Still going after women

 

SCOTUS: when they're needed, they stay silent

The Supreme Court decided not to hear arguments in a case involving Texas that could have provided an answer about whether a state abortion ban conflicts with a federal emergency care law.

The decision is a significant victory for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and comes just three months after the court dismissed a similar case involving Idaho, a move that was criticized as a preelection punt that offered no clarity on the issue.

Dismissing the Idaho case did not resolve the underlying legal questions, so the decision not to hear arguments in the Texas case was unexpected.

  The Hill

I don't know. I expect them to do the worst possible thing these days.

The Texas case centers on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires federally funded hospitals to provide stabilizing care to emergency room patients no matter their ability to pay.

The Biden administration invoked EMTALA in the wake of the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. The administration said state laws or mandates that employ a more restrictive definition of an emergency medical condition are preempted by the federal statute.

Texas sued the administration shortly after the guidance was issued, arguing the law was improperly applied, and the administration did not follow the appropriate rulemaking process.

A lower court ruled in favor of Texas, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed.

Oh, well, my guess is they would have upheld those decisions anyway.

This way, they don't have to have the negative headlines.

And in related news...

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Supreme Court rulings, Thursday, June 27

The "leaked" opinion from yesterday is officially published today.

The Court ruled that this case was "improvidently" granted hearing before it, so essentially kicked it off the roster until a later time when it can be polished up for resubmission in a format they can greenlight a ruling against emergency abortions.

And in other cases...

This is what electing Republicans gets you...a supreme court that strips you of rights and protections, destroys the environment, and funnels your money to corporations.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 06:57 pm:

The dispute in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy turns on whether a hedge fund manager accused of defrauding investors is entitled to a jury trial to determine whether he violated federal securities law, or whether the government acted properly when it tried him before an official known as an “administrative law judge” (ALJ).

[...]

[T]he Court handed down a 6-3 decision, on a party-line vote, that could render a simply astonishing array of federal laws unenforceable. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes in dissent, “the constitutionality of hundreds of statutes may now be in peril, and dozens of agencies could be stripped of their power to enforce laws enacted by Congress.”

[...]

If the question of whether Jarkesy is entitled to a jury trial arose in the absence of any precedent, then he’d have a reasonably strong case that he should prevail. But, as Sotomayor lays out in her dissent, nearly 170 years of precedent cut against Jarkesy’s position.

Congress, moreover, has enacted a wide range of laws on the presumption that many enforcement proceedings may be brought before administrative law judges and not juries.

[...]

Some of these laws, including the one allowing the SEC to bring enforcement actions against people like Jarkesy, give the government a choice. That is, they allow federal agencies to bring a proceeding either before an ALJ or before a federal district court that may conduct a jury trial.

[...]

By upending this longstanding assumption, the Court may have just thrown huge swaths of the federal government — particularly enforcement by those agencies Sotomayor listed — into chaos.

  Vox

UPDATE 06/28/2024:

Supreme Court rulings, Wednesday, June 26

Which is as much help as they can give Trump this session without ruling that a president is immune from prosecution for everything and for all time.

And don't forget - the debate is tomorrow.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 11:19 am:

Who are you kidding?  Take a wild guess.

UPDATE 01:35 pm:  

So, let me ask:  If the document in question is the opinion, why couldn't they announce that opinion today?  They have about 10 decisions to get through in the next 2 days, or they'll have to add extra decision days in July.  They only did two today.

Let me guess:  They want to postpone the immunity decision until they are absolutely 100% positive there is no way on earth Judge Chutkan can get the January 6 trial underway before November.  Am I close?

Anyway, this decision is the absolute least they could do in this case. Allow emergency cases to be treated. Wow. How liberal.

Okay, so maybe they'll reconsider after the debate/election when it comes back around.

UPDATE 02:24 pm:

UPDATE 06/27/2024: