Abortion Guns

Good News and Great News From the Supreme Court

EqualJusticeUnderLaw
JM Ashby
Written by JM Ashby

First, the great news.

The Supreme Court has ruled against the state of Texas in a 5-3 decision striking down the state's restrictions on access to abortion including, among other things, the nonsensical requirement that doctors who perform abortions also have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals

The majority ruling was written by Justice Stephen Breyer.

From the Associated Press:

Breyer wrote that "the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions and constitutes an 'undue burden' on their constitutional right to do so."

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Breyer.

As you may recall, Texas state Senator Wendy Davis (D) led an all-night filibuster against the law that has now been struck down. Thousands of others joined her in protest outside the state Senate.

This ruling has major implications for access to abortion across the country because Texas was far from alone in passing laws that restrict access to abortion by imposing irrelevant requirements on clinics. Each individual state law will have to be challenged in court, but the Supreme Court has made it clear today what the final outcome of those challenges will be.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the dissent in which he referenced the late Antonin Scalia and called for striking down Roe v Wade.

Now, for the good news.

The Supreme Court also ruled this morning that individuals who've been convicted for domestic violence can be denied access to guns.

The 6-2 ruling, written by Justice Elena Kagan and endorsed by conservative as well as liberal justices, upheld the sentences imposed on two Maine men who had argued their misdemeanor convictions for domestic abuse should not trigger a federal gun control statute. Thomas and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the dissent for this case as well.

"We treat no other constitutional right so cavalierly," he said in his dissent. "In construing the statute before us expansively so that causing a single minor reckless injury or offensive touching can lead someone to lose his right to bear arms forever, the court continues to relegate the Second Amendment to a second-class right."

A "single minor reckless injury or offensive touching." No big deal. It was just the one time!

Asshole.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    The only way it makes sense to treat the Second Amendment as an individual “constitutional right” is if the Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, specifically and deliberately intended to exempt an entire category of consumer goods from any sort of commercial regulation.

    More here.

  • The dissent by Thomas doesn’t surprise me…he was a serial sexual harasser after all.

  • muselet

    Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

    Thomas wrote that the decision “exemplifies the court’s troubling tendency ‘to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.'” Thomas was quoting an earlier abortion dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February. Scalia has not yet been replaced, so only eight justices voted.

    Alito, reading a summary of his dissent in court, said the clinics should have lost on technical, procedural grounds. Alito said the court was adopting a rule of, “If at first you don’t succeed, sue, sue again.”

    So Clarence Thomas believes it’s just peachy for states to limit access to what the Supremes 43 years ago declared a constitutionally-protected right and that anyone who disagrees with him is a big, poopyhead meanie. Got it.

    And Samuel Alito doesn’t understand cause and effect. I wonder if drawing him a picture would help.

    … [Justice Clarence] Thomas, whose questions from the bench during oral argument in February were his first in a decade, said the result was a denial of a Second Amendment right.

    “We treat no other constitutional right so cavalierly,” he said in his dissent. “In construing the statute before us expansively so that causing a single minor reckless injury or offensive touching can lead someone to lose his right to bear arms forever, the court continues to relegate the Second Amendment to a second-class right.”

    Oh, dear. Abortion (to give a specific example) is, whether Mr Justice Thomas likes it or not, a constitutionally-protected right, and he and his fellow Righties keep trying to wish that right into the corn field. Maybe it’s just me, but that seems to go far beyond cavalier.

    And domestic assault is not such a minor matter that the law should ignore it or make its commission consequence-free. It’s good to know, though, that Thomas wants to put firearms in the hands of people who have demonstrated a lack of self-control. (Of course, I’m deliberately misinterpreting his dissent, which distills down to “Won’t somebody please think of the guns?” spoken in a Helen Lovejoy voice.)

    Clarence Thomas is a tiresome little man, isn’t he?

    –alopecia

  • Yes, why do we hate the Second Amendment soooo much?? We are so mean to it. (All evidence, everywhere notwithstanding).