KBJ is a very solid justice who will write a lot of dissenting opinions over the next decade. But a very solid justice, and I love the fact that she was an actual district judge who understands the realities of trials. I also love the fact that she asks as lot of questions starting from an originalist framework.
I might have missed something but their argument seems to be that they could possibly be "injured" by having to treat someone who has done something they find morally objectionable. Is there more to it than that?
the regulatory procedure history is actually a little more complicated than that, but that said, this is a classic fake case brought by eggheads who don't really represent actual clients
Judge Ho is hardly the first justice to suggest that aesthetic harm is a cognizable interest for standing. See us v scrapIt is essentially Justice Ho on the 5th Circuit saying that babies are beautiful and people enjoy looking at them. And so we are all harmed by abortion.
Ho Cites Doctor ‘Aesthetic’ Injuries in Abortion Pill Case (1)
Federal appeals court Judge James Ho invoked an unusual parallel to injuries claimed by environmentalists and animal lovers to justify why anti-abortion groups could challenge a key abortion drug.news.bloomberglaw.com
Only if you are one of the crazies.
She obviously isn't very bright. When asked in her confirmation hearing to define a women, she couldn't. How did she even graduate preschool, let alone law school?
I'd wager a month's pay she's brighter than anyone on this board.
I respectfully disagree. If you are using as the barometer the party that nominated them then I would agree however, conservatives have a history of nominating justices that then went on lean Liberal and that’s where I’m coming from.
That's not true but it should be. Every justice should be by the book strict originalists. Judges are meant to be referees not coaches or players. They swear an oath to the Constitution which is our rule book. I don't want a ref making calls during a game based on fairness, history or equal opportunity, I want one following the rules the exact same way for everyone.
Not true. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. The plaintiffs proved that separate but equal was not actually equal for everyone, thus it violated the 14th Amendment. There are of course instances where the law isn't so black and white and that is why there are 9 justices and not just one. However, attempting to create law from the bench is not how our system was designed and unfortunately the left tries to use that tactic often. A perfect example was Roe V Wade. There is no Constitutional right to an abortion in the Constitution but the court twisted itself into knots in an attempt to create one. As painful and disruptive the latest abortion decision was, it was the correct one. Voters need to decide what abortion restrictions they want not 9 voices from on high.
Roe held that there was a privacy right in the constitution and as such the government could not infringe in a women’s medical decision—until viability of the fetus. Second, SCOTUs didn’t decide what abortion restrictions existed - that decision was left to the woman until viability. After viability, the government could decide.
I especially like this argument as accepting it tees up nicely a ban on birth control.It is essentially Justice Ho on the 5th Circuit saying that babies are beautiful and people enjoy looking at them. And so we are all harmed by abortion.
Ho Cites Doctor ‘Aesthetic’ Injuries in Abortion Pill Case (1)
Federal appeals court Judge James Ho invoked an unusual parallel to injuries claimed by environmentalists and animal lovers to justify why anti-abortion groups could challenge a key abortion drug.
When decisions aren't being made on established law, they are overturning centuries of legal precedent, and are flat out unconstitutional and destabilizing to the entire government it's a serious problem. This doesn't even include the judges who are on the take and a judge who's wife was part of an attempted coup but he's ruling on cases involved with January 6 anyway. Plus, two of the current justices were stolen seats that engineered this highly partisan court in the first place. Those things are why the court is not legitimate.
Sorry but that answer actually doesn't even warrant a reply it is so based on delusional thinking and complete lack of reason.
Don't worry, I didn't expect you to understand any of it.
Oh I understood plenty and the only thing I am worried about is your mental health frankly.
