Challenge: Failed
June 13, 2024 8:02 AM Subscribe
This just in: the Supreme Court has issued their opinion (.pdf) on FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, and it's unanimous. The plaintiffs lack the standing to challenge the FDA on the abortion medication drug mifepristone. Previously.
Encouraging.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 8:16 AM on June 13 [2 favorites]
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 8:16 AM on June 13 [2 favorites]
Kavanaugh wrote the opinion, shutting down each of the plantiffs' potential bids for standing. He ruled that the anti-abortion doctors who brought the suit (a) were not directly injured by the FDA's regulatory decisions about mifepristone, and (b) could not show any "downstream" economic injuries in the form of treating patients with mifepristone complications, calling that argument too speculative.
He also denied the argument that the plantiff medical associations were damaged by their expenses in arguing against mifepristone, saying that "an organization that has not suffered a concrete injury caused by a defendant’s action cannot spend its way into standing simply by expending money to gather information and advocate against the defendant’s action".
Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, where he seems to be using this case as an opportunity to argue that the doctrine allowing an association to sue on behalf of its members is invalid on its own (!), and so therefore that these associations couldn't have standing by definition. Which seems wild to me, but I'm not a constitutional scholar.
posted by learning from frequent failure at 8:17 AM on June 13 [12 favorites]
He also denied the argument that the plantiff medical associations were damaged by their expenses in arguing against mifepristone, saying that "an organization that has not suffered a concrete injury caused by a defendant’s action cannot spend its way into standing simply by expending money to gather information and advocate against the defendant’s action".
Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, where he seems to be using this case as an opportunity to argue that the doctrine allowing an association to sue on behalf of its members is invalid on its own (!), and so therefore that these associations couldn't have standing by definition. Which seems wild to me, but I'm not a constitutional scholar.
posted by learning from frequent failure at 8:17 AM on June 13 [12 favorites]
Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, where he seems to be using this case... [snip] Which seems wild to me, but I'm not a constitutional scholar.
That's OK, Thomas isn't a constitutional scholar either.
posted by tclark at 8:21 AM on June 13 [127 favorites]
That's OK, Thomas isn't a constitutional scholar either.
posted by tclark at 8:21 AM on June 13 [127 favorites]
Pleasantly surprised today.
posted by hydra77 at 8:22 AM on June 13 [5 favorites]
posted by hydra77 at 8:22 AM on June 13 [5 favorites]
They rejected it on standing instead of merits. Which is basically SCOTUS signaling they have to come back with better plaintiffs.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:26 AM on June 13 [81 favorites]
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:26 AM on June 13 [81 favorites]
Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, where he seems to be using this case as an opportunity to argue that the doctrine allowing an association to sue on behalf of its members is invalid on its own (!), and so therefore that these associations couldn't have standing by definition. Which seems wild to me, but I'm not a constitutional scholar.
Yeah, conservatives have been upset about associational standing since the NAACP prevailed in NAACP v. Alabama. They're not happy with the decision that the US constitution protects the freedom to associate with advocacy organizations.
posted by RichardP at 8:29 AM on June 13 [18 favorites]
Yeah, conservatives have been upset about associational standing since the NAACP prevailed in NAACP v. Alabama. They're not happy with the decision that the US constitution protects the freedom to associate with advocacy organizations.
posted by RichardP at 8:29 AM on June 13 [18 favorites]
Key to this case is Trump appointee Matthew Kacsmaryk of the federal court in Amarillo, Texas. He issued the ruling that briefly outlawed mifepristone nationally and resulted in this Supreme Court case. He's been at the center of a bunch of "novel" legal theories of right wing judicial activism.
(Note that Judge Kacsmaryk follows the Thomas+Alito school of "fuck you I don't care about appearing uncorrupt" judicial practice.)
posted by Nelson at 8:37 AM on June 13 [7 favorites]
... a curious feature of America’s legal system: the practice of filing lawsuits in places where a sympathetic judge advances a litigant’s mission by halting a government policy. The strategy—call it “judge-mandering”, a cousin of electoral gerrymandering—has thwarted Mr Biden’s policies on immigration, student loans and abortion pills. Before that it frustrated Mr Trump’s efforts to bar transgender soldiers, divert emergency funds to build a border wall and keep out travellers from certain Muslim countries.Quote from America’s federal district courts may soon be harder to manipulate (archive link). The efforts to stop it include federal judicial procedures and a possible Senate bill. Legislators from both political parties seem interested in reining in this form of judicial legislation.
... efforts are afoot to stop it
(Note that Judge Kacsmaryk follows the Thomas+Alito school of "fuck you I don't care about appearing uncorrupt" judicial practice.)
posted by Nelson at 8:37 AM on June 13 [7 favorites]
This is good news, but it is also sad. Progressives are being tossed scraps of what once was to placate them as the rest of 20th century civilization is torn to shreds by the dark enlightenment.
posted by CynicalKnight at 8:42 AM on June 13 [21 favorites]
posted by CynicalKnight at 8:42 AM on June 13 [21 favorites]
Supreme Court Conservatives Decline To Be Cartoonish Supervillains On This One
posted by saturday_morning at 8:53 AM on June 13 [21 favorites]
posted by saturday_morning at 8:53 AM on June 13 [21 favorites]
where he seems to be using this case as an opportunity to argue that the doctrine allowing an association to sue on behalf of its members is invalid on its own
Who is this going to fuck over?
posted by clawsoon at 8:59 AM on June 13 [4 favorites]
Who is this going to fuck over?
posted by clawsoon at 8:59 AM on June 13 [4 favorites]
Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
Was there ever a more Orwellian name? Every accusation a confession etc.
posted by lalochezia at 9:13 AM on June 13 [5 favorites]
Was there ever a more Orwellian name? Every accusation a confession etc.
posted by lalochezia at 9:13 AM on June 13 [5 favorites]
Should we be concerned that this decision was based on a procedural detail (standing) rather than "The FDA said it and that's final. Please, shut up"?
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 9:15 AM on June 13 [10 favorites]
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 9:15 AM on June 13 [10 favorites]
Was there ever a more Orwellian name? Every accusation a confession etc.
Only to be pedantic, the text of the Hippocratic Oath does, in fact, specifically mention agents to cause abortion as a no-no, but much like a lot of other documents handed down from antiquity, the Oath has also got a lot of other things that don’t get followed either, but somehow nobody ever sues about the other ones.
“Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.”
posted by Jon_Evil at 9:23 AM on June 13 [8 favorites]
Only to be pedantic, the text of the Hippocratic Oath does, in fact, specifically mention agents to cause abortion as a no-no, but much like a lot of other documents handed down from antiquity, the Oath has also got a lot of other things that don’t get followed either, but somehow nobody ever sues about the other ones.
“Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.”
posted by Jon_Evil at 9:23 AM on June 13 [8 favorites]
"The FDA said it and that's final. Please, shut up"
I don't think the Court will ever say something like this; it would undercut their ability to fulfill their (self-appointed) mandate of striking down government actions that are inconsistent with (their bespoke interpretation of) the Constitution.
posted by solotoro at 9:28 AM on June 13 [6 favorites]
I don't think the Court will ever say something like this; it would undercut their ability to fulfill their (self-appointed) mandate of striking down government actions that are inconsistent with (their bespoke interpretation of) the Constitution.
posted by solotoro at 9:28 AM on June 13 [6 favorites]
I don't see that a "pessary" is even used for abortion any more so 🤷🏻
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:30 AM on June 13 [6 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:30 AM on June 13 [6 favorites]
where he seems to be using this case as an opportunity to argue that the doctrine allowing an association to sue on behalf of its members is invalid on its own
Who is this going to fuck over?
Associational standing is used by civil rights organizations, environmental organizations, veterans organizations and any other organizations where the harms they are alleging are to their members, not directly to the organization itself. When the NAACP sues over discriminatory hiring practices, it isn't, as an organization, harmed by those policies because the NAACP isn't trying to get hired; individual people are. But an individual member often doesn't have the ability or appetite to sue. That's because often takes years to get a case resolved, and if you think you'll need to go to trial, it takes tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars (or the social capital/network to get lawyers and experts to work pro bono).
Now, in recent years, the Court has already made it more difficult to show associational standing -- you can't just say you have an affected member, you need to actually identify a specific member who is up for possibly being deposed by the other side's lawyers to make sure they are really affected. So you need someone who's willing to be pretty involved, and at that point they might as well just join the lawsuit individually, too. It's been common practice for years in this type of work to have both the organization and one or more of its members individually be joint plaintiffs, so even if Justice Thomas has his way, it may mostly change the strategy about how to bring lawsuits more than the substance of what laws and actions get challenged.
posted by alligatorpear at 9:30 AM on June 13 [22 favorites]
Who is this going to fuck over?
Associational standing is used by civil rights organizations, environmental organizations, veterans organizations and any other organizations where the harms they are alleging are to their members, not directly to the organization itself. When the NAACP sues over discriminatory hiring practices, it isn't, as an organization, harmed by those policies because the NAACP isn't trying to get hired; individual people are. But an individual member often doesn't have the ability or appetite to sue. That's because often takes years to get a case resolved, and if you think you'll need to go to trial, it takes tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars (or the social capital/network to get lawyers and experts to work pro bono).
Now, in recent years, the Court has already made it more difficult to show associational standing -- you can't just say you have an affected member, you need to actually identify a specific member who is up for possibly being deposed by the other side's lawyers to make sure they are really affected. So you need someone who's willing to be pretty involved, and at that point they might as well just join the lawsuit individually, too. It's been common practice for years in this type of work to have both the organization and one or more of its members individually be joint plaintiffs, so even if Justice Thomas has his way, it may mostly change the strategy about how to bring lawsuits more than the substance of what laws and actions get challenged.
posted by alligatorpear at 9:30 AM on June 13 [22 favorites]
Should we be concerned that this decision was based on a procedural detail (standing) rather than "The FDA said it and that's final. Please, shut up"?
No, because standing is an incredibly important part of our legal system, and more than just a "procedural detail". It is a core principle of American jurisprudence that in order to bring a case, you have to demonstrate that you are actually impacted by the matter at hand in a material way - this is what standing means. Most often, it's not hard to establish, as the majority of plaintiffs are bringing cases where they are directly impacted. In this case, however, the plaintiffs were not arguing that the federal rule directly affected them (because it was clear it didn't), but instead created this convoluted argument that they had standing because there was the potential that they could maybe have to treat a woman who was suffering complications - which the court rejected as too speculative.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:33 AM on June 13 [12 favorites]
No, because standing is an incredibly important part of our legal system, and more than just a "procedural detail". It is a core principle of American jurisprudence that in order to bring a case, you have to demonstrate that you are actually impacted by the matter at hand in a material way - this is what standing means. Most often, it's not hard to establish, as the majority of plaintiffs are bringing cases where they are directly impacted. In this case, however, the plaintiffs were not arguing that the federal rule directly affected them (because it was clear it didn't), but instead created this convoluted argument that they had standing because there was the potential that they could maybe have to treat a woman who was suffering complications - which the court rejected as too speculative.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:33 AM on June 13 [12 favorites]
A pessary is a vaginal suppository, just to help those who might have to look it up.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:34 AM on June 13 [7 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:34 AM on June 13 [7 favorites]
#stoppedclock
posted by gottabefunky at 9:58 AM on June 13 [1 favorite]
posted by gottabefunky at 9:58 AM on June 13 [1 favorite]
TPM mentions something unsurprising and dismaying that I missed if it was in the OP's link: Josh Hawley's wife was lawyer for the plaintiff.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 9:58 AM on June 13 [7 favorites]
posted by gentlyepigrams at 9:58 AM on June 13 [7 favorites]
My gast is utterly flabbered.
posted by drewbage1847 at 9:59 AM on June 13 [8 favorites]
posted by drewbage1847 at 9:59 AM on June 13 [8 favorites]
Should we be concerned that this decision was based on a procedural detail (standing) rather than "The FDA said it and that's final. Please, shut up"?
Wait until they gut the administrative state and the Chevron doctrine. Forget abortion meds, they're going to go after the birth control pill at the same time.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 10:04 AM on June 13 [12 favorites]
Wait until they gut the administrative state and the Chevron doctrine. Forget abortion meds, they're going to go after the birth control pill at the same time.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 10:04 AM on June 13 [12 favorites]
I do appreciate that this is not the trouncing some of us wish had happened, but for the love of sanity can we please just take this win?
It's a UNANIMOUS OPINION from THIS PARTICULAR group of justices. WHO CARES if some of them are only arguing from a position of procedure as opposed to ethics - this is still better than we all feared back when Trump was pushing them into the court. It is also a sign that Kavanagh and Barrett may not necessarily be the GOP puppets we feared they might be.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:07 AM on June 13 [10 favorites]
It's a UNANIMOUS OPINION from THIS PARTICULAR group of justices. WHO CARES if some of them are only arguing from a position of procedure as opposed to ethics - this is still better than we all feared back when Trump was pushing them into the court. It is also a sign that Kavanagh and Barrett may not necessarily be the GOP puppets we feared they might be.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:07 AM on June 13 [10 favorites]
A pessary is a vaginal suppository, just to help those who might have to look it up.
What I looked up was a tool, not a suppository. SO don't want to learn more. But regardless.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:08 AM on June 13
What I looked up was a tool, not a suppository. SO don't want to learn more. But regardless.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:08 AM on June 13
This is good news and am glad of this decision. Yes, the fight isn’t over, but today was a good day in this particular fight and I’m gonna bask in that.
Tomorrow, next month, year, or decade will come, but for now this is good news.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:09 AM on June 13 [1 favorite]
Tomorrow, next month, year, or decade will come, but for now this is good news.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:09 AM on June 13 [1 favorite]
I appreciate the finding that clutching pearls over someone else's abortion is not actual harm. It comes close to thinking about bodily autonomy. But that would be an over-interpretation of this decision.
I also have to think that this decision was a strategic punt to get us past November. They can, and will, take up abortion again anytime they want.
posted by Dashy at 10:22 AM on June 13 [9 favorites]
I also have to think that this decision was a strategic punt to get us past November. They can, and will, take up abortion again anytime they want.
posted by Dashy at 10:22 AM on June 13 [9 favorites]
I feel no comfort whatsoever, because the case was overruled strictly for technical reasons and made absolutely no statement about the merits of the case.
This fight is far, far from over.
posted by Orthodox Humanoid at 10:24 AM on June 13 [11 favorites]
This fight is far, far from over.
posted by Orthodox Humanoid at 10:24 AM on June 13 [11 favorites]
Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
Was there ever a more Orwellian name? Every accusation a confession etc.
Also, every more-or-less apolitical advocacy organization like the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, AARP, etc.?
There's a far-right-wing organization with a similar name out there, they say the other organization is a bunch of Marxist fascist communists, and they are very interested in your donations.
posted by box at 10:31 AM on June 13 [3 favorites]
Was there ever a more Orwellian name? Every accusation a confession etc.
Also, every more-or-less apolitical advocacy organization like the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, AARP, etc.?
There's a far-right-wing organization with a similar name out there, they say the other organization is a bunch of Marxist fascist communists, and they are very interested in your donations.
posted by box at 10:31 AM on June 13 [3 favorites]
pretty interesting article about abortion and the Hippocratic Oath
Because the Hippocratic Oath did not originally contain the terms fetus or abortion, it should not be construed as explicitly prohibiting abortion. Interpretations of the Hippocratic Oath ought to be grounded in precise and rigorous translation, obviating the necessity for conjectural interpretations.
The interpretation of the Oath, particularly in relation to abortion, was central to the debates in the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case, Roe vs Wade.27
Therefore, re-examining the Hippocratic Oath and providing an authentic, unbiased translation as discussed in this article, could significantly influence future debates and practice in the field of obstetrics and gynecology. In addition, this article may prompt reevaluation of how the Hippocratic Oath is taught in medical schools to future medical professionals.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:36 AM on June 13 [8 favorites]
Because the Hippocratic Oath did not originally contain the terms fetus or abortion, it should not be construed as explicitly prohibiting abortion. Interpretations of the Hippocratic Oath ought to be grounded in precise and rigorous translation, obviating the necessity for conjectural interpretations.
The interpretation of the Oath, particularly in relation to abortion, was central to the debates in the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case, Roe vs Wade.27
Therefore, re-examining the Hippocratic Oath and providing an authentic, unbiased translation as discussed in this article, could significantly influence future debates and practice in the field of obstetrics and gynecology. In addition, this article may prompt reevaluation of how the Hippocratic Oath is taught in medical schools to future medical professionals.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:36 AM on June 13 [8 favorites]
can we please just take this win?
I appreciate folks who add nuance to court decisions. Feel free to consider this an unadulterated win if you need to, but please don't tell people interested in the details of the reasoning and the limits of the decision that their perspective is less worthy than yours.
posted by mediareport at 10:41 AM on June 13 [12 favorites]
I appreciate folks who add nuance to court decisions. Feel free to consider this an unadulterated win if you need to, but please don't tell people interested in the details of the reasoning and the limits of the decision that their perspective is less worthy than yours.
posted by mediareport at 10:41 AM on June 13 [12 favorites]
This is good news for now. It gives us some time to fight more battles. But it is definitely not the slam dunk we all want it to be. And I say that as someone who is nearly always the optimist. This ruling absolutely opens up the possibility (probability) that a different, more specific lawsuit (I literally just typoed that as 'lawshit') that can prove harm to a specific person will be upheld.
We have work to do.
posted by cooker girl at 10:43 AM on June 13 [13 favorites]
We have work to do.
posted by cooker girl at 10:43 AM on June 13 [13 favorites]
And to be clear, I am absolutely celebrating this ruling.
posted by cooker girl at 10:44 AM on June 13
posted by cooker girl at 10:44 AM on June 13
but for the love of sanity can we please just take this win?
The thread is almost three hours old and the discussion so far has been almost entirely people taking the win with an appropriate dose of apprehension given the surprise unanimity of the decision.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:45 AM on June 13 [2 favorites]
The thread is almost three hours old and the discussion so far has been almost entirely people taking the win with an appropriate dose of apprehension given the surprise unanimity of the decision.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:45 AM on June 13 [2 favorites]
This fight is far, far from over.
Oh absolutely. But it is also not LOST.
please don't tell people interested in the details of the reasoning and the limits of the decision that their perspective is less worthy than yours.
I don't recall having said that.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:45 AM on June 13 [1 favorite]
Oh absolutely. But it is also not LOST.
please don't tell people interested in the details of the reasoning and the limits of the decision that their perspective is less worthy than yours.
I don't recall having said that.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:45 AM on June 13 [1 favorite]
Thank God.
posted by evilmomlady at 10:45 AM on June 13
posted by evilmomlady at 10:45 AM on June 13
Nuance is why I come here, don't want to just read a thread of people saying "yay" with no additional info or context. Thanks to all who add that!
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:47 AM on June 13 [12 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:47 AM on June 13 [12 favorites]
I don't recall having said that.
Oh, I guess I saw your comment as somehow exasperated at the discussion of nuance, and attempting to stop people from talking in this thread about the limitations of the decision so you could "take this win" without seeing that discussion. I must have misunderstood. What was your purpose in saying that, then?
posted by mediareport at 10:49 AM on June 13 [2 favorites]
Oh, I guess I saw your comment as somehow exasperated at the discussion of nuance, and attempting to stop people from talking in this thread about the limitations of the decision so you could "take this win" without seeing that discussion. I must have misunderstood. What was your purpose in saying that, then?
posted by mediareport at 10:49 AM on June 13 [2 favorites]
What I see as being good about this decision is that it may help crack down on absolutely contrived lawsuits from those with no standing.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:53 AM on June 13 [7 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:53 AM on June 13 [7 favorites]
Okay, there may have been a bit of "same page but different paragraphs" going on with my previous comment, for which I apologize.
I was just concerned that the predominant opinion I seemed to see was more like this was a delaying of an inevitable loss than it was celebrating a guarded win (the comment about how Kavanaugh was simply signaling to the conservatives that "they should bring a better case" was one in particular). At least, that was how I was interpreting the tone.
I do also tend to err on the side of optimism, as a rule, and also feel that acknowledging when you get just one step closer to a goal is a good way of keeping up morale, so you are better able TO continue with the battle that is likely not yet over.
As you were.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:55 AM on June 13 [2 favorites]
I was just concerned that the predominant opinion I seemed to see was more like this was a delaying of an inevitable loss than it was celebrating a guarded win (the comment about how Kavanaugh was simply signaling to the conservatives that "they should bring a better case" was one in particular). At least, that was how I was interpreting the tone.
I do also tend to err on the side of optimism, as a rule, and also feel that acknowledging when you get just one step closer to a goal is a good way of keeping up morale, so you are better able TO continue with the battle that is likely not yet over.
As you were.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:55 AM on June 13 [2 favorites]
Definitely everyone should celebrate and take the W; few enough victories recently, especially involving the USSC.
But, perhaps cynically, I don't think this represents some sort of change of heart on the issue of abortion qua abortion, on the part of everyone's favorite Saturday-morning-cartoon-villain Justices.
Rather, I suspect that they saw danger lights in allowing the case to move forward, because it was so obviously without standing. It would have opened up the Court to lots of other legal maneuvering, and potentially a firehose of cases, that they don't want to deal with. And politically, I'm sure it wasn't lost on the conservative wing of the Court that expanding their scope by tossing out long-established rules concerning standing, might provide ammunition to those who already think the Court has overstepped and is in need of reform. (And could also be used by a future, less-conservative Court to do all sorts of stuff that conservatives would hate.)
The only thing that the less-stupid conservative Justices (i.e. not Thomas) seem to like better than their hoary, sexist jurisprudence and questionable legal theories, is preserving the power of the Court as an institution (and through that, their own power). I'd imagine that's what Kavanaugh was thinking of when he wrote the opinion; not about the women who would be harmed if the case was allowed to move forward.
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:07 AM on June 13 [7 favorites]
But, perhaps cynically, I don't think this represents some sort of change of heart on the issue of abortion qua abortion, on the part of everyone's favorite Saturday-morning-cartoon-villain Justices.
Rather, I suspect that they saw danger lights in allowing the case to move forward, because it was so obviously without standing. It would have opened up the Court to lots of other legal maneuvering, and potentially a firehose of cases, that they don't want to deal with. And politically, I'm sure it wasn't lost on the conservative wing of the Court that expanding their scope by tossing out long-established rules concerning standing, might provide ammunition to those who already think the Court has overstepped and is in need of reform. (And could also be used by a future, less-conservative Court to do all sorts of stuff that conservatives would hate.)
The only thing that the less-stupid conservative Justices (i.e. not Thomas) seem to like better than their hoary, sexist jurisprudence and questionable legal theories, is preserving the power of the Court as an institution (and through that, their own power). I'd imagine that's what Kavanaugh was thinking of when he wrote the opinion; not about the women who would be harmed if the case was allowed to move forward.
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:07 AM on June 13 [7 favorites]
In other Supreme Court news, the phrase 'Trump too small' cannot be trademarked (AP)
posted by box at 11:36 AM on June 13 [1 favorite]
posted by box at 11:36 AM on June 13 [1 favorite]
Apparently the oath for the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine begins with
First do harm
posted by y2karl at 12:09 PM on June 13 [2 favorites]
First do harm
posted by y2karl at 12:09 PM on June 13 [2 favorites]
look, if someone posted that all world gov'ts were suddenly in alignment and a viable plan to address climate change and homelessness and food security and energy needs was laid out and marine biologists announced we not only know cephalopods and whales are intelligent and have language but we are communicating with them and a giant squid is about to be appointed UN Secretary General.....
then you just know someone will post "what does all this matter, heat death of universe, etc"
nuance is good, I just appreciate where Brandon Blatcher is coming from personally
posted by elkevelvet at 12:11 PM on June 13 [7 favorites]
then you just know someone will post "what does all this matter, heat death of universe, etc"
nuance is good, I just appreciate where Brandon Blatcher is coming from personally
posted by elkevelvet at 12:11 PM on June 13 [7 favorites]
The only thing that the less-stupid conservative Justices (i.e. not Thomas) seem to like better than their hoary, sexist jurisprudence and questionable legal theories, is preserving the power of the Court as an institution
This may be overly optimistic, but I get the sense there may be some awareness that they have walked right up to the line where some state governments will simply refuse to follow their rulings, and a large percentage of the American public will cease to see them as a legitimate institution at all. This feels like a possible conservative flinch in the face of genuine constitutional crisis and legal chaos
posted by ryanshepard at 12:24 PM on June 13 [9 favorites]
This may be overly optimistic, but I get the sense there may be some awareness that they have walked right up to the line where some state governments will simply refuse to follow their rulings, and a large percentage of the American public will cease to see them as a legitimate institution at all. This feels like a possible conservative flinch in the face of genuine constitutional crisis and legal chaos
posted by ryanshepard at 12:24 PM on June 13 [9 favorites]
Rather, I suspect that they saw danger lights in allowing the case to move forward, because it was so obviously without standing. It would have opened up the Court to lots of other legal maneuvering, and potentially a firehose of cases, that they don't want to deal with.
Do you really think this SC would have held back if they didn't think they had plenty of time to wait for a better case? I mean 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis was based on an entirely imagined dispute, about Lorie Smith's hypothetical discomfort with a request that was never made from a person who never made it. A less biased court might have thrown this out; the conservatives on this one saw a chance to strike a blow for the culture war and went full speed ahead. After that brazen display of selective judicial bias, moving forward with FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine might have been unprecedented but would hardly have been surprising. But I assume it's easier for them to get away with their partisan hackery if they let a few of these outside balls go by and wait for something they can get a solid hit on. Have to maintain some semblance of legitimacy, after all.
Still, that's a problem for another day. Today is a win and you have to celebrate the wins you get or else you burn out.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 12:36 PM on June 13 [13 favorites]
Do you really think this SC would have held back if they didn't think they had plenty of time to wait for a better case? I mean 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis was based on an entirely imagined dispute, about Lorie Smith's hypothetical discomfort with a request that was never made from a person who never made it. A less biased court might have thrown this out; the conservatives on this one saw a chance to strike a blow for the culture war and went full speed ahead. After that brazen display of selective judicial bias, moving forward with FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine might have been unprecedented but would hardly have been surprising. But I assume it's easier for them to get away with their partisan hackery if they let a few of these outside balls go by and wait for something they can get a solid hit on. Have to maintain some semblance of legitimacy, after all.
Still, that's a problem for another day. Today is a win and you have to celebrate the wins you get or else you burn out.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 12:36 PM on June 13 [13 favorites]
They totally could have gone cartoon supervillain here. I’m gonna be Pollyanna about it and take it as a sign they’re feeling the heat about institutional legitimacy.
posted by whuppy at 12:36 PM on June 13 [2 favorites]
posted by whuppy at 12:36 PM on June 13 [2 favorites]
I think this result is interesting given that court has previously ruled in favor of plaintiffs who had largely fabricated cases and imaginary standing. One might even think that the court is feeling some sort of pressure regarding their legitimacy which they might be seeking to repair.
posted by srboisvert at 12:37 PM on June 13 [6 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 12:37 PM on June 13 [6 favorites]
ugh, standing
posted by haptic_avenger at 1:31 PM on June 13
posted by haptic_avenger at 1:31 PM on June 13
This opinion was written by Kavanaugh but generally speaking, my observation is that Roberts loves narrow standing grounds as a reason to come to whatever result he's coming to. His predilection for this particular reason was drawn to my attention maybe around ten years ago or so - the speculative reason is that it allows him to appear bipartisan from time to time, by citing lack of standing in cases where liberals like the overall result, and also lets him lay groundwork for various more conservative goals.
posted by Whale Oil at 1:33 PM on June 13 [4 favorites]
posted by Whale Oil at 1:33 PM on June 13 [4 favorites]
This is purely political. The right wing members are desperate to give a veneer of impartiality and give republicans cover in the upcoming elections. "Look they aren't so bad!" It's bullshit.
The lesson is that the backlash against Dobbs is working and they are feeling the pressure. KEEP IT UP.
posted by being_quiet at 1:33 PM on June 13 [14 favorites]
The lesson is that the backlash against Dobbs is working and they are feeling the pressure. KEEP IT UP.
posted by being_quiet at 1:33 PM on June 13 [14 favorites]
The war isn't over, even if a battle has been won. Keep fighting.
posted by tommasz at 2:06 PM on June 13
posted by tommasz at 2:06 PM on June 13
"The FDA said it and that's final. Please, shut up"
The SC can't say that the FDA has no power, because the entire pharmaceutical industry would collapse, and then the billionaires wouldn't get their billions.
What I looked up was a tool, not a suppository. SO don't want to learn more. But regardless.
It's a tool. It is very common for elderly women with bone or muscle loss to wear them.
This is purely political. The right wing members are desperate to give a veneer of impartiality and give republicans cover in the upcoming elections. "Look they aren't so bad!" It's bullshit.
Yup. I get the feeling that most (not the worst) of the justices are like "Oh no, what the eff did we step into with Dobbs??"
posted by Melismata at 2:34 PM on June 13 [1 favorite]
The SC can't say that the FDA has no power, because the entire pharmaceutical industry would collapse, and then the billionaires wouldn't get their billions.
What I looked up was a tool, not a suppository. SO don't want to learn more. But regardless.
It's a tool. It is very common for elderly women with bone or muscle loss to wear them.
This is purely political. The right wing members are desperate to give a veneer of impartiality and give republicans cover in the upcoming elections. "Look they aren't so bad!" It's bullshit.
Yup. I get the feeling that most (not the worst) of the justices are like "Oh no, what the eff did we step into with Dobbs??"
posted by Melismata at 2:34 PM on June 13 [1 favorite]
Lawyer, journalist and reproductive justice specialist Imani Gandy on BlueSky:
Mifepristone (Kind Of, Maybe) Wins at SCOTUS
posted by Pallas Athena at 3:08 PM on June 13 [23 favorites]
Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho already asked Trump judge Matt Kacsmaryk to intervene in the lawsuit. They've already filed a 105 page complaint. Their claims to standing are far stronger than the plaintiffs in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. Do not let your guard down, please.More at her podcast for Rewire News, Boom! Lawyered:
There are outlets that are reporting that the Supreme Court dismissed the case. It did not. The Supreme Court remanded the case. It will be kicked back down to Matty K. where 3 plaintiff states are prepared to litigate.
I'm so frustrated by mainstream coverage of this case.
There is no way on God green earth that Sam Alito was going to sign onto a majority opinion that protected access to abortion pills unless he knew that there was a case in the pipeline that would allow him to destroy access to abortion pills.
Mifepristone (Kind Of, Maybe) Wins at SCOTUS
posted by Pallas Athena at 3:08 PM on June 13 [23 favorites]
Yeah, Slate isn't that optimistic about this either.
Still, it's not a loss.
posted by Artful Codger at 3:35 PM on June 13 [1 favorite]
Still, it's not a loss.
posted by Artful Codger at 3:35 PM on June 13 [1 favorite]
Still waiting on the ruling on Moyle v. US tho, so we are still likely to get a ruling undermining women's health before the term is out.
If/when that happens, please disregard any spin that today's ruling somehow indicates moderation on the part of this court.
posted by the primroses were over at 4:06 PM on June 13 [2 favorites]
If/when that happens, please disregard any spin that today's ruling somehow indicates moderation on the part of this court.
posted by the primroses were over at 4:06 PM on June 13 [2 favorites]
give republicans cover in the upcoming elections. "Look they aren't so bad!"
Precisely. They can wait until after Trump is back in the White House, then get a bottom feeder judge to push another challenge up the pipe.
After 40 years of patiently grooming young law students with Ayn Rand and coke, then mentoring them into law firms and finally into judicial openings, the Federalist Society has finally closed all the links of a chain of truthinesss from the bottom to the very top of American law. In a game of Chinese checkers, that usually means you're fucked.
posted by CynicalKnight at 6:33 PM on June 13 [7 favorites]
Precisely. They can wait until after Trump is back in the White House, then get a bottom feeder judge to push another challenge up the pipe.
After 40 years of patiently grooming young law students with Ayn Rand and coke, then mentoring them into law firms and finally into judicial openings, the Federalist Society has finally closed all the links of a chain of truthinesss from the bottom to the very top of American law. In a game of Chinese checkers, that usually means you're fucked.
posted by CynicalKnight at 6:33 PM on June 13 [7 favorites]
SC definitely lets bans on OTC mifepristone stand
so, uh, i guess don't "possess" it, just eat it, or you get 5 years
May 2024
Louisiana governor signs bill classifying abortion pills as controlled dangerous substances
The state is the only one to categorize mifepristone and misoprostol this way.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/louisiana-law-abortion-pills-controlled-dangerous-substances-rcna153937
The Senate passed the bill Thursday by a vote of 29-7 and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, announced that he had signed the bill into law on Friday afternoon.
"This bill protects women across Louisiana," he wrote on social media.
The legislation makes possession of the medications without valid prescriptions or orders from medical professionals punishable by up to five years in prison. Pregnant people who obtain the medications for their own consumption would not be subject to prosecution, according to the legislation.
posted by eustatic at 7:50 PM on June 13 [1 favorite]
so, uh, i guess don't "possess" it, just eat it, or you get 5 years
May 2024
Louisiana governor signs bill classifying abortion pills as controlled dangerous substances
The state is the only one to categorize mifepristone and misoprostol this way.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/louisiana-law-abortion-pills-controlled-dangerous-substances-rcna153937
The Senate passed the bill Thursday by a vote of 29-7 and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, announced that he had signed the bill into law on Friday afternoon.
"This bill protects women across Louisiana," he wrote on social media.
The legislation makes possession of the medications without valid prescriptions or orders from medical professionals punishable by up to five years in prison. Pregnant people who obtain the medications for their own consumption would not be subject to prosecution, according to the legislation.
posted by eustatic at 7:50 PM on June 13 [1 favorite]
I've mixed up pessary with peccary my whole life but I think I might have the contextual scaffold to keep these words distinct now.
posted by Rumple at 8:07 PM on June 13 [2 favorites]
posted by Rumple at 8:07 PM on June 13 [2 favorites]
> all world gov'ts were suddenly in alignment and a viable plan to address climate change and homelessness and food security and energy needs was laid out and marine biologists announced we not only know cephalopods and whales are intelligent and have language but we are communicating with them and a giant squid is about to be appointed UN Secretary General...
ORCA AMBASSADOR TO UN (via autotranslator): WE CELEBRATE PACT TO ADDRESS ORCA PROBLEM OF FOOD SECURITY ALONGSIDE ASSISTING UN INITIATIVES TO SLOW CLIMATE CHANGE AND REDUCE HOMELESSNESS, RELATED TO SURPLUS {HUMAN|LAND-SEAL?} POPULATION. WIN-WIN OUTCOME FOR BOTH SPECIES.
ORCA AMBASSADOR TO UN (via autotranslator): *TOOTHY GRIN*
posted by are-coral-made at 1:45 AM on June 14 [2 favorites]
ORCA AMBASSADOR TO UN (via autotranslator): WE CELEBRATE PACT TO ADDRESS ORCA PROBLEM OF FOOD SECURITY ALONGSIDE ASSISTING UN INITIATIVES TO SLOW CLIMATE CHANGE AND REDUCE HOMELESSNESS, RELATED TO SURPLUS {HUMAN|LAND-SEAL?} POPULATION. WIN-WIN OUTCOME FOR BOTH SPECIES.
ORCA AMBASSADOR TO UN (via autotranslator): *TOOTHY GRIN*
posted by are-coral-made at 1:45 AM on June 14 [2 favorites]
elkevelvet:
Giant squid as UN SecGen reminds me of this Love Death and Robots segment, especially Hitler death scenario number 5.
posted by ensign_ricky at 4:39 AM on June 14
Giant squid as UN SecGen reminds me of this Love Death and Robots segment, especially Hitler death scenario number 5.
posted by ensign_ricky at 4:39 AM on June 14
> There is no way on God green earth that Sam Alito was going to sign onto a majority opinion that protected access to abortion pills unless he knew that there was a case in the pipeline that would allow him to destroy access to abortion pills.
Justice Alito Caught on Tape Discussing How Battle for America 'Can't Be Compromised' - "In a new, secret recording, the Supreme Court justice says he 'agrees' that the U.S. should return to a place of godliness."
Supreme Court's Alito appears to back US return to 'godliness' in secret recording - "The 'Appeal to Heaven' flag has come to symbolize hopes by some conservative activists for a more Christian-centered U.S. government."
Secret recording puts spotlight on Alito's strong conservative views on religious issues - "The justice has consistently backed religious Christian groups in Supreme Court cases and has often spoke about freedom of religion being under attack."
Alito's 'Godliness' Comment Echoes a Broader Christian Movement - "Justice Samuel Alito's secretly recorded remarks come as many conservatives have openly embraced the view that American democracy must be grounded in a Christian worldview."
In Secret Recordings, Alito Endorses Nation of 'Godliness.' Roberts Talks of Pluralism. - "The two justices were surreptitiously recorded at a Supreme Court gala last week by a woman posing as a Catholic conservative."
Justice Alito Caught on Tape Discussing How Battle for America 'Can't Be Compromised' - "In a new, secret recording, the Supreme Court justice says he 'agrees' that the U.S. should return to a place of godliness."
The recording, which was provided exclusively to Rolling Stone, captures Windsor approaching Alito at the event and reminding him that they spoke at the same function the year before, when she asked him a question about political polarization. In the intervening year, she tells the justice, her views on the matter had changed. “I don’t know that we can negotiate with the left in the way that needs to happen for the polarization to end,” Windsor says. “I think that it’s a matter of, like, winning.”Justice Alito questions possibility of political compromise in secret recording - "Martha-Ann Alito spoke to Windsor about her flags on another recording made at the dinner, according to an additional edited recording the filmmaker posted online. She said she wanted to fly a religious flag because 'I have to look across the lagoon at the Pride flag for the next month', an apparent reference to celebratory LGBTQ+ displays during Pride month in June."
“I think you’re probably right,” Alito replies. “On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working — a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”
Windsor goes on to tell Alito: “People in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that — to return our country to a place of godliness.”
“I agree with you. I agree with you,” replies Alito, who authored the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, which reversed five decades of settled law and ended a constitutional right to abortion.
Supreme Court's Alito appears to back US return to 'godliness' in secret recording - "The 'Appeal to Heaven' flag has come to symbolize hopes by some conservative activists for a more Christian-centered U.S. government."
Secret recording puts spotlight on Alito's strong conservative views on religious issues - "The justice has consistently backed religious Christian groups in Supreme Court cases and has often spoke about freedom of religion being under attack."
Alito's 'Godliness' Comment Echoes a Broader Christian Movement - "Justice Samuel Alito's secretly recorded remarks come as many conservatives have openly embraced the view that American democracy must be grounded in a Christian worldview."
The unguarded moment added to calls for greater scrutiny by Democrats, many of whom are eager to open official investigations into outside influence at the Supreme Court.Justice Alito, in secretly recorded audio, apparently agrees nation needs to return to place of 'godliness' - "In the edited clips that were posted to X, Windsor approached Martha-Ann Alito at the event and seemingly expressed sympathy for 'everything that you're going through' and that it 'was not okay.' 'It's okay because if they come back to me, I'll get them,' Martha-Ann Alito said, referring to the news media. 'I'm gonna be liberated, and I'm gonna get them.' ... Windsor then turned the conversation to the stir caused by the 'Appeal to Heaven' flag, to which Martha-Ann Alito said the 'feminazis believe that [Justice Alito] should control me. So, they'll go to hell, he never controls me,' she added."
But the core of the idea expressed to Mr. Alito, that the country must fight the decline of Christianity in public life, goes beyond the questions of bias and influence at the nation’s highest court. An array of conservatives, including antiabortion activists, church leaders and conservative state legislators, has openly embraced the idea that American democracy needs to be grounded in Christian values and guarded against the rise of secular culture.
They are right-wing Catholics and evangelicals who oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, transgender rights and what they see as the dominance of liberal views in school curriculums. And they’ve become a crucial segment of former President Donald J. Trump’s political coalition, intermingled with the MAGA movement that boosted him to the White House and that hopes to do so once again in November.
The movement’s rise has been evident across the country since Mr. Trump lost re-election in 2020. The National Association of Christian Lawmakers formed to advance Christian values and legislation among elected officials. This week in Indianapolis, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in America, are voting on issues like restricting in vitro fertilization and further limiting women from pastoral positions. [US Southern Baptists effort to enshrine ban on women pastors falls short (previously: Southern Baptists finalize expulsion of two churches with female pastors), US Southern Baptists condemn IVF procedure]
And in Congress, Mike Johnson, a man with deep roots in this movement and the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal advocacy group, is now speaker of the House.
Now, Supreme Court justices have become caught up in the debate over whether America is a Christian nation. While Justice Alito is hardly openly championing these views, he is embracing language and symbolism that line up with a much broader movement pushing back against the declining power of Christianity as a majority religion in America.
The country has grown more ethnically diverse and the share of American adults who describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated has risen steadily over the past decade. Still, a 2022 report from the Pew Research Center found that more than four in 10 adults believed America should be a “Christian nation.”
Justice Alito’s agreement isn’t the first time he has embraced Christian ways of talking about the law and his vision for the nation.
Shortly after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago, a ruling for which Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion, the justice flew to Rome and addressed a private summit on religious liberty hosted by the University of Notre Dame. His overarching concern was the decline of Christianity in public life, and he warned of what he saw as a “growing hostility to religion, or at least the traditional religious beliefs that are contrary to the new moral code that is ascendant.”
“We can’t lightly assume that the religious liberty enjoyed today in the United States, in Europe and in many other places will always endure,” he said, referencing Christians “torn apart by wild beasts” at the Colosseum before the fall of the Roman Empire...
[T]he resonance of the Sacred Heart goes beyond simply an abstract religious concept, just as the Pride flag does. Each is notable for the vision of America that they symbolize, and the different visions of marriage, family and morality that they represent. For one slice of America that celebrates L.G.B.T.Q. rights, June is Pride Month. For another devout, traditional Catholic slice, June is a time to remember the Sacred Heart.
In Secret Recordings, Alito Endorses Nation of 'Godliness.' Roberts Talks of Pluralism. - "The two justices were surreptitiously recorded at a Supreme Court gala last week by a woman posing as a Catholic conservative."
The justice’s comments appeared to be in marked contrast to those of Chief Justice Roberts, who was also secretly recorded at the same event but who pushed back against Ms. Windsor’s assertion that the court had an obligation to lead the country on a more “moral path.”posted by kliuless at 5:19 AM on June 14 [14 favorites]
“Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?” the chief justice said. “That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.”
Ms. Windsor pressed the chief justice about religion, saying, “I believe that the founders were godly, like were Christians, and I think that we live in a Christian nation and that our Supreme Court should be guiding us in that path.”
Chief Justice Roberts quickly answered, “I don’t know if that’s true.”
He added: “I don’t know that we live in a Christian nation. I know a lot of Jewish and Muslim friends who would say maybe not, and it’s not our job to do that.”
The chief justice also said he did not think polarization in the country was irreparable, pointing out that the United States had managed crises as severe as the Civil War and the Vietnam War.
When Ms. Windsor pressed him on whether he thought that there was “a role for the court” in “guiding us toward a more moral path,” the chief justice’s answer was immediate.
“No, I think the role for the court is deciding the cases,” he said.
That could be an FPP all its own!
posted by Gadarene at 6:13 AM on June 14 [1 favorite]
posted by Gadarene at 6:13 AM on June 14 [1 favorite]
The "good" news about the bump stock ruling, per Alito:
“Congress can amend the law — and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act,” Alito wrote.posted by pwnguin at 11:23 PM on June 16
Nebraska teen who used pills to end pregnancy gets 90 days in jail, after Meta handed the police her private Facebook messages with her mother.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:09 AM on July 8
posted by jeffburdges at 3:09 AM on July 8
Did Clarence Thomas secretly meet with Kremlin officials?
posted by jeffburdges at 5:30 PM on July 11
posted by jeffburdges at 5:30 PM on July 11
jeffburdges, that Twitter poster would be more credible if they said less:
It's sketchy as hell how he arrived there under Harlan Crow's money, but I see no reason a hypothetical Ginsberg should have been required to have an exit visa to travel to post-Soviet Russia on a sightseeing tour.
posted by pwnguin at 5:46 PM on July 11
No Justice should even *be* in Russia at all.In response to a trip in 2003, to Yusupov Palace, St. Petersburg, which appears to be different from the Yusupov Palace in Crimea that is now in Putin's domain. The one in St. Petersberg appears to be a museum with no connections to Putin AFIACT, other than he was born in the city.
It's sketchy as hell how he arrived there under Harlan Crow's money, but I see no reason a hypothetical Ginsberg should have been required to have an exit visa to travel to post-Soviet Russia on a sightseeing tour.
posted by pwnguin at 5:46 PM on July 11
« Older A little bit of swing | Tasmanian devils off to the US Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
US supreme court unanimously upholds access to abortion pill mifepristone
Supreme court unanimously rejects bid to restrict mifepristone
Thank you so much for posting this (with the PDF and everything!), Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane. We have so much work to do to fix the travesty of Dobbs, but at least this absurd suit has failed. It's good news.
posted by kristi at 8:15 AM on June 13 [47 favorites]