from abortions would be at home after the procedure and not at the clinic. As a result, it would not be relevant that the doctor has a relationship with a local hospital, she said.

 

Trump, seeking re-election on Nov. 3, promised during the 2016 presidential race to appoint justices who would overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. The Louisiana case marked the first major abortion dispute heard by the court since Trump appointed Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch as justices.

 

Gorsuch said nothing during the argument. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who rarely speaks during arguments, was also silent.

 

The most outspoken conservative was Justice Samuel Alito, who questioned whether the clinic and doctors even had legal standing to bring the challenge because their interests are different from their patients. He suggested that women seeking abortions should be plaintiffs in such cases.

 

Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired in 2018, joined the four liberal justices to defend abortion rights when the court struck down the Texas law.

 

Baton Rouge-based U.S. District Judge John deGravelles cited the undue burden precedent when he struck down Louisiana's law in 2016. After Louisiana appealed, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law.

 

[For a graphic on U.S. state abortion laws, see https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-ABORTION-RESTRICTIONS/010092FK33J/index.html]

 

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Will Dunham)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-03-05

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Tug]

I don’t think they will do it to damaging to trumps election chances 

[Proboscis]

2 hours ago, Tug said:

I don’t think they will do it to damaging to trumps election chances 

So it is all about Trump! Don't say anything about Corona virus in the USA because it might affect the dear leader's re-election chances. Same with abortion. Same with the falling stock market, same with homelessness. Same with the fate of farmers.

 

Same old same old. USA, you have got to change.

[spidermike007]

A woman should have a right to choose. At least during the first trimester. Period. That is a law that should not be changed, as it represents a huge step backwards. The very last thing this world needs is another child that is not wanted by it's parents. That is where the religious folks get it totally wrong. 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

The fact that this is in front of the supreme court shows again how backward the USA is.

It's amazing that many over there think they are the leading nation in this world. What a joke!

[Berkshire]

10 minutes ago, Proboscis said:

So it is all about Trump! Don't say anything about Corona virus in the USA because it might affect the dear leader's re-election chances. Same with abortion. Same with the falling stock market, same with homelessness. Same with the fate of farmers.

 

Same old same old. USA, you have got to change.

You just read Trump's mind.  Because, yes, he believes everything is about him and his re-election. 

[OneMoreFarang]

2 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

A woman should have a right to choose. At least during the first trimester. Period. That is a law that should not be changed, as it represents a huge step backwards. The very last thing this world needs is another child that is not wanted by it's parents. That is where the religious folks get it totally wrong. 

 

There is a lot that those bible thumpers get wrong.

Most of them also think god created the world about 6000 yeas ago. And facts don't irritate those ignorant believers.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 minute ago, Berkshire said:

You just read Trump's mind.  Because, yes, he believes everything is about him and his re-election. 

And in a way it is. If the stock market goes down and the economy goes down for whatever reason his chances of getting reelected go down. Even if this time he is mostly not responsible for the virus and the consequences.

[Berkshire]

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And in a way it is. If the stock market goes down and the economy goes down for whatever reason his chances of getting reelected go down. Even if this time he is mostly not responsible for the virus and the consequences.

You're right, most things that go on in the US are beyond the control of the President.  The economy and the stock market, for example.  But Trump loves to take credit for it when things are going well, so you would think he'd take the blame for the opposite (will never happen).  But regarding COVID, the President and his administration's response to it may be viewed negatively or positively.  Like Katrina and 9/11 for GWB.  It's worth noting that Trump's constant lying these past 3+ years does have an impact on his credibility.  That's why when he told the market everything was fine, they unanimously ignored him.  Credibility matters. 

[OneMoreFarang]

9 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

It's worth noting that Trump's constant lying these past 3+ years does have an impact on his credibility.

I still hope his 60,000,000 supporters will grasp that one day.

[Boon Mee]

52 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I still hope his 60,000,000 supporters will grasp that one day.

No worries. We've got his back and then some! ???? 

MAGA 

[CaptRon2]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I still hope his 60,000,000 supporters will grasp that one day.

Well your concern is greatly appreciated, but try not to worry so much about us, we are doing fine ever since we rid ourselves of those annoying soldiers in the red coats.

Only problem is, it does get a little lonely being at the top, a feeling I am sure you are not able to relate to. I am of course referring to your country being at the top, how you relate to being lonely I have no knowledge.

Thankfully our President will do all he can to keep us on the top during his second term! MAGA !

[OneMoreFarang]

20 minutes ago, CaptRon2 said:

Well your concern is greatly appreciated, but try not to worry so much about us, we are doing fine ever since we rid ourselves of those annoying soldiers in the red coats.

Only problem is, it does get a little lonely being at the top, a feeling I am sure you are not able to relate to. I am of course referring to your country being at the top, how you relate to being lonely I have no knowledge.

Thankfully our President will do all he can to keep us on the top during his second term! MAGA !

Obviously you are one of those people who think it's a lot more important to spend huge amounts of money on military instead of i.e. educating all citizens and making sure everybody is able to see a doctor.

Yes, the USA is #1 in spending money on the military. You should be proud of that. At least your #1 in something.

[OneMoreFarang]

55 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

No worries. We've got his back and then some! ???? 

MAGA 

I guess "and then some" refers to the part below his back. Yeah, enjoy!

[Skeptic7]

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

A woman should have a right to choose. At least during the first trimester. Period. That is a law that should not be changed, as it represents a huge step backwards. The very last thing this world needs is another child that is not wanted by it's parents. That is where the religious folks get it totally wrong. 

 

A woman should have the exclusive right to choose up to 2 trimesters. Fetus "viability" happens around 24 weeks or maybe a week or 2 sooner with medical advances since Roe v Wade 1973 ruling. 

[jany123]

Criminalizing extra marital sex would make more sense... ????

[spidermike007]

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And in a way it is. If the stock market goes down and the economy goes down for whatever reason his chances of getting reelected go down. Even if this time he is mostly not responsible for the virus and the consequences.

Oh yes he is. He slashed the budget of the epidemiology arm of the CDC to zero. To pay for 16 Tomahawk cruise missiles we do not need. And they have ignored the request of congress for over a month, to provide emergency funding. Trump may end up with alot of deaths on his shoulders. He has and continues to behave in a very irresponsible fashion. Always putting politics above the welfare of the people. He is an abomination. 

[spidermike007]

4 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

The fact that this is in front of the supreme court shows again how backward the USA is.

It's amazing that many over there think they are the leading nation in this world. What a joke!

Around #39 in science. #43 in math. In medicine perhaps #10. But the most expensive. A stunningly corrupt political and judicial system. A militarized police. A diminishing quality of life for the bottom 85%. Exploding homelessness. Number 1? In what, GDP? Armed forces expenditures? Trade and budget deficits? Nations with the least amount of government surplus? Certainly not quality of life.  It is the only the people who live in the US and travel rarely, who make this kind of inane claim. 

Edited March 5, 2020 by spidermike007

[TopDeadSenter]

Bit surprised the article didn't bother to mention the most shocking part of this case. The most shocking by a country mile. And that is the senate minority leader, democrat Chuck Schumer has actually come out and publicly threatened the judges in the case. Can we just imagine for one second the meltdown if Trump had done similar?

 

'You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,' Schumer said, naming the two Trump appointees, according to video of the rally available online. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8076655/Trump-blasts-Chuck-Schumers-remarks-Justices-Kavanaugh-Gorsuch.html

 

[OneMoreFarang]

45 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Bit surprised the article didn't bother to mention the most shocking part of this case. The most shocking by a country mile. And that is the senate minority leader, democrat Chuck Schumer has actually come out and publicly threatened the judges in the case. Can we just imagine for one second the meltdown if Trump had done similar?

 

'You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,' Schumer said, naming the two Trump appointees, according to video of the rally available online. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8076655/Trump-blasts-Chuck-Schumers-remarks-Justices-Kavanaugh-Gorsuch.html

 

The DailyMail - what could possibly be wrong? 

[CaptRon2]

2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Obviously you are one of those people who think it's a lot more important to spend huge amounts of money on military instead of i.e. educating all citizens and making sure everybody is able to see a doctor.

Yes, the USA is #1 in spending money on the military. You should be proud of that. At least your #1 in something.

I was thinking about our world leading economy, but you are correct we do have the most powerful military in the world also. 

Your statement in your original post “It's amazing that many over there think they are the leading nation in this world. What a joke!” so if we have the worlds leading economy and the most powerful military, why are you amazed we think we are the leading nation? I don’t understand the joke you are referring to, perhaps you can provide us with a few examples of leading nations and why they are leading nations?

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Bit surprised the article didn't bother to mention the most shocking part of this case. The most shocking by a country mile. And that is the senate minority leader, democrat Chuck Schumer has actually come out and publicly threatened the judges in the case. Can we just imagine for one second the meltdown if Trump had done similar?

 

'You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,' Schumer said, naming the two Trump appointees, according to video of the rally available online. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8076655/Trump-blasts-Chuck-Schumers-remarks-Justices-Kavanaugh-Gorsuch.html

 

Trump has done similar. Where you been.

 

Roberts felt the need to comment after one of trumps diatribes about judges.

 

You really do have selective memory.

[CaptRon2]

12 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

The DailyMail - what could possibly be wrong? 

Great diversion, attack the source and ignore the statement.

The incident is readily available at many sources, it is a shame TopDeadSenter’s sources aren’t up to your standards, hopefully he will takes this into consideration in his future posts. 555

 

[OneMoreFarang]

31 minutes ago, CaptRon2 said:

I was thinking about our world leading economy, but you are correct we do have the most powerful military in the world also. 

Your statement in your original post “It's amazing that many over there think they are the leading nation in this world. What a joke!” so if we have the worlds leading economy and the most powerful military, why are you amazed we think we are the leading nation? I don’t understand the joke you are referring to, perhaps you can provide us with a few examples of leading nations and why they are leading nations?

That should give you an idea. Just search for "American idiots" on YouTube. ???? 

 

[CaptRon2]

13 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Trump has done similar. Where you been.

 

Roberts felt the need to comment after one of trumps diatribes about judges.

 

You really do have selective memory.

Please provide some credible references where President Trump threatens Supreme Court Judges, and where The Highest Judge in the Land, Chief Justice Roberts calls his words irresponsible and dangerous. 

The rebuke to Schumer is widely being hailed as highly unusual so I guess it shouldn’t be hard for you to find a reference. 

BTW asking someone to recluse themselves is a long ways from what Chief Justice Roberts described as the threatening statements made by Schumer.

Sen. Josh Hawley will be introducing a resolution to censure Schumer, in my opinion the punishment should be much more severe.

I am looking forward to your references.

 

[OneMoreFarang]

29 minutes ago, CaptRon2 said:

it is a shame TopDeadSenter’s sources aren’t up to your standards, hopefully he will takes this into consideration in his future posts

I definitely hope so!

Get some decent standards in this place! ???? 

[CaptRon2]

Apparently your response to my questions is a childish video, which really has nothing to do with the leading nations questions. 

What is really sad is if us Americans are such idiots ,why is your country which was once a long time ago such a great national great nation so far behind us? Is that the joke you were talking about? You can’t keep pace with the idiots? Now I guess that is funny. 

[stevenl]

56 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Trump has done similar. Where you been.

 

Roberts felt the need to comment after one of trumps diatribes about judges.

 

You really do have selective memory.

I think Trump has done worse with the judiciary, but that doesn't mean Schumer was right to say this. I don't think it was a threat, but a stupid remark he shouldn't have made it was.

Edited March 5, 2020 by stevenl

[Sujo]

27 minutes ago, CaptRon2 said:

Please provide some credible references where President Trump threatens Supreme Court Judges, and where The Highest Judge in the Land, Chief Justice Roberts calls his words irresponsible and dangerous. 

The rebuke to Schumer is widely being hailed as highly unusual so I guess it shouldn’t be hard for you to find a reference. 

BTW asking someone to recluse themselves is a long ways from what Chief Justice Roberts described as the threatening statements made by Schumer.

Sen. Josh Hawley will be introducing a resolution to censure Schumer, in my opinion the punishment should be much more severe.

I am looking forward to your references.

 

Here, its not hard to find if actually try doing it yourself. Not only does trump undermine judges he also called roberts a disaster.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/03/trump-impeachment-john-roberts-chief-justice-trial

[Chrysaora]

Why would there be confusion? Murder is again the law.