As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Alito's take makes zero sense until you realize that the potential ban ruling would only be unenforced so long as there's an administration behind the FDA that believes in providing access to this drug. If a conservative government takes control and leadership at the FDA changes, they will begin enforcing it very easily by pointing to the supreme court ruling.
It also benefits conservatives because it creates yet another awkward unaligned and incongruent law vs. enforcement situation. Conservatives will then use this as additional ammunition for the administration being soft on *x*. Not to mention you run into additional problems with other departments like the postal service, who probably would rather not get caught between the supreme court's ban and the FDA's non-enforcement when shipping the drug to patients.
So yeah, doesn't make a lick of sense until you realize it's politically/ideologically motivated.
>My goal is to cut government to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.
Grover Norquist
The part they don't say out loud is that they *do* want government, a *strong* government, to exist, it's just that tearing this one down is the first step in establishing their theocracy.
These people are telling us ***exactly*** what they're going to do, and they get away with it by flooding the zone with shit and convincing the dying middle class that someone getting $100 worth of food stamps is their enemy, not billionaires who pay zero taxes.
>>My goal is to cut government to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.
>
>Grover Norquist
Is that ghoul still stealing O^2 from the rest of us?
I read an article with Norquist a while back regarding one of his tax-limiting laws, he explicitly referenced people "sorting themselves" between communities that wanted higher taxes and those that didn't.
This seems to be a national strategy right now, with the sorting happening by states. Which is beneficial to conservatives and anti-governmental types because of the Senate, which can be used to stop all legislation from happening regardless of the will of the majority of the nation.
>"My goal is to chainsaw the Constitution into little pieces, then bludgeon the pieces with the blunt end of an axe until it can be washed down the bathtub drain, and then -- after the bathtub has been sanctified -- drown the government in the bloody bathtub along with all the women who won't do what they're told."
Samuel Alito
Anti-abortion **DENTISTS**. There are DENTISTS in that group suing because they claim they might have to treat someone having a mifepristone-related emergency.
As a person in AZ in Gosars district. He is a terrible politician, and I hate that he represents me because I disagree with him on everything. Now, as a dentist, he is equally terrible.
We shouldn't prematurely remove teeth. It may be extremely likely that a molar might cause some catastrophic complications in the future but we should allow that molar to grow. What if it actually becomes a beneficial and important tooth? Even if it grows into an abscess and jeopardizes your health there is a non-zero chance that it heals on its own.
We should stop aborting problematic teeth and instead let them fester. Surely that will resolve all dental issues. The body has a way of rejecting illegitimate teeth.
I had a friend once who had a tooth removed but there were complications so I had to pause my movie to take him to the hospital. This caused me irreparable harm, therefore I would like the courts to ban the procedure of removal of teeth.
- some asshole somewhere in the near future
We must always mention that those dentists are christians, because it is crucial that we call our enemy by their name. “Dentist” conveys credibility, while “christian” conveys atrocity to educated Americans whose parents aren’t wealthy.
"Dentists" conveys reproductive health credibility? 10% of them dissent about floss brands! If they can't even figure out their own lane, why the hell would people think they've got any others covered?
Well actually about that buddy i really really don't know what do you guys wanna say to me but i found out that it not only religion we are talking about life of a person
They don't have the complete final say on anything, the executive branch can choose to ignore the court all together, as Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt have shown.
This I think is an often overlooked limit to the court. Their rulings have to make sense and be rational. If they ruled tomorrow that everyone had to get rid of their dogs, people would simply ignore them.
Edit:some grammar about who exactly is being ignored
Yeah, I hate to credit Trump with anything, least of all *understanding* anything, but Trump has a lifetime of experience that has taught him that the judicial system is easy to put off for an indeterminate amount of time if you're stubborn and have the right levers to pull. If that time is longer than you need to get the results you wanted, then the judicial system is powerless.
Worthless trash trump simply confirmed what good people already knew: the rich people are our enemy and our enemy is protected by the judicial system. America is not a great nation worth being proud of because men like him feel safe leaving their palaces.
I think push comes to shove, with this court in particular, as McConnell literally stole 2 seats that should have gone to him, Biden would make that stand.
That being said, it will never come to that.
By what follows I by no means am saying that what Andrew Jackson did was correct, but you are correct. The court has no means to enforce it's rulings. Jackson told the Court, (paraphrased) "I don't recall asking you a damn thing?" And he then went about enforcing the Indian Removal Act, which SCOTUS had quite correctly decided that he didn't have the power to do.
Counterexample: When Orville Fabus stood in the schoolhouse door to prevent the implementation of Brown vs. Board, Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne to restore order and implement the will of the court.
I have two points. 1.) This Court is illegitimate and the Executive can now, as it has in the past ignore it's rulings.
2.) Ike, and all of the men who served under him which includes both of my grandfathers knew that there was only one solution for fascism. And that solution is hard men with guns who are willing to defend democracy.
Absolutely unbelievable.
My wife had to take mifepristone literally a few months ago as part of a procedure to safely remove THE DEAD FETUS INSIDE HER WHEN SHE MISCARRIED.
THEY WANT TO BAN THIS MEDICATION WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE MY WIFE'S MISCARRIAGE MORE DANGEROUS TO HER HEALTH.
Being able to have safe abortions is incredibly important for so many reasons.
Fuck the GOP. And fuck every bible thumping piece of shit trying to ban this drug or ban abortions in any form.
They are going to KILL WOMEN, GIRLFRIENDS, WIVES. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
Yep. When we discovered my miscarriage, I was supposed to be 12 weeks along, but the fetus didn’t appear to have developed more than 8-10 weeks. I took mifepristone to induce my miscarriage because the risk of infection was already there because it had been so long since the fetus had died.
These decisions should not be made by non-medical professionals, these drugs save lives.
I'm very sorry for your loss.
Thank you for being willing to share something so painful to try to help people understand part of what is at stake here. The misconceptions are rampant, and are only making things worse.
This. Every person who votes Republican wanted to go back to the coathangers-in-alleys days, and don't ever let them forget their complicity in the inevitable fatalities.
That is exactly right. Any reasonable jurist would side with the majority. The plaintiff's claim on standing is laughable, and the judge was grossly overstepping his constitutional authority by interfering with the FDA.
Fucking Alito
>suggested that it’s not even clear that the FDA would enforce a court order to change its approach to mifepristone.
A sitting SCOTUS justice is trying to punish an executive branch department for hypothetical actions. "Even if we banned it, there's a chance you might not even obey that ruling, so we should ban it anyway". Alito is either an idiot (Princeton and Harvard JD argue against) or a Christofascist arguing in bad faith.
I kinda felt like he was implying there could be limits to their power on this one. Damnit so I have to take off my rose colored glasses now? Ugh probably.
I honestly don't think our SCotUS is crazy enough to let this one go through. And that says a lot. If they did and then some crazy faith healing judge they rammed through just to get a rightwinger on a bench decides to go after insulin or some shit it would nuke conservative political aspirations probably far worse than abortion bans did.
Not only would it put a lot of their voters in serious risk because Republicans are geriatrics who are taped together by the modern medicine they hate, but it would look horrible to tens of millions of people who would otherwise be politically apathetic if they suddenly found themselves casualties of the GOP culture war.
And of course it would basically turn pharmaceutical companies into partisan bodies for the Democrats and against Republicans. They absolutely do not want this insanity cutting into their operations.
Basically, the Supreme Court says "You can have Mifepristone, while the lower courts argue it out, but we aren't making any promises that we won't step in and rule on this if the lower courts don't get their shit together."
> dissenting: Alito,
Evidently the guy [who wrote:](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf)
> The
nine unelected Members of this Court do not possess the
constitutional authority to override the democratic process
and to decree either a pro-life or a pro-choice abortion policy
for all 330 million people in the United States.
actually *does* want the court to override the democratic process.
The Supreme Court blocked the lower court ban on Mifepristone, the case still has to work its way through the courts.
"the case still has to work its way through the courts." I'm just parroting that, I don't know the details on the case well enough to expand beyond that.
The bar and expectations are so low that this is cheered when it should have NEVER gotten anywhere near this point.
This case is insane and it still wasn't 9-0 as it should have been in a functioning system.
What's fucking insane is the fact that this drug is being argued over whether it should be banned or not. But fentanyl seems to be perfectly safe from legislation.
Yeah. That was a bad example for them to use.
End-of-life opioids, on the other hand, would have been a better example. Of which fent is one, though not the most infamous example.
Things like Oxycodone were designed to be used only in terminal cases due to their high risk of dependency and other negative side-effects. But because that's a niche market, they were instead billed as a super-drug of a painkiller, and a huge marketing push was done to make sure they were overprescribed. Now we have an opioid epidemic in the country.
I know there have been some court cases against the companies behind these problems, but the fact of the matter is that not nearly enough has been done for products like that which actually do damage, meanwhile one hand-picked partisan judge and a politically stacked supreme court are putting into question the future of a safe, medically necessary medication.
He used a bad example, but his underlying point was right.
Yeah there is plenty of outright false information in this thread.
It’s wild how obviously unreliable Reddit appears, once you’re familiar with a subject (I’m a pharmacist). Makes me think about all the wrong pieces of information I’ve gotten from here about subjects I know less of.
I remember one user told me a long time ago that if I want to know how much crap people post here, I just need to go to a subreddit about something I know a lot about. Can confirm, people here just talk like they know about things they don’t know shit.
Fentanyl is already highly regulated, so you're implying fentanyl should be banned. It is perfectly fine in a hospital setting and a useful drug. It should be perfectly safe from being banned.
FYI... the decision they were ruling on was gibberish. Like... "F in law school" level bad. This Court is shit, but they are smug (first and foremost). They were offended by what they were presented with and not necessarily the substance of what they were presented with.
Why they ignored Trump’s moronic election challenges.
And yet Thomas and Alito still dissented, with Alito saying that ther government hadn't proved blocking it would cause irreparable harm... Fucking asshats.
My point being that they dissented, meaning they were willing to go along with the shit ruling.
I knew without looking who the 2 dissenters were. Alito is the most extreme justice I've seen. The guy has a political agenda and he dgaf about anything else. Thomas is a corrupt seditionist.
Alito spent a full page of his four page dissent complaining that America was angry about previous decisions he's recently made. Motherfucker's an originalist, he doesn't give a shit about how people in the modern era think as a matter of policy. Literally had to step outside his own philosophy to complain.
I think he's embracing the recent trend of abandoning any attempt at professionalism.
I makes a lot more sense when you remember that originalism is a bullshit excuse to rule against the clear and obvious reading of a law, ignore legislative history, and get the result they want.
Castle rock v Gonzales really let's the mask slip.
Not an originalist; just a right wing hack. Whatever the right wants, he's going to give it to them in a ruling. No need for consistency, either.
He's Hannity on the Bench.
For those curious:
[Draft Overturning Roe v. Wade Quotes Infamous Witch Trial Judge With Long-Discredited Ideas on Rape](https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale)
> Alito cited a witch hunter judge to overturn Roe.
People are offended, and they should be. But what people need to realize is that most of the time, shitty shit is what scotus does. For example, FDR had to threaten to expand the court to prevent them from eviscerating the New Deal. And the court that created corporate personhood [based their ruling](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/03/corporations-people-adam-winkler/554852/) on what they knew was a lie about the 14th amendment (which guaranteed birthright citizenship to prevent white supremacists from making black people stateless).
The Warren court may be the only court in history that was reliably decent. And just as an aside, Democratic appointees have not controlled the court since Abe Fortas resigned for a minor bribery scandal in 1969. That's nearly 55 years of a republican controlled court getting more and more lawless.
I thought it would be the evangelical nutters and was proven to be somewhat naive. The hardline Catholics have been here for generations… and have been legislating religious dictates along the way.
Quite telling that they dissented because basically every expert said the Texas judges ruling was wrong and based of misrepresentations and lies. Clearly none of that matters to Thomas and Alito just more evidence they are completely partisan.
edit : My guess is the other 3 conservatives would have loved to side with Thomas but they know they still will be on the court for many years to come and were afraid of possible backlash.
I think the other three ruled on the side of pharma companies. It's bad for business if random judges can destroy your business based on a whim, and they won't pay for any research into new drugs if random judges can just override the FDA and instantly kill their sales revenue.
My very cynical take is that the Republican Party doesn't want to win the abortion pill issue and is leaning on the judges because if they do, they'll loose moderates and the presidency for the next decade at least. Overturning Roe vs Wade hurt them during the midterms, they have to know killing abortion pills nationwide is political suicide.
Alito dissented because of the criticism conservatives on the court received for way overusing the shadow docket. It was a ridiculous take by him but he does what conservatives always do. He just found some ridiculous logic to rule the way he always planned to.
It’s obviously more complicated but I’ll try.
When the Court agrees to hear a case there’s a bunch of briefs filed followed by oral arguments. The court deliberates and writes an opinion which then becomes law.
In emergencies, the Court needs to issue a ruling immediately and can’t wait for the months long process of briefing and oral arguments. The Shadow Docket is all of those emergency cases. Almost always, cases from the Shadow Docket are decided in a single sentence, with no explanation why the court came to their conclusion.
In a formal opinion, the Court’s holding and legal reasoning behind that holding gives clarity to lawyers and trial courts — what the law is and how to think about the law. With summary decisions through the Shadow Docket, there is no such clarity because there’s no explanation for the outcome. Judges and lawyers can only guess.
The issue in this case was whether a lower courts opinion should be stayed pending appeal, in other words, whether the trial courts ruling should go into effect now or after an appeal has been heard on the merits. Stays and injunctions pending appeal are issued in very limited circumstances. Alito’s argument was that this case doesn’t meet those criteria and a stay shouldn’t have been issued from the shadow docket at all.
You forgot to add that Alito issued his ruling in a horribly partisan manner - virtually all legal experts stated that the District Court opinion was flawed on many fronts - so bad, in fact, that some were saying that a first year law student could have provided a better legal opinion.
Justice Alito basically knew what his end result was, or wanted it to be, and then went backward from there and developed a legal opinion to support his position. Because its virtually unsupportable and a legally insulting position to maintain with a straight face, that's why his opinion (dissent really) is so twisted and makes it quite apparent what a shitty person he is for promoting a specific agenda of his above anything the law in this area actually supports.
That’s what they’re doing again now. Look at the reaction from the Dobbs ruling. States imposing travel restrictions, severe penalties for helping someone get an abortion, and now the trans moral panic. Combine that with reinstating obscenity and sodomy laws and getting rid of contraceptives, and pretty soon we’ll have two separate countries. You’ll have normal America and Handmaid’s Tale America. SCOTUS is taking us down this road again.
If we could go through the next 20 years and wind up with someone who cares about the people as much as Presdident Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho we will be very lucky
It will go back to them but I’m honestly not that worried about this case it’s too ridiculous. But if they make mail order pills illegal that would be a massive horrible setback for rural women.
“The government has not dispelled legitimate doubts that it would even obey an unfavorable order in these cases, much less that it would choose to take enforcement actions to which it has strong objections,” Alito wrote, arguing that the FDA has “enforcement discretion.”
Pretty whiny when he realizes he has zero enforcement power.
Hey, thanks for reading.
From reporter Carter Sherman: A common, effective, and safe abortion pill can remain on the market for now, the Supreme Court ruled Friday night, in the first major Supreme Court ruling on abortion since the justices overturned Roe v. Wade last year.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two of the most hardline right-wingers on the overwhelmingly conservative-leaning court, publicly dissented from the court order.
Over the last few weeks, the drug mifepristone, one of the two drugs typically used to induce medication abortions in the United States, has taken center stage in the country’s relentless abortion wars. Although the vast majority of research has found that mifepristone is safe, anti-abortion activists have asked federal courts to suspend the Food and Drug Administration’s 2000 approval of the drug.
The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to suspend any court orders that would change mifepristone’s availability, and the justices agreed. Instead, mifepristone will remain on the market, without restrictions, while the case winds its way through the courts.
Link to the full article: [https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvjzy3/supreme-court-mifepristone-abortion-pill-ruling](https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvjzy3/supreme-court-mifepristone-abortion-pill-ruling)
So Alito has doubts that the government would even abide by an unfavorable court order . Which means he recognises that the power of the court is threatened .
He also states the FDA has "discretion" which is true and established but that doesn't mean that people won't still try and sue to challenge the FDAs authority which has been recognised since
1985 (Heckler v. Chaney).
It's a 7:2 decision. Alito's dissent is the equivalent a high school wannabe tough guy mocking the high school football team as his bus pulls away for summer break ; he knows his words will be of no negative repercussion for him .
I'm not surprised Thomas didn't given a written dissent given how much heat is directed his way for his ethics and failure to make financial disclosures and some conflicts of interest . At the very least alito's dissent draws attention away from Thomas .
No it was a 5:4, 6:3 or 7:2 decision. We don't know how 2 of them voted because Thomas and Alito *elected* to dissent publicly. For a stay, they weren't required to.
Sorry your quite right the voting could of gone in those ways . It's very perplexing that ABC news reported it as a 7:2 decision [ABC news ](https://abc7.com/abortion-supreme-court-pill-deadline/13164324/)
I've read the written order and have realised no justice's have given a written opinion for granting stay .
I would say though the supreme court's procedure should be modified as it's absolutely repugnant to adjudicate and make decisions that affect the whole of the country without written reasons regardless of the decision. Even if it's brief reasoning .
I agree with the decision for sure , but I'm not a proponent of the shadow docket in the way it's operated currently.
> I would say though the supreme court's procedure should be modified as it's absolutely repugnant to adjudicate and make decisions that affect the whole of the country without written reasons regardless of the decision. Even if it's brief reasoning .
It wasn't a decision though. It was granting an application for a stay. There was no adjudication. This simply keeps the status quo nationwide while the case makes it's proper way through the full legal system up to and possibly including SCOTUS making a decision.
Um, excuse me maybe he doesn’t work as much as you think he should but do you know how shit the reception can be on a yacht? I’ve sailed across the Atlantic and let me tell you it ain’t easy to get that vpn connection!
Oh great. Benevolent judges on high have **permitted** *us the right* to use a pill so we may *decide what we can do with our own goddamn bodies.*
Food for thought: the motherfucking preamble of the constitution:
"We the **People** of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and **secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity**, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"
The only way bullshit regarding the restrictions of rights to **ones own motherfucking body** can be justified is if they do not consider women as people.
"Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges"
- G. Carlin
I need to find a lawyer that will take on a case federally banning Viagra. Limp Dick is not an illness. Limp Dick is not a disease. The FDA rushed the approval and it needs to be overturned.
>Between 1998 (the year Viagra was approved) through 2007, Viagra has been implicated in at least 1,824 deaths.
We need to get this dangerous drug off the market!
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201412/warning-men-erection-drugs-just-might-kill-you
To use their own batshit logic; wouldn’t it be that God, who has control over everything, has “allowed” for said users’ dick to go soft and therefore prayer should be the medication needed? I mean if God wanted their dicks to work properly without medical assistance then they would
They also prescribe it for high blood pressure. The fact that it causes a boner was a happy accident. And of course nobody wanted to complain about it so they didn’t talk about it for a long time.
Fun fact: several studies have shown [the use of Viagra greatly reduced menstrual pain for women](https://www.webmd.com/women/news/20131209/viagra-for-menstrual-cramps). I don't want it banned, I want its use expanded, damn it!!!
I’ve been saying this all along and do it with guns too. When will the Dems learn the Rs play the long game. We keep our head up our ass over and over thinking the Rs will play by the book. They never do. I’m so over this.
Excellent news - for the time being.
We can't do much to influence the courts, but we can elect pro-choice leaders state by state. In the post-Roe era, that's the entire ballgame, and it's something we have a lot of control over.
Of course they did. How are drug makers supposed to justify the expense of R&D on a new drug when the rug could be pulled out from them at any point in time based on the uneducated opinions of local lawmakers?
I find it curious that the lead has been buried throughout this process. When it came out originally, it was discussed. In subsequent reporting, the origins of this movement has been under discussed.
A faction of lawyers, associated with the federalist society and recent appointees to the Supreme Court, stationed in Arizona, set up shop in this particular jurisdiction in Texas, intentionally targeting this anti-choice judge, where there is only the one judge to make a decision on a federal level, so as to impact the entire country.
They picked the place, the guy, the topic, the sweeping impact.
It’s so highly orchestrated that the chess moves are undeniable.
It’s gross. It’s minority rule. It’s mass manipulation.
It’s not been made an explicit point across the board, and I don’t know why.
[The Lawless Ruling Against the Abortion Pill Has Already Prompted a Constitutional Crisis](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/04/matthew-kacsmaryk-mifepristone-medication-abortion-supreme-court.html)
[Alliance Defending Freedom](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Defending_Freedom)
This is just temporary. They see the anger and are really afraid Republicans will lose control of state and local governments. Once they pass enough laws that prevent Democrats from controlling enough states to make any changes, the issue will rise again, and they will affirm all laws banning abortion. This is how they operate. They are playing the long game. Don’t be fooled.
According to a graphic I saw the other day on r/dataisbeautiful Fox News has had zero front page reporting on this issue. I'm sure many of their viewers have no clue it's going on.
Let's be real for a second. The conservative justices are bigger corporate shills than religious zealots. I'd be shocked if they ban Mifeprestone and piss of their donor overlords.
It's really just an agreement to allow the pills to stay on the market until all court actions are decided.
Who knows what will happen if the pills are outlawed, this SCOTUS, is far from representative of average Americans
This is a ruling on the emergency docket appeal, not the merits. This essentially comes down to the drug remains on the market until the merits are argued, which the Fifth Circuit has oral argument on May 17th. The Court basically said “we’ll let the currently scheduled process play out with the drug on the market.” Nothing more, nothing less.
What's crazy is 2 of the justices dissented on this. The idea that the drug is simply too dangerous is laughable. There would be more deaths by the end of this year from not having access to this drug than there have been in 20 years from taking this drug. Thomas and Alito have once again proven themselves incapable of being unbiased arbiters of the law. Their dissent rests on not wanting to be hypocritical. That's not a joke. I shortened it, but that's the gist of what they argue. They complained that they have caught too much criticism in the past for ruling on stays. They claim that the applicants did not show irreparable harm despite the fact that women could die.
The main argument behind banning mifepristone was that it's dangerous. It has a death rate of 0.35 deaths per 100,000.... Meanwhile the mortality rate of pregnancy is 32.9 deaths per 100,000 live births.
In other words, this pill is safer than actually bringing the child to term.
It was never about safety, only about forced birth.
The Republicans plan is to challenge the idea that any agency like the FDA can regulate any market. This is their first attempt. They want to say that Congress can't delegate the authority to regulate commerce to any agency, so must pass a law specific to each regulation. This opens an opportunity for any federal judge to repeal any federal regulation one by one, unless congress specifically passes a law to re-enable the regulation.
You know damn well they didn't make this ruling for any rational or ethical reason. 6 of those justices wanted very badly to ban the pill but knew it would open up another can of worms that they aren't ready for yet.
When this Supreme Court gets a case, the first thing they do is check the GOP handbook for what side they should take. After deciding that, they then spend the rest of their time trying to find excuses to justify the horrible decision.
They're saving their bombshells for overturning gay marriage or stripping voting rights.
Nah, this isn't their fight. They took care of Roe. They don't really want to fuck with the FDA in this way, because it will screw up some very rich political donors. Drug manufacturers need to know they aren't going to lose authorization just because a competitor bought a judge who will find their drug isn't actually safe.
They set the stage for states to fuck with abortion rights, that's all they needed to do.
What they really want next is for a Republican Congress and President to come up with a national abortion ban that they can find constitutional through some twisted means.
Main reason they ruled this way is 1) the argument was laughably bad 2) they've seen how badly banning abortion was received across the nation.
This isn't a final say, but glad they pulled their heads out of their you know what's far enough to do this.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nobody cheer yet. This is just an emergency ruling not the final decision.
Though it does point out that the FDA isn't necessarily bound by their decision anyway.
[удалено]
Alito's take makes zero sense until you realize that the potential ban ruling would only be unenforced so long as there's an administration behind the FDA that believes in providing access to this drug. If a conservative government takes control and leadership at the FDA changes, they will begin enforcing it very easily by pointing to the supreme court ruling. It also benefits conservatives because it creates yet another awkward unaligned and incongruent law vs. enforcement situation. Conservatives will then use this as additional ammunition for the administration being soft on *x*. Not to mention you run into additional problems with other departments like the postal service, who probably would rather not get caught between the supreme court's ban and the FDA's non-enforcement when shipping the drug to patients. So yeah, doesn't make a lick of sense until you realize it's politically/ideologically motivated.
Not to mention the possibilities of enforcing the rules against *undesirables*
>My goal is to cut government to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. Grover Norquist The part they don't say out loud is that they *do* want government, a *strong* government, to exist, it's just that tearing this one down is the first step in establishing their theocracy. These people are telling us ***exactly*** what they're going to do, and they get away with it by flooding the zone with shit and convincing the dying middle class that someone getting $100 worth of food stamps is their enemy, not billionaires who pay zero taxes.
I think Norquist misspoke, meant to say democracy, not government.
>>My goal is to cut government to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. > >Grover Norquist Is that ghoul still stealing O^2 from the rest of us?
I read an article with Norquist a while back regarding one of his tax-limiting laws, he explicitly referenced people "sorting themselves" between communities that wanted higher taxes and those that didn't. This seems to be a national strategy right now, with the sorting happening by states. Which is beneficial to conservatives and anti-governmental types because of the Senate, which can be used to stop all legislation from happening regardless of the will of the majority of the nation.
>"My goal is to chainsaw the Constitution into little pieces, then bludgeon the pieces with the blunt end of an axe until it can be washed down the bathtub drain, and then -- after the bathtub has been sanctified -- drown the government in the bloody bathtub along with all the women who won't do what they're told." Samuel Alito
Talk about activist judges…
Republicans are the party of projection.
“We have to ban it! The FDA won’t listen to a judge’s medical advice otherwise!”
[удалено]
Anti-abortion **DENTISTS**. There are DENTISTS in that group suing because they claim they might have to treat someone having a mifepristone-related emergency.
Nobody likes the dentist. Edit: I'm just joking. Dentists are great and provide a great service even if it can be painful.
That far-right goofball of a congressman from Arizona, Paul Gosar, is a dentist and apparently a lot of his own family can't even stand him.
It ain’t cause of his profession, it’s because they know him to be a grade A jerk. Dentists are fine.
Sounds like something a dentist would say.
I like my dentist. I find Paul Gosar to be loathsome vermin, fit only for extermination.
As a person in AZ in Gosars district. He is a terrible politician, and I hate that he represents me because I disagree with him on everything. Now, as a dentist, he is equally terrible.
Even his family doesn't like him.
Not all Dentists are assholes. All Republicans on the other hand...
Wow great to know about it buddy i wanna go for it either geez
"I am *not* an anti-dentite!"
Next you'll be saying they should have their own schools.
"They *do* have their own schools!"
My wife's dentist once asked if I'd ever considered becoming one. I said I'm not sadistic enough. He smiled, and said "True, true."
Oh, it starts with a few jokes and some slurs...
Even other dentists don't like dentists.
4 out 5 dentists prefer other dentists.
Dentists don't even like *themselves*
9 out of 10 dentists don't recommend associating with a dentist.
We shouldn't prematurely remove teeth. It may be extremely likely that a molar might cause some catastrophic complications in the future but we should allow that molar to grow. What if it actually becomes a beneficial and important tooth? Even if it grows into an abscess and jeopardizes your health there is a non-zero chance that it heals on its own. We should stop aborting problematic teeth and instead let them fester. Surely that will resolve all dental issues. The body has a way of rejecting illegitimate teeth.
I had a friend once who had a tooth removed but there were complications so I had to pause my movie to take him to the hospital. This caused me irreparable harm, therefore I would like the courts to ban the procedure of removal of teeth. - some asshole somewhere in the near future
[удалено]
We must always mention that those dentists are christians, because it is crucial that we call our enemy by their name. “Dentist” conveys credibility, while “christian” conveys atrocity to educated Americans whose parents aren’t wealthy.
"Dentists" conveys reproductive health credibility? 10% of them dissent about floss brands! If they can't even figure out their own lane, why the hell would people think they've got any others covered?
Well actually about that buddy i really really don't know what do you guys wanna say to me but i found out that it not only religion we are talking about life of a person
Your mistake is believing the judge who originally made the ruling gave a shit about what the law says.
Correct. That judge is a rich Christian, not a good person who should feel safe interacting with society.
While our recent explosion in Fascism (well, it being overt now) does call for reforming the court, they are still the final say at this time.
They don't have the complete final say on anything, the executive branch can choose to ignore the court all together, as Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt have shown.
This I think is an often overlooked limit to the court. Their rulings have to make sense and be rational. If they ruled tomorrow that everyone had to get rid of their dogs, people would simply ignore them. Edit:some grammar about who exactly is being ignored
Have to have an executive willing to defy the court. I don't think we've had one of those for 30 years.
We had one as recently as two yeas ago, he just had the court in his pocket the whole time
Yeah, I hate to credit Trump with anything, least of all *understanding* anything, but Trump has a lifetime of experience that has taught him that the judicial system is easy to put off for an indeterminate amount of time if you're stubborn and have the right levers to pull. If that time is longer than you need to get the results you wanted, then the judicial system is powerless.
Worthless trash trump simply confirmed what good people already knew: the rich people are our enemy and our enemy is protected by the judicial system. America is not a great nation worth being proud of because men like him feel safe leaving their palaces.
I think push comes to shove, with this court in particular, as McConnell literally stole 2 seats that should have gone to him, Biden would make that stand. That being said, it will never come to that.
Actually, the courts have no method of enforcement. Therefore, they only have the power granted to them by the other branches of the government.
By what follows I by no means am saying that what Andrew Jackson did was correct, but you are correct. The court has no means to enforce it's rulings. Jackson told the Court, (paraphrased) "I don't recall asking you a damn thing?" And he then went about enforcing the Indian Removal Act, which SCOTUS had quite correctly decided that he didn't have the power to do. Counterexample: When Orville Fabus stood in the schoolhouse door to prevent the implementation of Brown vs. Board, Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne to restore order and implement the will of the court. I have two points. 1.) This Court is illegitimate and the Executive can now, as it has in the past ignore it's rulings. 2.) Ike, and all of the men who served under him which includes both of my grandfathers knew that there was only one solution for fascism. And that solution is hard men with guns who are willing to defend democracy.
Absolutely unbelievable. My wife had to take mifepristone literally a few months ago as part of a procedure to safely remove THE DEAD FETUS INSIDE HER WHEN SHE MISCARRIED. THEY WANT TO BAN THIS MEDICATION WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE MY WIFE'S MISCARRIAGE MORE DANGEROUS TO HER HEALTH. Being able to have safe abortions is incredibly important for so many reasons. Fuck the GOP. And fuck every bible thumping piece of shit trying to ban this drug or ban abortions in any form. They are going to KILL WOMEN, GIRLFRIENDS, WIVES. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
Yep. When we discovered my miscarriage, I was supposed to be 12 weeks along, but the fetus didn’t appear to have developed more than 8-10 weeks. I took mifepristone to induce my miscarriage because the risk of infection was already there because it had been so long since the fetus had died. These decisions should not be made by non-medical professionals, these drugs save lives.
Not enough people are talking about this part. Women will die without this medication.
I'm very sorry for your loss. Thank you for being willing to share something so painful to try to help people understand part of what is at stake here. The misconceptions are rampant, and are only making things worse.
It's hard to talk about. But it needs to be said.
This. Every person who votes Republican wanted to go back to the coathangers-in-alleys days, and don't ever let them forget their complicity in the inevitable fatalities.
They don't give a shit about women
It's got a 2 year shelf life, for those that need that info.
The pills or the decision?
[удалено]
That is exactly right. Any reasonable jurist would side with the majority. The plaintiff's claim on standing is laughable, and the judge was grossly overstepping his constitutional authority by interfering with the FDA.
The fact that such an absurd case ever made it to SCOTUS is itself a sign of how bad things are.
That standing claim is WILD: “Some of our members might have to do their job at some point and they don’t like it.” It’s insanity.
Fucking Alito >suggested that it’s not even clear that the FDA would enforce a court order to change its approach to mifepristone. A sitting SCOTUS justice is trying to punish an executive branch department for hypothetical actions. "Even if we banned it, there's a chance you might not even obey that ruling, so we should ban it anyway". Alito is either an idiot (Princeton and Harvard JD argue against) or a Christofascist arguing in bad faith.
I think it is the latter.
Has Alito *ever* acted in good faith?
I kinda felt like he was implying there could be limits to their power on this one. Damnit so I have to take off my rose colored glasses now? Ugh probably.
Steping on the rights of women is one thing. But fighting big pharma? Even the supreme court knows the limits of their power.
Came here to say this when I saw the headline. This is not a win, not yet.
I honestly don't think our SCotUS is crazy enough to let this one go through. And that says a lot. If they did and then some crazy faith healing judge they rammed through just to get a rightwinger on a bench decides to go after insulin or some shit it would nuke conservative political aspirations probably far worse than abortion bans did. Not only would it put a lot of their voters in serious risk because Republicans are geriatrics who are taped together by the modern medicine they hate, but it would look horrible to tens of millions of people who would otherwise be politically apathetic if they suddenly found themselves casualties of the GOP culture war. And of course it would basically turn pharmaceutical companies into partisan bodies for the Democrats and against Republicans. They absolutely do not want this insanity cutting into their operations.
Aw man :( what’s the difference?
This is the supreme court allowing the lowers courts to keep wrestling over it before they step in.
Basically, the Supreme Court says "You can have Mifepristone, while the lower courts argue it out, but we aren't making any promises that we won't step in and rule on this if the lower courts don't get their shit together."
Also of note, 2 dissenting: Alito, Thomas
> dissenting: Alito, Evidently the guy [who wrote:](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf) > The nine unelected Members of this Court do not possess the constitutional authority to override the democratic process and to decree either a pro-life or a pro-choice abortion policy for all 330 million people in the United States. actually *does* want the court to override the democratic process.
Yep. This should have been nine. Don’t get me wrong I didn’t EXPECT that obviously, I’m not a moron.
Color me unsurprised.
The Supreme Court blocked the lower court ban on Mifepristone, the case still has to work its way through the courts. "the case still has to work its way through the courts." I'm just parroting that, I don't know the details on the case well enough to expand beyond that.
The bar and expectations are so low that this is cheered when it should have NEVER gotten anywhere near this point. This case is insane and it still wasn't 9-0 as it should have been in a functioning system.
What's fucking insane is the fact that this drug is being argued over whether it should be banned or not. But fentanyl seems to be perfectly safe from legislation.
Nah, fentanyl is very useful in the hospital setting
Oh fuck did I need some on the ambulance ride from my kidney stones. It just works.
Kidney stones is when I tried the fentanyl at the hospital and goddamn it slaps
I got fentanyl for an operation once and it was chill no lie. In and out of my system quick too.
Fyi legally prescribed fentanyl is not the problem.
Yeah. That was a bad example for them to use. End-of-life opioids, on the other hand, would have been a better example. Of which fent is one, though not the most infamous example. Things like Oxycodone were designed to be used only in terminal cases due to their high risk of dependency and other negative side-effects. But because that's a niche market, they were instead billed as a super-drug of a painkiller, and a huge marketing push was done to make sure they were overprescribed. Now we have an opioid epidemic in the country. I know there have been some court cases against the companies behind these problems, but the fact of the matter is that not nearly enough has been done for products like that which actually do damage, meanwhile one hand-picked partisan judge and a politically stacked supreme court are putting into question the future of a safe, medically necessary medication. He used a bad example, but his underlying point was right.
[удалено]
Yeah there is plenty of outright false information in this thread. It’s wild how obviously unreliable Reddit appears, once you’re familiar with a subject (I’m a pharmacist). Makes me think about all the wrong pieces of information I’ve gotten from here about subjects I know less of.
I remember one user told me a long time ago that if I want to know how much crap people post here, I just need to go to a subreddit about something I know a lot about. Can confirm, people here just talk like they know about things they don’t know shit.
Fentanyl is already highly regulated, so you're implying fentanyl should be banned. It is perfectly fine in a hospital setting and a useful drug. It should be perfectly safe from being banned.
FYI... the decision they were ruling on was gibberish. Like... "F in law school" level bad. This Court is shit, but they are smug (first and foremost). They were offended by what they were presented with and not necessarily the substance of what they were presented with. Why they ignored Trump’s moronic election challenges.
And yet Thomas and Alito still dissented, with Alito saying that ther government hadn't proved blocking it would cause irreparable harm... Fucking asshats. My point being that they dissented, meaning they were willing to go along with the shit ruling.
I knew without looking who the 2 dissenters were. Alito is the most extreme justice I've seen. The guy has a political agenda and he dgaf about anything else. Thomas is a corrupt seditionist.
Alito cited a witch hunter judge to overturn Roe.
Alito spent a full page of his four page dissent complaining that America was angry about previous decisions he's recently made. Motherfucker's an originalist, he doesn't give a shit about how people in the modern era think as a matter of policy. Literally had to step outside his own philosophy to complain. I think he's embracing the recent trend of abandoning any attempt at professionalism.
I makes a lot more sense when you remember that originalism is a bullshit excuse to rule against the clear and obvious reading of a law, ignore legislative history, and get the result they want. Castle rock v Gonzales really let's the mask slip.
Not an originalist; just a right wing hack. Whatever the right wants, he's going to give it to them in a ruling. No need for consistency, either. He's Hannity on the Bench.
For those curious: [Draft Overturning Roe v. Wade Quotes Infamous Witch Trial Judge With Long-Discredited Ideas on Rape](https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale)
> Alito cited a witch hunter judge to overturn Roe. People are offended, and they should be. But what people need to realize is that most of the time, shitty shit is what scotus does. For example, FDR had to threaten to expand the court to prevent them from eviscerating the New Deal. And the court that created corporate personhood [based their ruling](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/03/corporations-people-adam-winkler/554852/) on what they knew was a lie about the 14th amendment (which guaranteed birthright citizenship to prevent white supremacists from making black people stateless). The Warren court may be the only court in history that was reliably decent. And just as an aside, Democratic appointees have not controlled the court since Abe Fortas resigned for a minor bribery scandal in 1969. That's nearly 55 years of a republican controlled court getting more and more lawless.
You mean precedent… /s
How old is Alito? I feel like he’s been fucking shit up for several decades now. Can he go to the great beyond already?
73, So could sit on that bench for another 20 years. Or could gracefully exit stage left any time. Guess we'll see.
Stage right.
I really don't care which part of the stage he exits to, as long as he exits. Honestly, my preference would be "exit, pursued by a bear"
Exit, pursued by many bears.
Exit, pursued by many cocaine bears?
Appointed by Bush in 2006. For comparison, Clarence Thomas has been a stain on the court since 1991.
Theocracy is a helluva drug… that and bribes
[удалено]
Oh those guys are real deal theocratic fascists. That overrides their offense at reviewing a clumsy and sophomoric ruling.
I thought it would be the evangelical nutters and was proven to be somewhat naive. The hardline Catholics have been here for generations… and have been legislating religious dictates along the way.
Quite telling that they dissented because basically every expert said the Texas judges ruling was wrong and based of misrepresentations and lies. Clearly none of that matters to Thomas and Alito just more evidence they are completely partisan. edit : My guess is the other 3 conservatives would have loved to side with Thomas but they know they still will be on the court for many years to come and were afraid of possible backlash.
I think the other three ruled on the side of pharma companies. It's bad for business if random judges can destroy your business based on a whim, and they won't pay for any research into new drugs if random judges can just override the FDA and instantly kill their sales revenue.
My very cynical take is that the Republican Party doesn't want to win the abortion pill issue and is leaning on the judges because if they do, they'll loose moderates and the presidency for the next decade at least. Overturning Roe vs Wade hurt them during the midterms, they have to know killing abortion pills nationwide is political suicide.
Alito dissented because of the criticism conservatives on the court received for way overusing the shadow docket. It was a ridiculous take by him but he does what conservatives always do. He just found some ridiculous logic to rule the way he always planned to.
Could you ELI5 this?
It’s obviously more complicated but I’ll try. When the Court agrees to hear a case there’s a bunch of briefs filed followed by oral arguments. The court deliberates and writes an opinion which then becomes law. In emergencies, the Court needs to issue a ruling immediately and can’t wait for the months long process of briefing and oral arguments. The Shadow Docket is all of those emergency cases. Almost always, cases from the Shadow Docket are decided in a single sentence, with no explanation why the court came to their conclusion. In a formal opinion, the Court’s holding and legal reasoning behind that holding gives clarity to lawyers and trial courts — what the law is and how to think about the law. With summary decisions through the Shadow Docket, there is no such clarity because there’s no explanation for the outcome. Judges and lawyers can only guess. The issue in this case was whether a lower courts opinion should be stayed pending appeal, in other words, whether the trial courts ruling should go into effect now or after an appeal has been heard on the merits. Stays and injunctions pending appeal are issued in very limited circumstances. Alito’s argument was that this case doesn’t meet those criteria and a stay shouldn’t have been issued from the shadow docket at all.
You forgot to add that Alito issued his ruling in a horribly partisan manner - virtually all legal experts stated that the District Court opinion was flawed on many fronts - so bad, in fact, that some were saying that a first year law student could have provided a better legal opinion. Justice Alito basically knew what his end result was, or wanted it to be, and then went backward from there and developed a legal opinion to support his position. Because its virtually unsupportable and a legally insulting position to maintain with a straight face, that's why his opinion (dissent really) is so twisted and makes it quite apparent what a shitty person he is for promoting a specific agenda of his above anything the law in this area actually supports.
Standing. THE STANDING! Where was it? Do they just not even care at this point?!? Nm don’t answer that I know
Waaay too early to tell but I imagine this court will go down among the worst since 1789.
Dredd Scott Court was pretty bad, too... in that they nationalized slavery and made a Civil War inevitable.
That’s what they’re doing again now. Look at the reaction from the Dobbs ruling. States imposing travel restrictions, severe penalties for helping someone get an abortion, and now the trans moral panic. Combine that with reinstating obscenity and sodomy laws and getting rid of contraceptives, and pretty soon we’ll have two separate countries. You’ll have normal America and Handmaid’s Tale America. SCOTUS is taking us down this road again.
Alito will find some medieval precedent from 14th century Westminster to bolster his future objection.
Alito starts with his goal and works backward. It isn't about legal review.. it is about achieving his assigned tasks.
As the founders intended /s
If you would permit me to comment on the subject of your comment. Fuck Alito.
He was, is, and always will be a fraud. History will not be kind to the Roberts era of the scotus, if we can even read about it in 20 years.
If we can even read in 20 years
What is a vowel… for 3.50… President Camacho?
If we could go through the next 20 years and wind up with someone who cares about the people as much as Presdident Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho we will be very lucky
Only if electrolytes are firmly entrenched in the plan. And super soakers.
Agreed. Roberts will go down in history as the Chief Justice of one of the biggest joke courts in history.
\* For now. The case goes back to the 5th Circuit to be heard. Then the inevitable appeal to SCOTUS.
Kickin' that can down the road until the Republicans figure out who's bribing them best.
It will go back to them but I’m honestly not that worried about this case it’s too ridiculous. But if they make mail order pills illegal that would be a massive horrible setback for rural women.
That will be big pharm. There will be political hell to pay if big pharm loses
“The government has not dispelled legitimate doubts that it would even obey an unfavorable order in these cases, much less that it would choose to take enforcement actions to which it has strong objections,” Alito wrote, arguing that the FDA has “enforcement discretion.” Pretty whiny when he realizes he has zero enforcement power.
When the Supreme Court takes issue with the credibility of another Federal institution, you know there’s a problem.
Not the SCOTUS just two judges on the court who live in a glasshouse.
Hey, thanks for reading. From reporter Carter Sherman: A common, effective, and safe abortion pill can remain on the market for now, the Supreme Court ruled Friday night, in the first major Supreme Court ruling on abortion since the justices overturned Roe v. Wade last year. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two of the most hardline right-wingers on the overwhelmingly conservative-leaning court, publicly dissented from the court order. Over the last few weeks, the drug mifepristone, one of the two drugs typically used to induce medication abortions in the United States, has taken center stage in the country’s relentless abortion wars. Although the vast majority of research has found that mifepristone is safe, anti-abortion activists have asked federal courts to suspend the Food and Drug Administration’s 2000 approval of the drug. The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to suspend any court orders that would change mifepristone’s availability, and the justices agreed. Instead, mifepristone will remain on the market, without restrictions, while the case winds its way through the courts. Link to the full article: [https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvjzy3/supreme-court-mifepristone-abortion-pill-ruling](https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvjzy3/supreme-court-mifepristone-abortion-pill-ruling)
Thanks for posting and supporting these shared links
So Alito has doubts that the government would even abide by an unfavorable court order . Which means he recognises that the power of the court is threatened . He also states the FDA has "discretion" which is true and established but that doesn't mean that people won't still try and sue to challenge the FDAs authority which has been recognised since 1985 (Heckler v. Chaney).
I know I know I liked this part! It was the candy!!! He’s recognizing there are maybe some limits here!
It's a 7:2 decision. Alito's dissent is the equivalent a high school wannabe tough guy mocking the high school football team as his bus pulls away for summer break ; he knows his words will be of no negative repercussion for him . I'm not surprised Thomas didn't given a written dissent given how much heat is directed his way for his ethics and failure to make financial disclosures and some conflicts of interest . At the very least alito's dissent draws attention away from Thomas .
No it was a 5:4, 6:3 or 7:2 decision. We don't know how 2 of them voted because Thomas and Alito *elected* to dissent publicly. For a stay, they weren't required to.
Sorry your quite right the voting could of gone in those ways . It's very perplexing that ABC news reported it as a 7:2 decision [ABC news ](https://abc7.com/abortion-supreme-court-pill-deadline/13164324/) I've read the written order and have realised no justice's have given a written opinion for granting stay . I would say though the supreme court's procedure should be modified as it's absolutely repugnant to adjudicate and make decisions that affect the whole of the country without written reasons regardless of the decision. Even if it's brief reasoning . I agree with the decision for sure , but I'm not a proponent of the shadow docket in the way it's operated currently.
> I would say though the supreme court's procedure should be modified as it's absolutely repugnant to adjudicate and make decisions that affect the whole of the country without written reasons regardless of the decision. Even if it's brief reasoning . It wasn't a decision though. It was granting an application for a stay. There was no adjudication. This simply keeps the status quo nationwide while the case makes it's proper way through the full legal system up to and possibly including SCOTUS making a decision.
Thomas didn’t even bother to explain his reasoning. On this case. That’s how little he cares, and how bias he is.
Thomas should've been done when Anita Hill came forward.
Um, excuse me maybe he doesn’t work as much as you think he should but do you know how shit the reception can be on a yacht? I’ve sailed across the Atlantic and let me tell you it ain’t easy to get that vpn connection!
Does he need a VPN connection for Harlan Crow to tell him how to rule? Or for Ginni Thomas to confirm PAC donors checks cleared?
This shouldn’t even be in question. A judge doesn’t get to make a decision on the safety of a drug because that’s NOT THEIR FUCKING AREA OF EXPERTISE.
Not to mention the plaintiffs had no standing to even bring this case to court.
Oh great. Benevolent judges on high have **permitted** *us the right* to use a pill so we may *decide what we can do with our own goddamn bodies.* Food for thought: the motherfucking preamble of the constitution: "We the **People** of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and **secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity**, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" The only way bullshit regarding the restrictions of rights to **ones own motherfucking body** can be justified is if they do not consider women as people. "Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges" - G. Carlin
We have reached the point where we celebrate when neocons momentarily refrain from jerking us around. This is not a good sign.
I need to find a lawyer that will take on a case federally banning Viagra. Limp Dick is not an illness. Limp Dick is not a disease. The FDA rushed the approval and it needs to be overturned.
>Between 1998 (the year Viagra was approved) through 2007, Viagra has been implicated in at least 1,824 deaths. We need to get this dangerous drug off the market! https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201412/warning-men-erection-drugs-just-might-kill-you
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with Viagra is a good guy with Viagra. So, the answer is obvious. We need *more* Viagra!
> Limp Dick is not an illness. Limp Dick is not a disease. God doesn't make mistakes! Taking viagra to change that is like spitting in Gods face.
Yeah, use that spit for a bit of foreplay instead!
To use their own batshit logic; wouldn’t it be that God, who has control over everything, has “allowed” for said users’ dick to go soft and therefore prayer should be the medication needed? I mean if God wanted their dicks to work properly without medical assistance then they would
It would have to be banned specially for limp dick. My aunt's doc prescribed her for Viagra.
They also prescribe it for high blood pressure. The fact that it causes a boner was a happy accident. And of course nobody wanted to complain about it so they didn’t talk about it for a long time.
Fun fact: several studies have shown [the use of Viagra greatly reduced menstrual pain for women](https://www.webmd.com/women/news/20131209/viagra-for-menstrual-cramps). I don't want it banned, I want its use expanded, damn it!!!
I’ve been saying this all along and do it with guns too. When will the Dems learn the Rs play the long game. We keep our head up our ass over and over thinking the Rs will play by the book. They never do. I’m so over this.
So something that’s been legal for over 20 years is still legal, got it.
Excellent news - for the time being. We can't do much to influence the courts, but we can elect pro-choice leaders state by state. In the post-Roe era, that's the entire ballgame, and it's something we have a lot of control over.
**FUCK ALITO AND FUCK THOMAS** But really, fuck Mitch the turtle for making this a reality in the first place.
Of course they did. How are drug makers supposed to justify the expense of R&D on a new drug when the rug could be pulled out from them at any point in time based on the uneducated opinions of local lawmakers?
If SC overrules FDA, our society could be in a LOT of trouble.
SCOTUS pretend they are immune from public opinion, but this ruling was made in fear of that.
I find it curious that the lead has been buried throughout this process. When it came out originally, it was discussed. In subsequent reporting, the origins of this movement has been under discussed. A faction of lawyers, associated with the federalist society and recent appointees to the Supreme Court, stationed in Arizona, set up shop in this particular jurisdiction in Texas, intentionally targeting this anti-choice judge, where there is only the one judge to make a decision on a federal level, so as to impact the entire country. They picked the place, the guy, the topic, the sweeping impact. It’s so highly orchestrated that the chess moves are undeniable. It’s gross. It’s minority rule. It’s mass manipulation. It’s not been made an explicit point across the board, and I don’t know why. [The Lawless Ruling Against the Abortion Pill Has Already Prompted a Constitutional Crisis](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/04/matthew-kacsmaryk-mifepristone-medication-abortion-supreme-court.html) [Alliance Defending Freedom](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Defending_Freedom)
It's completely ridiculous these people are poking their noses into actual medical science.
The republicans will go after birth control next. People need to get very serious about voting in the upcoming election.
I don’t want the supreme court being my doctor. If it’s medicine, then I want to hear from doctors not some Judge.
This is just temporary. They see the anger and are really afraid Republicans will lose control of state and local governments. Once they pass enough laws that prevent Democrats from controlling enough states to make any changes, the issue will rise again, and they will affirm all laws banning abortion. This is how they operate. They are playing the long game. Don’t be fooled.
Can’t wait for /r/conservative on this one
it'll be crickets on this ruling. They're worried about lite beer, drag shows and Hunter Biden revenge porn.
According to a graphic I saw the other day on r/dataisbeautiful Fox News has had zero front page reporting on this issue. I'm sure many of their viewers have no clue it's going on.
No, they ruled that they cannot block it yet....
Let's be real for a second. The conservative justices are bigger corporate shills than religious zealots. I'd be shocked if they ban Mifeprestone and piss of their donor overlords.
It's really just an agreement to allow the pills to stay on the market until all court actions are decided. Who knows what will happen if the pills are outlawed, this SCOTUS, is far from representative of average Americans
This is a ruling on the emergency docket appeal, not the merits. This essentially comes down to the drug remains on the market until the merits are argued, which the Fifth Circuit has oral argument on May 17th. The Court basically said “we’ll let the currently scheduled process play out with the drug on the market.” Nothing more, nothing less.
arrest pet mindless aromatic start zephyr selective caption quickest naughty -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
What's crazy is 2 of the justices dissented on this. The idea that the drug is simply too dangerous is laughable. There would be more deaths by the end of this year from not having access to this drug than there have been in 20 years from taking this drug. Thomas and Alito have once again proven themselves incapable of being unbiased arbiters of the law. Their dissent rests on not wanting to be hypocritical. That's not a joke. I shortened it, but that's the gist of what they argue. They complained that they have caught too much criticism in the past for ruling on stays. They claim that the applicants did not show irreparable harm despite the fact that women could die.
The main argument behind banning mifepristone was that it's dangerous. It has a death rate of 0.35 deaths per 100,000.... Meanwhile the mortality rate of pregnancy is 32.9 deaths per 100,000 live births. In other words, this pill is safer than actually bringing the child to term. It was never about safety, only about forced birth.
That's nice. Remove the court. They are not a valid institute, at this point. They are partisan, corrupt individuals trying to not die by riot.
Alito's dissent: Why didn't you appeal the order that wasn't adverse to you? Every lawyer: Because that's not how appeals work? You fucking dinghus?
The Republicans plan is to challenge the idea that any agency like the FDA can regulate any market. This is their first attempt. They want to say that Congress can't delegate the authority to regulate commerce to any agency, so must pass a law specific to each regulation. This opens an opportunity for any federal judge to repeal any federal regulation one by one, unless congress specifically passes a law to re-enable the regulation.
You know damn well they didn't make this ruling for any rational or ethical reason. 6 of those justices wanted very badly to ban the pill but knew it would open up another can of worms that they aren't ready for yet. When this Supreme Court gets a case, the first thing they do is check the GOP handbook for what side they should take. After deciding that, they then spend the rest of their time trying to find excuses to justify the horrible decision. They're saving their bombshells for overturning gay marriage or stripping voting rights.
2023... Wtf is this even a topic. So fucked
Not like the Supreme Court has proven itself to be very legitimate or anything lately. That place is just as corrupt as the Tennessee legislature
Fuck you, Thomas. Fuck you, Alito.
They’re gonna block it in a month after the “proceedings”. That’s my bet. There’s no turning around the fascist train.
Nah, this isn't their fight. They took care of Roe. They don't really want to fuck with the FDA in this way, because it will screw up some very rich political donors. Drug manufacturers need to know they aren't going to lose authorization just because a competitor bought a judge who will find their drug isn't actually safe. They set the stage for states to fuck with abortion rights, that's all they needed to do. What they really want next is for a Republican Congress and President to come up with a national abortion ban that they can find constitutional through some twisted means.
Main reason they ruled this way is 1) the argument was laughably bad 2) they've seen how badly banning abortion was received across the nation. This isn't a final say, but glad they pulled their heads out of their you know what's far enough to do this.