Texas Abortion Law OUT!!

No link yet.

Dr. Jones wrote:No link yet.

No surprise here since the liberal wing of the court always votes as a block and Anthony Kennedy, he of the mushy middle and a wobbly jurisprudence, who seems to relish his position of swing vote more than sound judicial reasoning. Just another disappointing choice in a long line of disappointing choices by Republican presidents.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:No link yet.

No surprise here since the liberal wing of the court always votes as a block and Anthony Kennedy, he of the mushy middle and a wobbly jurisprudence, who seems to relish his position of swing vote more than sound judicial reasoning. Just another disappointing choice in a long line of disappointing choices by Republican presidents.

Swing vote? It was 5-3. Besides the McDonnell case has proven the lack of bias in the SCOTUS. Texas has a lot of learning to do in regard to the US Constitution. They should really have someone hold their hand while writing laws.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:No link yet.

No surprise here since the liberal wing of the court always votes as a block and Anthony Kennedy, he of the mushy middle and a wobbly jurisprudence, who seems to relish his position of swing vote more than sound judicial reasoning. Just another disappointing choice in a long line of disappointing choices by Republican presidents.

Swing vote?  It was 5-3.  Besides the McDonnell case has proven the lack of bias in the SCOTUS.  Texas has a lot of learning to do in regard to the US Constitution.  They should really have someone hold their hand while writing laws.

A 4-4 split decision would have allowed the Texas law stand. So once again Kennedy provides the "swing" vote for the liberal bloc of justices. Jeebus, you're a thick one.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:No link yet.

No surprise here since the liberal wing of the court always votes as a block and Anthony Kennedy, he of the mushy middle and a wobbly jurisprudence, who seems to relish his position of swing vote more than sound judicial reasoning. Just another disappointing choice in a long line of disappointing choices by Republican presidents.

Swing vote?  It was 5-3.  Besides the McDonnell case has proven the lack of bias in the SCOTUS.  Texas has a lot of learning to do in regard to the US Constitution.  They should really have someone hold their hand while writing laws.

A 4-4 split decision would have allowed the Texas law stand. So once again Kennedy provides the "swing" vote for the liberal bloc of justices. Jeebus, you're a thick one.

Those who love stabbing an unborn in the back of the head for $$$ and those who love blood spilled are rejoicing.

Dr. Jones wrote:No link yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/politics/supreme-court-abortion-texas/index.html

Looks like the vote was along the lines suggesed by Gomezz.  But Justice Kennedy passed on the opportunity to write the majorty opinion.

cnn.com wrote:All eyes were on him for this case to see if he would take the opportunity to clarify Casey. Instead, as the most senior justice in the majority it was his choice to allow Breyer to write.

"The fact that Justice Kennedy gave away this opinion assignment and didn't write separately is striking," said Steve Vladeck, CNN contributor and professor of law at American University Washington College of Law. "Kennedy has not only been the swing vote on abortion issues since he joined the Court in 1988, but he has written an opinion in virtually every major abortion case during that time, including the majority opinion in the Court's controversial 2007 decision upholding the federal ban on so-called 'partial-birth' abortions.

Why might this be Gomezz ?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:No link yet.

No surprise here since the liberal wing of the court always votes as a block and Anthony Kennedy, he of the mushy middle and a wobbly jurisprudence, who seems to relish his position of swing vote more than sound judicial reasoning. Just another disappointing choice in a long line of disappointing choices by Republican presidents.

Swing vote?  It was 5-3.  Besides the McDonnell case has proven the lack of bias in the SCOTUS.  Texas has a lot of learning to do in regard to the US Constitution.  They should really have someone hold their hand while writing laws.

A 4-4 split decision would have allowed the Texas law stand. So once again Kennedy provides the "swing" vote for the liberal bloc of justices. Jeebus, you're a thick one.

Given the situation and the way others voted,  there was no possible way to vote to confirm Texas's abortion laws.  Even if Kennedy had swooped in for some final glorious "swing vote", as you're implying, he couldn't have swung anything.  It was either no or nothing.   There was no possibility of a definitive ruling.  It was either vote against it,  as they did,  or walk away.

Furthermore,  he didn't even write an opinion.  Which one would expect from someone who thought they had just single handedly changed the course of history.  Politics doesn't always have to be shrouded in fanfare.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:No link yet.

No surprise here since the liberal wing of the court always votes as a block and Anthony Kennedy, he of the mushy middle and a wobbly jurisprudence, who seems to relish his position of swing vote more than sound judicial reasoning. Just another disappointing choice in a long line of disappointing choices by Republican presidents.

Swing vote?  It was 5-3.  Besides the McDonnell case has proven the lack of bias in the SCOTUS.  Texas has a lot of learning to do in regard to the US Constitution.  They should really have someone hold their hand while writing laws.

A 4-4 split decision would have allowed the Texas law stand. So once again Kennedy provides the "swing" vote for the liberal bloc of justices. Jeebus, you're a thick one.

Given the situation and the way others voted,  there was no possible way to vote to confirm Texas's abortion laws.  Even if Kennedy had swooped in for some final glorious "swing vote", as you're implying, he couldn't have swung anything.  It was either no or nothing.   There was no possibility of a definitive ruling.  It was either vote against it,  as they did,  or walk away.

Furthermore,  he didn't even write an opinion.  Which one would expect from someone who thought they had just single handedly changed the course of history.  Politics doesn't always have to be shrouded in fanfare.

You are dumber than a bag of hammers. In a 4-4 decision, the Texas law would have been upheld by the Appeal Court's ruling in favor of Hellerstedt. But the outcome in this case was a given since the liberal wing of the SCOTUS always votes in lockstep and Kennedy had the legacy of his contorted reasoning from Casey to preserve so there would be no way he wouldn't have voted with the majority. Once again he provides the swing vote and preserves his wrongly reasoned Casey opinion.

Hellerstedt plowed no new legal ground. All it does is uphold Casey's "undue burden" cup of tea leaves. Roe v Wade's mess was about to be overturned in Casey. Chief Justice Rehnquist had already written the majority opinion when O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter bolted and wrote a plurality decision as equivocating and abstruse as possible and which is known as Casey's undue burden test. Kennedy probably didn't write an opinion because it would have made less sense then his original opinion in Casey and he wouldn't have had the help of O'Connor and Souter. Kennedy is becoming more and more a judicial lightweight.

Why do the liberals want women getting back alley abortions with no medical oversight?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:No link yet.

No surprise here since the liberal wing of the court always votes as a block and Anthony Kennedy, he of the mushy middle and a wobbly jurisprudence, who seems to relish his position of swing vote more than sound judicial reasoning. Just another disappointing choice in a long line of disappointing choices by Republican presidents.

Swing vote?  It was 5-3.  Besides the McDonnell case has proven the lack of bias in the SCOTUS.  Texas has a lot of learning to do in regard to the US Constitution.  They should really have someone hold their hand while writing laws.

A 4-4 split decision would have allowed the Texas law stand. So once again Kennedy provides the "swing" vote for the liberal bloc of justices. Jeebus, you're a thick one.

Given the situation and the way others voted,  there was no possible way to vote to confirm Texas's abortion laws.  Even if Kennedy had swooped in for some final glorious "swing vote", as you're implying, he couldn't have swung anything.  It was either no or nothing.   There was no possibility of a definitive ruling.  It was either vote against it,  as they did,  or walk away.

Furthermore,  he didn't even write an opinion.  Which one would expect from someone who thought they had just single handedly changed the course of history.  Politics doesn't always have to be shrouded in fanfare.

You are dumber than a bag of hammers. In a 4-4 decision, the Texas law would have been upheld by the Appeal Court's ruling in favor of Hellerstedt. But the outcome in this case was a given since the liberal wing of the SCOTUS always votes in lockstep and Kennedy had the legacy of his contorted reasoning from Casey to preserve so there would be no way he wouldn't have voted with the majority. Once again he provides the swing vote and preserves his wrongly reasoned Casey opinion.

Hellerstedt plowed no new legal ground. All it does is uphold Casey's "undue burden" cup of tea leaves. Roe v Wade's mess was about to be overturned in Casey. Chief Justice Rehnquist had already written the majority opinion when O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter bolted and wrote a plurality decision as equivocating and abstruse as possible and which is known as Casey's undue burden test. Kennedy probably didn't write an opinion because it would have made less sense then his original opinion in Casey and he wouldn't have had the help of O'Connor and Souter. Kennedy is becoming more and more a judicial lightweight.

Absolutely wrong. A 4 - 4 tie is essentially as if the SCOTUS never ruled on it. It sets no national precedent. A vote the other way by Kennedy wouldn't have swung anything, it would have simply ended their involvement. SCOTUS couldn't get to the other side. That's not to say that the laws wouldn't have remained intact, but that would have no longer had anything to do with SCOTUS.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:No link yet.

No surprise here since the liberal wing of the court always votes as a block and Anthony Kennedy, he of the mushy middle and a wobbly jurisprudence, who seems to relish his position of swing vote more than sound judicial reasoning. Just another disappointing choice in a long line of disappointing choices by Republican presidents.

Swing vote?  It was 5-3.  Besides the McDonnell case has proven the lack of bias in the SCOTUS.  Texas has a lot of learning to do in regard to the US Constitution.  They should really have someone hold their hand while writing laws.

A 4-4 split decision would have allowed the Texas law stand. So once again Kennedy provides the "swing" vote for the liberal bloc of justices. Jeebus, you're a thick one.

Given the situation and the way others voted,  there was no possible way to vote to confirm Texas's abortion laws.  Even if Kennedy had swooped in for some final glorious "swing vote", as you're implying, he couldn't have swung anything.  It was either no or nothing.   There was no possibility of a definitive ruling.  It was either vote against it,  as they did,  or walk away.

Furthermore,  he didn't even write an opinion.  Which one would expect from someone who thought they had just single handedly changed the course of history.  Politics doesn't always have to be shrouded in fanfare.

You are dumber than a bag of hammers. In a 4-4 decision, the Texas law would have been upheld by the Appeal Court's ruling in favor of Hellerstedt. But the outcome in this case was a given since the liberal wing of the SCOTUS always votes in lockstep and Kennedy had the legacy of his contorted reasoning from Casey to preserve so there would be no way he wouldn't have voted with the majority. Once again he provides the swing vote and preserves his wrongly reasoned Casey opinion.

Hellerstedt plowed no new legal ground. All it does is uphold Casey's "undue burden" cup of tea leaves. Roe v Wade's mess was about to be overturned in Casey. Chief Justice Rehnquist had already written the majority opinion when O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter bolted and wrote a plurality decision as equivocating and abstruse as possible and which is known as Casey's undue burden test. Kennedy probably didn't write an opinion because it would have made less sense then his original opinion in Casey and he wouldn't have had the help of O'Connor and Souter. Kennedy is becoming more and more a judicial lightweight.

Absolutely wrong.  A 4 - 4 tie is essentially as if the SCOTUS never ruled on it.  It sets no national precedent.  A vote the other way by Kennedy wouldn't have swung anything, it would have simply ended their involvement.  SCOTUS couldn't get to the other side.  That's not to say that the laws wouldn't have remained intact,  but that would have no longer had anything to do with SCOTUS.

Jeebus, what did I just say? "In a 4-4 decision, the Texas law would have been upheld by the Appeal Court's ruling in favor of Hellerstedt." It goes without saying that since the SCOTUS did not rule that there would be no precedent. It does however leave the door open for the Texas law to be reheard or other State laws that are passed in the interim and similar to be challenged.