Kavanaugh votes with liberal justices

[+OverSword]

Quote

 

In an early decision involving abortion, newly confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with liberals in declining to hear a case that could have allowed states to defund Planned Parenthood in state Medicaid programs.

My colleague Kimberly Leonard has more background and details of the cases, but the basic gist is that lower court rulings prevented Louisiana and Kansas from blocking abortion provider Planned Parenthood from participating in Medicaid. The Supreme Court has now decided to pass on the cases.

Only four justices are needed to agree to grant a hearing on any case. So to stop it from reaching the high court, it took Kavanaugh siding with Chief Justice John Roberts and liberal justices.

 

Link

Will there now be unfounded, out of control, unreasonable hysterics from the other side about Kavanaugh?

[+Not A Rockstar]

I hope not. If the man does his real job, he will vote without worrying about liberal or conservative but in accord with the Law and Constitution.

[ExpandMyMind]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Link

Will there now be unfounded, out of control, unreasonable hysterics from the other side about Kavanaugh?

Depends. Did any of the women he assaulted end up at Planned Parenthood?

[+OverSword]

12 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Depends. Did any of the women he assaulted end up at Planned Parenthood?

Nice one.  One of the big objections to this justice from the opposition was that now Roe v Wade was doomed.  I for one don't think that RVW will ever be repealed nor have I at any time. 

[spartan max2]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Nice one.  One of the big objections to this justice from the opposition was that now Roe v Wade was doomed.  I for one don't think that RVW will ever be repealed nor have I at any time. 

Yep that was my fear

[ExpandMyMind]

16 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Nice one.  One of the big objections to this justice from the opposition was that now Roe v Wade was doomed.  I for one don't think that RVW will ever be repealed nor have I at any time. 

Well, to be fair, he's stated in the past that he wanted to reverse that law. It's not difficult to see how that could lead to people worrying about just that.

[+OverSword]

10 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Well, to be fair, he's stated in the past that he wanted to reverse that law. It's not difficult to see how that could lead to people worrying about just that.

Nope

 

Quote

 

Claim: Has Brett Kavanaugh 'Stated He'd Overturn' Roe v. Wade?

Claimed by: Think Progress

Fact check by The Weekly Standard: FALSE

 

 

[Michelle]

7 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Nope

 

 

Yup, a bunch of hysteria and protests by people who are and were continually fed selective news.

[Agent0range]

45 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Yup, a bunch of hysteria and protests by people who are and were continually fed selective news.

Actually it was from his own emails that made people nervous about Roe vs Wade.  It wasn't pulled out of thin air.  Although he didn't come out and say he would overturn it, that would have sunk that ship quick, there is nothing in his past to think he wouldn't if given the opportunity.

Quote

“I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so,” 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/kavanaugh-advised-against-calling-roe-v-wade-settled-law-while-a-white-house-lawyer/2018/09/06/f30216dc-b1df-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html?utm_term=.9ffd2b32c534

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

Actually it was from his own emails that made people nervous about Roe vs Wade.  It wasn't pulled out of thin air.  Although he didn't come out and say he would overturn it, that would have sunk that ship quick, there is nothing in his past to think he wouldn't if given the opportunity.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/kavanaugh-advised-against-calling-roe-v-wade-settled-law-while-a-white-house-lawyer/2018/09/06/f30216dc-b1df-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html?utm_term=.9ffd2b32c534

Well there was his big chance so for now it seems people are wrong. They usually are.

Edited December 12, 2018 by OverSword

[Kittens Are Jerks]

25 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Well there was his big chance so for now it seems people are wrong. They usually are.

No one has been proved wrong yet.

The two cases had absolutely nothing to do with abortion rights. They involved interpretations of Medicaid law and whether or not Medicaid patients could choose Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services such as birth control and tests for cervical cancer.

[+and-then]

I guess abortion is to the Left as Gun control is to the Right.  A near Sacrament.  I believe killing an unborn child is an abomination but I also believe that the choice to dispose of an innocent life is up to the mother that has to carry it.  The only way I could save one of those lives would be to take away the woman's free will.  I am unwilling to go down that road.  I wonder how many women who support abortion rights could say the same about MY right to bear arms?  It's worth considering by thoughtful adults.

[Wickian]

5 hours ago, OverSword said:

Nice one.  One of the big objections to this justice from the opposition was that now Roe v Wade was doomed.  I for one don't think that RVW will ever be repealed nor have I at any time. 

Only the delusional ever thought it was in genuine danger.

[+and-then]

5 hours ago, OverSword said:

Nice one.  One of the big objections to this justice from the opposition was that now Roe v Wade was doomed.  I for one don't think that RVW will ever be repealed nor have I at any time. 

I don't believe that there is enough widespread support to overturn this ruling so America has made its choice.  Regardless the rhetoric of the Left, abortion is a kind of unholy sacrament for them.  The message of abortion is one that makes clear how disposable human life has become to the modern world.  Close on its heels is euthanasia.  Apparently, only those in the prime of their lives are "worthy" of having that life protected by law.  A young woman choosing to end a pregnancy because she cannot see a future for herself and the child is a tragedy and in many cases, it might be avoided if better information was available about paths to adoption.  Ultimately, she must choose and I don't believe that she is cursed and going into damnation because of her choice so long as she changes her mind and heart about the propriety of ending innocent life.  God IS grace and forgiveness to all who come to Him with a broken heart for their actions that they intrinsically KNOW are wrong.  Aborting millions of biological creations with the divine spark within them has to be a part of God's plans for the world.  He wouldn't allow it if that weren't the case.  I think it's wrong to stand in judgment of women who make this choice unless they've proven themselves to be so unconcerned that they have multiple abortions.  Even then, that issue is between THEM and the Creator.  I have no right to judge.  In today's America, choosing LIFE is easier than it has ever been.  There IS help out there.  I walk past a private facility each evening that shelters and cares for unwed pregnant women.  It's totally funded by donations.  THAT is the way for Christians to fight the fight against this evil.  Do good.  Love and care for the stranger in need.  Ripples on a pond.

[Farmer77]

12 hours ago, OverSword said:

Link

Will there now be unfounded, out of control, unreasonable hysterics from the other side about Kavanaugh?

I'm impressed and relieved. The public baby fit he threw during the hearing left me with zero confidence he was an actual adult and not just a Trumpian provocateur. This however bodes well for the future.

[The Caspian Hare]

Um, he's only voting to not grant certiorari. That's not an ideological reversal.

[Farmer77]

1 hour ago, The Caspian Hare said:

Um, he's only voting to not grant certiorari. That's not an ideological reversal.

Perfect world the ideology cant be reversed because its left behind when the robe is put on. Sounds like thats what happened here and thats good stuff.

[+OverSword]

10 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

No one has been proved wrong yet.

The two cases had absolutely nothing to do with abortion rights. They involved interpretations of Medicaid law and whether or not Medicaid patients could choose Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services such as birth control and tests for cervical cancer.

So passed up a chance to defund America’s largest abortion company huh.

[+OverSword]

2 hours ago, The Caspian Hare said:

Um, he's only voting to not grant certiorari. That's not an ideological reversal.

No.  He voted to not hear the case. 

[Gromdor]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

So passed up a chance to defund America’s largest abortion company huh.

If his ultimate goal is to reverse Wade vs Roe, wouldn't it be in his best interests to preserve the primary entity that would bring a challenge to that ruling? 

[+OverSword]

8 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

If his ultimate goal is to reverse Wade vs Roe, wouldn't it be in his best interests to preserve the primary entity that would bring a challenge to that ruling? 

No.  stare decisis.

 

Quote

 

sta·re de·ci·sis

/ˌsterē dəˈsīsəs/

noun

Law

noun: stare decisis

1. the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent.

 

1. link

   In other words courts are obliged to rule according to previous rulings unless they are appeals courts, which the supreme court is not.  The previous ruling on abortion is RvW in 1973.  It's not in danger of being overturned by the supreme court.

Edited December 12, 2018 by OverSword

[Gromdor]

17 minutes ago, OverSword said:

No.  stare decisis.

 

1. link

   In other words courts are obliged to rule according to previous rulings unless they are appeals courts, which the supreme court is not.  The previous ruling on abortion is RvW in 1973.  It's not in danger of being overturned by the supreme court.

Ah, so since it's a law of the land, the true anti-abortion activist would work with other methods to try and bring down abortion providers.  This was one such opportunity and since he didn't go for it, he truly isn't a hardcore anti-abortionist?  I get your point now.

[+OverSword]

Just now, Gromdor said:

Ah, so since it's a law of the land, the true anti-abortion activist would work with other methods to try and bring down abortion providers.  This was one such opportunity and since he didn't go for it, he truly isn't a hardcore anti-abortionist?  I get your point now.

That's what I believe.  If he was going to go after them he would.  But I truly believe anyone who has reached the point in their career where they would be considered for a seat on the supreme court feel that their duty is to interpret laws and rule neutrally.  My main worry about that was the outburst during the confirmation hearing because interpreting the law should be a dispassionate thing.  I'm still not a Kavanagh fan but who is on the SCOTUS is not up to me.

[The Caspian Hare]

47 minutes ago, OverSword said:

No.  He voted to not hear the case. 

I can't tell if you are agreeing with or contradicting me. A writ of certiorari is what is granted when a higher court wants to review the decision of a lower court. Voting against hearing a case is voting to deny certiorari.

[Robotic Jew]

36 minutes ago, OverSword said:

That's what I believe.  If he was going to go after them he would.  But I truly believe anyone who has reached the point in their career where they would be considered for a seat on the supreme court feel that their duty is to interpret laws and rule neutrally.  My main worry about that was the outburst during the confirmation hearing because interpreting the law should be a dispassionate thing.  I'm still not a Kavanagh fan but who is on the SCOTUS is not up to me.

I second this. Well said.