Since the last two significant Supreme Court rulings, where conservative judges appeared somewhat reasonable regarding a few abortion cases (emphasis on somewhat), I have been nervously awaiting the other shoe to drop.
To recap:
The Supreme Court on Thursday threw out a lawsuit seeking to roll back access to mifepristone, one of the two drugs used in medication abortions. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that the doctors and medical groups challenging the expansion of access to the drug by the Food and Drug Administration in 2016 and 2021 lack a legal right to sue, known as standing. The justices did not reach the merits of the challenge – that is, they did not rule on whether the FDA acted properly in expanding access to mifepristone…
Thursday’s ruling means that mifepristone will continue to remain widely available in the United States, where it is used in over 60% of abortions by health care providers. The decision, however, does not necessarily foreclose another challenge to the FDA’s actions. Three states with Republican attorneys general – Idaho, Missouri, and Kansas – joined the dispute in the lower court earlier this year. —SCOTUS BLOG
Regarding the denial of emergency care to women experiencing pregnancy complications that could be life-threatening in Idaho, the Supreme Court delayed its ruling, punting to the lower courts—Gee, kinda like they did with this case—see the pattern? Delay, delay, delay. To what end?
But instead of issuing a definitive ruling, the Supreme Court returned the matter to lower courts. It also lifted its stay of a lower-court ruling that will allow, for now, emergency abortions at Idaho hospitals to be done if neccessary to protect the health of the mother.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson strongly objected to the Court's handling of the case, and read parts of her dissenting opinion from the bench: “Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is a delay,” she wrote. “While this court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires. This Court had a chance to bring clarity and certainty to this tragic situation, and we have squandered it.” — FORBES
The previous decisions always seemed like a backhanded yet strategic peace offering, which made me anxious about the upcoming immunity ruling. These types of SCOTUS offerings are gleefully thrown out as temporary measures to satisfy the public before any significant, controversial ruling.
I mean, are they not merciful?
What is the end goal, you ask?
For the sake of argument, let's say that Trump’s MAGA supporters succeed in delaying his trials until after the election. If Trump wins, he could dismiss every case since he would be in power.
With a new, cooperative Supreme Court, he could enforce a strict, nationwide abortion ban, potentially jeopardizing civil and voting rights, as well as other human rights.
Lawd, have mercy!
Let the Hunger Games begin!
Republicans would summarily place tons of rules and regulations on average Americans they would never follow themselves, Project 2025ing the hell out of all of us while they eat cake.
We would all be under the ruling thumb of sociopathic Elon Musk types who think people should work 120 hours a week without lunch.
When an employee finally breaks?
Toss him over your shoulder and install another worker, hopefully young and maybe hot enough to occasionally force into a back room.
And let’s make sure all the women folk pump out tons of babies to fill the worker void—if some die in this endeavor? Meh, that's life.
In other words, Republicans want a violent caste system like a hellscape they can rule over to remain rich and powerful while the rest we stab one another in the eye over an egg.
It starts like this: SCOTUS rules a president has absolute immunity for official acts — REUTERS —
The justices, in a 6-3 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, threw out a lower court's decision rejecting Trump's claim of immunity from criminal charges involving his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. The six conservative justices were in the majority. Its three liberals dissented.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
"We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power requires that former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office," Roberts wrote.
"At least with respect to the president's exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity," Roberts added.
…Trump hailed the ruling in a social media post, writing: "BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!"
The fact Donald Trump and MAGA are celebrating should tell us all we need to know.
The Bigger Picture
My conservative hubby assured me that the lower courts would take a measured approach to the question being posed, carefully dissecting what is within the purview of official and unofficial presidential acts.
There are only two things wrong with that assessment.
Timing and intent.
It is gonna take time for the lower courts to assess what official and unofficial acts mean—time America does not have. Since we now live in an America that cares more about the price of eggs than whether or not we live in a democracy, Trump could win the election before the low-information voting majority knows the extent of his crimes.
This is very, very dangerous. But you know, eggs are costly nowadays. And milk.
Very, very expensive.
Sigh.
SCOTUS is hedging its bets
Now, let's look at intent.
The Supreme Court has faced a ton of heat and scrutiny in the past few years, with the Justices' receiving the lowest approval rating they have ever earned in decades.
So yeah, a dictatorship is pretty bad for the judicial branch of the good ole US of A—but maybe they won't care when it is raining Benjamins after a grateful conservative majority pays them handsomely for their betrayal of the founding principles of this country.
The Supreme Court knows that punting this life-altering case will delay justice. They also know that should Trump win, they will have carte blanche to do what they want—and what they want is to maintain their power and money and control, the rest of us be damned.
I never want much for Christmas (or, in my case, Winter Solstice), you guys, but this year, I think I am gonna ask Santa to, pretty please, with sugar on top, ensure democracy remains intact in America—not just for the sake of America but for the world.
Cuz if America topples off that shining hill, Lord save us all.
President Biden must win a second term
Worst-case scenario for a Biden win: Kamala Harris, an intelligent, capable, and compassionate woman, takes the helm for four years.
We already know what will happen if Trump wins. He will try to remain in power forever and slowly hand the reigns over to one of his even more evil and horrid offspring.
Four years versus an eternity?
We may also be able to convince Biden to expand the Supreme Court number to reduce the power, reach, and tomfoolery of the conservative majority.
It’s the only play we have while we have the freedom to make it. Let us choose wisely because the price of eggs won’t matter when all the Powers That Be rule that eating is a luxury.
Yes exactly. We need a decisive Biden win and if we hold onto the senate, flip the house we expand the court and deal once and for all with the filibuster. Can also codify Roe.
Alicia Norman: As Joyce Vance says, "We are in this together!"
Today's is one of the best of your columns. You weighed in with solid reasoning and strength!
Thank you so very much for encouraging me, after I have been downhearted. You help pick me up.