They rejected it only on procedural grounds. Eventually, someone with actual standing will restart the case and then the court will have to make a decision on the merits, if any.
It is hard to see how someone could actually have standing, though.
They rejected it only on procedural grounds. Eventually, someone with actual standing will restart the case and then the court will have to make a decision on the merits, if any.
It is hard to see how someone could actually have standing, though.
I was really surprised when i learned the suit was brought by a bunch of doctors who don’t prescribe the drug, and they hadn’t found a woman who took it and regretted doing so to bring the suit.
IMO there are two possible interpretations to that shoddy workmanship by the plaintiffs.
They were fully rational and quite confident the fix was effectively in and a politically-motivated ruling would be issued regardless of such legal niceties as standing or the existence of any harmed party, much less an identifiable named harmed party.
They did get it past the court of first impression and the Federal appeals court on exactly that basis, so they were not far wrong in their thinking. That the suborning of the US justice system is not actually quite complete yet is a reasonable miscalculation on their part and can be chalked up to the unknowable vagaries inherent in any/every trial.
They’re just MAGAnuts docs who found a/some MAGAnut lawyer(s) to circle jerk with.
I find Door #2 far more likely, but Door #1 far more scary.
I can think of another, broken into two parts:
3(a). If they win in spite of everything, mifepristone is effectively removed as an option; also an avenue is open for attacking other drugs they don’t like (“The HPV vaccine and birth control just encourage sex!”).
3(b). If they lose, they’ve created a counter-narrative to the Dems’ abortion rights campaign (“See? Mifepristone is still available! Nothing to see here, move along!”).
#2 above is still far more likely, though.
My take on it is that @LSLGuy’s response scenario #1 flavored heavily with #2 is more likely
My feeling and thinking is that @OttoDaFe hit it on the head with 3a for a certain segment of loud vocal trump supporters and other right wingers.
The trouble is that a trial court and an appeals court threw the standing issue under the bus. That shows how far gone the US judiciary is.