Read on Twitter
it& #39;s june medical
BREYER HAS IT! (PLURALITY)
CHIEF JUSTICE writes concurrence saying stare decisis compels this result (TRUE) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf">https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/...
#SCOTUS strikes down the LA admitting privileges law
not to say it, but .... https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/1273615672883523584">https://twitter.com/LeahLitma...
like i said, i was really looking forward to reading this guy& #39;s take on women& #39;s health: https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/1277405776257191936">https://twitter.com/LeahLitma...
u up @SenatorCollins? Both of the nominees you voted for would have upheld the admitting privileges law that #SCOTUS invalidated _four_ years ago.
we will have more analysis @StrictScrutiny_. This is an important win for the women in Louisiana. And Julie Rikelman @ReproRights did a FANTASTIC job at argument.
But it is NOT at all encouraging for the future of abortion rights given the narrowness of the Chief Justice& #39;s concurrence: "I am voting this way only because SCOTUS struck down this exact same law 4 years ago."
No one with a straight face could distinguish the two laws.
AND YET the other four conservative Justices would have upheld the LA law.
AND YET the other four conservative Justices would have upheld the LA law.
OK after reading it again, I think the Chief& #39;s concurrence is even _worse_ for abortion rights than I thought, given that he purports to adhere to WWH, only to the extent the case was not about the benefits of the law? (i.e., that undue burden is only about effects/burdens???)
