5-4, Supreme Court refuses to block Texas six-week abortion ban

[Ferguson97]

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1433278317269028865

[I’m not Stu]

I knew it! A partisan 5-4 decision with Roberts dissenting!

[Donerail]

lmfao gotta give him the W here

[I’m not Stu]

I saw this coming.

[Beet]

Awful, awful, awful.

[brucejoel99]

When I've considered how the overturning of Roe/Casey would essentially go down, I never thought that it'd happen on the shadow docket in the literal dead of night. Witnessing such (awful) history in real time is f**king weird, to say the least.

[Houstonian Sock]

I like this

[UncleSam]

To clarify, does this mean the law cannot be challenged, or does it mean that it’ll have to go through the lower courts first?

It’s literally insane that five justices decided this wasn’t somehow unconstitutional, but I want to know if there’s anything left to hope for.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

To clarify, does this mean the law cannot be challenged, or does it mean that it’ll have to go through the lower courts first?

It’s literally insane that five justices decided this wasn’t somehow unconstitutional, but I want to know if there’s anything left to hope for.

The second. It’s going through the lower courts right now, I believe, but this decision allows it to be enforced in the meantime (effectively signaling that those 5 justices will likely uphold it eventually).

[NewYorkExpress]

To clarify, does this mean the law cannot be challenged, or does it mean that it’ll have to go through the lower courts first?

It’s literally insane that five justices decided this wasn’t somehow unconstitutional, but I want to know if there’s anything left to hope for.

The second. It’s going through the lower courts right now, I believe, but this decision allows it to be enforced in the meantime (effectively signaling that those 5 justices will likely uphold it eventually).

I wouldn't be shocked if Roberts joins them on upholding it, actually, or if the five justices use the case to outright overturn Roe, and institute a ban on statewide legalization of abortion.

[John Dule]

To clarify, does this mean the law cannot be challenged, or does it mean that it’ll have to go through the lower courts first?

It’s literally insane that five justices decided this wasn’t somehow unconstitutional, but I want to know if there’s anything left to hope for.

The second. It’s going through the lower courts right now, I believe, but this decision allows it to be enforced in the meantime (effectively signaling that those 5 justices will likely uphold it eventually).

I wouldn't be shocked if Roberts joins them on upholding it, actually, or if the five justices use the case to outright overturn Roe, and institute a ban on statewide legalization of abortion.

Lol.

[Donerail]

I wouldn't be shocked if Roberts joins them on upholding it, actually,

Doubtful given that his dissent indicates there's very little chance of any legal success on the merits for the defenders of the law. I'm sure there's some cutesy way he wants to get to the same destination, though, and I wouldn't rule out him joining the majority in Dobbs.

or if the five justices use the case to outright overturn Roe,

Not a good vehicle for that — not much point to overturning Roe here when you have Dobbs already scheduled for the upcoming term. Dobbs presents the question squarely and lets you go after it directly (something that's admittedly easier if you hollow out the decision beforehand in cases like this one).

and institute a ban on statewide legalization of abortion.

lol what

[lfromnj]

By the way what happens to any bounty money collected if SCOTUS does end up blocking the law in the end?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I can’t see Roberts overruling Roe, either in Dobbs or in this case. I can absolutely see the other five doing so. That’s the ACB project in action.

[progressive85]

You already have right there a 5-4 majority to overturn Roe tomorrow.  I'm telling you guys it's going to be overturned.  Maybe the Chief Justice sees that the ultimate victory for the conservative legal movement since the late 70s is just a matter of time... and yet, it's not going to look good for him - perhaps that's what he's thinking right about now.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Does this jeopardize the future of Roe?

[It’s so Joever]

And there goes a huge GOP turnout motivator.

[HAnnA MArin County]

And there goes a huge GOP turnout motivator.

They’ll always have their Economic Anxiety to fall back on.

[Torie]

I do not agree that it is slam dunk that in due course,  when the case winds it way back to SCOTUS, five justices will vote to uphold the Texas law. Emergency stays have a different set of considerations, than an actual case SCOTUS takes up by granting cert, after it has wound its way through the lower courts, My view is that the reaction to what SCOTUS did is overwrought and excessively "doomerish." Yes, I know, maybe none of you will agree with me. That's OK, it's lonely up here on the top of Mt. Olympus. 

[UncleSam]

I do not agree that it is slam dunk that in due course,  when the case winds it way back to SCOTUS, five justices will vote to uphold the Texas law. Emergency stays have a different set of considerations, than an actual case SCOTUS takes up by granting cert, after it has wound its way through the lower courts, My view is that the reaction to what SCOTUS did is overwrought and excessively "doomerish." Yes, I know, maybe none of you will agree with me. That's OK, it's lonely up here on the top of Mt. Olympus. 

While I agree with this outlook you also need to remember that in the meantime, women in TX don’t have access to critical healthcare. I’d say that’s the biggest concern, I’m very doubtful that SCOTUS will strike down Roe. I do think they’ll weaken it though.

[Torie]

I do not agree that it is slam dunk that in due course,  when the case winds it way back to SCOTUS, five justices will vote to uphold the Texas law. Emergency stays have a different set of considerations, than an actual case SCOTUS takes up by granting cert, after it has wound its way through the lower courts, My view is that the reaction to what SCOTUS did is overwrought and excessively "doomerish." Yes, I know, maybe none of you will agree with me. That's OK, it's lonely up here on the top of Mt. Olympus. 

While I agree with this outlook you also need to remember that in the meantime, women in TX don’t have access to critical healthcare. I’d say that’s the biggest concern, I’m very doubtful that SCOTUS will strike down Roe. I do think they’ll weaken it though.

Yes, but they can go to other states, and charities etc. should help finance those in need to do that. That is the insanity from a policy standpoint on this abortion issue - different states have different laws. The way out of the box is to have a national law. I myself question late term abortions in some circumstances, so I am kind if a "moderate" on this issue. Obviously the Texas law is nutter with a 6 week cutoff.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I haven't read Roberts dissent, but I suspect his main concern is that refusing to block SB8 until the case has been decided on the merits sets a precedent on how to evade or delay judicial review. I know if I were on the court, that's what would concern me most. Roe was a poorly decided precedent that is perhaps the Court's most prominent example of it legislating from the bench. (Not its worst, as in my opinion that dishonor belongs to the Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, not its abortion jurisprudence.) But despite how I think the Court sometimes gets things wrong, judicial review is an essential part of our constitutional system and that principal should not be weakened.

So-called conservatives who applaud this decision should consider what happens if this tactic of evading judicial review by making the punishment for engaging in undesired behavior come not from criminal sanction but civil lawsuits starts being used in areas such as gun sales. SB8 is bad policy precisely because of how it seeks to gut judicial review, not because of what it tries to do in making abortion illegal.

(Just to be clear, I think that as a matter of good policy, abortion should be legal in at least the first trimester. However, that abortion is an absolute Constitutional right is not something I find derivable from the Constitution as any such conclusion assumes there is no legitimate reason for government to be concerned about a fetus.)

[politicallefty]

Roe is done. It's over. Anyone thinking otherwise is just deluding themselves. Chief Justice Roberts no longer has control over this Court. I think Griwold is probably doomed as well. It's just a matter of time.

[NewYorkExpress]

Roe is done. It's over. Anyone thinking otherwise is just deluding themselves. Chief Justice Roberts no longer has control over this Court. I think Griwold is probably doomed as well. It's just a matter of time.

We could see this court ruling that actual constitutional amendments are unconstitutional (such as the thirteenth, seventeenth, and all of the civil rights ones).

[SteveRogers]

Roe is done. It's over. Anyone thinking otherwise is just deluding themselves. Chief Justice Roberts no longer has control over this Court. I think Griwold is probably doomed as well. It's just a matter of time.

We could see this court ruling that actual constitutional amendments are unconstitutional (such as the thirteenth, seventeenth, and all of the civil rights ones).

Nope. Not how any of this works.