Mississippi Abortion Law Blocked By Federal Judge

rugcat · Jul 2, 2012

Mississippi's only abortion clinic, which would have been shut down by the new law, has won a temporary injunction allowing it to stay open.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/mississippis-only-abortion-clinic-survives-for-now/

Mississippi's law has been touted by proponents as being all about concerns for women's health.

Unfortunately, key legislators, the Governor, and the Lt. Governor, are all on record as stating that the true intent of the law is to shut down the clinic, plain and simple, and stop all abortions in Mississippi. They not only publicly admit that, they have bragged about it.

And in part, because of that, I don't see any way the law will survive a challenge. It is unconstitutional on the face of it -- targeted legislation primarily intended to effectively remove a right guaranteed by Roe v Wade.

Were the courts to rule against it and if it were taken eventually all the way to the SCOTUS. I doubt they would even hear the case.

Even if the law were to be upheld by lower courts, (which I can't see) the SCOTUS will rule against it, 6-3, with only Scalia/Thomas and Alito voting to uphold it.

regdog · Jul 2, 2012

Politicians who are bragging about denying women safe, competent medical care, asshats.

Fingers crossed the women's health clinic remains open permanently.

muravyets · Jul 2, 2012

Not only does it aim to remove a right, but it targets a specific private entity, that clinic. Aren't there laws against that, too? There's some kind of Latiny name for it, isn't there? Do these people bother to look up anything before they just run off and do it?

missesdash · Jul 2, 2012

This is great news. I was really concerned about the clinic.

fireluxlou · Jul 2, 2012

This is brilliant I feel so bad for the poor women who have to continually fight for their right to have women's clinics and their own health.

Zoombie · Jul 2, 2012

Great job on the federal judge: This is the kind of thing that a federal government SHOULD do, making sure the rights of minorities are protected from majorities.

Though that's a fucking joke, considering how NOT a minority women are...

Sighs.

missesdash · Jul 2, 2012

Zoombie said:
Great job on the federal judge: This is the kind of thing that a federal government SHOULD do, making sure the rights of minorities are protected from majorities.

Though that's a fucking joke, considering how NOT a minority women are...

Sighs.

RIGHT. Goddamnit.

nighttimer · Jul 2, 2012

rugcat said:
And in part, because of that, I don't see any way the law will survive a challenge. It is unconstitutional on the face of it -- targeted legislation primarily intended to effectively remove a right guaranteed by Roe v Wade.

Were the courts to rule against it and if it were taken eventually all the way to the SCOTUS. I doubt they would even hear the case.

Even if the law were to be upheld by lower courts, (which I can't see) the SCOTUS will rule against it, 6-3, with only Scalia/Thomas and Alito voting to uphold it.

I wouldn't be so quick to presume Kennedy and Roberts would vote to strike down the Mississippi law. The Affordable Care Act ruling was the first time Roberts voted with the "liberal" wing of the Court to give them a victory. That was an aberration, not the start of a trend Who the hell knows what Anthony Kennedy would do? He doesn't even know himself.

When he wakes up for breakfast, Kennedy probably can't make up his mind between Cheerios and Corn Flakes, so he eats both. He's so wishy-washy, he could be Mitt Romney's running mate.

It's an awful piece of legislation, but I can't believe even the politicians in Mississippi couldn't craft one designed to withstand Constitutional challenges.

Alessandra Kelley · Jul 2, 2012

muravyets said:
Not only does it aim to remove a right, but it targets a specific private entity, that clinic. Aren't there laws against that, too? There's some kind of Latiny name for it, isn't there? Do these people bother to look up anything before they just run off and do it?

It's called a Bill of Attainder, "an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a judicial trial," and it is expressly forbidden in the Constitution.

Section 9 of the US Constitution says:

Section. 9.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

So what these <substitute word for ungentlemanly persons> have done is unconstitutional, never mind evil and vicious.

Xelebes · Jul 2, 2012

Alessandra Kelley said:
<substitute word for ungentlemanly persons>

Rakes of Law?

muravyets · Jul 2, 2012

Ex post facto, that's what I was trying to remember. Thanks, Alessandra. I couldn't remember enough even to effectively google it.

rugcat · Jul 2, 2012

nighttimer said:
It's an awful piece of legislation, but I can't believe even the politicians in Mississippi couldn't craft one designed to withstand Constitutional challenges.

They might have been able to contort logic into some sort of case acceptable to a Roberts or Kennedy.

But in their self satisfied hubris, they couldn't help but brag about their clever plan to stop all abortions, and that, if nothing else, will sink the law.

Roberts is a reliable standard bearer for all things states rights and conservative, but I think that unlike Scalia, he has at least some measure of judicial ethics.

RichardGarfinkle · Jul 3, 2012

rugcat said:
They might have been able to contort logic into some sort of case acceptable to a Roberts or Kennedy.

But in their self satisfied hubris, they couldn't help but brag about their clever plan to stop all abortions, and that, if nothing else, will sink the law.

Roberts is a reliable standard bearer for all things states rights and conservative, but I think that unlike Scalia, he has at least some measure of judicial ethics.

It might be ethics or it might be concern for the power and respect for the Supreme Court. Roberts is Chief Justice, he may be concerned about too much overturning.

The same thing seems to have happened to Renquist. As an associate justice he was a bomb throwing radical. As Chief Justice he handed down some horrendously conservative decisions, but he balked at some things. In particular he refused to overturn the Miranda decision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickerson_v._United_States

Right to Life groups have been recently pushing this kind of law that is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade instead of the earlier attempts at restrictions that might pass constitutional muster given a right to life court (I.e. they aren't really reasonable restrictions, but judges can get away with pretending they are). This law has the legislative intent of stopping abortion, therefore it's a direct challenge.

Roberts may not be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade because it makes the Supreme Court look bad to do too much overturning of precedent without good cause, and he already tossed a giant monkey wrench into the US government and his reputation with Citizens United.

That's a long way to go to say maybe he won't do the wrong thing.

Shadow Dragon · Jul 3, 2012

I would love the people challenging Mississippi's law to win. If nothing else, it sets a precedent and allows others to challenge state anti-abortion laws.

icerose · Jul 3, 2012

That's such great news for the women of Mississippi. I hope that federal courts continue to uphold the rights of women.

rugcat · Jul 3, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
It might be ethics or it might be concern for the power and respect for the Supreme Court. Roberts is Chief Justice, he may be concerned about too much overturning.

Oh I agree. I'm not one who thinks Roberts is really an okay guy after all, because of that one decision on Obamacare.

Like many others, I think he was concerned about the status of the court and the huge effect of overturning laws at a time where the SCOTUS has lost much of its former perception as the ultimate and fair arbiter and is increasing being viewed as just another partisan political institution.

Now, Obamacare had plausible arguments on both sides. (Although in a Bloomberg piece, before the decision 19 of 21 constitutional scholars surveyed believed it to be constitutional)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...measure-legal-as-some-doubt-court-agrees.html

But in the case of the Mississippi law, where the drafters of that law have admitted bad faith, their actions are so unambiguously unconstitutional that I don't believe Roberts would support them -- if nothing else, it would severely damage the court's reputation.

However, he might well eventually vote to overturn Roe v Wade, although he has previously maintained that it is "settled law."

Mississippi Abortion Law Blocked By Federal Judge

rugcat

Lost in the Fog

regdog

The Scavengers

muravyets

Old revolutionary

missesdash

You can't sit with us!

fireluxlou

Zoombie

Dragon of the Multiverse

missesdash

You can't sit with us!

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui

muravyets

Old revolutionary

rugcat

Lost in the Fog

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes

Shadow Dragon

icerose

Lost in School Work

rugcat

Lost in the Fog