Conversation

Notices

Embed this notice
Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 14-Jun-2024 03:34:21 JST Paul Cantrell

In today’s episode of “Paul Has Opinions on a Matter Outside His Area of Expertise:”
This is great news that will protect real people right now. Celebrate! But don’t over-read it: SCOTUS ruled on •standing•, not merits. The conservative justices said nothing about actually protecting abortion rights — only about who can sue to take them away.
They’ve left the door wide open for themselves to ban abortion medication in the future.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2024/jun/13/supreme-court-abortion-pill-access

In conversation about 6 months ago from hachyderm.io permalink
- Embed this notice
  Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 14-Jun-2024 03:38:09 JST Paul Cantrell
  in reply to
  
  If I’m guessing at why this was a unanimous opinion, with even the conservatives seeming to protect abortion rights, I’d say it’s an election-year punt: they get “SCOTUS Protects Abortion” headlines, while winking and nodding at their anti-abortion sponsors about post-election possibilities.
  If so, there’s a note of hope in that: they feel vulnerable. They don’t have that Dobbs sense of impunity anymore. They’re afraid. Keep up the pressure!
  (Again, not my expertise, grain of salt please)
  
  In conversation about 6 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  Oggie (oggie@woof.group)'s status on Friday, 14-Jun-2024 03:45:58 JST Oggie
  in reply to
  
  @inthehands
  Everything you said is correct, and was entirely my point of view until I spoke with a lawyer friend earlier today (and it's absolutely a concern to keep thinking about!).
  But he made the case that it might be a not very subtle attack on the 5th's credibility, and should have been tossed on that because if you don't reinforce standing as a precedent it's potential that we could get wild judgements that show up based on feeling, basically.
  So it's the right judgement, but...
  In conversation about 6 months ago permalink
  Attachments
  1. Untitled attachment
- Embed this notice
  Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 14-Jun-2024 03:47:32 JST Paul Cantrell
  in reply to
  - Oggie
  @Oggie
  From my place of dim legal understanding, I can definitely see that. It seems to me that damage is already well underway? Lack of standing has long been a way for the Supreme Court to punt on decisions that would be too controversial in the moment. Thinking of the pledge of allegiance case, for example.
  
  In conversation about 6 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 14-Jun-2024 05:48:37 JST Paul Cantrell
  in reply to
  - Corporation 9592
  I’m apparently not the only one thinking all this. From @eldubuu:
  https://mastodon.social/@eldubuu/112610228785143497
  In conversation about 6 months ago permalink
  Attachments
  1. No result found on File_thumbnail lookup.
    
    Corporation 9592 (@eldubuu@mastodon.social)
    
    from Corporation 9592
    
    @noyes@mastodon.online @hannu_ikonen@zeroes.ca This cannot be overstated: 1) They did NOT rule on the merits of the case 2) They did NOT rule on the merits of the case 3) They did NOT rule on the merits of the case This was a ruling of standing. The MAGA judiciary are providing a roadmap for Leonard Leo and his cabal of fascist theocrats to gin up a case using some dupe that can meet the requirements for standing. This isnt a victory, its not even a pause: Its a dress rehearsal for next year.
- Embed this notice
  Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 14-Jun-2024 11:47:09 JST Paul Cantrell
  in reply to
  - PallasRiot
  More on this theme, well spelled out by @PallasRiot:
  https://kolektiva.social/@PallasRiot/112609929987039780
  In conversation about 6 months ago permalink
  Attachments
  1. No result found on File_thumbnail lookup.
    
    PallasRiot (@PallasRiot@kolektiva.social)
    
    from PallasRiot
    
    I am once again reminding you that the Supreme Court has to be understood as a political institution made up of politicians who make many of the same calculations as elected officials, and will act in furtherance of their own power and to aid their allies. The ruling to protect mifepristone signals two things to me. First, the ongoing backlash against the Roberts court and the Republican party is having a real effect, which as always is evidence that *the best political pressure is organized action*. Second, the Roberts court feels it needs to appear reasonable in order to not tank the Republican chance at achieving dictatorial power. The court knows full well that Republicans could potentially seize extraordinary control of the federal government within the next election or two, and so if they can just try to hold out and not screw anything up, they'll be insulated from any consequences.

Public

Conversation

Notices

Feeds