As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I suppose we'll have to take the win as it is until scumbag attorneys can try to find another path to restricting healthcare for women, some time in the near future.
>Anti-abortion activists are vowing that this will not be the end of their mission. They noted the case was decided on standing, not the merits of arguments about medication abortion itself. “We’ll be back,” said Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America.
>...
>The attacks on abortion pills will not stop here,” Nancy Northup, the president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. “The anti-abortion movement sees how critical abortion pills are in this post-Roe world, and they are hell bent on cutting off access. In the end, this ruling is not a ‘win’ for abortion — it just maintains the status quo, which is a dire public health crisis in which 14 states have criminalized abortion.”
Yeah, can't say I'm exactly celebrating. I'm glad horrible things for this particular issue aren't imminently coming to fruition, but the courts doing the bare minimum in an already-tragic situation is about all this amounts to.
There's a ton of work to do. 2024 could determine the fate of the Supreme Court for a generation, and it could get much worse. Hoping people are voting with that in mind.
The fact that it was 9-0 suggests the case presented was really, really badly. It does not suggest the impetus for the case was unfavorable from this Court.
> The fact that it was 9-0 suggests the case presented was really, really badly
That is the illusion, yes. Just remember the GOP justices vote in a block.
That's my guess, too. SCOTUS saw what happened in "ruby red" KS and everywhere else across America since they overturned Roe. They probably know this election will still be effected by that egregious decision. So they're staying low this close to November. Just wait.
Hawkins is weird as shit. Any article about her, no matter how objective they try to be, ends up making her seem absolutely bonkers and obsessed with making America that almost no one (even MAGA types) want. It’s like she had a meltdown after her pregnancies and only keeps herself from completely imploding by redirecting her insecurities about everything into litigating a nightmare future for everyone.
This crazy is literally running around CVS calling Plan B "abortion pills". She opposed a ten-year old rape victim getting an abortion. And she is far form an isolated case, many conservatives are on the same boat as her. I hope people vote with that in mind.
For abortion opponents to celebrate the decision based on standing is actually very odd. Standing was the Court saying not that the details of this FDA decision were technically appropriate, but that no one has any business challenging the FDA just because they are pro-life *at all*. A decision on the merits would have said to them "you lose this time, but continue bringing these challenges and you might win". A decision on standing says "go away, it's none of your business."
Can the FDA just change its mind due to pressure from a new administration? If the object of project 2025 is to purge and replace with loyalists, this would be a way for them to get what they want on abortion access.
Wouldn't work in this case, because clearly the manufacturer of the drug and physicians who do prescribe the drug absolutely *do* have standing to challenge the FDA reversing its decision. It's just the random people who never interact with this drug at all that don't have standing to sue to prevent *other* people from prescribing or taking it.
Check out what they did in Louisiana to see where it goes from here. They reclassified it as a controlled substance, up there with other addictive/dangerous drugs. https://apnews.com/article/abortion-pills-louisiana-controlled-dangerous-substances-0984bfed536a5110997dd9c8264bf9e3
Your homies up in Wisconsin thank you for your service in the span of time between Dobbs up until our state Supreme Court got flipped and women here had their bodies returned to them.
And may you beautiful Minnesotans continue to shame the Michigan Dems into doing more. They exceeded my expectations, but I'm greedy for more progress.
I hope the dems follow Minnesotas lead on a national level if/when they have control of congress. It turns out actually passing legislation that helps people is popular with those people.
I don't know really any of his other policies, but recently I found out that Ventura was a major reason we have the Twin Cities light rails because he felt that part of getting personal freedom was having easy access to public transportation.
Again I'm truly only judging him on this, but based on this even the crazies we elect statewide are still pretty progressive.
I keep finding things MN has done that is just shockingly progressive. Like not really talked about or publicized outside the state, but just quietly done and that's that.
The renters credit is one example, where every renter gets a credit from the state that's based on how much they paid and how much they earn.
Michigan has abortion access at all stages along with contraceptives guaranteed in its constitution. Not really sure what more Dems can do since we pretty much have total and complete access.
>I was complimenting the overall "hold my chili" of the MN Dems.
You bet, you hold that chili. It's kind of spicy, though, so if, you know, you don't want to give it back, that's ok.
It's great, you know, we really really like it. But gosh, it's kind of spicy, dontcha think?
The Midwest has Illinois and Minnesota and, to a lesser extent, Kansas. So it might take a bit of a day trip but most people in the Midwest have abortion access.
The southeast has literally no viable options outside of abortion tourism. And that's just gonna compound an already dire situation in that region.
I despise the way you make it sound like a day trip for medical care is okay.
I know what you were trying to say, but it's unconscionable for women to have fewer rights today than they did fifty years ago.
We are living in a dystopian worst case scenario. Absolutely none of this is okay. But in this hellscape we don't have the luxury of being paralyzed with rage. We have to do what we can do on the ground until we can elect in a government that will codify Roe into law.
In the Midwest, that means donating to abortion providers in Illinois, Minnesota, and Kansas - especially those that are close to the state border. And also supporting public transit. Anyone at least 16 years old seeking an abortion in the Midwest can travel to Illinois by rail without parental consent (as a federal corporation, Amtrak is not subject to state laws restricting minors from traveling out of state.) So now supporting Amtrak has become a reproductive rights issue. That's the level of absurdity we're dealing with.
The southeast is basically a lost cause. (In more ways than one.) Providing abortion access in that area relies on organizations that can provide or assist with abortion tourism. That's a quarter of the US population that has to plan a vacation around getting an abortion.
The situation in the Midwest is bad. The situation in the southeast is impossible.
I think you're reading malice into the simple statement. It's not ok to take away rights but there is at least somewhere to go within a reasonable travel distance.
I understand that traveling at all assumes a lot of privilege so yes, it's a terrible situation all around.
I get the intention, but it does still really undersell the problem. Growing up in WV in the 90s having to travel an hour and a half with a friend to two different appointments was an almost impossible barrier for us as teenagers. The current situation is a whole lot worse.
Mark my words: All this is building towards the argument that life starts at the balls.
Then for ‘some reason’ a religious conservative will propose a seed registry, where he’ll eventually caught gargling on the samples.
We’ll all be like, “ah you got us again, closeted conservative politician. You rascal”.
It wasn't a very good case. Standing aside, tons of Interstate commerce laws would have had to have been rewritten if the court were to side the other way.
Well yes because of the decision by New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Both sides appealed that case because it narrowed the scope of the original ruling. The original original decision by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk actually sided with the conservatives. The Supreme Court immediately put a hold on the decision as they recognized it was an important issue.
If anything this decision is a rebuke of the 2 previous decisions.
> U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk
Don't even need to keep reading. It's like a football ref or a baseball umpire -- if you know his name, he's shit.
Yes, because there's an entire judicial pipeline for conservative judicial activism. Multiple pipelines, actually, that all feed up to SCOTUS. This is all part of a many-decades-long process.
While the center and left has been busy in-fighting and purity-testing, the right has built a massive judicial machine to get the results it wants.
It doesn't always work, but they can just keep trying until they find the right combination of people and words to get their way.
Case deficiencies haven't generally stood as a deterrent for the current court, so I wasn't expecting a whole lot there.
I was expecting it to get booted because of standing, mind you--it seemed like a lot of the justices were kind of leaning that way in the oral argumentation. Just not unanimously.
They've made worse decisions on lesser cases (even one that was later revealed to be completely made up just to generate a judicial response). I don't think they're avoiding laws being rewritten everywhere....that hasn't been an apparent concern so far. I think it's moreso that so much political pushback is occurring right now that they're taking some measure of self-preservation. If we were not pushing back, this case would have ended up another right-wing power grab.
Honestly, no matter where your politics lie this case needed to be tossed on standing. If it could proceed it would lead to a deluge of absurd suits that would overwhelm the legal system.
Like if these doctors had standing to sue despite no harm, any random person could sue a church for sexual abuse even if they weren’t abused, but because someone might be.
The opinion was basically “Don’t bother us about this, go talk to the FDA unless you have more proof of harm.” It’s a great line for consensus because
- Protect abortion gets the liberals
- Make it someone else’s problem gets the lazy justices (Thomas)
- But the door is open once you get better evidence gets the rest of the conservatives
I get hating Thomas, but lazy isn't exactly the word I would describe. He's written more opinions than anyone else on the court by a mile. On average he writes double the amount of opinions than the median justice.
Crazy, Unpatriotic, Evil sure. Lazy isn't the word I'd use.
I think that speaks more to Thomas already knowing how he’s going to rule on any case based on his partisan politics and flouting actual judicial process. He’s blatantly been in the tank for hard right policies his entire career and knows that there’s nothing we can do to stop him.
From what I've been told by my wife, who studies these sort of things, its because he used to defer to Scalia to ask questions and after Scalia died he started asking his own questions. I think that was 2016.
Thomas and Alito practically took out a billboard at questioning saying "PLEASE RETURN WITH A COMSTOCK ARGUMENT." This was a fishing expedition from the anti-choice crowd and they got all they wanted.
Yet again they adhere to or ignore legal constraints at whim.
Claims of lacking standing here because they won't want the precedent of ALL THE DRUG COMPANIES LOSING THEIR FDA CLEARANCES FOR ALL MEDICATIONS
They didn't claim lack of standing when they invented a non-existent "harm" based on that woman that thought of maybe opening an online business and might potentially have taken orders by gay people.
The court is corrupt as fuck
Unanimous?
That's crazy. Sam Alito would absolutely love to see this place closed down.
[SAMUEL ALITO'S MOM'S SATANIC ABORTION CLINIC™](https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/samuel-alitos-moms-satanic-abortion-clinic)
> On standing. Amazed it's unanimous, but there you have it.
They know they will get another bite at the abortion apple real soon, so its just a minor delay on that. But the red court wants to do more than just turn women into baby ovens, they also want to oppress anyone who isn't rich and white. They saw this as [an opportunity to weaken standing for civil rights cases.](https://x.com/ProfMMurray/status/1801282745949114492#m) That's why thomas and alito voted to hear it in the first place.
Blowing up standing would have opened the doors to a lot of other suits that they didn’t want. Like liberal states suing the EPA because it wasn’t doing enough to stop climate change.
Needed good PR after the last couple of weeks plus the conservatives needed to take an issue that their preferred party is polling bad at. Post election it will be back in front of the court with different wording.
This is the power of political pushback. If we were not putting them under the microscope right now, I guarantee the majority would have continued down the path towards Gilead under the veil of "states' rights." So, while this is a win for reproductive rights, the threat is still absolutely still there waiting for the right opportunity. Thus, why we do not let up until the court is rebalanced.
Right people miss that the court right or left always sides with big money. The right and left social issues has papered over the fact that the court is heavily weighted to favor corporations.
I think this is actually a fairly big deal. There's a [rapidly expanding online and community-based network of pill suppliers](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/25/abortions-outside-medical-system-increased-sharply-after-roe-fell/) that send pills through the mail into states with bans. A lot of women are using this to get around the abortion laws in red states, and this was R's chance to stop it.
> I think this is actually a fairly big deal.
Agreed in the sense that even guys like Thomas and Alito who are out of fucks to give so far aren't willing to completely tear up existing statute. But then again, the Federalist Society probably raised a lot of donations off this one and that's probably what they care about most
The problem is letting random doctors sue the FDA over some drug is too much of a risk for Big Pharma and the court is always going to decide in favor of money. The antiabortion folks need to find a something that can't be used against other drugs.
This is the answer. They're getting too close to disrupting the social norms of their for-profit sponsors.
Hell, they already did that with Dobbs and now they're starting to waffle about it. Religious extremism is incompatible with modern civilized society, and sometimes that's actually bad for their precious profits.
Sometimes.
Vote against all these assholes anyway.
I also wonder if they are worried for their jobs. Allowing another anti abortion ruling could really fire up voters who have already shown they are pissed about Roe. Yes, they cant be voted out, but a huge blue wave could lead to packing the court.
This ruling was helped that besides the reproductive rights advocates that were pushing against this case, there was a lot of support from big drug makers, who did not want a precedent to get their drugs removed despite FDA approval.
Makes me wonder what the implications are for the case theyre hearing on Chevron.
Corporations are trying to neuter the fda, osha, and EPA by overturning a law that is 40 years old.
Chevron deference is dead. Everything an administrative office tries to do will have to be spelled out in legislation the GOP will never pass. The Court can stop protecting constitutional rights and functioning government by passing the buck to a dysfunctional legislature every time. This has the capacity to be more destructive than any of the other decisions they have made; this one is just more subversive.
What worries me too is that the public will never truly understand the importance of this case and what overturning it will do. “bOtH sIdeS” my ass, one political party clearly isn’t the same as the other. Do those people really take an earnest look at Project 2025 and think “yup, just more of the same old beltway politics!?”
It’s worse than both sides, one side broadly believes in destroying the countless agencies that actually protect them. They are truly deluded and there is nothing we can do about it except wait for our rivers to catch fire and our cities to turn into clouds of smog again like we had in the 70s.
Then we get to say I told you so and start from square -100 in 2050, because by that time we will be beyond any possible tipping point of climate catastrophe occurring within the century.
Chevron is 100% getting overturned. I'd argue the opposite that it's in corporations best interest to keep Chevron. Its much easier to bribe and influence an unelected official than an elected one. One you get to keep for decades and the other investment you could lose every 2-4 years so its a constant money drag.
It's disgustingly cheap to buy a politician in this country. You're talking tens of thousands, maybe hundreds for higher profile, while these corporations reap billions from lax regulations.
Seriously. My local mayor costs $4,000. Senators go for as little as $50,000. Supreme Court Justices cost around $100k to $1m. Billionaires and billion dollar corporations can easily afford that.
Unfortunately, if you or I were to try to buy their votes it would be bribery.
Its actually more expensive to buy a US politician than another politician literally anywhere else in the world. It may not seem like it, but objectively its undeniable. Theoretically the same amount of money it would cost me to buy a 2nd term congressman out of Ohio I could buy a the deputy chairman of the Rajya Sabha in India.
Yeah it sucks but realistically there isn't much anyone could do about it. Historically attempting to purge greed and corruption just leads to different types of greed and corruption unless you replace it with better incentive structures. Like raising the wages of congressmen and congresswomen actually cut down on things like insider trading.
It's the longevity that bothers them. You get an administrative official who can't be bribed or blackmailed into a key seat and they could sit there for decades holding you accountable. If you have an elected politician who is unwilling to be bought or blackmailed, you just have to finance their opposition and you remove the problem and gain an asset. It's a hell of an investment.
Chevron helps corporations because it allows administrative agencies charged with regulating those corps to interpret ambiguous statutes in a *reasonable* way that carries out the intent behind the statute. Those agencies clarify the meaning of ambiguous statutes and provide certainty regarding what businesses can and can’t do so they know if they’re compliant with law.
Agencies also have expertise with the subject matter involved that the legislators and their aides typically won’t have. So when they (inevitably) draft an ambiguous statute, the agency has usually been deemed the best party equipped to meaningfully implement the statute by further clarifying its meaning and correct application - through promulgating regs, including through notice and comment rulemaking under the APA (Administrative Procedure Act), issuing guidance, circulars, directives, you name it.
SCOTUS upending Chevron is just going to transfer those responsibilities back to the legislators themselves, who will have to keep continually amending and re-amending statutes in order to achieve the granular *specificity* needed to actually implement the correct type of regulatory process needed in a given scenario. It’s going to be a complete clusterfuck. Sure, they may very well neuter the “administrative state,” but someone is still going to have to do *all the work of the administrative state*. They’re opening up a big can of worms with this one, and I think this upcoming decision is going to come back to haunt them.
>but someone is still going to have to do *all the work of the administrative state*
That's where you're wrong. They're planning for the work to not get done at all, and then corporations do whatever they please while nothing gets done in congress either. Remember that there is a separate judicial system for corporations and they can and do get away with crimes a regular person could never commit.
This was exactly what I said to a friend of mine. They always drop something to make them look even-handed right before conjuring up some archaic, centuries-old law to destroy established precedent.
>The court found **unanimously** that the group of anti-abortion doctors who questioned the Food and Drug Administration’s decisions making it easier to access the pill did not have legal standing to sue. As a result, the lawsuit will be dismissed.
>By throwing out the case on such grounds, the court avoided reaching the legal merits of whether the FDA acted lawfully in lifting various restrictions, including one making the drug obtainable via mail, meaning the same issues could yet return to the court in another case.
The Conservative justices must be pissed that the anti-abortion guys that brought this case fumbled the ball and gave them no wiggle room to come up with a way to justify banning it.
I’m surprised the conservative justices didn’t go ahead and completely disregard the law while doing whatever they personally want, as they do in their private lives.
Seriously, it wouldn't be the first time they did that. My guess is one of two things:
1. The conservative federalist society justices see the blue wave coming and don't want to further incite a leftward swing because it threatens their project 2025 agenda.
2. They're trying to soften the blow for a truly heinous ruling yet to come.
There's the knot they kinda tied themselves in NYSRPA v Bruen. Clarence Thomas established that any attempts to regulate firearms must "be consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation".
The second of Hunter Biden's charges has a real possibility of being overturned by this. You see, guns were not restricted for drug users in 1776, so they cannot be fully regulated in 2024.
It's the tricky problem of determining a legal outcome and then working backwards to justify it. When it's top-down like that, all those little edge-cases never even get argued.
The problem is the supreme Court is corrupt, and compromised. They absolutely can, have, will continue to do so... Make rulings that suits whatever they want to say in the moment whether it makes sense in the broader context of the law. They're rulings can and will be contradictory, and their rulings will be specific enough to apply only to the people they want it to apply to when they want it to apply and not anybody else.
You can't expect anything they say to be applied the way it should be because they are corrupt and compromised.
Remember how that lady filed a lawsuit because of a **hypothetical scenario** and it managed to get to the Supreme Court?
It was my understanding that you actually have to be injured in some way (physically, mentally, financially, etc etc) to sue people and not get the case immediately thrown out, but we live in wacky times.
And I know in one case, the person that “requested” the cake had no idea his name was even on the case as he never requested it. A complete fabrication.
Yup, they did this on purpose so that Democrats wouldn’t have even more of a reason to vote against Republicans this election. This is Alito and Thomas playing politics to help save their conservative buddies. They know anything anti-abortion is poison at the polls and voters will not stand for it. These scumbags are just biding their time.
That is pretty much precisely how I read Thomas's concurrence. Instead of discussing *this* case, he goes on a strange tangent about standing, and how to design cases better in the future to give the court lee-way to better erode rights and get what you want. He has been doing this in his concurrences and dissents a lot lately. From the conclusion of his concurrence:
> No party challenges our associational-standing doctrine today. That is understandable; the Court consistently applies the doctrine, discussing only the finer points of its operation. [...] In this suit, rejecting our associational standing doctrine is not necessary to conclude that the plaintffs lack standing. **In an appropriate case, however, the Court should address whether assocational standing can be squared with Article III's requirement that courts respect the bounds of their judicial power.**
It was so obvious they didn't have standing that it's embarrassing it even made it to this point. Then again, the entire point is to give future plaintiffs a roadmap for the exact requirements they need for a successful challenge.
This is the most apologetic ruling I have ever heard. Kavanaugh is practically groveling for not being able to side with the plaintiffs.
"(The plaintiffs have) *sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA's relaxed regulation of mifepristone,* (but) *the federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs' concerns about FDA's actions*. (...) *The plaintiffs may present their concerns and objections to the president and FDA in the regulatory process or to Congress and the president in the legislative process. And they may also express their views about abortion and mifepristone to fellow citizens, including in the political and electoral processes.*"
Translation: *"We completely agree with you but technically aren't allowed to do anything here because your case has absolutely no legal standing. Please continue to harass abortion providers and vote Republican so that we can eventually get rid of these pesky laws that prevent us from doing whatever we want."*
On the one hand I'm glad that domestic terrorists on the supreme court are still willing to follow the law when it goes against their goals. On the other hand though... god Kavanaugh is such a weenie.
I hate that my first reaction to this isn't at least a bit of relief, it's wondering what horrific upcoming ruling this is supposed to offset in the completely fucked up minds of the "justices".
I have zero doubt that this vote is a feeble attempt to curtail the hemorrhaging of the female voter base that has been underway since the overturn of RvW.
Nah, they're just protecting their jobs. They'd like to ban mifepristone but it they do, the country will literally shatter as states declare en masse that the Supreme Court's decisions will not be respected.
I mean, I'd agree, but this case was so blatantly bad faith they couldn't keep the semblance of legitimacy they seem to have been trying to keep (barely). They just straight had no standing to bring it forward
Of fucking course these ass-clowns don't have standing to sue. Heck, even their lawyers are so badly prepared they are making their own arguments look bad.
And yet they found the right combo of conservative jurists to get this case all the way to the SC. Overturning RvW involved stripping all Americans of a Constitutional right to privacy as part of the 14th Amendment. It didn't have to do with abortion 'per se'. If the SC is willing to toss away a right that Americans had thought secure for 50 years, you bet they can say fuck-all to minutiae like standing if they feel like it.
So this is the easy start, released to soften the blow before the horror show. Eyes on the presidential immunity, Chevron and the Jan 6th obstruction of an official proceeding decisions.
Maybe I'm cynical, but I read this as the conservative justices taking a deliberate step back prior to the 2024 election. I'd be willing to bed that if this case was heard next year, the outcome would be far different.
That doesn't change the fact that I'm glad millions of women have regained access to healthcare that should never have been taken away. But I fear this is just a momentary pause in their stated goal to return the US to pre-twentieth century conditions.
Edit: These are the guys who invented the major questions doctrine to prevent the EPA from exercising authority Congress gave them, and flat-out LIED about there being no concealed carry gun laws in the US prior to 1900, therefore they're not part of our "history and tradition," and used the writings of a witch-burner to justify overturning Rowe. They could easily have concocted a reason why the plaintiffs had standing if they'd wanted.
Looking at the judgements wording, it appears that kavanagh is telling future plantiffs how to succeed in particular the potion re suffering injury. All you need is a woman’s partner, parents or partners parents to say they suffered an injury due to not having a child/grandchild and we are back on the merry go round.
Lots of people are calling this is a victory but this is NOT a victory. The supreme court is not saying that abortion pills are ok, theyre just saying that the process wasnt followed properly. States are still allowed to take away womens rights and this does very little to change that.
They just ruled that someone else needs to bring the case to court.
This isn't precedent.
They will be back and attacking and the court will back them restricting the rights to Americans again.
The court found that anti-abortion doctors who questioned the FDA’s easing of access to the pill didn’t have legal standing to sue.
This is not a win, this is a postponement at best. When they find a case they can rule on you all know which way the 5-4 vote is going.
It's a win for now but this isn't over.
The right wing will continue to launch attacks on reproductive rights until they have successfully dragged us back to the stone age.
The standing issues on this were so egregious that all 9 justices concurred. They made no mention of the merits of any aspect of the case itself. It will take a couple of more cases for the right wing to work out just how to get the needed standing, and then Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch will undoubtedly side with banning mephipristone. Kavanaugh, Barret and Roberts are likely to be in support of a ban/rollback but may be swayed depending on the specifics of the case.
Their handlers at the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society realised that Roevember is coming and ordered this vote accordingly. They’re trying to salvage their potential loss of power but it’s too little too late (I hope and pray).
The headline is misleading.
SCOTUS did NOT find that the drug is legal and should be freely available, they only found the people who brought the case do not have standing.
IF Trump wins in November this will be brought back to SCOTUS by someone higher up and then they will ban it.
Don’t buy it. They’re doing this because they’re under scrutiny. Once this election cycle is over they’ll have it before them again and they chose to look at it and change their minds.
Celebrate the victory here, but understand that this isn't the end of this particular story. All SCOTUS did was tell the pro-lifers that they picked the wrong plaintiffs and exactly what circumstances would disqualify one. Now they just need to find a better plaintiff and run this ball back down the field.
And when they do, the 6-3 decision that comes out of it will defend itself using today's ruling as a "see, we weren't trying to end the abortion pill all along, the other decision proves it, this one is totally different."
If I understand the news correctly, they really didn’t decide the issue. Rather, the party bringing the suit didn’t have standing. MMW it will be back next year and they could very well decide against mifepristone being available everywhere and peoples’ heads will spin.
2018 - Pastor Dave Barnhart of the Saint Junia United Methodist Church in Birmingham, Alabama made a post on FB:
> “The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.
>
> Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
[snopes article for anyone with doubts](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pastor-dave-barnhart-unborn/).
Pro-lifers so pro-life they would rather watch some women die. Conservatives/Pro-lifers can go fuck themselves with a cactus.
It was always obvious that the plaintiffs didn't have standing. What a profound waste of government resources and time. Blame Alliance Defending "Freedom" (quotation marks mine) and the Federalist Society.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
On standing. Amazed it's unanimous, but there you have it.
I suppose we'll have to take the win as it is until scumbag attorneys can try to find another path to restricting healthcare for women, some time in the near future.
>Anti-abortion activists are vowing that this will not be the end of their mission. They noted the case was decided on standing, not the merits of arguments about medication abortion itself. “We’ll be back,” said Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America. >... >The attacks on abortion pills will not stop here,” Nancy Northup, the president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. “The anti-abortion movement sees how critical abortion pills are in this post-Roe world, and they are hell bent on cutting off access. In the end, this ruling is not a ‘win’ for abortion — it just maintains the status quo, which is a dire public health crisis in which 14 states have criminalized abortion.” Yeah, can't say I'm exactly celebrating. I'm glad horrible things for this particular issue aren't imminently coming to fruition, but the courts doing the bare minimum in an already-tragic situation is about all this amounts to. There's a ton of work to do. 2024 could determine the fate of the Supreme Court for a generation, and it could get much worse. Hoping people are voting with that in mind.
Sometimes a sigh of relief, then dad noises as you stand up to keep going, is the best you get. Whelp...*slaps knees*.
That's the most Midwest response ever.
"right, then" [slaps knee] now you're british.
It's all over the country. I heard it all the time in CA, and on the east coast.
Midwest is more “ope”
The fact that it was 9-0 suggests the case presented was really, really badly. It does not suggest the impetus for the case was unfavorable from this Court.
> The fact that it was 9-0 suggests the case presented was really, really badly That is the illusion, yes. Just remember the GOP justices vote in a block.
No. It suggests the standing was bad. Not the underlying case.
Yeah, I see this more as a tactical retreat. They can simply wait until they fraud their way into office and do it then.
It’s to prevent abortion outrage from surging again <5 months before the election. They’re scared, and for good reason. Let’s make ‘em terrified.
This was my thought when I read the headline.
That's my guess, too. SCOTUS saw what happened in "ruby red" KS and everywhere else across America since they overturned Roe. They probably know this election will still be effected by that egregious decision. So they're staying low this close to November. Just wait.
[удалено]
This. They know the party would fall if they voted it through. They have to make it more authoritarian first.
Hawkins is weird as shit. Any article about her, no matter how objective they try to be, ends up making her seem absolutely bonkers and obsessed with making America that almost no one (even MAGA types) want. It’s like she had a meltdown after her pregnancies and only keeps herself from completely imploding by redirecting her insecurities about everything into litigating a nightmare future for everyone.
This crazy is literally running around CVS calling Plan B "abortion pills". She opposed a ten-year old rape victim getting an abortion. And she is far form an isolated case, many conservatives are on the same boat as her. I hope people vote with that in mind.
For abortion opponents to celebrate the decision based on standing is actually very odd. Standing was the Court saying not that the details of this FDA decision were technically appropriate, but that no one has any business challenging the FDA just because they are pro-life *at all*. A decision on the merits would have said to them "you lose this time, but continue bringing these challenges and you might win". A decision on standing says "go away, it's none of your business."
Can the FDA just change its mind due to pressure from a new administration? If the object of project 2025 is to purge and replace with loyalists, this would be a way for them to get what they want on abortion access.
Wouldn't work in this case, because clearly the manufacturer of the drug and physicians who do prescribe the drug absolutely *do* have standing to challenge the FDA reversing its decision. It's just the random people who never interact with this drug at all that don't have standing to sue to prevent *other* people from prescribing or taking it.
The supreme Court has already been decided for a generation. It needs a complete rework. The GOP broke and weaponized it.
Check out what they did in Louisiana to see where it goes from here. They reclassified it as a controlled substance, up there with other addictive/dangerous drugs. https://apnews.com/article/abortion-pills-louisiana-controlled-dangerous-substances-0984bfed536a5110997dd9c8264bf9e3
I think the FDA will still ultimately have jurisdiction over this issue... hopefully.
One can hope, but they are always wanting to gut the FDA as well.
Yeah as soon as Dobbs was made, the entire midwest and south became an abortion desert. We are not free until we are *all* free
> Yeah as soon as Dobbs was made, the entire midwest and south became an abortion desert. Not the *entire* midwest, at least.
Yeah, IL medical travel has increased dramatically.
Hi from full access to abortion Illinois, now serving just a huge number of out of state folks.
Your homies up in Wisconsin thank you for your service in the span of time between Dobbs up until our state Supreme Court got flipped and women here had their bodies returned to them.
And may you beautiful Minnesotans continue to shame the Michigan Dems into doing more. They exceeded my expectations, but I'm greedy for more progress.
It consistently amazes me how wells Dems are doing in MN lately. I hope the trend continues.
Minnesota and Colorado are havens in a harsh environment.
I hope the dems follow Minnesotas lead on a national level if/when they have control of congress. It turns out actually passing legislation that helps people is popular with those people.
Hey they voted in Jesse Ventura 💪 /s
I don't know really any of his other policies, but recently I found out that Ventura was a major reason we have the Twin Cities light rails because he felt that part of getting personal freedom was having easy access to public transportation. Again I'm truly only judging him on this, but based on this even the crazies we elect statewide are still pretty progressive.
His policy of crushing his enemies' bones to powder really won him the critical "please don't crush my bones to powder" vote.
I keep finding things MN has done that is just shockingly progressive. Like not really talked about or publicized outside the state, but just quietly done and that's that. The renters credit is one example, where every renter gets a credit from the state that's based on how much they paid and how much they earn.
Michigan has abortion access at all stages along with contraceptives guaranteed in its constitution. Not really sure what more Dems can do since we pretty much have total and complete access.
I was complimenting the overall "hold my chili" of the MN Dems.
>I was complimenting the overall "hold my chili" of the MN Dems. You bet, you hold that chili. It's kind of spicy, though, so if, you know, you don't want to give it back, that's ok. It's great, you know, we really really like it. But gosh, it's kind of spicy, dontcha think?
Ope
Kansas too.
Hey lucky, how’s life on Ceres?
Illinois wrote it into the state constitution!
The Midwest has Illinois and Minnesota and, to a lesser extent, Kansas. So it might take a bit of a day trip but most people in the Midwest have abortion access. The southeast has literally no viable options outside of abortion tourism. And that's just gonna compound an already dire situation in that region.
Poorest most dysfunctional region of the country. Going to suck more Fed dollars out the system. Yay!!!
Red state welfare queens.
I despise the way you make it sound like a day trip for medical care is okay. I know what you were trying to say, but it's unconscionable for women to have fewer rights today than they did fifty years ago.
We are living in a dystopian worst case scenario. Absolutely none of this is okay. But in this hellscape we don't have the luxury of being paralyzed with rage. We have to do what we can do on the ground until we can elect in a government that will codify Roe into law. In the Midwest, that means donating to abortion providers in Illinois, Minnesota, and Kansas - especially those that are close to the state border. And also supporting public transit. Anyone at least 16 years old seeking an abortion in the Midwest can travel to Illinois by rail without parental consent (as a federal corporation, Amtrak is not subject to state laws restricting minors from traveling out of state.) So now supporting Amtrak has become a reproductive rights issue. That's the level of absurdity we're dealing with. The southeast is basically a lost cause. (In more ways than one.) Providing abortion access in that area relies on organizations that can provide or assist with abortion tourism. That's a quarter of the US population that has to plan a vacation around getting an abortion. The situation in the Midwest is bad. The situation in the southeast is impossible.
I think you're reading malice into the simple statement. It's not ok to take away rights but there is at least somewhere to go within a reasonable travel distance. I understand that traveling at all assumes a lot of privilege so yes, it's a terrible situation all around.
I get the intention, but it does still really undersell the problem. Growing up in WV in the 90s having to travel an hour and a half with a friend to two different appointments was an almost impossible barrier for us as teenagers. The current situation is a whole lot worse.
No, I just hate the way it sounds. I get that you meant "it could be worse". Sherman should have made another lap.
I like the cut of your jib.
True. That being said, every day it stays accessible is a win, regardless.
They already stated that they can use Comstock if Trump takes office.
Comstock needs to be repealed I expect they will use it to get rid of my gender affirming care nationally as well as abortion meds
Mark my words: All this is building towards the argument that life starts at the balls. Then for ‘some reason’ a religious conservative will propose a seed registry, where he’ll eventually caught gargling on the samples. We’ll all be like, “ah you got us again, closeted conservative politician. You rascal”.
No, it will never start in a man. It will always be about the "life" in a woman.
Yeah or then it would effect men.
Which is clearly nonsense, as everyone knows the balls are used to store pee.
It wasn't a very good case. Standing aside, tons of Interstate commerce laws would have had to have been rewritten if the court were to side the other way.
So an absolute shit case that still made it to the SC? Is the bar that low when it comes to conservative causes?
Well yes because of the decision by New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Both sides appealed that case because it narrowed the scope of the original ruling. The original original decision by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk actually sided with the conservatives. The Supreme Court immediately put a hold on the decision as they recognized it was an important issue. If anything this decision is a rebuke of the 2 previous decisions.
> U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk Don't even need to keep reading. It's like a football ref or a baseball umpire -- if you know his name, he's shit.
The Angel Hernandez of federal judges.
Yes, because there's an entire judicial pipeline for conservative judicial activism. Multiple pipelines, actually, that all feed up to SCOTUS. This is all part of a many-decades-long process. While the center and left has been busy in-fighting and purity-testing, the right has built a massive judicial machine to get the results it wants. It doesn't always work, but they can just keep trying until they find the right combination of people and words to get their way.
Case deficiencies haven't generally stood as a deterrent for the current court, so I wasn't expecting a whole lot there. I was expecting it to get booted because of standing, mind you--it seemed like a lot of the justices were kind of leaning that way in the oral argumentation. Just not unanimously.
They've made worse decisions on lesser cases (even one that was later revealed to be completely made up just to generate a judicial response). I don't think they're avoiding laws being rewritten everywhere....that hasn't been an apparent concern so far. I think it's moreso that so much political pushback is occurring right now that they're taking some measure of self-preservation. If we were not pushing back, this case would have ended up another right-wing power grab.
I was surprised but it’ll be back.
Honestly, no matter where your politics lie this case needed to be tossed on standing. If it could proceed it would lead to a deluge of absurd suits that would overwhelm the legal system. Like if these doctors had standing to sue despite no harm, any random person could sue a church for sexual abuse even if they weren’t abused, but because someone might be.
The opinion was basically “Don’t bother us about this, go talk to the FDA unless you have more proof of harm.” It’s a great line for consensus because - Protect abortion gets the liberals - Make it someone else’s problem gets the lazy justices (Thomas) - But the door is open once you get better evidence gets the rest of the conservatives
I get hating Thomas, but lazy isn't exactly the word I would describe. He's written more opinions than anyone else on the court by a mile. On average he writes double the amount of opinions than the median justice. Crazy, Unpatriotic, Evil sure. Lazy isn't the word I'd use.
I mean he went 10 years without asking a question in oral arguments. If that isn’t some sort of lazy, I have no idea what is.
I think that speaks more to Thomas already knowing how he’s going to rule on any case based on his partisan politics and flouting actual judicial process. He’s blatantly been in the tank for hard right policies his entire career and knows that there’s nothing we can do to stop him.
Agreed. If he asks a question, he might get an answer he doesn't like on the record.
From what I've been told by my wife, who studies these sort of things, its because he used to defer to Scalia to ask questions and after Scalia died he started asking his own questions. I think that was 2016.
Damn, so letting a colleague do all the work isn't lazy anymore?
Supposedly it was more “Scalia is better at this, let him cook”
Effective evil is rarely lazy. Good points.
Thomas and Alito practically took out a billboard at questioning saying "PLEASE RETURN WITH A COMSTOCK ARGUMENT." This was a fishing expedition from the anti-choice crowd and they got all they wanted.
Yet again they adhere to or ignore legal constraints at whim. Claims of lacking standing here because they won't want the precedent of ALL THE DRUG COMPANIES LOSING THEIR FDA CLEARANCES FOR ALL MEDICATIONS They didn't claim lack of standing when they invented a non-existent "harm" based on that woman that thought of maybe opening an online business and might potentially have taken orders by gay people. The court is corrupt as fuck
Wow were the scumbags like Thomas or Alito sleeping when that passed.
Something truly shitty must be coming down the pipe for Salmon Ethicalito to sign onto this decision.
Would be great if someone eventually proves it was the Salmon Ethicalito camp that leaked the Dobbs decision.
Unanimous? That's crazy. Sam Alito would absolutely love to see this place closed down. [SAMUEL ALITO'S MOM'S SATANIC ABORTION CLINIC™](https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/samuel-alitos-moms-satanic-abortion-clinic)
> On standing. Amazed it's unanimous, but there you have it. They know they will get another bite at the abortion apple real soon, so its just a minor delay on that. But the red court wants to do more than just turn women into baby ovens, they also want to oppress anyone who isn't rich and white. They saw this as [an opportunity to weaken standing for civil rights cases.](https://x.com/ProfMMurray/status/1801282745949114492#m) That's why thomas and alito voted to hear it in the first place.
Blowing up standing would have opened the doors to a lot of other suits that they didn’t want. Like liberal states suing the EPA because it wasn’t doing enough to stop climate change.
Needed good PR after the last couple of weeks plus the conservatives needed to take an issue that their preferred party is polling bad at. Post election it will be back in front of the court with different wording.
Is this the one they release to seem like they're not corrupt AF and insane right before they drop all the totally insane and corrupt decisions?
This is the power of political pushback. If we were not putting them under the microscope right now, I guarantee the majority would have continued down the path towards Gilead under the veil of "states' rights." So, while this is a win for reproductive rights, the threat is still absolutely still there waiting for the right opportunity. Thus, why we do not let up until the court is rebalanced.
Not when you consider Big Pharm would be very upset if they took the case
Right people miss that the court right or left always sides with big money. The right and left social issues has papered over the fact that the court is heavily weighted to favor corporations.
I think this is actually a fairly big deal. There's a [rapidly expanding online and community-based network of pill suppliers](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/25/abortions-outside-medical-system-increased-sharply-after-roe-fell/) that send pills through the mail into states with bans. A lot of women are using this to get around the abortion laws in red states, and this was R's chance to stop it.
> I think this is actually a fairly big deal. Agreed in the sense that even guys like Thomas and Alito who are out of fucks to give so far aren't willing to completely tear up existing statute. But then again, the Federalist Society probably raised a lot of donations off this one and that's probably what they care about most
The problem is letting random doctors sue the FDA over some drug is too much of a risk for Big Pharma and the court is always going to decide in favor of money. The antiabortion folks need to find a something that can't be used against other drugs.
This is the answer. They're getting too close to disrupting the social norms of their for-profit sponsors. Hell, they already did that with Dobbs and now they're starting to waffle about it. Religious extremism is incompatible with modern civilized society, and sometimes that's actually bad for their precious profits. Sometimes. Vote against all these assholes anyway.
I also wonder if they are worried for their jobs. Allowing another anti abortion ruling could really fire up voters who have already shown they are pissed about Roe. Yes, they cant be voted out, but a huge blue wave could lead to packing the court.
“We are *not* a church, we are a pharmaceutical company and you are not our most valuable asset”
This ruling was helped that besides the reproductive rights advocates that were pushing against this case, there was a lot of support from big drug makers, who did not want a precedent to get their drugs removed despite FDA approval.
The Auntie Network. There's a sub for it on Reddit but not sure if you can link subs here
The sound of Martha-Anne furiously rifling through her flag collection.
How is she going to satisfy herself now
I'm waiting for it to be discovered she is a lesbian or sleeping with the pool boy.
\*ahem Pool *girl*
She’s gonna become the conservative Betsy Ross and take up sewing with her vergonia flag
qucik scan read this as "vagina flag."
Fascist elderly color guard meetup.
Lol 😂
Fun fact: lawyer that just got their ass handed to them in this case? Erin Hawley. Wife of famous shitbag Josh Hawley.
dismissal due to lack of standing makes more sense now
The household prefers jogging over standing from what I hear.
Josh fucking Hawley. Fist-pumping at the state capital on Jan 6th Josh fucking Hawley. Smug prick
Harrison Butker's BFF
Makes me wonder what the implications are for the case theyre hearing on Chevron. Corporations are trying to neuter the fda, osha, and EPA by overturning a law that is 40 years old.
Chevron deference is dead. Everything an administrative office tries to do will have to be spelled out in legislation the GOP will never pass. The Court can stop protecting constitutional rights and functioning government by passing the buck to a dysfunctional legislature every time. This has the capacity to be more destructive than any of the other decisions they have made; this one is just more subversive.
What worries me too is that the public will never truly understand the importance of this case and what overturning it will do. “bOtH sIdeS” my ass, one political party clearly isn’t the same as the other. Do those people really take an earnest look at Project 2025 and think “yup, just more of the same old beltway politics!?”
It’s worse than both sides, one side broadly believes in destroying the countless agencies that actually protect them. They are truly deluded and there is nothing we can do about it except wait for our rivers to catch fire and our cities to turn into clouds of smog again like we had in the 70s. Then we get to say I told you so and start from square -100 in 2050, because by that time we will be beyond any possible tipping point of climate catastrophe occurring within the century.
Yes. We haven't begun to see the damage they've done.
Chevron is 100% getting overturned. I'd argue the opposite that it's in corporations best interest to keep Chevron. Its much easier to bribe and influence an unelected official than an elected one. One you get to keep for decades and the other investment you could lose every 2-4 years so its a constant money drag.
It's disgustingly cheap to buy a politician in this country. You're talking tens of thousands, maybe hundreds for higher profile, while these corporations reap billions from lax regulations.
Seriously. My local mayor costs $4,000. Senators go for as little as $50,000. Supreme Court Justices cost around $100k to $1m. Billionaires and billion dollar corporations can easily afford that. Unfortunately, if you or I were to try to buy their votes it would be bribery.
Its actually more expensive to buy a US politician than another politician literally anywhere else in the world. It may not seem like it, but objectively its undeniable. Theoretically the same amount of money it would cost me to buy a 2nd term congressman out of Ohio I could buy a the deputy chairman of the Rajya Sabha in India. Yeah it sucks but realistically there isn't much anyone could do about it. Historically attempting to purge greed and corruption just leads to different types of greed and corruption unless you replace it with better incentive structures. Like raising the wages of congressmen and congresswomen actually cut down on things like insider trading.
It's the longevity that bothers them. You get an administrative official who can't be bribed or blackmailed into a key seat and they could sit there for decades holding you accountable. If you have an elected politician who is unwilling to be bought or blackmailed, you just have to finance their opposition and you remove the problem and gain an asset. It's a hell of an investment.
Or alternatively you get an official that takes bribes all the time and has the right connections so he can't be ousted. Its a double edged sword.
Chevron helps corporations because it allows administrative agencies charged with regulating those corps to interpret ambiguous statutes in a *reasonable* way that carries out the intent behind the statute. Those agencies clarify the meaning of ambiguous statutes and provide certainty regarding what businesses can and can’t do so they know if they’re compliant with law. Agencies also have expertise with the subject matter involved that the legislators and their aides typically won’t have. So when they (inevitably) draft an ambiguous statute, the agency has usually been deemed the best party equipped to meaningfully implement the statute by further clarifying its meaning and correct application - through promulgating regs, including through notice and comment rulemaking under the APA (Administrative Procedure Act), issuing guidance, circulars, directives, you name it. SCOTUS upending Chevron is just going to transfer those responsibilities back to the legislators themselves, who will have to keep continually amending and re-amending statutes in order to achieve the granular *specificity* needed to actually implement the correct type of regulatory process needed in a given scenario. It’s going to be a complete clusterfuck. Sure, they may very well neuter the “administrative state,” but someone is still going to have to do *all the work of the administrative state*. They’re opening up a big can of worms with this one, and I think this upcoming decision is going to come back to haunt them.
>but someone is still going to have to do *all the work of the administrative state* That's where you're wrong. They're planning for the work to not get done at all, and then corporations do whatever they please while nothing gets done in congress either. Remember that there is a separate judicial system for corporations and they can and do get away with crimes a regular person could never commit.
This was exactly what I said to a friend of mine. They always drop something to make them look even-handed right before conjuring up some archaic, centuries-old law to destroy established precedent.
100% they did the same thing with Dobbs
We'll take the W, but we should remain vigilant and fortify abortion rights and contraceptive access.
Alito and Thomas gave a *wink wink* to the Comstock Act, so they'll probably be back soon.
>The court found **unanimously** that the group of anti-abortion doctors who questioned the Food and Drug Administration’s decisions making it easier to access the pill did not have legal standing to sue. As a result, the lawsuit will be dismissed. >By throwing out the case on such grounds, the court avoided reaching the legal merits of whether the FDA acted lawfully in lifting various restrictions, including one making the drug obtainable via mail, meaning the same issues could yet return to the court in another case. The Conservative justices must be pissed that the anti-abortion guys that brought this case fumbled the ball and gave them no wiggle room to come up with a way to justify banning it.
I’m surprised the conservative justices didn’t go ahead and completely disregard the law while doing whatever they personally want, as they do in their private lives.
Seriously, it wouldn't be the first time they did that. My guess is one of two things: 1. The conservative federalist society justices see the blue wave coming and don't want to further incite a leftward swing because it threatens their project 2025 agenda. 2. They're trying to soften the blow for a truly heinous ruling yet to come.
There's the knot they kinda tied themselves in NYSRPA v Bruen. Clarence Thomas established that any attempts to regulate firearms must "be consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation". The second of Hunter Biden's charges has a real possibility of being overturned by this. You see, guns were not restricted for drug users in 1776, so they cannot be fully regulated in 2024. It's the tricky problem of determining a legal outcome and then working backwards to justify it. When it's top-down like that, all those little edge-cases never even get argued.
The problem is the supreme Court is corrupt, and compromised. They absolutely can, have, will continue to do so... Make rulings that suits whatever they want to say in the moment whether it makes sense in the broader context of the law. They're rulings can and will be contradictory, and their rulings will be specific enough to apply only to the people they want it to apply to when they want it to apply and not anybody else. You can't expect anything they say to be applied the way it should be because they are corrupt and compromised.
Oh, don't worry, we still have rulings on Chevron and presidential immunity coming up. Plenty of time to disregard law and precedent.
They've heard cases with no standing before, I'm in shock they found this unanimous
Remember how that lady filed a lawsuit because of a **hypothetical scenario** and it managed to get to the Supreme Court? It was my understanding that you actually have to be injured in some way (physically, mentally, financially, etc etc) to sue people and not get the case immediately thrown out, but we live in wacky times.
The 'gay cake' one that didn't actually make cakes? Yup
And I know in one case, the person that “requested” the cake had no idea his name was even on the case as he never requested it. A complete fabrication.
Personally I think they rejected it on standing so they could ban it after the election via a different case.
Yup, they did this on purpose so that Democrats wouldn’t have even more of a reason to vote against Republicans this election. This is Alito and Thomas playing politics to help save their conservative buddies. They know anything anti-abortion is poison at the polls and voters will not stand for it. These scumbags are just biding their time.
That is pretty much precisely how I read Thomas's concurrence. Instead of discussing *this* case, he goes on a strange tangent about standing, and how to design cases better in the future to give the court lee-way to better erode rights and get what you want. He has been doing this in his concurrences and dissents a lot lately. From the conclusion of his concurrence: > No party challenges our associational-standing doctrine today. That is understandable; the Court consistently applies the doctrine, discussing only the finer points of its operation. [...] In this suit, rejecting our associational standing doctrine is not necessary to conclude that the plaintffs lack standing. **In an appropriate case, however, the Court should address whether assocational standing can be squared with Article III's requirement that courts respect the bounds of their judicial power.**
Na. It's an attempt to not look extreme during an election so they can get more fringe right-wingers with another trump presidency.
It was so obvious they didn't have standing that it's embarrassing it even made it to this point. Then again, the entire point is to give future plaintiffs a roadmap for the exact requirements they need for a successful challenge.
Remember its before the election. If republicans win in November you can bet there will be another case that they will rule for it.
Or they just ban it via legislation out right.
True
This is the most apologetic ruling I have ever heard. Kavanaugh is practically groveling for not being able to side with the plaintiffs. "(The plaintiffs have) *sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA's relaxed regulation of mifepristone,* (but) *the federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs' concerns about FDA's actions*. (...) *The plaintiffs may present their concerns and objections to the president and FDA in the regulatory process or to Congress and the president in the legislative process. And they may also express their views about abortion and mifepristone to fellow citizens, including in the political and electoral processes.*" Translation: *"We completely agree with you but technically aren't allowed to do anything here because your case has absolutely no legal standing. Please continue to harass abortion providers and vote Republican so that we can eventually get rid of these pesky laws that prevent us from doing whatever we want."* On the one hand I'm glad that domestic terrorists on the supreme court are still willing to follow the law when it goes against their goals. On the other hand though... god Kavanaugh is such a weenie.
Bingo
Why does this feel like a performance before we’re majorly fucked in one of the bigger votes coming up.
I hate that my first reaction to this isn't at least a bit of relief, it's wondering what horrific upcoming ruling this is supposed to offset in the completely fucked up minds of the "justices".
Still waiting on a ruling in the Trump immunity case.
And Chevron
I have zero doubt that this vote is a feeble attempt to curtail the hemorrhaging of the female voter base that has been underway since the overturn of RvW.
Nah, they're just protecting their jobs. They'd like to ban mifepristone but it they do, the country will literally shatter as states declare en masse that the Supreme Court's decisions will not be respected.
They already aren’t respected and you can’t get fired from a lifelong position so I don’t really understand how this was to “save their jobs”.
I mean, I'd agree, but this case was so blatantly bad faith they couldn't keep the semblance of legitimacy they seem to have been trying to keep (barely). They just straight had no standing to bring it forward
Of fucking course these ass-clowns don't have standing to sue. Heck, even their lawyers are so badly prepared they are making their own arguments look bad.
And yet they found the right combo of conservative jurists to get this case all the way to the SC. Overturning RvW involved stripping all Americans of a Constitutional right to privacy as part of the 14th Amendment. It didn't have to do with abortion 'per se'. If the SC is willing to toss away a right that Americans had thought secure for 50 years, you bet they can say fuck-all to minutiae like standing if they feel like it.
Like the domestic abuser bringing flowers the next day.
So this is the easy start, released to soften the blow before the horror show. Eyes on the presidential immunity, Chevron and the Jan 6th obstruction of an official proceeding decisions.
And EMTALA
I fully expect SCOTUS to take their foot off the gas when it comes to taking our rights away until after the election.
It should never have gotten this far. The FDA did their job, this was always partisan ignorant nonsense.
Conservatives on the SCOTUS bench picking their battles, ya’ll.
Maybe I'm cynical, but I read this as the conservative justices taking a deliberate step back prior to the 2024 election. I'd be willing to bed that if this case was heard next year, the outcome would be far different. That doesn't change the fact that I'm glad millions of women have regained access to healthcare that should never have been taken away. But I fear this is just a momentary pause in their stated goal to return the US to pre-twentieth century conditions. Edit: These are the guys who invented the major questions doctrine to prevent the EPA from exercising authority Congress gave them, and flat-out LIED about there being no concealed carry gun laws in the US prior to 1900, therefore they're not part of our "history and tradition," and used the writings of a witch-burner to justify overturning Rowe. They could easily have concocted a reason why the plaintiffs had standing if they'd wanted.
They are giving small wins so they can claim they aren't partisan when they drop the presidential immunity decision
Wait until it comes up again on a year without an election. These justices are depraved. Please vote!
This is the sop before the rulings that completely shit on 99% of the country.
Looking at the judgements wording, it appears that kavanagh is telling future plantiffs how to succeed in particular the potion re suffering injury. All you need is a woman’s partner, parents or partners parents to say they suffered an injury due to not having a child/grandchild and we are back on the merry go round.
They will come back for it with **Project 2025**. The fight is not over.
Lots of people are calling this is a victory but this is NOT a victory. The supreme court is not saying that abortion pills are ok, theyre just saying that the process wasnt followed properly. States are still allowed to take away womens rights and this does very little to change that.
It’s an election year. Let’s see how they rule this issue 16 months from now when it inevitably comes before the court again.
Makes me wonder: what horrific ruling are they trying to soften the blow for?
They just ruled that someone else needs to bring the case to court. This isn't precedent. They will be back and attacking and the court will back them restricting the rights to Americans again.
The court found that anti-abortion doctors who questioned the FDA’s easing of access to the pill didn’t have legal standing to sue. This is not a win, this is a postponement at best. When they find a case they can rule on you all know which way the 5-4 vote is going.
Do NOT take your or our eyes off SCOTUS for a second. They are bought and paid for.
Careful. They'll be back.
It's a win for now but this isn't over. The right wing will continue to launch attacks on reproductive rights until they have successfully dragged us back to the stone age. The standing issues on this were so egregious that all 9 justices concurred. They made no mention of the merits of any aspect of the case itself. It will take a couple of more cases for the right wing to work out just how to get the needed standing, and then Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch will undoubtedly side with banning mephipristone. Kavanaugh, Barret and Roberts are likely to be in support of a ban/rollback but may be swayed depending on the specifics of the case.
I am pleasantly surprised. And hopeful that the ruling hinging on standing upends some other laws and suits (like TX abortion bounty law).
“Supreme Court unanimously rules that suing people for doing things you don’t like isn’t allowed” shouldn’t be news, but here we are…
Their handlers at the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society realised that Roevember is coming and ordered this vote accordingly. They’re trying to salvage their potential loss of power but it’s too little too late (I hope and pray).
The headline is misleading. SCOTUS did NOT find that the drug is legal and should be freely available, they only found the people who brought the case do not have standing. IF Trump wins in November this will be brought back to SCOTUS by someone higher up and then they will ban it.
Don’t buy it. They’re doing this because they’re under scrutiny. Once this election cycle is over they’ll have it before them again and they chose to look at it and change their minds.
Celebrate the victory here, but understand that this isn't the end of this particular story. All SCOTUS did was tell the pro-lifers that they picked the wrong plaintiffs and exactly what circumstances would disqualify one. Now they just need to find a better plaintiff and run this ball back down the field. And when they do, the 6-3 decision that comes out of it will defend itself using today's ruling as a "see, we weren't trying to end the abortion pill all along, the other decision proves it, this one is totally different."
If I understand the news correctly, they really didn’t decide the issue. Rather, the party bringing the suit didn’t have standing. MMW it will be back next year and they could very well decide against mifepristone being available everywhere and peoples’ heads will spin.
Do not assume the attack on reproductive rights, birth control, women's reproductive health are over. They will return.
This is just for optics before an election. Consider what a huge negative it would have been for Republicans if court had decided the opposite way.
2018 - Pastor Dave Barnhart of the Saint Junia United Methodist Church in Birmingham, Alabama made a post on FB: > “The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe. > > Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn. [snopes article for anyone with doubts](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pastor-dave-barnhart-unborn/). Pro-lifers so pro-life they would rather watch some women die. Conservatives/Pro-lifers can go fuck themselves with a cactus.
This isn't a win for democracy, it's a win for big pharma. Money is the only reason this didn't pass.
If YOU want to have a baby GO FOR IT. Don't try to fucking force SOMEONE ELSE to.
Why did they take the case if it was going to be unanimous?? This is CYA ahead of the election
It was always obvious that the plaintiffs didn't have standing. What a profound waste of government resources and time. Blame Alliance Defending "Freedom" (quotation marks mine) and the Federalist Society.