Posted on 12/10/2018 7:35:37 AM PST by GIdget2004
The Supreme Court Monday rebuffed efforts by states to block funding to Planned Parenthood.
It left in place two lower court opinions that said that states violate federal law when they terminate Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood affiliates who offer preventive care for low income women.
It would have taken four justices to agree to hear the issue, and only three conservative justices -- Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch -- voted to hear the case.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared to side with the court's liberals in not taking up the case -- showing an effort to avoid high-profile abortion-related issues for now.
Roberts and Kavanaugh "likely have serious objections," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "But such votes seem to be a signal that they would rather avoid contentious, high-profile disputes for now, at least where possible."
The case concerned whether states can block Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood affiliates that provide such women with annual health screens, contraceptive coverage and cancer screening.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
17-1340 ANDERSEN, JEFF V. PLANNED PARENTHOOD, ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch join, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent for the reasons set out in Gee v. Planned Parenthood, 586 U. S. ___ (2018) (Thomas, J., dissenting).
They didn’t “side” with anyone - they decided not to decide. A correct headline would be “Supreme Court declines to hear Planned Parenthood case.”
Fake news.
It’s also a lie. Planned Parenthood does not provide breast cancer screenings - they have no mammogram machines.
Trump picked an asshole.
The courts still have the Constitutional obligation to strike down unconstitutional laws.
...
Was constitutionality raised by the litigants? I don’t think so.
Not at all. The Supreme Court hears about 100 cases a year. The Court picks and chooses the cases that it hears for a variety of reasons.
If there isn’t a circuit split on an issue, it is very, very rare for the Supreme Court to agree hear the case.
A denial of certiorari is NOT a decision of any kind. It’s not an endorsement of the case below. It’s not anything other than 4 Justices didn’t think that it was the right time to take up that particular case.
it is a DECISION to not act despite your claim.
Exactly. Pro abortion legislation is enacted IMMEDIATELY. Legislation favoring Pro-Life is always stayed pending appeal.
Nailed it.
When? When if ever will SOCTUS have a justice who is a born again Christian?
Jews, Catholics, Mainline Protestants. That’s all there is. That’s all there ever has been in the SCOTUS.
And even though evangelical Christians are a huge voting majority - we are not represented.
And that is a huge factor in why we have Roe v. Wade and other social illnesses.
Regarding Justice Kavanaugh, the problem with being a post-FDR era constitutional “expert” these days is that even conservatives cannot avoid anti-state sovereignty institutional indoctrination imo.
Regarding Pres. Trump, he has had no choice but to surround himself with institutionally indoctrinated “constitutionalists."
Think of it this way. Hypothetically speaking, judges now on the bench will argue that the Constitution was ratified in 1942 when the Supremes scandalously decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress’s favor, instead of in 1788.
Evidenced by unconstitutional federal taxpayer dollars for abortion, I’m sure there are FReepers who have a better grip on the fed’s constitutionally limited powers better than Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Also, off topic, patriots are encouraged to watch Dan Borgino’s excellent 37 min video (associated book). The video helps to flesh out the alleged Mueller conspiracy against Pres. Trump.
Insights welcome.
Dan Bongino - Obama, Mueller and the Biggest Scam in American History (not office friendly)
Wrong again, and that’s not my “claim” its the LAW.
“The denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case.” United States v. Carver, 260 U.S. 482, 490 (1923) (Holmes, J.). Accord, Hughes Tool Co. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 409 U.S. 363, 366, n. 1 (1973); Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 489-497 (1953).
The “variety of considerations [that] underlie denials of the writ,” Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, 338 U.S. 912, 917 (1950) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.), counsels against according denials of certiorari any precedential value. Concomitantly, opinions accompanying the denial of certiorari cannot have the same effect as decisions on the merits.” Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 296 (1989).
You might not like it, but it is the law.
It’s not a decision of any kind. It’s not precedent. It says nothing about the merits.
Why doesn’t it make sense? It is a clearly writen sentence. Clearly comprehensible. It is an argument used by liberals for decades. If you let me know exactly what you don’t understand, I will be glad to explain.
Good Catholics they are NOT!
Kavanaugh trying to rebuild his reputation with women.
Yes, probably, but at the horrible price of the lives of unborn baby girls—and boys!!!
I thought he was a good father as his ten-year-old was praying for his accusers. Hoped that spoke volumes for his character; maybe the credit goes to his wife.
Just extremely disappointing to see him align with Roberts against Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas.
Taxpayers should not have to defray the cost of murder a.k.a abortion.
Timing, people. Think timing. The Left wants a $^!+ storm. And, in every possible institution. Distractors are a tactic. Anything, that will derail Trump supporters.
Fall in and let them demoralize us is Alinsky on steroids.
“Actually, what this ruling means is that states don’t have the authority to make their own decisions about Medicaid funding that comes from the Federal government.”
Correct, and here’s an example. States recently were given the right to issue work requirements for Medicaid recipients, but only after Trump who was authorized by federal law, issued an order permitting them do do so if they choose. Judges shouldn’t be in the business of rewriting laws. What the Republicans should do is correct this with legislation, whether or not they have the will to do so is another matter.
If it’s in the courts, then it has to be. Especially by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
Also of consideration is that due to the “Cert Pool” it’s far more likely that whichever clerk wrote the pool memo on this case actually influenced Roberts and Kavanaugh.
Gorsuch and Alito do not participate in the “Cert Pool” all of the other justices do.
From a Catholic?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.