the other reason to hyperventilate is that SCOTUS took up the case even though the original issue was resolved.
The program wasn’t “abolished”; the issue wasn’t resolved.
The herring industry-funded monitoring progam was suspended because federal funding for administrative costs ran out. “If and when such federal funding becomes available, NOAA Fisheries will work with the New England Fishery Management Council to evaluate how and when to resume the program, and future decisions about the timing of the program will be announced before coverage resumes.”
the other reason to hyperventilate is that SCOTUS took up the case even though the original issue was resolved.
The program wasn’t “abolished”; the issue wasn’t resolved.
The herring industry-funded monitoring progam was suspended because federal funding for administrative costs ran out. “If and when such federal funding becomes available, NOAA Fisheries will work with the New England Fishery Management Council to evaluate how and when to resume the program, and future decisions about the timing of the program will be announced before coverage resumes.”
the original issue was in fact resolved. the complainants have nothing to gain from the court review.
yes, abolished is clearly the wrong word to use, but the main point is essentially the same, which is that the court took on the case specifically to revisit Chevron. and precedents are not revisited with an intention of being upheld.
the original issue was in fact resolved. the complainants have nothing to gain from the court review.
Then it’s to Stern’s discredit that he tries to make a point out of both the issue’s resolution and the fishermen’s stakes.
I think it is really ugly when the court is so hungry—so desperate—to reach out and grasp at a question that’s not properly before it, that it will transform a case into something it’s not. Here, I think this tactic arguably denied the fishermen’s best chance to win. Because I think they would surely win, maybe unanimously, if the court had granted that first question. But it didn’t.
Sheldon Whitehouse, probably the best advocate in Washington for straightening out SCOTUS, has an alternative view of where Trump's justice nominations came from.
Trump seems to be counting on the three justices he “chose” for appointment to the Supreme Court to get him out of trouble. But did Trump really choose them? Or was Trump the chump, in someone else’s game? Let’s have a look.
Sheldon Whitehouse, probably the best advocate in Washington for straightening out SCOTUS, has an alternative view of where Trump's justice nominations came from.
db, how about an exec summary/spoiler? link not working for me....
“IVF is a critical tool to preserve fertility and importantly to treat infertility, a disease that affects at least one in eight couples,” said Dr. Kara Goldman, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology in reproductive endocrinology and fertility at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and medical director of Fertility Preservation at Northwestern Medicine.
“IVF did not exist before Roe v. Wade, so we are entering uncharted waters. The impact of overturning Roe v. Wade may have implications and unintended consequences far beyond the reach of abortion. In states where bills are being introduced defining a fetus as a person, or defining life as beginning at fertilization, this could dramatically change the way in vitro fertilization is practiced.
“Physicians like myself who practice reproductive medicine are afraid for our patients.
“What does this mean for a patient's frozen embryos? When a patient has completed their family, embryos are either donated to research or destroyed. If embryo destruction is outlawed, this will have tremendous ramifications for not only the tens of thousands of embryos — and the families who have created those embryos through careful decision-making between the physician and patient — but importantly will have ramifications for the future practice of IVF and the hundreds of thousands of Americans who rely on this technology to build their families.”
someone feel free to explain to me what this language is doing in a court ruling
That concurring opinion, addressing the religious meaning of “sanctity,” follows from the Alabama Constitution’s recognition of “the sanctity of unborn life.”
someone feel free to explain to me what this language is doing in a court ruling
That concurring opinion, addressing the religious meaning of “sanctity,” follows from the Alabama Constitution’s recognition of “the sanctity of unborn life.”
yes, that explains the proximate reason for the judge writing this. it doesn't explain how in god's name we've reached the point where a state supreme court is quoting the bible in order to explain what a law means.
seems troublesome to me. and unconstitutional. and kind of christo-fascist
Well, you’ve probably heard more about the background of the Alabama case than I had. This article is quite enlightening:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68366337 Grief and anger over lost embryos explains much. The case stems from a wrongful death lawsuit brought by three couples whose embryos were lost at a fertility clinic in 2020.
A patient had wandered into the place where the embryos were stored, handled them, and accidentally dropped them. As a result, the embryos were destroyed.
The couples sought to sue the Center for Reproductive Medicine and the Mobile Infirmary Association under the state's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. That law covers foetuses, but did not specifically cover embryos resulting from IVF.
An Orange County federal judge has dismissed criminal charges for the second time in five years against accused members of a Southern California white supremacist group suspected of inciting brawls at political rallies throughout the state.
....In his decision, Carney granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, agreeing that Rundo and Boman were being selectively prosecuted, while “far-left extremist groups, such as Antifa” were not. “Prosecuting only members of the far right and ignoring members of the far left leads to the troubling conclusion that the government believes it is permissible to physically assault and injure Trump supporters to silence speech,” Carney wrote in his order.
Carney was appointed by George W. Bush. That's about all the explanation you need for this.
This is not the first time Carney has weaponized his authority to dismiss cases. In 2020 Carney was upset that COVID lockdowns ordered by the chief judge barred him from holding in-person trials. In fact, he was so enraged that as retribution he began dismissing charges against defendants waiting for trial. His jihad ended a few months later when the 9th Circuit overturned him.
I know I'm late to this party. Going back to the beginning of this thread. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the SCOTUS gets to decide what is constitutional and what is not.
I know I'm late to this party. Going back to the beginning of this thread. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the SCOTUS gets to decide what is constitutional and what is not.
Thank you for the reminder of that question that was settled 200 years ago.
[Edited to add] Which is definitely "late to the party" to bring it up.
Sounds like bad news for people who want to legitimately protest in the Fifth Circuit area.
Does it intersect at all with trial(s) of Jan. 6 leader(s)?
not sure what you mean by intersect.
And the danger with a bad decision in this case is that it will free up Republican legislatures beyond the 5th circuit to pass their own, similar, laws.
in a 5-4 vote that should have been 9-0, SCOTUS said Texas has to follow the Constitution at the border.
We were saved by Roberts and Barrett
This is worrisome in the extreme.
No wonder I'm hyperventilating.