“We've had...a rash of universal injunctions... This case seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an FDA rule or any other federal government action.”
— The Recount (@therecount) March 26, 2024
— SCOTUS Justice Gorsuch hits recent mifepristone rulings pic.twitter.com/5yarbyQC5s
२६ मार्च, २०२४
Judicial restraint rears its head at this morning's abortion-pill oral argument.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२४ टिप्पण्या:
"Judicial restraint rears its head?" I'm not sure about what kind of animal this judicial restraint resembles (having seen so little of it over my lifetime), but wouldn't it be a burrowing sort?
This is a State issue. Period.
The Supreme Court's only responsibility here is to smash stupid lower court actions that go beyond their jurisdiction and to keep the rest of the federal government out of it.
“We've had...a rash of universal injunctions... This case seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an FDA rule or any other federal government action.”
Gorsuch expresses his undisguised contempt for Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's nationwide ban on mifepristone, condemning it as part of a "rash" of unlawfully over-broad remedies awarded by unrestrained district courts. Obviously a bad sign for the anti-abortion advocates here.
Meanwhile—Alito writes proposals for 2024 bar exam questions: “describe how you must demonstrate injury in fact, causation redressable harm (unless it’s about abortion or border control)”
I foresee an argument in Conference about accepting cases where the plaintiffs cannot provide evidence that they were ever harmed.
Hawaiian judge hardest hit.
The Alliance Defending Freedom'a counsel seems to deliberately misinterpret Justice Gorsuch's point. His issue isn't the court grating an injunction or vacature, but the scope of those. Why wouldn't the court's granting of those but limiting it to only the parties involved or perhaps even just that Federal district or even circuit not be sufficient relief? The attorney makes it sound like if an injunction is needed to grant relief then any injunction granted, no matter how broad the scope, is justified and appropriate. I can totally get behind limiting these universal injunctions. If a person is on the left and they are happy at the the idea of this particular injunction affecting the sale of drugs used for chemical abortions being narrowed in scope, make sure you understand this would also mean Federal judges in Hawaii can no longer issue nationwide injunctions frustrating national immigration policy on the claims of a handful of plaintiffs. What's good for the goose is good for the gander after all.
It is not the court imposing a nationwide injunction when it is the agency that asserts a nationwide jurisdiction.
You listened to Senator Hawley's better half.
Damnit. It looks like the Supreme Court might save the Republican Party from major hemorrhaging in the next election.
Rich regarding mifepristone case:
"I foresee an argument in Conference about accepting cases where the plaintiffs cannot provide evidence that they were ever harmed."
That's "Rich!" Let me help you with your analysis: Just assume that this case is about real estate valuations in NYC and Trump is the defendant, i.e., there doesn't have to be any harm to the plaintiffs because Orange Man Bad.
Jesus! Don't you have any shame?
Hope they do it -- nationwide injunctions should be banned.
Howard said...Damnit. It looks like the Supreme Court might save the Republican Party from major hemorrhaging in the next election.
Not to worry, they have binders full of ways to screw up winnable elections.
Look at all these people now trusting the same FDA that also approved the COVID shots. So what if mifepristone (RU-486) has been proven to be very dangerous?
A lawyer, male or female, but nothing more than just another lawyer, gets an appointment as a Federal judge, puts on a black robe, gets ready to leave his or her chambers to sit on the bench, but takes a last minute look at the mirror on the door to check his or her appearance--and sees a wise Philosopher King who can make law for all 50 states.
That has happened way too many times in the last dozen years or so. Hubris rules--but the judge's name is either Herbie or Helen and he or she ain't all that smart.
How’s the ROW 16 week compromise lookin about now?
It would seem like it should be judicial activism that rears its head, and judicial restraint the restrains it.
At 11:27 Achilles said
This is a State issue. Period.
The Supreme Court's only responsibility here is to smash stupid lower court actions that go beyond their jurisdiction and to keep the rest of the federal government out of it.
This is correct. Every court district in the USA should be a model of government restraint
“Jesus! Don't you have any shame?”
M00nbat Lefties like Rich don’t “embarrass easy”.
This is correct. Every court district in the USA should be a model of government restraint
Unless the Hawaii spirt of Aloha deems otherwise of course.
It reared its head, as opposed to popping up.
""Judicial restraint rears its head?" I'm not sure about what kind of animal this judicial restraint resembles (having seen so little of it over my lifetime), but wouldn't it be a burrowing sort?"
This is a good question, and it's a doorway into my deliberate point.
Judicial restraint can be and often is a form of judicial activism.
"It would seem like it should be judicial activism that rears its head, and judicial restraint the restrains it."
Think about how it can be the other way around.
A lot of very strong moves have been made by judges using standing doctrine (and other things like that).
This is a subject I taught in law school for nearly 40 years.
“Judicial Restraint” - A new legal thriller from law professor Ann Althouse in her “Standing Doctrine” series. Follow the protagonist and her trusted partner Laurent “Law Ron” Reade as they navigate the steamy legal underside of Madison, WI. Preorder your copy through the Amazon portal today!
I am with this as I was with Roe. It is matter for individual states. There should be no national abortion laws or regulations just as there are no national statutes on murder. Leave it to the states. The problem we have right now is that our justice system is out of control. We are getting closer and closer to another RAH prediction. "The day they killed all the lawyers". I thought that one was hyperbole....but I am no longer so certain.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा