The USSC declined to hear a case involving a woman suing to eliminate so-called "abortion bubbles" in proximity to abortion clinics. Westchester County in New York State had created a law defining a moving bubble of space around persons entering abortion clinics to prevent them from being continuously harrassed and intimidated on their way into a facility. The law was patterned after similar laws enacted in other states such as Colorado whose instance was contested and upheld in earlier appellate court rulings in Hill vs Colorado.
Curiously, Westchester County repealed the law back in August after finding the law difficult to enforce. Despite the repeal, the plaintiff continued pushing the case, possibly because three justices -- Gorsuch, Barrett and Thomas -- cited the Hill vs. Colorado ruling ALLOWING such protections in their consenting opinions when overturning Roe v. Wade, stating Hill was wrongly decided and reflects how abortion has mangled the country's interpretation of First Amendment protections. The plaintiff clearly pursued this case in an attempt to knock down Hill nationwide even though her case was moot in New York State.
The USSC also declined to hear a case involving a law in Washington State banning so-called gay conversion therapy treatments as unscientifically proven quackery. A case had been filed to overturn the ban so parents could resume subjecting children to such conversion treatments. The court refused to hear the case but Thomas and Alito both wrote dissents to the decision stating such bans were clear violations of free speech. In their view, the rights of doctors and others to tout and administer controversial medical quackery takes precedence over the public's right to expect competent medical care from licensed professionals. Hmmm, a theme... These types of dissenting opinions are not merely provided to clarify the Court's overall thinking on controversial issues. They are issued as Cliffs Notes into hacking the court in future terms by finding other plaintiffs and fact sets to dodge roadblocks identified in majority opinions and find "daylight" in areas highlighted in dissents.
A third issue that is incoming to the court as of December 11, 2023 involves Jack Smith's prosecution of Donald Trump for the illegal scheme to reject the Electoral College slate to retain power on January 6. Smith has apparently decided he wants to short-circuit all delays that might result from Trump claiming immunity for actions while President by taking it directly to the Supreme Court to have them explicitly rule on that issue. The court accepted the case and set a deadline of December 20 for Trump's legal team to file its brief.
In a normal universe, populated by an ethical set of judges representing a framework of judicial moderation, there would be NO QUESTION what the outcome would be in such a case. In a normal universe, the court could render its opinion instantly. NO PERSON IS ABOVE THE LAW. ANY PRIVILEGES AFFORDED A PRESIDENT ARE NOT AWARDED PERMANENTLY ON AN EMERITUS BASIS.
We don't live in normal times and the court has been populated with justices literally bought and paid for by wealthy billionaires and groomed for years by the Federalist Society to shift the country away from civil rights, away from privacy and away from protections for workers and the non-one-percenters at EVERY chance, regardless of how loony the legal rationale. By accepting the case, the Supreme Court could turn around a decision quickly after going through the motions to allow Trump to have his say and streamline the case. The court could also simply sit on it until the end of its term in June 2024. At that point, even a ruling affirming the lack of immunity for Presidents would still have delayed the case until that point, allowing a conservative court to maintain the appearance of being "correct" while still not-so-subliminally rewarding an ever-growing far-right authoritarian movement. Of course, they could also come back after December 20 and make up a new Presidential cloak of immunity extrapolated from bogus "Unitary Executive" theory and toss the entire prosecution.
On something this simple, the odds of a correct decision coming from the court should be 100%. Given the history of America over the past eight years, the actual odds are likely far below 100%. Possibly as low as 54%. Another example of how America's democratic fabric is being stretched in every conceivable direction to its limits. We cannot keep doing this.
WTH
