Posted on 12/10/2018 11:02:52 AM PST by mikelets456
The Supreme Court declined to review three cases relating to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood at the state level Monday, over a vigorous dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas.
The dissent was significant because it indicates that Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the high court’s liberal wing to deny review of a lower court decision that favored the nation’s largest abortion provider.
“So what explains the Court’s refusal to do its job here?,” Thomas wrote. “I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood.'”
“Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty,” Thomas added. “If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
“Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty,” Thomas added. “If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background.”
I agree 100%
And there you go! Is this a sign of things to come?
Roberts seems compromised, can’t count on him. Now this guy everyone carried water for?
Say it ain’t so!
Roberts IS comprised or worse. We still don’t have a 5-4 court and unless RBG goes we won’t, maybe not even then.
Why is Planned Parenthood even around, it’s only job is Murder
Here's a better example that isn't fraught with controversy due to the subject of the funding:
Suppose the Federal government requires any highway project built on the National Highway System to be designed and constructed with 12-foot travel lanes. If a state gets Federal money to build a new highway that will be part of the NHS, they can't turn around and complain that they should have the right under the U.S. Constitution to build it with 11-foot lanes. Arguing against these Federal regulations about highway design on "states rights" grounds -- while using the Federal money to build the road -- is ludicrous.
If states don't want Planned Parenthood to get Medicaid funding, they should just stop accepting Medicaid funding, period.
NOT ABORTION-RELATED! How many times must this be said??
“If states don’t want Planned Parenthood to get Medicaid funding, they should just stop accepting Medicaid funding, period.”
But does medicaid funding require that PP be funded?
Thanks for the perspective. FR is getting worst then the msm about projecting a agenda rather then a rational analysis.
[[Why is Planned Parenthood even around, it’s only job is Murder]]
How else are irresponsible selfish men and women going to have unprotected sex without any ‘consequences’? (The lie that abortion is solely to ‘protect the health of a woman’ is a damnable Satanic lie- abortion is so men and women can keep screwing each other and not have to pay to raise a child as a result- it’s murder to protect their lustful desires- period!)
NOT ABORTION-RELATED! How many times must this be said??
...
I predict this story will be posted at least three more times in the next 36 hours.
I assume there is SOMETHING there about it ... otherwise, what was the point of the legal challenge by these states?
RE: Roberts seems compromised, can’t count on him. Now this guy everyone carried water for?
As I said before ( I got a lot of flack in this forum for saying it )... all these sexual allegations against Kavanaugh were a distraction from the REAL ISSUE — His Judicial Philosophy.
That Susan Collins cited his views about Roe vs. Wade as REASON to vote for his confirmation should have risen a red flag.
Here is a relevant article warning about him long before the Christine Blasey Ford distraction. This article gave us a warning about him:
SEE HERE:
TITLE: Potential Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Has A Troubling Record On Religious Liberty
And, to help Democrats get elected and reelected.
You sure about your assumption?
That is straight from PP and Democrats' talking points.
PP claims ALL the money it gets from the government goes for non-abortion services. But, it's all just an accounting trick. The money goes into its coffers and the money from abortion adds to its profits.
PP doesn't deserve a dime of taxpayer funding unless it agrees to stop performing abortions.
The legal question in Monday’s cases was whether Medicaid recipients can challenge the disqualification of a provider under the Medicaid law.
It may have nothing to do with Federal requirements per se and everything to do with the ability of a state to regulate a Federal program.
Some Catholic.....PUKE!
Congrats on posting an article from a known, good, news source.
I get so tired of FReepers posting articles from blog sites you’ve never heard of before. And usually click bait.
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.