This morning, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Texas anti-choice law, known as SB 8. The justices heard two sets of arguments for nearly three hours.
Two key conservative justices seemed open to arguments from abortion providers that they should be able to challenge the ban in federal court, but in a separate challenge, brought by the DOJ, several conservative justices did express some reservations about the breadth of the government's arguments, with Chief Justice John Roberts calling the Biden administration's argument "as broad as can be." Some justices, led by Justice Elena Kagan, suggested that the court could allow the suit brought by abortion providers to go forward and refrain from having to take action on the more complicated Justice Department case. www.cnn.com/...
The DOJ was represented by U.S. solicitor general Elizabeth B. Prelogar, who was confirmed on Thursday by the Senate to become the 48th solicitor general and the second woman to hold the position. She forcefully argued that “no constitutional right is safe” if justices allow the Texas law to stand.
Texas was represented by the Texas solicitor general Judd E. Stone II and Jonathan Mitchell, the chief architect of the monstrous Texas law. Stone’s main argument was that the federal government and abortion providers do not have legal grounds to sue the state in federal court.
Marc A. Hearron, an attorney for abortion providers, argued that the Texas law has created a “chilling effect” by providing “bounties” to private citizens to enforce it.
Experts are trying to read between the questions and statements by the SCOTUS judges to judge how they will rule on this case and on the next monumental one from Mississippi Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Here is one expert opinion, which seems to be shared by many others — that the Texas abortion law will be deemed unconstitutional but the Mississippi case, which will be heard on Dec 1, may be upheld, leading to the end of abortion rights as we know it.
Another similar opinion -
The following info. is culled from www.washingtonpost.com/… with some editorial changes -
Roberts
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sharply questioned whether the authority to intervene being sought by the Justice Department was too broad and could be used in other cases by other administrations.
Also,
Alito
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. expressed skepticism that the Supreme Court could stop state court judges from hearing cases brought under the Texas law.
Barrett
Thomas
In answer to Thomas’s question, Stone says outrage == injury!
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Kavanaugh also characterized the Justice Department’s lawsuit as “irregular” and “unusual,” and asked what authority the federal government has to sue over a state law.
However, he subsequently questioned Stone, the Texas solicitor general, on hypotheticals regarding whether states could use similar schemes of citizen-led enforcement to avoid initial intervention by federal courts.
Stone argued that Congress could pass laws to prevent that — a position that Kavanaugh didn’t entirely seem to buy.
Among the hypotheticals raised by Kavanaugh: Could a state pass a law to allow private citizens to sue anyone who sells an AR-15 rifle? Could citizens be tasked to sue people who refuse to provide goods and services to a same-sex marriage? What about free speech?
Kagan
"Your answer to Justice Kavanaugh, which is go ask Congress, I mean, isn't the point of a right that you don't have to ask Congress? Isn't the point of a right that it doesn't really matter what Congress thinks or what the majority of the American people think as to that right?"
Kagan —"Within the state court process, it may be many years from now and with a chilling effect that basically deprives people who want to exercise the [abortion] right from the opportunity to do so," the justice explained.
Mitchell
Typical conservative nonsense and doublespeak -
Prelogar
“If Texas could nullify the decisions of Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, other states could follow their lead against other constitutional rights or other decisions they dislike.”
“It’s an attack on the authority of this court to say what the law is and to have that judgment respected across the 50 states. And it’s an attack on Congress’s determination that there should be access to pre-enforcement review in federal court to vindicate federal rights.”
What do you think and what do you predict? Will the conservative majority on the bench deliver another blow to liberals and the rights of women? Or will justice prevail in the more critical Mississippi case?