SCOTUS Likely To Weigh In On Texas Abortion Dispute | What The Wisconsin Decision Could Mean For November
April 8, 2020
LONESOME FRIENDS OF SCIENCE
|The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on an abortion case out of Texas where the Republican state attorney general said an order barring nonessential medical procedures applies to any abortion that was not required to protect the life or health of the person receiving it. He also announced that any person violating that order would be subject to a $1000 fine or 180 days of jail time. A divided panel of the 5th Circuit upheld the order restricting access to the procedure, and an appeal to SCOTUS of that decision is expected to come as soon as today.
MILWAUKEE HERE I COME
|“As COVID-19 continues to kill thousands in the U.S., the fragility of the right to vote is finally getting the national attention it deserves. Today, Wisconsin voters lined up in facemasks so their voices might be heard in a primary election that Democratic GOV. TONY EVERS sought — in vain — to delay until June due to the viral pandemic. Fifteen other states already postponed theirs. As of Tuesday afternoon, Wisconsin had 92 deaths and 2,578 reported coronavirus cases.” Kimberly Wehle reacts in The Hill to the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse two lower court decisions that would have extended the window for Wisconsin voters to return absentee ballots and safely vote from home. She argues, “If Congress does manage to pass legislation to protect the precious right to vote in November’s federal elections — which the Constitution empowers it to do — the Supreme Court must stand down and let the will of the people govern. If it doesn’t, the court will have shredded whatever is left of its legitimacy as an institution.”
ED BOARD OVERTURE
|The Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal defends the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Wisconsin election suggesting, “Steps as grave as rewriting voting rules should be up to elected representatives and not freelanced by judges.” The Ed Board writes, “This virus will be here for some time, and people in different states need to deal with it through the democratic process. Americans have already temporarily lost some of our freedom and we shouldn’t also toss out the rule of law.”
CROOKED PIECE OF TIME
|“The Supreme Court’s Republican majority, in a case that is literally titled Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, handed down a decision that will effectively disenfranchise tens of thousands of Wisconsin voters. It did so at the urging of the GOP.” Ian Millhiser with Vox reviews the split decision from SCOTUS in which all five conservative justices sided with the RNC’s position in the dispute. He suggests that the majority relied “on one of the most destructive voting rights decisions of the modern era” to arrive at its decision in the case.
IN SPITE OF OURSELVES
|Joan Biskupic with CNN writes that the Supreme Court’s decision in the Wisconsin election case “reflects CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS’ cramped view of voting rights in America.” She writes, “The justices’ 5-4 partisan lineup, reinforcing the contraction of voting rights, belies Roberts’ regular assertion that the justices operate in a realm beyond politics. It also suggested that for upcoming cases in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic, the high court majority would be reluctant to accommodate voters who cannot meet usual state electoral requirements.”
HELLO IN THERE
|Check out a cartoon from Tom Toles with The Washington Post of the Supreme Court practicing social distancing from the right to vote. With a face mask over the entrance to the Marble Palace, a man representing the right to vote stands outside the court reminding justices he is not the virus.
PLEASE DON'T BURY ME
|A three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals yesterday overturned an injunction against the Trump administration’s plan to restart federal executions for the first time since 2003. Josh Gerstein with POLITICO reports that the panel “splintered on the federal government’s legal obligations to follow state execution procedures, making it virtually certain that the ruling issued Tuesday will not be the final word on the issue.”
COMMON SENSE
|“For the first time ever, the California Supreme Court on Tuesday held oral argument remotely, with three of the seven justices and all of the lawyers participating by video link due to the state’s coronavirus lockdown.” Maura Dolan with the Los Angeles Times reports that despite some technical glitches, the unprecedented hearing seemed to work — welcome to 2020, people.