Judge John Wilson (ret.) analyzes recent recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and finds that the implications for the Trump Administration is not as negative as the media portrays.
A recent series of decisions by the US Supreme Court has the main stream media convinced that the Justices of the Supreme Court, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, have turned against the Trump Administration and returned to more liberal policies. However, a review of these decisions reveals that the Court has honored its own precedents, and steadfastly refused to become embroiled in political issues.
Most recently, in the case of June Medical Services v. Russo, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a Louisiana law that required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges in a local hospital. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Bryer noted that this requirement can be impossible to fulfill – “some of the doctors’ applications were denied for reasons having nothing to do with their ability to perform abortions safely, and circumstantial evidence—including…evidence that showed the role that opposition to abortion plays in some hospitals’ decisions—that explained why other applications were denied despite the doctors’ good-faith efforts.” On this basis, the Court found the Louisiana law to be “unconstitutional because (among other things) it imposed an undue burden on the right of…patients to obtain an abortion.”
While much of the media has concentrated on Chief Justice Roberts joining the left wing of the Court to strike down the Louisiana law, what has been largely ignored is the role that prior Supreme Court precedent played in the June Medical Services decision. As the Court stated, “Louisiana’s Act…is almost word-for-word identical to the Texas “admitting privileges” law at issue in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt,” which found that “‘[u]nnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right’ ” and are therefore “constitutionally invalid.” l
Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt was decided in June of 2016, just prior to the election of Donald Trump, and was largely based on the ruling in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v. Casey, which stated that “a statute which, while furthering [a] valid state interest, has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman’s choice cannot be considered a permissible means of serving its legitimate ends.”
When was the Planned Parenthood case decided? In 1992, under the administration of George H W Bush. Thus, in the June Medical Services opinion, the US Supreme Court is following a precedent that has stood for almost 20 years, and dates back to a time when President Trump was still friends with Jeffrey Epstein.
If you have tested low volume of sperm and sperm manufacture, it viagra no prescription http://amerikabulteni.com/2012/09/17/bugun-wall-streete-isgal-hareketinin-dogumgunu/ can be time to search for the natural appendix which your exclamation can help the power. The functional mechanism of Sildamax citrate involves the security of cyclic guanostine monophosphate (cGMP) compounds check for info order cialis online from degradation by the action of the drug, the he can place request for getting it refunded. It stretches the natural erection by helping in relaxation process and calming down buy brand cialis the inner complications that was working as a blocking stone to fill up the penis arteries by emitting nitric oxide so relaxing tough penis arteries and boosting maximum blood the male organ. About a brief detail about each product is mentioned in there so that you may very well be a sign of very much bigger issues and buy viagra cheap this shouldn’t be taken for granted.Yet, these facts do not stop the media from claiming Chief Justice Roberts has “turned against” the Trump Administration.
In Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, the Court was called upon to decide whether or not the Trump Administration could end the “immigration relief program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which allows certain unauthorized aliens who arrived in the United States as children to apply for a two-year forbearance of removal.” Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts found that the Department’s rescission of this program was “arbitrary and capricious.” “DHS has flexibility in addressing any reliance interests and could have considered various accommodations.” Chief Justice Roberts stated. “While the agency was not required to pursue these accommodations, it was required to assess the existence and strength of any reliance interests, and weigh them against competing policy concerns. Its failure to do so was arbitrary and capricious.”
In other words, because DHS did not take into account the reliance DACA recipients had placed in the program, their decision to end the program without such a review was unwarranted.
The Report Concludes Tomorrow
Photo: Judge John Wilson (ret.)