Courting the Rule of Law

[Drala]

I read this article in today's WAPO and thought it would be nice to have a thread on court cases, especially those involving constitutional issues.  There's likely to be a number of court challenges in coming months to Trump's executive overreach.  This thread could also accommodate any Court rulings on abortion and marriage rights.  The article below isn't strictly about a case involving the First Amendment.  It looks at social changes and how they intersect with challenges to constitutional law.

The Supreme Court’s Peace Cross case highlights a deeper question about religion

By Charles Lane, WAPO, March 5 

Spoiler

In the case of the Peace Cross in Bladensburg, Md., the ostensible issue for the Supreme Court is whether the Constitution permits a local government to maintain a 40-foot World War I memorial in the shape of the Latin cross on public property, or whether this violates the First Amendment clause prohibiting the establishment of an official religion.

The deeper question is the long-term status of publicly supported religious symbolism — everything from the Peace Cross to “In God We Trust” on coins — in a nation that is rapidly becoming less and less religious.

And on that point, there may be nothing the court can do to stop or even slow the trend.

Across the industrialized world, people are losing interest in traditional religion. This process is most advanced in Europe; nearly 80 percent of Swedes described themselves as “not a religious person” or “a convinced atheist” in a WIN-Gallup International survey. However, the United States is catching up, or so most Americans suspect: Seventy-six percent told Gallup last year that religion is “losing influence” in this country. Twelve percent of Americans told Gallup they do not believe in God in 2017; only 1 percent dared admit that in 1944. And the proportion of those who “never” attend services — 28 percent in 2018 — has doubled in the past quarter-century.

Broadly speaking, that is a manifestation of capitalism’s destabilizing impact on tradition. Social scientists have long identified secularization as a consequence of economic modernization, but no one has done so more persuasively than political scientist Ronald F. Inglehart, professor emeritus of the University of Michigan, who has, over decades, assembled a vast quantity of international survey data to support that proposition.

A decline in traditional faith reflects the broader “cultural evolution” that accompanies generations of growing prosperity and technological advancement, Inglehart argues.

As poverty recedes and survival becomes less uncertain, people simply have more time and inclination to think for themselves about life’s big questions. Spirituality does not die out but rather takes “individually flexible forms,” as Inglehart puts it. Inhabitants of advanced industrial societies “tend to become less obedient to traditional religious leaders and institutions, and less inclined to engage in religious activities,” Inglehart writes in his 2018 book, “Cultural Evolution.”

Many commentators have noted the incoherence of the Supreme Court’s establishment clause doctrine. In oral arguments on the Bladensburg Peace Cross case Feb. 27, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch called the doctrine “a dog’s breakfast.”

A more charitable view would be that the court has been struggling to accommodate rising secularization (and diversity) within a constitutional framework written by men who could never have anticipated a case such as this one, in which three self-described humanists have been granted standing in federal court to complain, essentially, that a cross in a public park offends them.

Feeling bound to respect both the increasing numbers of such Americans who either aren’t Christian or don’t believe at all, and the shrinking majority that still is and does, the court has tried to conjure distinctions between forms of public support for faith that excessively “entangle” the state in religion or “endorse” it, and those that do not.

The court has yet to come up with answers that apply to all the possible thorny questions, and it’s unlikely that its holding in the Peace Cross case will prove any more satisfactory.

The simple fact is that the establishment clause is a powerful weapon in the hands of those who would eliminate all official support for religion and banish it from the public square entirely. Whatever its other merits, their position has the advantage of consistency.

It is also foreseeable that the power and popularity of secularist constitutional arguments will increase as cultural evolution accelerates.

As Inglehart notes, societies eventually reach a tipping point at which “conformist pressures” reverse polarity and begin to support changes they previously opposed. His example, and it’s a telling one, is the breathtaking shift in attitudes on same-sex marriage. Unthinkable for centuries, in the past decade it became not only thinkable but also normative and, consequently, legal in all 50 states. The Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges merely ratified what the culture had already determined.

In some of the justices’ questions and remarks at oral argument last week, there was an implicit but unmistakable awareness that this exercise in constitutional adjudication is also about navigating a shifting cultural current.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer acknowledged that building a new Peace Cross today might be a problem, while voicing concern about a ruling that would authorize “people trying to tear down historical monuments” based on religious sensibilities.

There are any number of ways the justices could rationalize maintaining this giant symbol of a particular religion on public property; the cross’s relationship to a secular purpose, memorializing American war dead, is probably the most persuasive. It’s doubtful, though, that such a precedent, once established, would endure forever. Nothing does.

 

[Drala]

Alabama judge allows man to sue clinic on behalf of fetus

Spoiler

 

 

[fraurosena]

6 hours ago, Drala said:

Alabama judge allows man to sue clinic on behalf of fetus

  Hide contents

 

 

Look, I am of the opinion that (except in rape cases) the father absolutely should have a say in what happens to his child. When two people decide to have sex, and a pregnancy is the result, then the father should not be automatically excluded from any and all discussion about the child. There should at least be a discussion, the opinion of both parents should be heard. That said, however much the father may be against it, the mother has final say. It is her body. 

In this case, I have some sympathy for the plaintiff. He really wanted this baby, and I can imagine that he mourns the loss. 

All that said, I think it is beyond ridiculous that this fetus has this legal status. Not because I believe it's not a human being (quite the contrary, but that's me, ymmv). No, it's because this fetus is dead. How can a dead person have equal standing as a plaintiff? That's just plain absurd.

[AmazonGrace]

Happened in Italy: 

 

[AmazonGrace]

Further down the thread, a dead lawyer.

[Dandruff]

On 3/7/2019 at 4:04 PM, fraurosena said:

All that said, I think it is beyond ridiculous that this fetus has this legal status. Not because I believe it's not a human being (quite the contrary, but that's me, ymmv). No, it's because this fetus is dead. How can a dead person have equal standing as a plaintiff? That's just plain absurd.

I guess they're treating it as an Estate, with the assumption that the fetus' life began at conception.  I wonder how this "life" could be valued in the context of damages.  Was there proof that the woman was actually pregnant?  Will they need to examine whether the woman would have been physically able to carry the fetus to viability?  Also, will the guy who filed the suit need to prove paternity, and what might that entail; e.g., is there a body/DNA available to examine?  If not, what would stop anyone from suing on behalf of any aborted fetus?

I'm not an attorney and don't see what this suit might accomplish other than "stirring the pot" and traumatizing the woman.

[Howl]

Roe vs Wade made abortion legal, giving a woman a legal right to abortion.  End. of. discussion. 

In the instance referenced up thread: 19-year-old guy impregnates 16-year-old girl.  This is a legal strategy to further inhibit abortion rights by adding another angle to the fetal personhood  angle.  It will likely go to the Supreme Court. 

[smittykins]

Sometimes I wonder, when I hear about men challenging their wives/girlfriends’ right to an abortion(especially if they’re an ex), how many of them would still be around if she had the baby.

[AmazonGrace]

2 hours ago, smittykins said:

Sometimes I wonder, when I hear about men challenging their wives/girlfriends’ right to an abortion(especially if they’re an ex), how many of them would still be around if she had the baby.

Suing somebody when you can't undo an abortion and it won't change a thing except traumatize your gf and inconvenience and  endanger people who are just trying to do their jobs seems like such a jerk power move that I'm pretty sure some of these people would turn o out to be manipulative dads who use custody suits,  fake DCFS complaints, delayed child support payments and gossip as weapons against their ex.

Holy run-on sentence.

[GreyhoundFan]

Gee, who'd have thunk it...Kavano (R-Beer) thinks Buddhists should get treated differently than Muslims. "Brett Kavanaugh pivots as Supreme Court allows one execution, stops another"

Spoiler

It’s difficult to say with certainty why the Supreme Court on Thursday night stopped the execution of a Buddhist inmate in Texas because he was not allowed a spiritual adviser by his side, when last month it approved the execution of a Muslim inmate in Alabama under the almost exact circumstances.

But the obvious place to start is new Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who seemed to have a change of heart.

Kavanaugh on Thursday was the only justice to spell out his reasoning: Texas could not execute Patrick Murphy without his Buddhist adviser in the room because it allows Christian and Muslim inmates to have religious leaders by their sides.

“In my view, the Constitution prohibits such denominational discrimination,” Kavanaugh wrote.

But Kavanaugh was on the other side last month when Justice Elena Kagan and three other justices declared “profoundly wrong” Alabama’s decision to turn down Muslim Domineque Ray’s request for an imam to be at his execution, making available only a Christian chaplain.

“That treatment goes against the Establishment Clause’s core principle of denominational neutrality,” Kagan wrote then.

Kavanaugh and the court’s other conservatives did not address Kagan’s argument, saying only that Ray had brought his challenge too late.

Kavanaugh said in a footnote Thursday he was satisfied with the timing of Murphy’s litigation. But the difference in when Ray and Murphy brought their requests was not substantial.

Some critics of the court wondered if the difference was one of race and religion. Murphy is white and turned to Buddhism in prison. Ray, who was executed within hours of the court’s decision Feb. 7, was black.

But the court in just the last few years has ruled for Muslim petitioners who claimed discrimination: an inmate who was not allowed to grow a short beard because of prison policies, and a woman who was denied a job at Abercrombie & Fitch because of her hijab.

Ilya Somin, a law professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University and a sharp critic of the court’s decision in Dunn v. Ray, said the most logical explanation is the court was stung by the barrage of criticism it received from the left and the right.

The justices “belatedly realized they had made a mistake; and not just any mistake, but one that inflicted real damage on their and the court’s reputations,” Somin wrote on the Volokh Conspiracy blog.

“Presented with a chance to ‘correct’ their error and signal that they will not tolerate religious discrimination in death penalty administration, they were willing to bend over backwards to seize the opportunity, and not let it slip away.”

Deepak Gupta, a Washington lawyer who argues before the court and called the Ray decision “indefensible,” tweeted: “This is how the Supreme Court tries to erase a very recent and obvious moral error without admitting error. Is the Alabama case materially different? They don’t say.”

It is not clear from the ruling what role Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who were in the majority in the Ray case, played in the Murphy case. They did not join Kavanaugh’s opinion, nor did they note, as Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch did, that they would have allowed the execution to proceed.

Somin said he is “fairly confident Alito and Roberts switched” because they did not record themselves as objecting, as Thomas and Gorsuch did.

“In a high-profile case like this, it would be strange for some justices to clearly indicate their dissent, while others who agreed with that stance kept silent and thereby created the impression they agree with the majority,” Somin said in an email.

But that is not always the case, and Kavanaugh plus the dissenters in the Ray case would have been enough to force the outcome in the Murphy case.

The order stayed Murphy’s execution until the court decides to take up the case on its merits or Texas “permits Murphy’s Buddhist spiritual advisor or another Buddhist reverend of the state’s choosing to accompany Murphy in the execution chamber during the execution.”

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which filed a brief on Murphy’s behalf, said it attempted to disentangle the religious liberty issue from the last-minute attempts to stop executions that irritate the court’s conservative majority.

“This particular appeal does not present a challenge to the constitutionality of the death penalty, nor is it a challenge to Texas’ execution of Murphy,” the brief argues. “This is instead a challenge to the conditions of Murphy’s confinement immediately prior to his execution.”

Becket’s First Amendment argument hinged on a point that often separates the court’s liberals and conservatives.

Ray’s lawyers, and the appeals court that at first held up his execution, said Alabama’s policy of only employing a Christian chaplain and making him the only cleric available at executions violates the prohibition on government endorsement of one religion over another.

Becket and Murphy’s lawyers argued that the constitutional right at issue was the inmate’s ability to practice his religion.

“The right of a condemned person to the comfort of clergy — and the rights of clergy to comfort the condemned — are among the longest-standing and most well-recognized forms of religious exercise known to civilization,” Becket’s brief said.

 

[AmazonGrace]

How the heck can retirement make you immune? 

 

[fraurosena]

58 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

How the heck can retirement make you immune? 

The logic is that because she's no longer a judge, she can't be investigated for judicial misconduct anymore. Needless to say, I don't agree with that logic, as she committed the misconduct whilst she was a judge. That said, if there was any criminal misconduct, she can and hopefully will be, prosecuted for that, along with the rest of her criminal family.

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[Audrey2]

38 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

 

I gave this the WFT reaction only because there's no fear reaction. I'm really afraid for our country for the next 40-50 years.

[Drala]

PUSHBACK!

Kansas Supreme Court rules state constitution protects abortion rights, a decision that could lead to challenges in other states

WAPO, 4-26-19

By Emily Wax-Thibodeaux and Annie Gowen

Spoiler

The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s constitution fundamentally protects abortion rights, blocking a state law that aimed to restrict a common procedure and declaring that Kansans have broad rights to control what happens to their own bodies regardless of federal court decisions.

Judges ruled 6 to 1 on Friday that the Kansas constitution protects the “right of personal autonomy,” meaning state law cannot abridge the right “to control one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination. This right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation and family life — decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy.”

Abortion rights advocates immediately seized on the ruling as a landmark decision that could have widespread implications, providing a pathway to override restrictive state laws elsewhere. They also believe it could help battle potential federal court efforts to limit abortion rights protected by the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Those who oppose abortion said the ruling was extreme, and Kansas groups vowed to seek an amendment to the state constitution — as other states have — to curtail certain abortion rights.

The state high court’s ruling blocked a 2015 Kansas law that banned a second-trimester abortion procedure. The ruling comes as more than 11 Republican-led states across the Midwest and the South have supported laws banning abortion procedures after six weeks — before most women know they are pregnant. Many of those bans are facing challenges in court.

“Today’s ruling should provide an example to all other courts in the nation grappling with these critical questions,” said Elizabeth Wydra, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal think tank and law firm that supports abortion rights and has made constitutional arguments in favor of same-sex marriage and affirmative action.

“As the framers of the Kansas Constitution explained, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence are a call to secure ‘wide liberty’ and to ensure ‘to every individual perfect freedom to enjoy in safety and tranquility the rights and blessings of that existence,’ ” she said.

Mary Kay Culp, spokeswoman for Kansans for Life, an antiabortion group, said the court’s ruling was “horrendous and more extreme than even we expected.”

Culp said her group will push to organize a comprehensive movement to amend the state constitution to make it “crystal clear there is no state constitutional right to abortion here that somehow trumps 45 years of pro-life legislation.”

The state’s treasurer, Jake LaTurner, a Republican, issued a statement calling the decision “an abomination” that marked “one of the darkest days in our state’s history.”

Four of the justices on the Kansas panel were appointed by former governor Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat who went on to be President Barack Obama’s heath and human services secretary. The remaining three were appointed by Republicans; the lone dissenter, Justice Caleb Stegall, was appointed in 2014 by then-Gov. Sam Brownback (R).

Stegall wrote that the court’s ruling is “the most significant and far-reaching decision this court has ever made” and argues that the majority fundamentally altered the state’s structure of government to hew toward a “favored policy.” He wrote that it paints “the interest in unborn life championed by millions of Kansans as rooted in an ugly prejudice.”

Antiabortion activists fear the court’s ruling could negatively affect previous legislative restrictions in Kansas, including measures that require women to undergo an ultrasound and receive counseling before an abortion, and that require parental consent before a minor can have an abortion.

The Kansas Supreme Court’s decision potentially provides a bulwark against any decisions the U.S. Supreme Court might make in abortion cases at a time when abortion rights activists fear it could reverse course on Roe with a clear conservative majority in place, experts said.

At least nine other states have constitutions that specifically protect a woman’s right to an abortion, according to state high court rulings: Alaska, California, Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey and New Mexico. Other states, including Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New York, Oregon and Washington have statutory protection for abortion rights, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Experts said other states could look to use their constitutions to assert wide-ranging protections from antiabortion laws, but states also could use the Kansas decision to legitimize strict enforcement of abortion laws if similar rights are not codified in state constitutions. It also could spur efforts to seek constitutional amendments — as Culp plans to do — that limit abortion rights. Tennessee, for example, amended its constitution in 2014 to eliminate that right, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the measure last year.

“Although this is a sad day for Kansas, we are hopeful that this extreme opinion will spark a movement to amend the Kansas constitution — as West Virginia, Tennessee, and Alabama have done — to return the issue of abortion to the people and their elected representatives,” said Catherine Glenn Foster, president of Americans United for Life.

Those who oppose abortion are working on several ways to limit abortion in the states and through Congress, and they are hopeful that a case will reach the U.S. Supreme Court so that justices can consider broadly restricting abortion rights.

Congress still has the power to pass laws restricting abortion — such as late-term abortions, for example — and a federal ban would supersede any state law, said Michael I. Meyerson, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law.

“The Kansas decision protects the women of Kansas from the Supreme Court, but not from Congress,” Meyerson said.

Genevieve Scott, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which challenged the measure in court on behalf of two doctors who perform abortions in Kansas, said the ruling was exactly what they had hoped would emerge from the case. Scott said the ruling will make it difficult for state legislators or the federal government to restrict access to abortion in Kansas.

“This will make Kansas a haven state in the Midwest if federal laws protecting abortion are overturned or significantly limited or undercut in other states,” Scott said.

Kansas has long been at the center of the abortion debate: During the mid-1990s, the state was seen as one of the least-restrictive in the country, and in 2009 George Tiller, one of the country’s few third-trimester abortion providers, was assassinated in Wichita by an antiabortion extremist.

The state again appears to be at a crossroads on a political issue that has long divided much of the country.

Newly elected Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly — a Democrat and an abortion rights supporter — has been facing off with a Republican legislature that has instituted some of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the nation.

Kelly took office in January after former governor Sam Brownback — now President Trump’s ambassador for international religious freedom — had made antiabortion legislation the hallmark of his two terms in office, including the 2015 measure the court blocked Friday.

“While federal law has long guaranteed every woman the right to make their own medical decisions in consultation with their health care providers, I’m pleased that the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision now conclusively respects and recognizes that right under Kansas law as well,” Kelly said Friday.

On Monday, Kelly vetoed a measure — a so-called abortion-reversal bill — that would have required clinics and doctors to tell patients that it is possible to reverse a medically induced abortion even after taking the first of two pills used to end a pregnancy.

Kelly said the measure was confusing and could harm the doctor-patient relationship. However, Republicans might have enough votes to override her veto when they return from a break on May 1, analysts said.

The court’s decision on Friday stems from a 2015 law that sought to ban dilation and evacuation, a method used in 95 percent of second-trimester abortions. The procedure involves using surgical tools to remove the fetus.

The lawsuit challenging the Kansas measure was filed by Herbert Hodes and Traci Nauser, father and daughter, both of whom are doctors who operated a women’s health center in the Kansas City suburb of Overland Park. Hodes has since retired.

The ban was the first state law of its kind but never took effect because of legal challenges.

 

[formergothardite]

5 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

 

This is what worries me. The GOP has rigged the court system to be in their favor for decades to ensure they keep power no matter what voters say. The whole position for life needs to end. 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

On 3/7/2019 at 10:04 PM, fraurosena said:

In this case, I have some sympathy for the plaintiff. He really wanted this baby, and I can imagine that he mourns the loss. 

I completely disagree. If he wanted a baby he needed to have sex with someone over 18yo who also wanted a baby. And when men will share half the burden of a pregnancy then they'll have an equal  say in the matter. Yes, I know that means never, that's why they have to make sure they are making a baby with someone who is on board with it.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

On 3/17/2019 at 11:57 AM, AmazonGrace said:

Happened in Italy: 

 

Brief update. After 2 months there's still no evidence that she was poisoned. Autopsy report was inconclusive and the court granted more time to do more complex analysis. At the moment nothing can be ruled out neither poisoning nor natural causes.

ETA the only hypothesis definitely ruled out was the radioactive poisoning.

Edited May 6, 2019 by laPapessaGiovanna

[laPapessaGiovanna]

On 3/17/2019 at 5:03 PM, AmazonGrace said:

Further down the thread, a dead lawyer.

According to my local sources (I live near where he was based) he was terminally ill and chose to die with an assisted suicide in Switzerland where it is legal. Before dying he cleaned his conscience from what he knew about the Bunga Bunga scandal. Specifically he revealed the amount of money  paid to a witness (his client at the time) and which were the banks through which payments happened. Court investigated and confirmed the information. There's no scandal in his death and it enrages me that our press is so bad that they like to imply it.

[AmazonGrace]

2 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

According to my local sources (I live near where he was based) he was terminally ill and chose to die with an assisted suicide in Switzerland where it is legal. Before dying he cleaned his conscience from what he knew about the Bunga Bunga scandal. Specifically he revealed the amount of money  paid to a witness (his client at the time) and which were the banks through which payments happened. Court investigated and confirmed the information. There's no scandal in his death and it enrages me that our press is so bad that they like to imply it.

My Italian is sketchy but from what I figure it's two dead guys they're talking about? Verzini who died of assisted suicide and the tweet referred to journalist Randacio who was found dead in his apartment.

http://www.milanotoday.it/cronaca/morto-emilio-randacio.html

 

Edited May 6, 2019 by AmazonGrace

[laPapessaGiovanna]

47 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

My Italian is sketchy but from what I figure it's two dead guys they're talking about? Verzini who died of assisted suicide and the tweet referred to journalist Randacio who was found dead in his apartment.

http://www.milanotoday.it/cronaca/morto-emilio-randacio.html

 

My reply was referred to your post about the lawyer Egidio Verzini. The death of the journalist was caused by a heartstroke and found non suspect. His article about the lawyer death said the exact same things other articles said about the matter in those days, it wasn't his scoop. The lawyer hadn't given him the information before dying. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Non-doctors can perform first-trimester abortions in Virginia, federal judge rules"

Spoiler

Requiring a doctor to perform most abortions in Virginia violates the Constitution, a federal judge in Richmond ruled Monday.

The decision from U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is a victory for abortion rights advocates locally and nationally, who have long argued that first-
trimester abortions are simple and safe enough to be performed without a physician.

Hudson agreed in his opinion with a group of clinics and abortion rights advocates that “a consensus appears to have evolved” on the issue, making Virginia’s current medical requirements “unduly burdensome” and therefore unconstitutional.

It’s the first time a federal judge anywhere in the country has come to that conclusion.

“Virginia is the first one to really break ground here,” said Jenny Ma, an attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights litigating the case. “It’s truly a landmark ruling.”

The group is challenging similar laws in Mississippi, Arizona, Kansas, Montana and Louisiana.

Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee, is best known for ruling in 2010 that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate was unconstitutional.

The ruling takes effect immediately, Ma said, meaning midwives, nurse practitioners and physician assistants with the proper training can now perform abortions in Virginia.

The state of Virginia argued unsuccessfully that there was a medical benefit to having physicians involved in all abortions and that the burden on patients and doctors was small.

“The aspiration procedure takes their physicians only about ten minutes to complete,” attorneys for the Virginia Department of Health argued in one motion. “A medication abortion requires even less physician time, and can be done via Skype — meaning that the physician does not have to be in the same room (or even the same city) as the abortion patient.”

Victoria Cobb, president of the conservative Family Foundation of Virginia, criticized the decision, saying in an email that “the abortion industry . . . wants to increase its profit margin by not having to pay for doctors.”

A trial is set for May 20 on three other abortion restrictions the advocates hope to see overturned: requirements that all second-trimester abortions be performed in a hospital and that patients wait 24 hours after getting an ultrasound to undergo an abortion, and stringent licensing standards for clinics.

The state Department of Health did not return requests for comment, and the office of Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D) declined to comment. Both are defending the current rules.

Until this year, abortion politics in Richmond had lingered in a state of quiet standoff. GOP leaders were eager to downplay an issue that blew up on them in 2012, with a much-lampooned bill that would have required most women seeking an abortion to first undergo a transvaginal ultrasound. And Democrats seeking to expand access to the procedure saw their bills snuffed out in Republican-controlled committees.

Abortion was thrust back into the spotlight this year when freshman Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax), pitching a bill to loosen restrictions on late-term abortions, said the measure would allow a woman to terminate a pregnancy until the moment she gives birth. Gov. Ralph Northam (D), a pediatric neurologist, added to the furor in a radio interview with comments that Republicans took as an endorsement of killing babies after delivery.

While Tran later said she “misspoke” and Northam called the infanticide charge “disgusting,” Republicans saw an opportunity to paint Democrats as extremists on the issue. Republicans plan to play up abortion as they seek to hold on to their two-seat majorities in the House and Senate in November’s legislative elections. All 100 seats in the House and all 40 in the Senate will be on the ballot.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I wonder if Gorsuch's next opinion will include "OMG", "LOL", "srsly", or "totally":