[ad_1]
Just before last year’s election, Donald Trump had the opportunity to elect the last Supreme Court justice. A few months later, his choice proved to be correct.
Eight days before the US election last year, the Republican-controlled Senate voted to appoint Amy Coney Barrett as the Supreme Court justice.
She used to be The then President Donald Trump (Donald Trump) Earlier, he appointed Judge Neil Gorsuch and Judge Brett Kavanaugh as the third nominee for the court.
But her promotion goes far beyond that. Because unlike the other two, Justice Barrett did not replace a conservative. The seat she filled was vacated two months ago. The death of Justice Ruth Bud Ginsburg, Is a sign of progressive law.
Justice Ginsburg passed away in September. Mr. Trump and Republicans in Congress quickly confirmed replacement candidates before the November election, seizing the opportunity to move the balance of the Supreme Court further to the right.
In the end, just 30 days after Trump announced his nomination, Judge Barrett was confirmed in record time, which angered the Democratic Party and made conservatives happy.
The court was suddenly broken by a score of 6-3 with the support of the right, which made the conservative movement’s previously unachievable goal within reach.
The main factor: overturning Caviar vs. WadeThis is a landmark ruling since 1973, which legalized abortion throughout the United States.
Over the years, Mr. Trump has promised to appoint judges who will overthrow the justices. roeAfter entering the Republican political arena, he changed his position from “extremely selective” to “life.”
In the last imaginable opportunity, a few days before the election, this will take him down and Mr. Trump has a chance to achieve his goals. He was confirmed by Justice Barrett. Now, the court is ready to reconsider its position on abortion-she has the decisive vote.
related: Supreme Court hears serious abortion case
How did we get here
On Monday morning, The Supreme Court announced It agreed to hear a case Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. It involves a law passed by Mississippi in 2018 that prohibits abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
The law was quickly repealed in the lower courts due to the following reasons: Caviar vs. Wade.
In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that the government can prohibit abortion, but only from the perspective of “viability”, that is, the time the fetus can actually survive outside the womb. According to medical experts, this threshold is reached after approximately 24 weeks.
The court reiterated Delimitation “where feasible” Plan Parenting vs Casey In 1992.
It said: “A state may not prohibit any woman from making the final decision to terminate the pregnancy before viability.”
This has been a legal precedent in the United States for decades. Therefore, Mississippi’s law prohibiting abortion starting at 15 weeks will always be repealed. The results were so obvious that Judge Carlton Reeves accused Republicans of passing laws that they deliberately “knowed to be unconstitutional.”
Why are they doing this? Because it provides them with a way to raise the abortion issue to the Supreme Court again.
The Supreme Court is mainly the Court of Appeal. Most situations it handles don’t start from there. They have passed the lower courts, and the Supreme Court is the last point of appeal.
Therefore, when the 15-week ban in Mississippi was lifted, the state government appealed the decision of Judge Reeves. A year later, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his ruling. At that time, Mississippi can file a complaint with the Supreme Court.
Did this June 2020.
Behind-the-scenes
This is where Justice Barrett’s influence emerges.
Remember, the Supreme Court is not obliged to hear every case. It chooses whether to accept the appeal, so it needs to file an appeal.
The judge considered the petition privately and voted on whether to approve the petition. At least four of the nine justices need to say “yes.”
When Dobbs Judge Ginsburg was alive when he first appeared in court. For months, nothing happened.
The case has been noticed time and time again, and was re-submitted to the judge’s private meeting for consideration without a decision. Cause court observers to want to know what happened.
The consensus is that at least three justices (Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch) may approve of the hearing. Dobbs. At the same time, at least four people (John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor) objected.
This puts Justice Barrett and Kavanaugh in the middle. In the end, at least one of them voted for the case.
Decisive vote
The Supreme Court will consider a question: “Whether all bans on selective abortion are unconstitutional before death.”
This deeply affects Caviar vs. Wade.If the court rules that abortion is prohibited before feasible were able According to the Constitution, this will clear the way for states across the United States to impose bans on women during the early stages of pregnancy.
The precedent established in 1973 prevented governments from imposing bans in 24 weeks for nearly 50 years, and this precedent will be overturned.
So, how will the justices vote? Last year, we heard a case, June Medical Services vs Russia.
The case involved an anti-abortion law in Louisiana, which was rejected by a narrow vote by the court. Chief Justice Roberts has a decisive vote, and he supports progressives with a 5-4 majority.
That was before Lord Ginsburg’s death. Now, with Justice Barrett (Barrett) appearing in court, the decision may fall to her.
Although her personal views on abortion are clear (and she is very opposed to it), Judge Barrett does not have much judicial record on this issue. When Mr. Trump elected her, she had only been a judge for three years.
During her tenure on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, she did vote for a law that required doctors to inform their parents of any minors who were seeking abortions.But this does not tell us the position she will hold Dobbs.
At last year’s confirmation hearing, Judge Barrett refused to say Does she disagree with the ruling Caviar vs. Wade. Again, this does not tell us much.
However, we do know one thing: Justice Barrett has no problem with the idea of overturning existing legal precedents.
Writing for Texas Law Review In 2013, She said there are “few reasons” It is believed that changing the previous decision will damage the reputation of the Supreme Court.
She wrote: “The public (especially elites) often argue that the court should overturn certain cases.”
“If anything, the public is roe Reflects the public’s rejection of the following claims: Follow precedent It is possible to declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle, instead of hoping that the precedent will always remain the same.
“I tend to agree with those who say that the duty of the chief justice is the constitution. Therefore, it is more reasonable for her to give her the best understanding of the constitution instead of precedents that she thinks clearly conflict with it.”
The Supreme Court will hear Dobbs This fall, a decision may be made next year.
[ad_2]
Source link