A unanimous SCOTUS decision being hailed by major media as a big win for abortion rights advocates is actually something else entirely. This report from an attorney and legal journalist explains why.
Seth, I've been following you for about 8 years now, even on Twitter before I was forced to create an account last year or give up my access to you. And every single time, damn it, *every time*, your interpretations of legal matters specifically, and current events in general, are different from and make far more sense than, almost every other journalist and lawyer I've come across. This is at once a perfect and profoundly distressing analysis.
I seem to remember that “standing” was one of the lessons we concentrated on in the first week of law school. Because if you don’t have standing there is nothing to spend a court’s time on after that.
I'm a recent follower who appreciates the detail of what you report. The decision did not pass the "smell test" with me, and you explained why. My gut tells me this decision is not only to proceed in the fashion you described, but also to soften the blow when they grant Trump immunity. What is especially maddening, in addition to the women who suffer from inhumane and carelessly worded laws, is the medical professionals who cannot act according to their own oath because law language is not specific to medical language. Women are going to lose health care, and their lives, because of R shenanigans.
I had wondered why this group had standing when it made it's way through the Texas court although I understood that they shopped the courts. When it made it's way to the supremes I was not surprised because they thus far have not concerned themselves with standing if it furthers their alt right agenda as was the case of the website developer who didn't even have a website nor business but wanted to ensure before they started their business (I guess) that they could discriminate based on their own religious beliefs. I too noted that Kavanaugh drew a map in his decision for redress. What I really thought when I saw the unanimous vote on standing was-they are throwing us a bone, the presidential immunity case and executive branch authority when they come out, must be real doozies.
I fear Sherry McHugh’s prediction-& should it come to pass President Biden needs to CLEAR THE DAMN COURT IMMEDIATELY! WIPE IT CLEAN OF THE SEDITIONISTS AND KOMPROMISED PARTIES & appoint reasonable jurists who WILL ENFORCE THE LAW! And NY needs to arrest the &#%@ immediately!
I also hear that the right wing of the Supreme Court ignores standing when they want to. If so, that is yet more evidence that something is rotten here.
Seems Alito has a 100% record of granting “standing” to conservatives to hear cases brought to SCOTUS.
“Alito cannot be accused of the even-handed application of the law. He has been described as the court’s “most reliable partisan.” The evidence concerns his rulings on the doctrine of standing — whether a party is entitled to bring their claims to court. “An empirical analysis of the Court’s ‘standing’ decisions,” wrote Ian Milhiser in Vox, “found that Alito rules in favor of conservative litigants 100 percent of the time, and against liberal litigants in every single case.”
Seth, I've been following you for about 8 years now, even on Twitter before I was forced to create an account last year or give up my access to you. And every single time, damn it, *every time*, your interpretations of legal matters specifically, and current events in general, are different from and make far more sense than, almost every other journalist and lawyer I've come across. This is at once a perfect and profoundly distressing analysis.
Very kind of you to say, Rose! Thank you so much.
I seem to remember that “standing” was one of the lessons we concentrated on in the first week of law school. Because if you don’t have standing there is nothing to spend a court’s time on after that.
Thank you for pointing out the ways that SCOTUS remains a shitshow of shocking proportions in this decisions.
I'm a recent follower who appreciates the detail of what you report. The decision did not pass the "smell test" with me, and you explained why. My gut tells me this decision is not only to proceed in the fashion you described, but also to soften the blow when they grant Trump immunity. What is especially maddening, in addition to the women who suffer from inhumane and carelessly worded laws, is the medical professionals who cannot act according to their own oath because law language is not specific to medical language. Women are going to lose health care, and their lives, because of R shenanigans.
I had wondered why this group had standing when it made it's way through the Texas court although I understood that they shopped the courts. When it made it's way to the supremes I was not surprised because they thus far have not concerned themselves with standing if it furthers their alt right agenda as was the case of the website developer who didn't even have a website nor business but wanted to ensure before they started their business (I guess) that they could discriminate based on their own religious beliefs. I too noted that Kavanaugh drew a map in his decision for redress. What I really thought when I saw the unanimous vote on standing was-they are throwing us a bone, the presidential immunity case and executive branch authority when they come out, must be real doozies.
I fear Sherry McHugh’s prediction-& should it come to pass President Biden needs to CLEAR THE DAMN COURT IMMEDIATELY! WIPE IT CLEAN OF THE SEDITIONISTS AND KOMPROMISED PARTIES & appoint reasonable jurists who WILL ENFORCE THE LAW! And NY needs to arrest the &#%@ immediately!
I also hear that the right wing of the Supreme Court ignores standing when they want to. If so, that is yet more evidence that something is rotten here.
Seems Alito has a 100% record of granting “standing” to conservatives to hear cases brought to SCOTUS.
“Alito cannot be accused of the even-handed application of the law. He has been described as the court’s “most reliable partisan.” The evidence concerns his rulings on the doctrine of standing — whether a party is entitled to bring their claims to court. “An empirical analysis of the Court’s ‘standing’ decisions,” wrote Ian Milhiser in Vox, “found that Alito rules in favor of conservative litigants 100 percent of the time, and against liberal litigants in every single case.”
Source:
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4718103-alito-is-a-partisan-radical-conservative/amp/
You are so right, Seth. Thank you for your analysis. It means so much.