Jul 01, 2020
Collins digs herself in even deeper defending Kavanaughs latest anti-abortion vote
This news has been received from: dailykos.com
All trademarks, copyrights, videos, photos and logos are owned by respective news sources. News stories, videos and live streams are from trusted sources.She needs to keep the mask on. It's a great excuse not to talk.
Sen. Susan Collins wants you to know that against all evidence to the contrary, having Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is fine, just fine, and her vote for him is completely defensible. Despite his votes to deport Dreamers, let employers fire LGBTQ people for being LGBTQ people, and take abortion access away from most of the women of Louisiana, she's standing by her man.Well, she pretty much ignored those first two votes of his, but after her fervent defense of him on the issue of abortion during his confirmation, she apparently felt she couldn't avoid this one. She should have, because she did herself no favors.
In a terse statement, she said: "I agree with the Supreme Court's decision […] which recognizes the burden that the Louisiana statute could impose." So far so good. "Some have tried to suggest that this opinion is an indication of how certain justices would vote on the question of whether abortion will remain legal. As Justice Gorsuch noted," she continued, "'In truth, Roe v. Wade is not even at issue here.' And while Justice Kavanaugh called for additional fact finding in this case, he gave no indication in his dissenting opinion that he supports overturning Roe." She reiterated that when talking to reporters. Kavanaugh "did not make any allusion to Roe v Wade, or Casey, which are the two longstanding precedents that protect a woman's right to choose," she said, adding that she's still confident with Kavanaugh on the court. Leaving us once again to ponder whether she's really that gullible, or if she's really that much of a liar. Or both.
Let's make sure her time is up. Please give $1 to help Democrats in each of these crucial Senate races, but especially the one in Maine!
My money is on the latter, because Collins is certainly smart enough to see the game and to understand what's happening with all these cases. She knows that the right—including the Federalist Society judges she's been helping McConnell confirm—is using overturning Roe as the decoy, and that the real game is gutting it. Keeping the empty husk of Roe standing while actual access to abortion is swept away in huge swaths of the country is the game.
And don't even get me started on the whole smashing precedent part of Kavanaugh's vote. That thing Collins promised he told her he took very, very seriously and would never, ever do. Because the exact same state law was overturned by the Supreme Court just four years ago. That's called precedent. That's the thing that Chief Justice John Roberts, no friend to abortion rights, used to hang his vote with the majority on. Collins remains mum on that whole part of the vote, clinging to the myth that it's only about Roe.
As Markos wrote, it would have been no skin off Kavanaugh's nose to throw Collins a bone here and vote with the majority citing exactly that issue: precedent. That he didn't makes it even more clear that this guy is going to spend the rest of his life on this court doing away with abortion (and next, contraception), and he can do it because Collins put him there.
News Source: dailykos.com
Tags: donaldtrump trump covid 19 2020 2020election election2020 republicans coronavirus democrats election joebiden gotv community gop senate pandemic vladimirputin blacklivesmatter russia vote covid19 resistance bluewave vote2020 voteblue progressives mitchmcconnell populists teaparty redtoblue 2020 abortion brettkavanaugh donaldtrump me sen mitchmcconnell susancollins waronwomen susancollins donaldtrump susancollins donaldtrump mitchmcconnell susancollins brettkavanaugh donaldtrump mitchmcconnell susancollins abortion brettkavanaugh donaldtrump mitchmcconnell susancollins abortion brettkavanaugh donaldtrump mitchmcconnell susancollins waronwomen 2020 abortion brettkavanaugh donaldtrump mitchmcconnell susancollins waronwomen 2020 abortion brettkavanaugh donaldtrump me sen mitchmcconnell susancollins waronwomen
U.S. Supreme Court Wont Hear Abortion Clinic Buffer Zone Cases From Chicago, Harrisburg
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday turned away pleas from anti-abortion activists to make it easier for them to protest outside clinics, declining to wade back into the abortion debate just days after striking down a Louisiana law regulating abortion clinics.
The justices said in a written order that they would not hear cases from Chicago and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where anti-abortion activists had challenged ordinances that restrict their behavior outside clinics.
As is usual, the justices did not comment in turning away the cases. The order from the court noted Justice Clarence Thomas would have heard the Chicago case.
The Supreme Court has since the late 1990s heard several cases involving demonstration-free zones, called buffer zones, outside abortion clinics. Most recently, in 2014, the justices unanimously struck down a law that created a 35-foot protest-free zone outside Massachusetts abortion clinics. The court said Massachusetts’ law, which made it a crime to stand in the protest-free zone for most people not entering or exiting the clinic or passing by, was an unconstitutional restraint on the free-speech rights of protesters.
On Thursday, one of the two cases the court declined to take up involved an ordinance passed by the city counsel in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s capital, in 2012 that made it illegal to “congregate, patrol, picket or demonstrate” in a zone 20 feet from a health care facility. Anti-abortion activists sued, arguing that the ordinance violates their free speech rights. Lower courts have upheld the ordinance, however, ruling it doesn’t apply to “sidewalk counseling,” where individuals who oppose abortion offer assistance and information about alternatives to abortion to those entering a clinic.
The second case the court turned away on Thursday involved a Chicago ordinance that regulates the space 50 feet from the entrance of any abortion clinic or other medical facility. In that space, a person cannot come within 8 feet of another person without their consent to hand them information or engage in “oral protest, education, or counseling.” The ordinance was modeled on a statute upheld by the Supreme Court in 2000.
Anti-abortion activists told the Supreme Court that Chicago’s ordinance violates their free speech rights and that the high court’s decision from 2000 should be reconsidered. A trial court previously dismissed the lawsuit and an appeals court upheld that decision.
The court’s announcement that it would not hear the cases comes on the heels of its decision Monday that a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals violates abortion rights the court first announced in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. The decision divided the court’s conservatives and liberals 5-4 with Chief Justice John Roberts joining his four more liberal colleagues to strike down the law.
It was the first big abortion case of the Trump era and a surprising defeat for abortion opponents, who thought that the court’s new conservative majority with two members appointed by President Donald Trump would start chipping away at abortion access.
As a result of the decision, the justices also on Thursday ordered lower courts to revisit cases involving Indiana abortion laws previously blocked by courts. One required a woman to have an ultrasound 18 hours before having an abortion and the other would have made it tougher for girls under age 18 to get an abortion without their parents’ knowledge.
In their decision earlier this week, the justices told lower courts how to determine whether a restriction is permissible or puts an unconstitutional obstacle in the way of women who want an abortion.
(© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)