WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT WORKED WELL.
BRETT KAVANAUGH SEEMS TO BE RESPONDING AS SOME OF US FEARED HE MIGHT.
SURPRISING? NOT REALLY. HOW MANY OF US COULD WITHSTAND THE ATTACKS ON HIS FAMILY, CAREER, AND CHARACTER FROM THE UNSCRUPULOUS, BITTER, FRANTIC DEMOCRATS AND WEAK GOP ESTABLISHMENT FIGURES?!
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH IS NO CLARENCE THOMAS!
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
As “Everyone” Knows, EVERY DECISION KAVANAUGH PARTICIPATES IN from now to his departure from the Court WILL BE EXAMINED FOR EVIDENCE THAT, as his youthful abuse of women, especially “Dr.” Christine Ford ‘illustrated’, he is the most closed minded, infinitely biased, wholly unqualified, disgraced Supreme Court Justice in the Court’s entire history!
And the media will insure that that is ‘proven fact’.
I believe that it is better than 50/50 that Justice Kavanaugh will spend the rest of his career “proving” that he can be as liberal as Chief Justice Roberts when a high profile case is to be decided.
I hope that I am wrong!
As to the ‘real’ question in this case…can a recipient of a government benefit simply stop legislation from jeopardizing their ‘freebie’ seems to be something both Roberts and Kavanaugh are perfectly comfortable with answering in the affirmative. Apparently every class of recipient has a presumptive standing to sue.
Apparently these two “originalists” think so!
So is there any change to a program which might deprive any recipient or vendor, now presumptively off limits to any legislative change because any recipient can sue? Once a recipient always a recipient? Whether to fund someone or some entity or purpose is no longer a legislative decision or contemplation it is presumed a right and irrevocable? Taxing and funding is no longer a political decision? A funding entity has the burden of proof? Once eligible always eligible because it just isn’t that hard to make a claim of “discrimination.” The very legislature that has power to provide may not take away?
Justice Thomas is right that the refusal to hear the matter of standing in such issues is long overdue for clarification. What about food stamp eligibility? federal ‘student loan policy’? etc, etc ? The myriad of federal programs and direct and indirect recipients, vendors etc. associated with such programs, who has standing to sue? Can they disrupt the will of the legislature by running to court anytime their ox is gored and prevail against the legislature’s duty to protect the public purse?
DLH with R Mall joining
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.”
[Read Justice Thomas’ dissent]
Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined the Thomas dissent, meaning there were three votes in favor of taking the case. Since four votes are needed for the Supreme Courtto take up a case, the opinion indicates that Chief Justice John Roberts and Kavanaugh joined with the four liberals to deny review.
This move could indicate that Roberts and Kavanaugh are loath to take take up an abortion-related question in the aftermath of Kavanaugh’s contentious confirmation. The Court’s new junior justice has generally kept a low profile since taking the bench in October.
Monday’s cases arose when Republican state leaders in Louisiana and Kansas stripped Planned Parenthood of state Medicaid funds after a pro-life advocacy group presented evidence that the abortion-provider was harvesting and selling fetal materials. Planned Parenthood contests the accuracy of these claims.
Planned Parenthood and several unnamed female patients challenged the states’ move in federal court. The legal question in Monday’s cases was whether Medicaid recipients can challenge the disqualification of a provider under the Medicaid law. As such, it did not touch on abortion directly.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Planned Parenthood on that question in June 2017, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. That ruling is left in place now that the justices have refused to take the case.
Pro-life groups swiftly expressed their displeasure following Monday’s announcement.
“We are disappointed the Supreme Court declined to hear this case,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List. “The pro-life citizens of states like Kansas and Louisiana, through their elected representatives, have clearly expressed their will: they do not want Medicaid tax dollars used to prop up abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood.”
Trump administration is currently formulating a new federal regulation called the Protect Life Rule which would forbid public funding of Planned Parenthood under Title X.
Related reading: LifeSiteNews.com; Lifenews.com
