WOW. From Samuel Alito’s dissent.
ACCUSES THE MAJORITY OF “CARPET BOMBING” THE STATE LAW.
“...Under the Supremacy Clause,
federal courts may strike down state laws
that violate the Constitution or conflict with federal statutes, Art. VI, cl. 2,
but in exercising this power, federal courts must take great care.
The power to invalidate a state law implicates sensitive federal-state relations.
Federal courts have no authority to carpet-bomb state laws,
knocking out provisions that are perfectly consistent with federal law,
just because it would be too much bother
to separate them from unconstitutional provisions.”
...
“By forgoing severability, the Court strikes down numer ous provisions that could not plausibly impose an undue burden.
For example, surgical center patients must “be treated with respect, consideration, and dignity.” Tex. Admin. Code, tit. 25, §135.5(a). That’s now enjoined.
Patients may not be given misleading “advertising regard ing the competence and/or capabilities of the organiza tion.” §135.5(g). Enjoined.
Centers must maintain fire alarm and emergency communications systems, §§135.41(d), 135.42(e),
and eliminate “[h]azards that might lead to slipping, falling, electrical shock, burns, poisoning, or other trauma,” §135.10(b). Enjoined and enjoined.
When a center is being remodeled while still in use, “[t]emporary sound barriers shall be provided where intense, prolonged construction noises will disturb pa tients or staff in the occupied portions of the building.” §135.51(b)(3)(B)(vi). Enjoined.
Centers must develop and enforce policies concerning teaching and publishing by staff. §§135.16(a), (c). Enjoined.
They must obtain informed consent before doing research on patients. §135.17(e). Enjoined.
And each center “shall develop, im- plement[,] and maintain an effective, ongoing, organization- wide, data driven patient safety program.” §135.27(b). Also enjoined.
These are but a few of the innocuous re quirements that the Court invalidates with nary a wave of the hand.”
“Any responsible application of the H. B. 2 severability provision would leave much of the law intact. “
“V
When we decide cases on particularly controversial issues,
we should take special care to apply settled procedural rules in a neutral manner.
The Court has not done that here.
I therefore respectfully dissent.”
ALITO, J., dissenting from pages 40 to 43
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf
Photo from: http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx
That’s all the inevitable bad fruit of continuing to countenance mass murder, to regulate it, rather than STOPPING it, as the Constitution of the United States absolutely requires. Perhaps Justice Alito might want to ponder this.
thanks for sharing that.
i’m telling you, this is just another reason to put Trump in the White House.
He is a faulted man, yes. He is also the only one who can be persuaded to put something close to a Constitutionalist on the bench.