Supreme Court's Sinister Six appears to shoot themselves in their collective feet and guarantee a Democratic landslide

[Aviation Pro]

On November 5th. Let's fucking go.

Link, no paywall.

A divided Supreme Court seemed skeptical Wednesday that federal law can require hospitals to provide emergency abortion care in states with strict bans on the procedure, in the latest legal battle over access to abortion since the high court overturned Roe v. Wade nearly two years ago.

Throughout two hours of argument, only the court’s three liberal justices strongly backed the Biden administration’s view that a 40-year-old emergency-care law preempts Idaho’s strict ban, which imposes penalties of up to five years in prison on doctors who perform the procedure, with an exception when “necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant woman.”

The liberal justices repeatedly raised detailed, harrowing examples of women facing health emergencies short of death, including infertility and kidney failure, and said pregnant women in Idaho were being forced out of state for emergency abortion care in violation of federal law.

Conservative justices, who make up the majority of the court, pushed back on the Biden administration’s interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, and suggested that the federal government cannot force private hospitals that receive federal funds to violate a state’s law.

“How can you impose restrictions on what Idaho can criminalize?” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked the solicitor general.

[malaise]

1. Good

Rec

[senseandsensibility]

2. From your lips

We just need to make the most of their incompetence.

[Attilatheblond]

3. Well, if hospitals won't observe basic federal laws to provide needed care,

turn off the federal money flow to them.

[erronis]

30. In Idaho, all you need is a knife, a bullet to bit on, and lots of whisky.

Anything can be done. And if it can't, it shouldn't.

Hate to think of the impact that losing federal funding would have on the poor and aged and young. Just leaving the rugged middle-aged men - who can go fuck each other.

[OMGWTF]

31. I like the S. Korean 4B Movement -- no dating, no sex, no marriage, no kids.

Women do not need men to have a fulfilling life. The patriarchy must end.

[TSExile]

56. Amen.

Who needs any of those things?

[Captain Zero]

63. There's an idea.

nt

[LiberalFighter]

4. Alito said what?

If I had presidential immunity....

[Aviation Pro]

5. Well, the Sinister Six may be looking at extraordinary rendition

If they decide Presidents have absolute immunity.

Wouldn't that be a hoot?

(Also, President Biden will take a narrow ruling on Motherfucker and just say fuck it and do it anyway).

[BlueKota]

10. If they decide the orange has total immunity

then President Biden should fire their six asses and say if tfg doesn't have to follow the Constitution then neither do I. And no one could stop him, because they weren't willing to stop Trump's violations.

It will never happen though because our side is honorable and follows the law. Although I am hoping that if pushed too far our side is willing to take the gloves off and fight back.

[usaf-vet]

45. If they aren't willing to take the gloves off, then who will be responsible for the loss of our Democracy?

[BlueKota]

55. Good question

[LiberalFighter]

28. Some of those six justices would be at risk.

I would consider the Federalist Society and ALEC on the list if they go that far.

[usaf-vet]

46. Absolutely ALEC has been more visable with their actions. But the Federalist Society is the ones teeing up SCOTUS seats.

They both are highly detrimental to our freedoms and our Constitutional Democracy. Both must go.

[Volaris]

18. He said hes never heard of the Supremacy Clause.

[pazzyanne]

65. Apparently he has never heard of the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors take either.

In a nutshell: "First do no harm" or "I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm" or "Practice two things in your dealings with disease: either help or do not harm the patient".

As far as I know, most politicians and judges have not taken the Hippocratic Oath, but maybe they should if they are going to hand out medical laws and rulings.

[DENVERPOPS]

67. It would seem that the Dr.'s

as well as the Hippocratic Oath, would also be somewhat legally bound by "Duty to Act" ??????????????

[Traurigkeit]

32. even without immunity

[mountain grammy]

38. No kidding..

what an asshole..

[BlueKota]

6. Six shit heads misogynists

and I include the one woman as a misogynist too. If she wants to surrender her own rights and kneel on command before men, she's welcome to, but she shouldn't be helping risk other women's rights and safety.

[Aviation Pro]

8. The woman is indeed a misogynist

And a confirmed handmaiden to boot. I have little doubt she has a co-Justice with her hubby just like Ginni is one.

[dchill]

34. She's a card-carrying handmaiden.

[0rganism]

7. "How can you impose restrictions on what Idaho can criminalize?"

Really, Mr. Alito? Is this where we are now?
What if Idaho made your robed ass illegal?

[TxGuitar]

12. To me the worst thing was when he asked the Idaho guy

about the cases that Sotomayor and Barrett tossed out at him, asking if a medical doctor would have to make such off the cuff decisions. They were asking for a legal opinion not a medical one.

[forgotmylogin]

25. So...Idaho can criminalize paying federal taxes? n/t

[LakeVermilion]

52. What if Idaho decides that Supreme Court rulings do not apply to Idaho?

That's the logic that is being used, Alito is saying that state power exceeds the national government. That's a tricky ruling.

[mahina]

9. More women and those who love us will suffer if so,

but I'm glad there is a silver lining, somewhere, hopefully. If they do this they are going to hurt us.

[unblock]

11. Does alito think Idaho could criminalize black people voting?

The constitution limits states' powers and makes federal law supreme.

"Textualist" apparently means just making sh*t up.

[keithbvadu2]

13. Republicans used to be against judicial activism. They seem to love it when it benefits their own desires.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. They Were NEVER Against Judicial Activism

They just whined about it when "activism" meant something they didn't agree with.
Bush v. Gore was judicial activism writ large. They stopped a vote count which is the purview of the states. But, that activism worked FOR them.
Originalism is blatant activism.
They just made up being opposed to it. They only wanted THEIR kind of judicial activism.

[keithbvadu2]

17. Aye!

[Vinca]

14. Just wait. They'll tank the abortion pill, too. The only way women in this country will be guaranteed

bodily autonomy is if super majorities of Democrats are elected in Congress along with Biden and Harris.

[yorkster]

16. I may be nave, but I thought Barrett and

Kavanaugh sounded a bit dubious. Someone on MSNBC was saying about the same thing, Barbara McQuade I think.
They could be just dancing around the issue of course. Hope springs eternal, even
with this extreme court.

[ShazzieB]

36. I haven't heard what Kavanaugh said, but I agree that Barrett sounded quite skeptical.

The lawyer representing Idaho presented a wildly unrealistic view of what kind of care a doctor in Idaho could provide to a woman whose amniotic sac had ruptured but who was not in immediate danger of dying, without getting in trouble with the law, and Barrett wasn't having it. I felt like applauding.

[pazzyanne]

59. I admit her remarks surprised me. n/t

[Blue Idaho]

19. Since when did state laws

Supersede Federal laws? I’m so sick of this primacy of states rights shit I could spit nails.

[WOLFMAN87]

37. Primary school lesson

Federal law always supercedes state or lower level laws

[Wednesdays]

70. Welcome to DU!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

74. Welcome to DU

[Hermit-The-Prog]

20. The Subversive Court does not care about law, logic, or consequences, only their extreme ideology.

[mountain grammy]

40. so it appears..

[bucolic_frolic]

21. It's absurd. The purpose of federal law cannot be increased risk of death.

[3825-87867]

22. "How can you impose restrictions on what Idaho can criminalize?" Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked the solicitor general

Just the opposite could be true under Alito's screed.
Florida de-criminalized murder with the stand your ground laws, just ask George Zimmerman.

If this isn't correct, someone please correct me:

If I'm walking down the street in Florida and Sam Alito, in MY opinion, threatens me physically, verbally or imaginarily or even poses, to me, a threatening posture or attitude, do I have the right to use the stand your ground law and take action into my own hands to protect myself from..whatever or however I feel is threatening..to me...by him?

Also, Sam, How can you impose restrictions on what Idaho can DE-criminalize?

Enough.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

39. Stand your ground doesnt remove the reasonable person standard for self defense.

If the prosecutor can convince the jury that your belief that Alito was a deadly threat to yourself was unreasonable, then you are going to prison.

Stand your ground laws typically do one main thing:
-Remove the duty to retreat when outside of your home.

Some states(like Michigan) add additional protections, typically a shield from civil lawsuits related to the shooting if it was ruled justified and explicitly shifting the burden of proof to the prosecutor. Basically instead of the shooter having to prove they were justified, the prosecutor needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting was unjustified.

In your example, you better hope there is some evidence that Alito posed a real and imminent threat to yourself or someone because even Florida law won't save you otherwise.

Also, despite the popular thought, it's not just red states that have stand your ground. California, Illinois, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and New Mexico are effectively stand your ground states due to their case law. None require a duty to retreat.

[Dan]

23. Term limit the SCOTUS

I am thinking 12 -15 years total, and expand the Court.

Then they can take their out-of-date views and shove them up their collective asses.

[Traurigkeit]

33. 13 Justices and 10 years MAX. Seeing most justices get on board about late mid 50s/late 60s so that'll let them be

their best for 10 years.

Wlill make the republicans go nutz. that is if there is still a repubkican party anymore

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

41. Term limits would require an Amendment

Expanding the court is doable through a law change though.

[Wednesdays]

71. Expect a huge fight over expansion, though.

A huge fight that will eventually be decided...by...guess what body of nine members?

[dlk]

24. To justice Alito: Killing women should be restricted

Surely he’s not that dumb. He must have a very deep-seated hatred of women. What is wrong with him would take up more space than is available to write in.

[irisblue]

26. WaPo gift article

https://wapo.st/4dfzexB

[Ford_Prefect]

27. The Supremacy Clause is the cornerstone of federal authority. Have the hateful Six forgotten that bit of Federal trivia.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

In Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956) the Supreme Court struck down the Pennsylvania Sedition Act, which made advocating the forceful overthrow of the federal government a crime under Pennsylvania state law. The Supreme Court held that when federal interest in an area of law is sufficiently dominant, federal law must be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject; and a state law is not to be declared a help when state law goes farther than Congress has seen fit to go.

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

[ShazzieB]

29. Just for asking such a stupid question....

Slammin' Sam the Sham Alito should be required to write the Supremacy Clause 100 times, using Dolores Umbridge's magic quill!

Here it is, Sammy. now get busy writing!

[malaise]

57. Stealing this

Sam the Sham Alito 😀

[ShazzieB]

72. Please help yourself!

I've been calling him that for a while now, would love to see it catch on!

[ShazzieB]

73. Plrase, feel free!

I've been calling him that for a while now, would love to see it catch on!

[ForgedCrank]

35. I don't

see this as a bad thing.
For far too long, we've allowed this court to basically create new law through their decisions. That needs to end, especially now. This needs to be the burden of lawmakers to fix as they are the only ones we have any control over. They are there to do what we tell them to do, and there are ramifications if they don't. Not so much with these supreme court justices. Frankly, I don't want those people deciding law via opinion, and that's what they mostly do anymore.
These voids in the law are inexcusable, and their respective state lawmakers need to either address it immediately, or go the way of the dodo bird.

[Demovictory9]

42. Sick six

[pnwmom]

43. How can a state be allowed to criminalize protecting a woman's life?

would have been the answer to Justass Alito.

“How can you impose restrictions on what Idaho can criminalize?” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked the solicitor general.

[LiberalLovinLug]

44. "The Sinister Six" I like it!

[Faux pas]

47. From all the keyboards

to the Universe's "eyes".

[AncientOfDays]

48. How selective!

A State cannot prevent ballot access for a national candidate, but they can ignore Federal Law for women ?!

[sinkingfeeling]

49. Think about what power Alito is willing to grant states.

"How can you impose restrictions on what Idaho can criminalize?”
Seems like he wants a state to be able to override any federal law.
Funny, though, how Colorado doesn't have the power to decide to keep TSF off the ballot.

[Captain Zero]

64. What if Idaho want to criminalize voting?

Who are we to stop them?

[nakocal]

50. Alito is basically saying "Fuck the Constitution"

[ecstatic]

51. Wait till it happens to one of the sinister six's

family member. 🤬

[maxrandb]

53. It NEVER will

Their families have the means to charter a private jet with a full surgical suite to take them to whatever state, or country they wish to go to.

Their daughters and granddaughters could obtain an abortion at 32,000 feet and be on a beach in Aruba by noon.

Consequences are for the little people, NOT the Majority Six of the Supreme Court of the Confederacy.

[TSExile]

58. THIS.

"Rules and restrictions for thee, not for me", is their credo.

[LTG]

54. Thoughts on Federal vs States rights and the Constitution

The Constitution’s not only set forth the structure of our government but specifies what powers are given to it and restricts the federal exercise of any powers not specifically granted to it by the states and the people.

First - Specify the nature and structure of the 3 branches of government and the duties, powers and jurisdiction of each. It also detailed the process of selection of its principal officers and officials, laying out their individual qualifications, duties and powers.

Second - Enumerate and restrict federal government powers to areas specifically set forth and permitted to it by the Constitution. All non-enumerated powers are reserved to the states or the people.

Third - It specifies the only methods by which the Constitution and be amended in any way. It creates a process that was intentionally not easily nor hastily accomplished

The Bill of Rights was to protect the natural rights and freedoms of all citizens from the actions and interference of the government

Essentially, to be constitutional all federal laws must fall within one of the constitutionally enumerated powers. That’s why you sometimes find somewhat tortured connections between a law or legal opinion and an enumerated power. Many federal laws rest on the federal power over interstate commerce.

It’s the basis of arguments whether a firearm homemade in a state and only possessed in that state would still fall under federal firearms laws. Basically the court decided it wasn’t strictly the federal firearms laws themselves that created federal supremacy and jurisdiction, but rather that they rested upon Interstate Commerce, an enumerated power.

The reasoning was that since it had been made, even though by a citizen for personal use and not sale, its existence still impacted interstate commerce.

The court could also, I’m sure, have crafted a rational argument that many things are made by individuals for personal use and never intended to be sold. If not homemade the citizen may not have ever purchased one. Without support under Interstate Commerce the court might have ruled the prosecution outside the powers of the federal government and therefore unconstitutional.

The federal government can not simply give themselves the authority, by passing a law, in areas with no underlying enumerated power. Over the years the courts have managed to find a nexus to something connected to an enumerated federal power to create federal jurisdiction when it served either the law or their desire to so rule.

That all being said, I’m sure there are in fact things local jurisdictions could make criminal even if the feds disapprove. I just haven’t thought deeply enough into it to come up with one this late at night, or rather early in the morning.

The main thing that set this all off was to correct the notion that while the Constitution and any Treaties or laws made pursuant to its provisions are the supreme law of the land, it only means those made pursuant to the limitations of the enumerated powers.

The Constitution’s was written to restrict federal powers. All powers of government not given the federal government specifically by the Constitution belong to the states and the people.

[MissMillie]

60. U.S. has a long history of

protecting individual rights.

There absolutely some rights that should never, ever depend upon geography.

[Passages]

61. They make me very nervous.

“How can you impose restrictions on what Idaho can criminalize?” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked the solicitor general.

Oh, I don't know, perhaps because women could die!

[UpInArms]

62. This horrible Court was brought to us by

Moscow Mitch… Putin’s bitch.

[Zilli]

66. This court is SADISTIC, not supreme

Their goal is dead women

[Wednesdays]

68. Even with this SCOTUS, we get a landslide in our favor ONLY

if we get out the vote! See my sig line.

[Eyeball_Kid]

69. This will hurt.

The medium to long-term effect will be that corporations that consider moving facilities and factories will shy away from anti-abortion states because women will NOT want to move there. The result will be an eroding of the financial bases upon which anti-abortion states depend. IOW, people will summarily consider anti-abortion states to be off-limits, no matter the financial incentives. Texas, Alabama, Florida, and the rest will be considered UNDESIRABLE to enterprises considering a relocation.