At the very least, from trying to appeal through the Courts. What I have been referring to, something jem knows nothing about -- he reads, but such words as he wants to read-- is found under Article III. to wit: The Supreme Court shall have appellate jusisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." * These twelve words above in bold italics are part of the original Constitution and have never been struck or altered by Amendment. They are only rarely alluded to -- they are what, I believe, Gingrich was alluding to during the Republican primary debates of yesterdays long ago, when he shocked us by saying "or the Congress could simply ignore the Court." Laurence Tribe knows these words by heart, but they are not likely to come from his lips. These twelve words are the third rail of the Constitution; words that few, other than myself, are wont to mention. Now, with a Court whose majority was specifically selected by Republican litmus test, is the time to touch that rail! _______________ *These are the words that position the Congress superior to the Court. Elsewhere in our Constitution one reads words that position the Congress superior to the Executive as well. There is no greater myth in politics than that of three "co-equal" Branches of Government. Clearly the branches are not equivalent, at least not in their constitutional powers. As a practical matter, one branch may seize power that was originally intended for another, so long as no one acts to stop them. Thus, practically speaking, under Mitch McConnell, the U.S. Senate managed to place itself, in some matters, superior to both the Executive and the House. And it's even managed to coral the Court to a considerable extent. Quite an accomplishment, but less far from what the Founders intended than might be thought -- recall that the Senate was originally appointed rather than elected. Would the Founders have been happy to have State legislatures veto election results? To think so, I don't think is too far fetched. That's why I cringe when I see someone, like Court judges, justifying their decisions on what would have satisfied the Founders at a time when stepping in a pile of fresh horse manure was a ready concern; yet in the case of Congress' powers, I rather like what the Founders intended -- now that we have an elected Senate. Note the word "co-equal" is a corruption here and everywhere it appears. What does it mean anyway? "Equal" I suppose. The Latin prefix "co-" means with, joint, jointly, or together, as in "co-defendant." But please, not as in "co-equal!" Yes, I know it's in the dictionary. It shouldn't be. And how is it defined? "Equal", I suppose. I have similar disdain for the word "utilize", or even worse, "utilization"! What's wrong with "use" may I ask?
Senate panel will probe Supreme Court's Texas abortion ruling, 'shadow docket' https://thehill.com/regulation/5707...me-courts-texas-abortion-ruling-shadow-docket A Senate panel has set its sights on the Supreme Court’s increasingly common practice of deciding weighty cases on an emergency basis, a procedure the justices used this week to greenlight Texas’s severe curtailment of abortion access. Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, announced Friday that the committee would hold a hearing on the court’s so-called shadow docket, which often produces consequential rulings without the justices having received a comprehensive set of paper briefs or hearing oral arguments. The court recently used the truncated process to rule on significant disputes over immigration policy and federal eviction protections, and to leave intact a new Texas law that bans most abortions in the country’s second-most populous state. “The Supreme Court must operate with the highest regard for judicial integrity in order to earn the public’s trust,” Durbin said in a statement. “This anti-choice law is a devastating blow to Americans' constitutional rights — and the Court allowed it to see the light of day without public deliberation or transparency.” “At a time when public confidence in government institutions has greatly eroded, we must examine not just the constitutional impact of allowing the Texas law to take effect," he continued, "but also the conservative Court’s abuse of the shadow docket.” Although the shadow docket itself is not new, the Supreme Court had previously used the truncated process only sparingly to render decisions of major consequence. The practice, however, became more commonplace during the Trump administration. Just before midnight on Wednesday, the Supreme Court used the procedure to issue a 5-4 ruling that denied an emergency request from abortion providers who sought to block the Texas law. The statute, which is now the country's most restrictive abortion law, prohibits the procedure after the presence of a fetal heartbeat is detected, usually around six weeks into pregnancy. An estimated 85 to 90 percent of women who get an abortion in Texas are at least six weeks into their pregnancy, and the burden is expected to fall most heavily on teens, people of color and women living in rural areas, experts said. The law only makes exceptions for medical emergencies, with no exemptions for pregnancy resulting from incest or rape. The Texas law gives enforcement authority to private citizens, allowing them to sue those who perform or aid the procedure in violation of the measure, and provides for $10,000 for a successful lawsuit. In a brief unsigned order on Wednesday, the court’s five-member majority pointed to the procedural complexities arising from this unique legislative design to explain their refusal to block the Texas law, despite noting “serious questions” about its constitutionality. The constitutional right to abortion, first recognized in the court’s landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, prohibits states from banning abortion before a fetus is viable, typically around 24 weeks of pregnancy. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's three liberal justices in dissent, with each of the four writing their own opinions. Justice Elena Kagan in her dissent called the law “patently unconstitutional” and criticized the majority for using the court’s shadow docket to reach its ruling. “Today’s ruling illustrates just how far the Court’s ‘shadow-docket’ decisions may depart from the usual principles of appellate process,” Kagan wrote, noting that the majority had issued a ruling of “great consequence” without guidance from a federal appeals court that is reviewing the Texas law and only after “the most cursory” court briefs from the parties. “In all these ways, the majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this Court’s shadow-docket decisionmaking — which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend,” she added. Kagan’s criticism echoed that of fellow liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, who last week expressed misgivings about the practice. Breyer, in a dissent that was joined by the court’s two other liberals, criticized the majority for using the shadow docket to effectively end the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) eviction moratorium, even as the U.S. contends with the highly contagious delta variant of COVID-19 and despite unanswered questions over the legal dispute. “These questions call for considered decisionmaking, informed by full briefing and argument,” Breyer wrote in an eight-page dissent. “Their answers impact the health of millions. We should not set aside the CDC’s eviction moratorium in this summary proceeding. The criteria for granting the emergency application are not met.” Earlier last week the Supreme Court used its shadow docket to deny a Biden administration request to halt a lower court order that reinstated a controversial Trump-era immigration policy. The court's three liberals indicated they would have stepped in to temporarily block the policy, which requires asylum-seekers at the southern border to remain in Mexico while their applications are processed.
To be honest I am not surprised the SC decided not to handle a topic like abortion through an emergency basis.... doubt it is something they want to rush a decision through so was just too easy to punt and see if it comes back later... First place to challenge the law is in the legislature and then the judiciary of texas and then the Court of Appeals which would be the 5th Circuit.. I think the SC would be against opening the floodgates for people to jump over prcoesses to go to emergency requests as the SC would get thousands of them.... IMHO. That is why the conservatives court punted it besides not wanting to enter this political fray..
i dunno, seemed like a no-brainer to me: "Oh, Texas is paying bounties to bring crippling lawsuits to abortion providers thus impeding a woman's right to do so? LOL no". To me this just signals how they'll rule when it lands on SCOTUS. Will SCOTUS compensate the women who won't get relief from now until that decision (if Roe v. Wade remains)? Why would they choose to ignore their rights?
Has this ever been used? Reads a bit too much like cope and I shudder at the thought of the precedent passing bills w/judicial immunity would bring.
Perhaps some of them did not read the law themselves or were inadequately briefed by their clerks. The law as written seems prima facie unconstitutional. It seems a violation of the equal protection clause, among other violations, and it breaks with 200+ years of legal precedent in that it imparts judicial standing to those who under 200+ years of judicial practice would never have had judicial standing. Why on Earth did the Court not stay this strange TX Law until it could be properly heard by the Courts? Why, oh why, would it have left such a prima facie screwball law in place while it was being adjudicated. It is not as though no harm will be done in the meantime. Has our Court lost its mind!
why not let it be heard by lower the courts first... so the briefs and arguments are battle tested and public comes up to speed before they decide. I am sure the liberals will come with the money to tranport some of the women seek abortion to other states... Then the Supreme Court decide to have the fuller spectrum of abortion issues to decide all at once. I would expect in the end... the Court should leave up to each of the states (as the founders did) with some guidelines... or maybe they will just pick new thresholds.... I could see partial birth abortion being banned.
let's take people's guns, right to vote and speech until the public "come up to speed". Do you ever stop to think before you type?