The pharmaceutical industry is going to be a mess if this doesn’t get thrown out by the Thomas Roberts led dishonest crooked supreme court. I’ll join a class action suit against viagra. Not because I really have anything against the drug, but just because.
Seconded.
Remember when anti-abortion rights types were screeching about “judicial overreach” in reference to Roe v. Wade?
Seems kind of ironic now.
It would only be ironic if weren’t intentional.
“It’s not x when our side does it.”
And now it looks like the judge concealed his role in writing an article about his views on transgender issues, which would have been relevant to questions he got in his confirmation hearings.
Gift link to WaPo article:
More news that seems to indicate this judges memory is very selectively faulty when it comes to papers and interviews that might actually have bearing on his ability to dispense justice impartially.
I would like to live in a fantasy world where judges are required to make rulings on cases brought before them solely on the basis of existing laws and precedents, and are forbidden from even considering their own personal beliefs.Violation of this should be grounds for immediate removal from office, and possible prosecution for malfeasance.with appropriate punishment.
I would also like a kitten and a gallon of ice cream which does not affect my lactose intolerance and results in weight loss.
The court allows abortion pill to stay.
CNN story on the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Adding: Alito and ol’ Clarence dissented from the brief unsigned order.
Of course they did.
If I read the CNN article aright (no guarantees), this ruling restores the status quo while appeals play out. I know there have been appeals challenging Kacsmaryk’s ruling; have there been any from the other side?
Did they write why they dissented? (I tried Googling it but either they didn’t or it is too soon to be out there)
I’m curious if this is them opposing abortion or opposing the FDA (or both).
Thomas didn’t give reasons.
Alito said that there was no prejudice to anyone if the stricter pre-2016 standard accepted by the 5th Circuit would apply until the case was decided.
Just from experience, sometimes Courts of Appeals’ actions during oral arguments signals what they will decide. Other times, not so much. But they also can reach completely batshit decisions contrary to the facts and law. So who knows (other than the judges and their clerks)?
Slate seems to think “batshit” is an accurate description, and that it’s pointless anyway because SCOTUS already told them no.