this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
450 points (99.1% liked)

News

23296 readers
4289 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Supreme Court said Wednesday it will consider whether to restrict access to a widely used abortion drug — even in states where the procedure is still allowed.

The case concerns the drug mifepristone that — when coupled with another drug — is one of the most common abortion methods in the United States.

The decision means the conservative-leaning court will again wade into the abortion debate after overturning Roe v. Wade last year, altering the landscape of abortion rights nationwide and triggering more than half the states to outlaw or severely restrict the procedure.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 69 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The constitution says nothing about this. Which means any ruling is judicial overstep

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

That would mean Federal Agencies would be beyond Judicial review. You sure that's what you want?

[–] Adalast@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not beyond judicial review, but not under the purview of the SCOTUS. This is the kind of shit that District Courts and US Courts of Appeals are for. SCOTUS is only supposed to determine if the rulings of lower courts, legislation, or presidential actions violate any provisions of the Constitution or existing statutes. They aren't supposed to legislate from the bench, they aren't supposed to pass judgment on cases, and they aren't supposed to meddle in the affairs of the other branches as long as they are coloring inside the lines. Their only purview is the legality of laws and rulings. Nothing more. As much as I was happy for the Roe v. Wade ruling, it was supposed to be kicked back to the legislature to form appropriate laws surrounding the matter, not to rest the legality on the president that was set. This is fundamentally judicial overreach, as is about 90% of everything they have done this last couple years.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Not beyond judicial review, but not under the purview of the SCOTUS.

They aren't under the purview of SCOTUS. The lower courts are.

Their only purview is the legality of laws and rulings.

That's exactly what they're doing here. A lower court ruled that the FDA didn't follow it's own process when relaxing restrictions around the prescribing and dispensing of mifepristone. The loser appealed and the next highest court ruled that the FDA did follow its own process. Repeat appeals until you reach SCOTUS who is now ruling on which of the lower courts is correct. That's it.

SCOTUS is NOT ruling on whether mifepristone is legal or approved for use, it's ruling on whether a lower court followed the law when reaching its decision and whether or not that decision is consistent with the Constitution. In practical terms whichever way SCOTUS rules it's those lower courts whose authority will be used to direct (or not) whatever the FDA does next.

This is fundamentally judicial overreach, as is about 90% of everything they have done this last couple years.

You see so much as "Judicial Overreach" for two reasons:

  1. You don't understand the process.
  2. So much of what gets to court, including SCOTUS, these days are questions of Administrative Law because much of this country is being run by Administrative Law. Which is what this case is about.

Most of what is decried as "Judicial Overreach" should more correctly be called AGENCY Overreach but its being blamed on the Judiciary.

Like this case. The problem isn't SCOTUS it's the agency known as the FDA.

[–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago
[–] JustZ@lemmy.world -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's not at all how the law works. There are millions of federal statutes and regulations, all of which need interpretation.

Also, the Constitution does talk about health and welfare and interstate commerce powers.

[–] Brokkr@lemmy.world 45 points 11 months ago (3 children)

The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the constitutuonality of laws passed by the legislature. The court has no power to make laws.

Making a decision about the legality of medication is judicial overreach. That power is granted to congress alone, unless they have delegated some of that power to the executive branch (such as through the FDA).

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 10 points 11 months ago

The Supreme Court has no authority to "rule" on the constitutionality of laws. They took that power for themselves (Marbury v Madison) and nobody called them on it. They've now decided that the constitution isn't comprehensive and they must also consider the customs and traditions of the nation (and even before) when they come to a decision. Dangerous times.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 5 points 11 months ago

Making a decision about the legality of medication is judicial overreach.

That isn't whats happening. What's going on is that the FDA is being challenged that it didn't follow it's own process on approving the relaxation of rules regarding the prescribing and dispensing of Mifepristone. If SCOTUS rules that they didn't follow their process mifepristone will still be available but will return to being harder to get...at least until it DOES follow its own process.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

That's a rightwing lie about what the Court is supposed to do. The high court may rule on appeals from the state's highest court's decision and any federal court's decision. Virtually all modern First Amendment freedom is ”courtmade law,” likewise for the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Fourteenth. Miranda rights are "court made," exclusionary rule.

Conservatives love it too. They love them some court made "government contractor defense," in which the originalst textualist Justoce Scalia extended the federal government's sovereign immunity to defense contractors based on no statute or constitution.

Scotus isn't being called to pass upon the legality of medication, it is being called to pass upon the legality of the federal substantive and procedural due process given to stakeholders in the administrative rulemaking process. It's very much a constitutional issue, insomuch as due process, notice, and comment, are prerequisites to Constitutional due process. Sort of seems like you don't know what you're talking about.

[–] Brokkr@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Originally, I thought you were a troll, but I think you are sincere. It seems that we largely agree on what the court is supposed to do. However, I think you may have misunderstood my statements and the role of the Supreme Court.

Granted, I'm not a Con Law scholar, so I might be wrong. So if you have a hobbyist interest like I do, I'd suggest two podcasts: Opening Arguments, and "What Can Trump Teach Us About Con Law". Both are well researched, entertaining, and informative.