February 8, 2019

Chief Justice Roberts joins the 4 liberal Justices to block a new Louisiana law that would have left the state with only one abortion clinic.

The NYT reports.
The court’s brief order gave no reasons, and its action — a temporary stay — did not end the case. The court is likely to hear a challenge to the law on the merits in its next term, which starts in October....

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh said they would have denied the stay. Only Justice Kavanaugh published a dissent, taking a middle position that acknowledged the key precedent and said he would have preferred more information on the precise effect of the law....
The Louisiana law is about requiring doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges in nearby hospitals, and the constitutional question is whether that puts an "undue burden" on the right to have an abortion. Kavanaugh's idea is that if the law is allowed to go into effect it will create evidence of how difficult it really is for doctors to get the admitting privileges, which would put the Court in a better position to assess whether there's an "undue burden."

Here's Kavanaugh's opinion. Excerpt:
[E]ven without a stay, the status quo will be effectively preserved for all parties during the State’s 45-day regulatory transition period. I would deny the stay without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ ability to bring a later as-applied complaint and motion for preliminary injunction at the conclusion of the 45-day regulatory transition period if the Fifth Circuit’s factual prediction about the doctors’ ability to obtain admitting privileges proves to be inaccurate....

The law has not yet taken effect, so the case comes to us in the context of a pre-enforcement facial challenge. That means that the parties have offered, in essence, competing predictions about whether those three doctors can obtain admitting privileges....

Before us, the case largely turns on the intensely factual question whether the three doctors—Doe 2, Doe 5, and Doe 6—can obtain admitting privileges. If we denied the stay, that question could be readily and quickly answered without disturbing the status quo or causing harm to the parties or the affected women, and without this Court’s further involvement at this time.... [D]uring the 45-day transition period, both the doctors and the relevant hospitals could act expeditiously and in good faith to reach a definitive conclusion about whether those three doctors can obtain admitting privileges....
Most of the news reports concentrate on John Roberts. I don't find his vote surprising at all. I've observed throughout my years as a law professor that the Court has a center, a powerful position to occupy, and it won't stay empty. Someone (or 2) will always move into it. There will be a lot of talk about whether the new centrist moved into the center or whether the other Justices in his/her wing of the Court got more extreme, creating the appearance that sticking to the same place caused the new centrist to be in the center. It's the mystery of centrism. Contemplate it or take my word for it, but John Roberts is obviously destined to be the man in the middle.

91 comments:

rhhardin said...

I thought the deal was that if the law went into effect the doctors go out of business, which is permanent damage to be prevented.

Obtaining evidence for the court would be secondary.

rhhardin said...

I suppose the doctors in the meantime could switch to cataract surgery.

Quaestor said...

There's always the case of relative motion. Is the center static? Perhaps it's not one or two justices moving into the center, but the center moving to enclose them.

Quaestor said...

I suppose the doctors in the meantime could switch to cataract surgery.

Or devote themselves to healing rather than killing. Thanks to the PP/Fed alliance killing is more lucrative and less demanding intellectually.

tim maguire said...

On a balance of harms analysis, a stay is probably the right call.

But I have to wonder, would a clinic doctor performing some similarly invasive procedure have to have admitting privileges? Or are abortions being singled out?

Jeff Weimer said...

It's interesting how far the court will go to ensure there isn't an excessive infringement by state governments on the inferred right of abortion, but will flat-out ignore repeated attempts to get them to refine and define that for the enumerated right to arms and let the states effectively ignore it and Heller and McDonald.

Laslo Spatula said...

Roberts is probably the right choice to find himself in the center.

Being that he has no center himself.

He charts his course based on how he wants people to perceive him: he is a bonsai tree.

I am Laslo.

rhhardin said...

phone: Oprimo numero dos.
Juno: Yeah, I'm just calling to procure a hasty abortion. What? Can you just hold on for a second, I'm on my hamburger phone. Okay, now I can, Yeah, it's really awkward to talk on. Yeah, I need an abortion. Sixteen.

Juno (2007)

Tarrou said...

Odd how the man in the middle is always a Republican-appointed justice.

Nichevo said...


Quaestor said...
I suppose the doctors in the meantime could switch to cataract surgery.

Or devote themselves to healing rather than killing. Thanks to the PP/Fed alliance killing is more lucrative and less demanding intellectually.

Maybe they could learn to code.

Nichevo said...

This reminds one of the strategic thinking of General Grant: war of attrition. Better to inflict more casualties on the enemy, even if one incurs more losses oneself.

Make no mistake, this is a proxy war of women on children.

David Begley said...

A real lawyerly opinion by Justice Kavanaugh. Glad he is on the Court!

Tank said...

Most of the news reports concentrate on John Roberts. I don't find his vote surprising at all. I've observed throughout my years as a law professor that the Court has a center, a powerful position to occupy, and it won't stay empty. Someone (or 2) will always move into it. There will be a lot of talk about whether the new centrist moved into the center or whether the other Justices in his/her wing of the Court got more extreme, creating the appearance that sticking to the same place caused the new centrist to be in the center. It's the mystery of centrism. Contemplate it or take my word for it, but John Roberts is obviously destined to be the man in the middle.

Is there an example of a left wing justice doing this? How recently?

Humperdink said...

A new and improved Souter is being formed and molded right before our very eyes.

Chuck said...

I don't mind if Roberts is "the middle." I just want another hearing for Obergefell v. Hodges, and Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comission, where Roberts doesn't change the opinions he so strongly held before.

narciso said...

Dreadpirate Roberts@ will Cavanaugh do differently.

Sebastian said...

"It's the mystery of centrism" that the center ends up somewhere on the left when it matters.

Leland said...

constitutional question is whether that puts an "undue burden" on the right to have an abortion.

There is a right that forces others to provide abortions? Where is that written in the Constitution? Can we force Hillary to perform them?

Chuck said...

A majority of the Court has been Republican-nominated since Eisenhower, right? (Wait, that might not be right. The Warren Court had five Republicans; then along came Byron White in '62 to replace Justice Whitaker, but then Nixon nominated Powell and Blackmun, then Rhenquist, and then Ford nominated Stevens. The Burger and Rhenquist courts were majority Republican. By the end of the Burger Court, there were 7 Republican-nominated justices. The Rhenquist Court was similarly tilted. When Justice Thomas succeeded Justice Thurgood Marshall, didn't the Rehnquist Court have 8 Republicans for a time? Byron White, a centrist himself, was the only remaining Democratic nominee.)

So you see, if there was to be a center at all conceptually, it had to be a center of Republican nominees.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Chief Justice Roberts may well be the swing vote now. As to the merits of this case, I look forward to reading Justice Barrett's majority opinion.

narciso said...

Do they serve prog interests it doesn't matter who appointed them, this is why they will do everything to keep barrett off the Court

West Texas Intermediate Crude said...

There are merits to both sides of the underlying argument- that abortionists should have hospital privileges. Those merits were debated in the LA legislature, and a decision was made. Other states have decided differently. Why is this a federal case?

alanc709 said...

I'd guess that justices, like people in general, follow the path of least resistance. It's much easier in society to move left than to move right.

mccullough said...

Roberts proved himself to be a weak sister in the Obamacare case.

I love his line that it’s up to the people through the democratic process to solve this stuff at the ballot box. They did. Sent Trump who called out Roberts’ beloved court and all the courts as the political hacks they are.

Roberts takes immense pride in The Prestige of being a Justice. Obama gave Roberts and the others the back of the hand at the State of the Union. And Roberts took it. He folded like the wimp he is. No prestige in that. Roberts is a weak sister. A soccer mom who drives the carpool and is in charge of the snacks.

Obama and Trump spit on Roberts.

Ann Althouse said...

There's another Court, easily imagined, in which Kavanaugh is the center.

If Hillary Clinton had won the election and made the next 2 appointments, Elena Kagan would be the center.

The center is always there.

Chuck said...

mccullough said...
Roberts proved himself to be a weak sister in the Obamacare case.

I love his line that it’s up to the people through the democratic process to solve this stuff at the ballot box. They did. Sent Trump who called out Roberts’ beloved court and all the courts as the political hacks they are.

Roberts takes immense pride in The Prestige of being a Justice. Obama gave Roberts and the others the back of the hand at the State of the Union. And Roberts took it. He folded like the wimp he is. No prestige in that. Roberts is a weak sister. A soccer mom who drives the carpool and is in charge of the snacks.

Obama and Trump spit on Roberts.


Hey, you reminded me! This afternoon (of course; after executive time until about 11:30) is the time for President Bagadonuts' annual physical! If they don't let Dr. Ricky Bobby record the President's height and weight, what do you suppose it will be?

Greg Hlatky said...

Making America safe for Gosnellism.

narciso said...

The machinery of death must always grind on, that's what you're telling us.

Orly said...

So RBG is back and voting I guess. How did that happen?

Browndog said...

4D chess. Trust the plan!

Roberts is siding with the liberals so the liberals don't fight Trump on replacing RBG with a conservative.

-Q

Left Bank of the Charles said...

If Trump gets to replace one of the four Democrats, Kavanaugh may be the new center. But there is also Gorsuch.

mccullough said...

Chuck,

How much does it bother you that Trump is way better at golf than you are?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

If the center is always there - the left should learn to take it down a few notches and relax.

Shane said...

Although it always seems to be the "conservative" appointees who migrate left, I sense there is at least some chance of Kagan moderating right to co-opt the middle ground with Roberts.

wildswan said...

The law requires the abortionist to have admitting privileges at the hospital. And the problem is that most abortionists can't get admitting privileges at most hospitals. Why can't they get admitting privileges? That's what people should ask. Why can't they just get them? The reason is that that most abortionists are butchers. Most are so incompetent that the hospitals refuse to be associated with them. For example, many abortionists have lost their licenses in several states. That doesn't prevent them from practising in a new state in which they already have a license as long as the medical board in the new state does not directly ask them if they have lost their licence elsewhere. So they start with a pack of licenses and move from state to state. And the medical board is banned from just asking. Them's the rules. But a hospital can know the whole sad and sorry history and refuse admitting privileges; and they do.

Does this seem incredible? OK, then why don't the abortionists just get admitting privileges at the nearby hospital? Why does that requirement shut down almost all of them down?

Otto said...

I love it when 60s liberals like Ann who thought delta was a god are now championing for the center after all their gains. If you utter the word centrist in the 60s you would have been thrown out of the halls of UM.
Phonies.

Chuck said...

mccullough said...
Chuck,

How much does it bother you that Trump is way better at golf than you are?


Oh I am not so sure that he is!

If you go by the USGA's GHIN handicap system, Trump is better than me and would need to give me about 3 shots a side. But within that system, Trump hasn't turned in a score in years, and he is notoriously unable to play to his listed handicap. Numerous tour pros (Ernie Els, etc.) who have played publicized rounds of golf with him say that his handicap should be closer to an eight or a ten, than the 2 he is listed as.

So my deal with Trump would be a bet for a billion dollars, straight match play with full handicaps... and two USGA rules officials.

Celebrity golfer and true golfing addict Alice Cooper was asked in 2012 who the worst celebrity golf cheat was. Cooper answered, "The worst celebrity golf cheat? I wish I could tell you that. It would be a shocker. I played golf with Donald Trump one time. That's all I'm going to say."



AlbertAnonymous said...

I find it odd that SCOTUS treats certain constitutional rights so differently. Thomas has hinted about this in some of his decisions re: affirmative action/school admissions. But consider these two constitutional rights:

Abortion
Not mentioned in the constitution
Conjured up from emanations and penumbras

But any state law that “unduly burdens” this right...
Or makes it difficult for a woman to have an abortion
Is unconstitutional (and presumed to be so for stays, etc).

Arms
Specifically mentioned in the constitution
Expressly providing that the right “shall not be infringed”

But any state (see CA) law that infringes/limits/restricts this right...
Or makes it difficult to exercise this right or use a legal firearm
Is upheld in lower courts and ignored at SCOTUS

The CA case last year or year before from San Diego was brutal:

Ca expressly forbids open carry. 9th circuit claims that’s ok because they CA allows concealed carry
But concealed carry required a permit issued by county sheriff.
Sheriffs sometimes require proof of a “special need” for a fire arm.
So illegal to carry open, illegal to carry concealed unless you prove a special need.

Imagine that scenario applied to abortion:

Illegal to obtain abortion in general...
But it’s ok because you can get one via “permit”
But the county administrator requires a showing of “special need”

Libs would implode at the unfairness.

But both are constitutional rights, treated differently.

Hmm?

mccullough said...

Chuck,

That was a long answer. Trump would wipe the course with you. You are a mealy-mouthed loser.

Birkel said...

George W Bush was a terrible president.
Harriet Miers and this SOB.
Harrumph!

Birches said...

What wildswan said. Any normal OBGYN has admitting privileges. Why don't these ones? They only know how to do one thing...

Birches said...

Most younger OBs are true believers on abortion. Shutting down clinics doesn't mean there aren't any abortions available in the state. It just means the women will have to go to their appointment surrounded by pregnant women. It must be triggering?

narciso said...

Like captain pike in the menagerie.

Chuck said...

Set it up, mccullogh. Set up ANY real match, with anybody, and Trump. Just show us a real competitive score from him, as long as you want to come on here and drag the discussion off (why?) in the direction of Trump's golf game.

Chuck said...

Birkel said...
George W Bush was a terrible president.
Harriet Miers and this SOB.
Harrumph!


The Federalist Society took care of Miers. Like they took care of the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations.

And be sure to credit Bush 43 for Justice Alito, and Bush 41 for Justice Thomas.

mccullough said...

Chuck,

You aren’t good enough to caddy for Trump. You are a slip-and-fall defense lawyer. Lazy and ignorant. You love golf but suck at it. You love baseball but know nothing about it.

You are a fake commenter. A phony like your man Mitt Romney. Maybe Mitt will let you strap his dog to his car and give you a $1 tip.

You are the Pool Boy, Chuck.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Jeff Weimer said...It's interesting how far the court will go to ensure there isn't an excessive infringement by state governments on the inferred right of abortion, but will flat-out ignore repeated attempts to get them to refine and define that for the enumerated right to arms and let the states effectively ignore it and Heller and McDonald.

Well, Jeff, that's because the 2nd Amendment doesn't talk about a REAL right--it's not referring to an actual right that individuals have and that the State must respect. If it was a REAL right then the Court would have to take it seriously--just as seriously as they take the emanations and penumbras that define REAL rights (like the right to an abortion that's clearly part of the right to bodily autonomy that's very plainly derived from the clear language of some parts of the 9th and 14th Amendments). Since it's not a real right, though, they can safely look the other way. Duh.

J. Farmer said...

@Shane:

Although it always seems to be the "conservative" appointees who migrate left, I sense there is at least some chance of Kagan moderating right to co-opt the middle ground with Roberts.

Recall Robert Conquest's second law of politics: "Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing."

Trumpit said...

Justice Roberts risks assassination for voting to stop a redneck anti-abortion law from taking effect. He'll be hit with buckshot from a deer hunter for protecting the vote of frail Ruth Baader Ginsberg. Has she been investigated for ties to the Baader-Meinhof Gang? She now writes her name with two A's is the dead giveaway. Next, we'll find out that Clarence Thomas is a Crip. What is the world coming to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crips

Big Mike said...

Let’s ask some basic questions. First, let’s stipulate that abortions can go wrong, and that there may be a need for a woman to be admitted to a hospital as a consequence of an abortion gone wrong (N. B., if abortions never go wrong then the law really does unduly burden abortions, but I suspect that’s simply not factually real). So then (and now I would like a real doctor to weigh in) what is the difference in time between when a patient begins to receive lifesaving treatment in an ER between the patient being admitted by a doctor with admitting privileges versus the hospital being informed by phone that a patient is on the way in with copious vaginal bleeding and the patient simply shows up at the ER door.

Seems obvious to me that if the difference is on the order of minutes, then a desire for safe abortions means that the law is, in fact, necessary for the health and safety of the mother. If the difference is negligible then the law is unduly burdensome.

But I would like some who has (or has had) admitting privileges at one or more hospitals to weigh in.

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chuck said...

J. Farmer said...
@Shane:

Although it always seems to be the "conservative" appointees who migrate left, I sense there is at least some chance of Kagan moderating right to co-opt the middle ground with Roberts.

Recall Robert Conquest's second law of politics: "Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing."


I am sorry but I must correct you. What you have just cited is O'Sullivan's First Law. John O'Sullivan (former Tory MP, now-columnist) actually did write about Robert Conquest's Second Law, and he did it this way:

Is there any law which enables us to predict the behavior of right-wing organizations? As it happens, there is: Conquest's Second Law (formulated by the Sovietologist Robert Conquest):

The behavior of an organization can best be predicted by assuming it to be controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies. Examples: virtually any conservative party anywhere, the Ronald Lauder for Mayor campaign, and the British secret service. That last example is, however, flawed, since the British secret service actually was controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies in the form of Kim Philby, Anthony Blunt, et al. In which case, Conquest's Law should have operated to make M1-6 a crack anti-Soviet intelligence service of James Bond proportions. But these are deep waters.


As with so many great things, that writing appeared in National Review. The year was 1989:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1431401/posts

I love O'Sullivan's First Law. Time and time and time again, most especially in American public life, it has proven to be true and a good, solid, workable predictive modeling tool.

Robert Conquest's Second Law has always been hard for me to understand.

Drago said...

#StrongDemDefender and racist-commenting admitted smear-merchant Chuck: "If they don't let Dr. Ricky Bobby record the President's height and weight, what do you suppose it will be?"

Democrat narrative fan-boy Chuck continues, in his proudly declared smear merchant fashion, to smear a highly regarded long-serving distinguished career Naval Admiral who has served honorably under both party administrations and was lauded by members of both parties.

His "crime" according to the left and fake-conservative/democrat towel boys like LLR Chuck: Adm Jackson refused to lie about Trumps health.

But if there is one thing LLR Chuck hates more than the children of republicans who fight back against dems, its military members and veterans who refuse to join the far left/LLR Chuck cause.

There is something oddly freudian with how Chuck attacks children of republican politicians and military members.

Perhaps that's why LLR felt obsessively compelled to write hundreds of words in a weirdly rambling post explaining in excruciating detail his rationalized reasons for not serving.

Yet Chuck weirdly insisted that everyone should give him credit for having merely pondered signing up.

LOL

I suspect Chuck's golf "expertise" and fakery and puffery is no different. Hence all of Chuck's fake claims of insider knowledge about the game and "experiences" that he conjures up.

A regular Elizabeth Warren-like "golfer extraordinaire"....LOL

I'll bet LLR Chuck has high cheekbones as well.....(wink wink)

Drago said...

Dick Durbin Cuckholster Chuck: "As with so many great things, that writing appeared in National Review. "

National Review "conservative" Tom Nichols offered up praise for AOC's far left/lunatic/LLR Green "Make America Venezuela" Plan.

Precisely similar to LLR Chuck's daily pushing of Media Matters/lefty talking points and opposition to conservative policies.

Drago said...

In other news, the entirety of LLR Chuck's "True Conservative" thankfully now defunct Cuckly Standard team of dem towel boys are now openly working with the far left to secure democrat victories across the board.

No different than LLR Chuck on this blog.

Because thats how you "save" "true conservatism".....(wink wink)..

LOL

rcocean said...

Its ONLY the Republican appointees who are "The men in the middle" - The D justices ALWAYS vote as a bloc.

Anybody with a brain -which excludes a lot of conservatives - knew that Roberts was a RINO when Arlen Specter starting singing his praises and a lot of D Senators started to sing his praises.

Hariet Miers would've turned out to be another Souter, if people like ann coulter hadn't raised the alarm.

Andy Krause said...

Is the law being ignored when centrism is the goal? Is it the job of the Supreme Court to seek balance? I did a google search for "the job of the Supreme Court" and couldn't find the word balance. I'm not a legal scholar maybe someone who is can point me to a reference to "balance" and the duties of the Supreme Court.

rcocean said...

If the Left isn't screaming what a fascist he is, and doing everything possible to derail him, then your Republican SCOTUS nominee is a squish or a closet liberal.

The D ALWAYS seem to know. But the R's always pretend to be shocked when "Converative" Justice X, moves left and becomes a moderate.

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

MSNBC Fanboy and Democrat Narative Amplifier Chuck: "Robert Conquest's Second Law has always been hard for me to understand."

LOLOLOLOL

How absolutely perfect is that?

Robert Conquest’s Second Law of Politics:

Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.


Again, how perfectly illustrative of what our self-described smear merchant is really all about.

Chuck said...

Drago: About Tom Nichols. Anyone following his brilliant and funny Twitter feed knows that you aren't just wrong, you're a complete fabricating liar. Nichols has about dozen tweets over the last couple of weeks knocking Rep. Ocasio Cortez down.

But I alreadly knew that; I knew what a sick, obsessive, twisted, lying sack of shit you are.

Chuck said...

Fuck you Drago! You aren't even reading! What you quoted is, as I explained, the rule you are describing is O'Sullivan's First Law. Conquest's Second Law is something else.

Keep up, Drago. You're slowing everyone else by being so dumb and not doing the basic reading. I gave the link to John O'Sullivan describing his own First Law, along with Conquest's Second Law.

You ignorant, reactive dumb fuck. Where do you Trump shit heads get these wrongheaded ideas from?

Big Mike said...

I really would like to have a doctor to weigh in on my 10:00 comment.

As for Chuckles, I would not bet against Donald Trump with serious m eye on the line. Pro golfers, who are used to tens of thousands of dollars riding on a six foot putt, sure. Ordinary people? They might make the putt 19 times out of 20, but as they get set to putt Trump will remind them that a million dollars rides on the putt and they’ll get the yips so bad the ball will be in a neighboring fairway

Big Mike said...

serious MONEY

Birches said...

Go pollute another thread guys. Big Mike has asked a good question.

narciso said...

Cambridge like Harvard u, is not explicitly conservative, what is interesting is that conquest came from left wings and moved right like James Burnham (one in ird the other in company)

Unknown said...

> The center is always there.

That is just some old bullshit.

Roberts wants that RBG approval.

He needs to abandon originalism and feed the liberals to earn some scraps.

There is no musical called The Magical Mr. Rehnquist.

Richard Dolan said...

Your point about the Court's always having a 'center" is well taken. But it's odd that CJ Roberts should have deemed that granting a stay represents the center in this case. The Kavanaugh dissent did not question the reasoning of the Court's prior precedents. His entire point was that the case was factually premature. The key issue was whether three doctors would be denied privileges at area hospitals. Yet they hadn't soiught them, and all that had happened below was that the D Ct had predicted they would be denied, while the 5th Cir had predicted they would be granted. Kavanaugh noted that the statute had a 45-day transition period, and the State basically said that the status quo would remain in effect at least for that long. Kavanaugh's solution was to let the doctors apply for privileges during that period, and rather than deciding the case based on predictions about what might happen, just find out. As he said, that approach would get the Court out of this dispute now, and perhaps permanently, since the State agreed that, if the privileges were denied, they would have a problem under the Court's precedents.

Why wouldn't the 'center' want to take advantage of the opportunity to duck a contentious issue, on the grounds that it might just go away in the way Kavanaugh proposed?

Yancey Ward said...

A stay is probably proper here if the court takes up the case and decides it ultimately. The law would make material changes, I believe, and might be overturned- that is enough of a reason to issue a stay, even if you feel like you might decide the law in constitutional in the end.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Some LifeLongRepublican said...Drago: About Tom Nichols. Anyone following his brilliant and funny Twitter feed knows that you aren't just wrong, you're a complete fabricating liar.

Pay No Attention -- Do Not Read! Just some joking about how great it would be to have the federal government make flying punishingly expensive to filter out the riffraff and keep the hoi polloi from breathing the same in-flight air as the elite Republican betters. Ha-ha-ha, right?!

I dunno, man...if continuing to back Nichols, Rubin, Rick Wilson, and those guys is what it takes to be a Good Republican...good luck I guess?

Hey is it weird that those 3 I just mentioned all said that for the good of the country people must vote for DEMOCRATS up and down the ballot? I mean what could exemplify LifeLongRepublicanism more than voting for the Dems (and their pro-infanticide, pro-socialism, pro-massive government expansion platform) at all levels, right??

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

The wicked solution will be executed without a care for the child is a given, since the purpose of Pro-Choice/selective-child is to terminate a life deemed unworthy of life, without due process and as a cruel and unusual punishment for the inconvenience the child presents. However, it was purportedly the goal of progressive feminists (i.e. post-civil/human rights) to prevent the collateral damage realized from "back clinic" abortions, behind a wall, under a cloak of privacy, for profit. Elective abortion has a nearly one hundred percent kill rate, and, apparently, produces significant and persistent collateral damage to the pussyhat. Planned parenthood is a war where sometimes the child wins, or there is a Pyrrhic victory for the women who enlist two choices too late. #HateLovesAbortion

AlbertAnonymous said...

Serious question for the Professor and any other Lawyers who practice before SCOTUS or have good working knowledge of the court and it’s practices:

I had always heard that there were “courtesies” that the justices gave to each other in certain circumstances, for instance if they need 5 to get a stay and they only have 4, is it common practice for one of the justices to “go along” and vote to allow the stay? Especially since it simply ensures the status quo is maintained?

Sydney said...

Re: Big Mike's question. I am a doctor, but not a surgeon, so take what I say with a grain of salt. Would it make a difference if the doctor had privileges at a hospital when he had a complication? If he could call the hospital and tell them he needs to use an operating room now, and they could open one up for him, and he could get his patient safely to the hospital- yes, it would make a difference. If he doesn't have privileges, the patient has to go to the ER, get evaluated by the ER doctor, then evaluated by the doctor who would do the surgery. Each doctor would have to familiarize themselves with the patient and with the history of what just happened to know what to do next - even when the non-admitting doctor calls ahead. If the non-privileged doctor had a privileged colleague who would do the surgery for him, could possibly avoid the ER, but the colleague would still have to reassure himself what the complication was and what he had to do to fix it, so there would still probably be a delay.
Not sure how hard it is to get a hospital to open an OR for a surgeon who is dealing with a copmlication of a procedure done in an independent facility, though. Probably depends on the hospital. So many of them are big corporations now, they don't work well with the community physicians.

Rabel said...

Roberts' "destiny" as the man in the middle can't continue if Ginsberg is replaced by a Justice more conservative that he is. The new man in the middle will necessarily be from one of the 5 justices (4 current plus 1 new) who will be more conservative than Roberts.

The math here assumes that the "man in the middle" concept is correct.

J. Farmer said...

@Chuck:

I am sorry but I must correct you. What you have just cited is O'Sullivan's First Law.

Yes, you are correct. Apologies for the error. I am a big fan of John Derbyshire and likely made his error my own from this NRO post back in 2003.

Big Mike said...

@Sydney, thank you. Based on what you wrote it seems to me the health of the mother should require that the abortionist have admitting privileges. If the woman bled out while being evaluated that would not be a good outcome. I have always taken the position that if abortion is legal, it ought to be safe. Making abortion more widely available but less safe is something I am opposed to.

Could other doctors weigh in, please?

Birches said...

@Sydney

Isn't it standard for OBGYNs to have admitting privileges? Why wouldn't a doctor?

Birches said...

BTW. Thanks for the response.

Sydney said...

@Birches- yes, most OB/GYNs have admitting privileges because they are surgical specialties. However, what happens commonly in abortion clinics is that the doctors come in from elsewhere to perform the abortions, so they don't have privileges at the local hospitals. Also, in some states, such as New York, non-physicians can perform abortions.

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

Durbin Cuckholster Chuck: "Fuck you Drago! You aren't even reading! What you quoted is, as I explained, the rule you are describing is O'Sullivan's First Law. Conquest's Second Law is something else."

You are really quite the potty-mouthed self-described smear merchant and attacker of children, arent you?

To be expected of all leftists and antifa types these days.

And, oh yes, your War And Peace length agonizing long-winded explication for your lack of service is still one of my favorite Chuckisms...which interestingly enough mirror Elizabeth Warrens fauxahontas routine as well as Da Nang Dick Blumenthals "explanation" for his serial Stolen Valor lies which you dutifully parroted.

readering said...

I am surprised that this was the 5-4 decision to stay, and the execution case was the 5-4 decision to vacate a stay. Roberts dissented in the decision on which this stay is predicated. Roberts also seems to be a strong First Amendment (Religion) proponent for which there would be many precedents to uphold the other stay.

ems4019 said...

The Supreme Court has already held in a prior case from Texas that the requirement for admitting privileges has no health benefit for women. Let's be real. These requirements are part of TRAP laws, imposed only on abortion facilities for the specific purpose of closing abortion clinics. Many hospitals will not provide admitting privileges to doctors who perform abortions as a matter of policy. There are lots of doctors who perform out patient procedures who do not have admitting privileges; if there is a problem, the patient is treated on an emergency basis in the hospital. And all Chief Justice Roberts' vote means is that the Eleventh Circuit can't overturn a Supreme Court decision on its own. It may well be that the Supreme Court will hear the Louisiana case and change the law on abortion to let states impose whatever burdens they want on abortion except in the unusual case where a woman's life is at stake if the pregnancy is continued.

Trump International Crime Syndicate said...

So Barf O'Kavanaugh is even dumber than we thought. He actually needs the policy "experiment" of reducing a state to a single provider to know what the evidence will be of denying access to everyone else other than one doctor per state.

Sounds like he was blacking out when he wrote that opinion.

Trump International Crime Syndicate said...

One would think the number of obsessive rape fantasies that Drago harbors for Chuck to be creepy. But then, one would be underestimating the amount of time that Drago has on his hands. And how obsessive he is. And partisan.

Drago's penis doesn't work without asking for permission first from the RNC.

Saint Croix said...

The Supreme Court has already held in a prior case from Texas that the requirement for admitting privileges has no health benefit for women.

The Supreme Court has made up all of its abortion rules from thin air. Admitting that babies have died, or that women have been damaged, would hurt their prestige and their power. So there will be no admission. They are a biased source. I would not cite the Supreme Court for abortion safety.

Why don't we look to an abortion doctor instead? Dr. Warren Hern is a late-term abortion provider who wrote the textbook on abortion. Dr. Hern regularly insists that abortion is a difficult medical procedure and that pro-choice people often dismiss the hazards of the procedure because of politics.

Here is Dr. Hern, quoted in a New York Times article about suing abortion doctors for malpractice:

"There's a lot of bad medicine being practiced out there in the name of choice," said Dr. Hern, who estimates that lawyers interested in filing abortion-malpractice suits now account for about 5 percent of the sales of his textbook. "I testified in an Oregon case against a doctor who really did not do well by a patient. As a society, I think we've been in denial about the risks of abortion, both because of ideology, and because of economics. There are a lot of respectable doctors doing a lousy job."

Saint Croix said...

That New York Times article is fascinating, by the way, because the reporter is taking the side of the abortion doctor (Brian Finkel), and is hostile to all the women who are suing him for malpractice.

Contrast the NYT's journalism with that of the Phoenix New Times.

Dr. Finkel is now in prison, convicted of 22 counts of sexual abuse on his patients while they were under anesthesia. (The NYT has never issued a correction or an apology).

Saint Croix said...

Dr. Hern once did a study on his own staff about the emotional trauma of performing late-term abortions. He published it here.

Saint Croix said...

Ironically, Dr. Hern himself was sued for malpractice last year for leaving half a baby's skull in his patient's uterus. The jury found that he was not negligent.

(I think it is very likely that he failed to do an ultrasound and so missed his own mistake).

It is exceedingly difficult to sue an abortion doctor because judges and lawyers routinely dismiss anybody who is pro-life from a jury pool. The upshot is that when an abortion doctor--even a good one--butchers you, it will be hard to find any restitution at all.

Requiring an abortion doctor to have hospital privileges would not completely solve the problem of malpractice--Hern has hospital privileges, and he still screwed up--but yes, there are hierarchies of competence in the abortion industry. Some abortion doctors are medically competent and want to be abortion doctors. Other abortion docs are failed obstetricians and so become abortion docs by default.

Saint Croix said...

Medical doctors have been advising this couple for a couple of years that their baby will not live.

The doctors are like, 'We are done telling you. We don't know. We haven't been right yet, so we are going to stop talking about it.'"

Wouldn't it be amazing if our judicial authorities were so honest?