Federalism -- if it is to mean anything. . . must mean that one or two states cannot hold all the other 48 or 49 hostage, to their supposed "moral" -- not legal. . . beliefs.
While the Justices are working on procedural niceties to give adequate time for Thomas and Alito to vent their spleens to the other seven. . . we will see some more temporary orders.
But we will not see the reversal of this recent decision protecting choice. It is deeply rooted in the notion that a doctor and her patient are the arbiters of this decision. Not some supposed fundamentalist / religious faction of some southern state house -- not for the entire nation.
Nope. Onward. [The Voting Rights Act decision, on the other hand -- is a deeply troubling / non-realistic rendering. Damn.]
नमस्ते
1 comment:
And -- at least as to the Voting Rights Act, Section 2 analysis in Alabama. . . Justice Sotomayor is correct, here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-243_f20h.pdf
"...The Court today unceremoniously discards the District Court’s meticulously documented and supported discriminatory-intent finding and careful remedial order without any sound basis for doing so and without regard for the confusion that will surely ensue. As with all vacaturs of this kind from this Court, the District Court remains free on remand to decide for itself whether Callais has any bearing on its Fourteenth Amendment analysis or if its prior reasoning is unaffected by that decision...."
That is, her dissent broadly hints that the federal trial court in Alabama need only directly rule (again!) that the map reflects intentional discrimination against the Voting power of people of color. . . and it is "game over, for the MAGAts" -- again.
What a wast of time.
Post a Comment