Supremes at it again - abortion in Louisiana.

[ProfessorSlocombe]

abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-hands-major-decision-louisiana-abortion-case/story?id=71254751

Interested to see again Justice Roberts not sticking to the script.

Poor old Donald. Couldn't even stack the Supreme Court properly.

Oops.

The Supreme Court announced a major ruling on abortion, deciding that the Louisiana law is unconstitutional and should not stand.

The opinion was written by Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts also filed an opinion concurring for the majority.

The case, June Medical Services v. Russo, was a challenge to a Louisiana law that required abortion providers have admitting privileges with a nearby hospital -- an agreement between a doctor and a hospital that allows a patient to go that hospital if they need urgent care.

(contd)

Dead good. Its often the case that presidents are surprised by their nominees once they are in place.

That must be a relief. Does finally to this specific law online will it affect similar obstructive laws?

*Does it relate to this specific law only...

Dead good. Its often the case that presidents are surprised by their nominees once they are in place.

One thing I have noticed about racists, is that they really are racist. Not only do they think all are the same. They also assume all white people are the same too. Certainly in my experience.

(There is nothing quite as insulting and enraging as someone assuming you share their views because you are white whispering something racist into your ear as if you agree ...)

Eventually it will undo them.

Oh god, Professor, so true.

This is excellent news on the ruling.

Roberts wasn't a Trump nominee. In this case his nominees have behaved exactly as expected. Gorsauch didn't in the LGBT case though.

It is clear that Roberts is extremely concerned about the legacy and reputation of the Roberts Court.

Oh, wonderful news.

Much as I disagree with many of Justice Roberts' views, I so admire his integrity, and his clear determination not to allow the Supreme Court to become politicised.

That must be a relief. Does finally to this specific law online will it affect similar obstructive laws?

It will be used as a precedent by lower courts in future rulings. So if a state tries to introduce a similar law, their own supreme court can strike it out without needing to refer to SCOTUS.

For all it's "United", there is still a very real and powerful tension between (some) states and the federal government (SCOTUS being an arm of the federal government). With Southern states (Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas being the most vocal) repeatedly feeling they have to put up with being dictated to by a Northern-centric federal government.

Oh, great!

In this case Roberts used precedent as the basis of his decision. He followed a 2016 decision in a Texas case even though he actually dissented in that 2016 case. So this decision also bolsters the idea that Roberts would use precedent to ensure Roe v Wade is not overturned.

There is also a tension between popular opinion (majority of americans support access to abortion for example) and the ideology of the supreme court. I think Roberts is well aware that a supreme court regularly handing down decisions that the majority of the electorate disagrees with will rob the court of any respect.

I think Roberts is well aware that a supreme court regularly handing down decisions that the majority of the electorate disagrees with will rob the court of any respect.

It's not the Supremes job to be liked or popular. It's to be correct on matters of law and interpreting the constitution. If Americans aren't happy with that, they are free to change the constitution to change the guidance SCOTUS gives in future.

There's a reason the Supremes aren't elected and serve for life.

p.s thanks for the correction on Roberts.

Yes that't the theory Professor.