Today the SCOTUS announced that it would take up the case involving Mississippi's law that restricts--effectively bans--abortions after 15 weeks of gestation. There doesn't seem much point in me speculating on the outcome, although informed speculation suggests the law will be upheld. Streiff at Red State covers it in some depth: Supreme Court Accepts a Mississippi Abortion Case That Seems Likely to Overturn Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. What you need to know about this case is contained in this brief excerpt:
This could very well be the most important abortion decision of the past 10 or so years because even though Mississippi’s appeal included three questions:
(1) Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional; (2) whether the validity of a pre-viability law that protects women’s health, the dignity of unborn children and the integrity of the medical profession and society should be analyzed under Planned Parenthood v. Casey‘s “undue burden” standard or Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt‘s balancing of benefits and burdens; and (3) whether abortion providers have third-party standing to invalidate a law that protects women’s health from the dangers of late-term abortions.
the Supreme Court is only going to hear arguments on issue #1. This is not an argument over procedure; it is a question that will frame the abortion debate in the future. If the Court agrees with Mississippi, then the door is open for those states that wish to regulate all abortions. If the abortion industry wins, then all “pre-viable” babies can be killed without mercy. As Jeanne Mancini of March for Life observes, “the United States is one of only seven countries – including China and North Korea – that allows abortions through all nine months of pregnancy. An overwhelming majority of Americans agree that this goes way too far, in fact 70% think abortion should be limited to – at most – the first three months of pregnancy.”
On a related SCOTUS ruling today Caniglia v Strom, the court ruled 9-0 against warrantless search/seizure. Not sure why it's under the radar on most sites, but seems to be a big deal and a big win (unless you are a gun grabber).
ReplyDeletehttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf
@Mikeyinfl, This was a solid, pro 2A uphold the actual Constitution decision. I'd love to hear someone who knows more about the SC than me (everyone on the planet) opine as to why the decision was unanimous. The Constitution hasn't stopped these folks before. Why how?
DeleteShould we be optimistic? We desperately need the court(s) to step up.
Actually, this wasn't a 2A case per se at all. It was a 4A case--search and seizure--as Mikey says. From one point of view it was an attempt to whittle away at our freedoms using the cover of anti-gun sentiment. The fact that the decision was 9-0 shows that even the libs saw through that subterfuge.
DeleteHere's a good discussion that shows why this case was never close:
Deletehttps://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2021/05/17/supreme-court-rejects-home-searches-to-seize-firearms-by-police-under-community-caretaker-doctrine-n381787
Thanks, Mark.
DeleteYer welcome. We're still waiting for that great 2A case.
DeleteI just read the opinion, and it rejected the "community caretaker" doctrine that the police argued gave them a right for a warrantless search and seizure. This doctrine is rather vague, and if it was not rejected, it basically would have written the 4th Amendment out of existence! If that 'community caretaker' doctrine had been upheld, the government could use it to justify any warrantless search of a home, and there could have been tons of litigation to try to define the boundaries of the doctrine. They were smart to just reject the doctrine and say there's no major loophole to the 4th Amdt where the home is concerned.
ReplyDeleteI also wondered in reading it if the Breanna Taylor case had any influence on any of the judges. That case involved a no-knock warrant, not a warrantless search, but the pitfalls could be the same in either case. That may have united the Court in some way, even though it wasn't mentioned that I saw.
No knock warrants have become extremely common, where they used to be pretty exceptional. A lot of the really bad cases arise from their use.
DeleteI lived in DC in the late 60s/early 70s when no-knock warrants were first used. There was a lot of debate and controversy about them, and pretty much everyone agreed they were not proper, but only to be used in drastic circumstances when there was some special showing of organized crime or huge amounts of drugs and some special exigency existed. They really morphed into business as usual pretty fast!
DeleteNo-knock warrants in Texas can result in cops getting killed, and grand juries refusing to indict the residents. It's happened at least three times in Texas.
DeleteI remember studying Roe v. Wade in law school, but haven't kept up with the area of law at all since then. In the opinion, they actually only permitted abortions until the 'fetus' reached a stage of viability. Later cases seem to have expanded this? I've never understood how it got expanded so much past viability, especially in light of medical advances in neonatal medicine. Maybe the Court will tie back to this language in the Roe v. Wade opinion?
ReplyDelete"Later cases seem to have expanded this?"
DeleteIn the sense that they basically junked the trimester construct. From the article:
"The Roe vs. Wade “trimester” rubric was effectively killed off in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey and replaced by a viable/non-viable choice for the courts.
...
"It is important to member that Casey is particularly vulnerable to being overturned because it was a 5-4 decision and a mere three-justice plurality decided the key parts of the decision."
This is why the article states that Casey could be overturned rather that Roe v. Wade.
"community caretaker", it's nice to see that shot down for what it was.
ReplyDeleteI've never agreed with Roe, my personal opinion on abortion aside because it's irrelevant. Roe, like many federal decisions walks all over the states and the constitution itself.
If I could get wheat to grow in Florida I'd plant 50 acres of it just to go after Wickard v. Filburn. đŸ™„