{"id":1106958,"date":"2021-12-10T17:44:26","date_gmt":"2021-12-10T22:44:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1106958"},"modified":"2021-12-10T17:44:28","modified_gmt":"2021-12-10T22:44:28","slug":"heres-what-the-justices-had-to-say-about-the-texas-pro-life-law-ruling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/heres-what-the-justices-had-to-say-about-the-texas-pro-life-law-ruling\/","title":{"rendered":"Here\u2019s What The Justices Had To Say About The Texas Pro-Life Law Ruling"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">26<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fheres-what-the-justices-had-to-say-about-the-texas-pro-life-law-ruling%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1106958&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p class=\"p1\">On Friday, the Supreme Court issued its ruling on two cases concerning a pro-life law in Texas that bans abortions after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which is typically around six weeks of pregnancy.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">As <a href=\"https:\/\/www.dailywire.com\/news\/scotus-rules-in-texas-pro-life-cases-abortion-providers-can-sue-state-doj-challenge-dismissed-law-can-remain-in-effect\">reported<\/a> by The Daily Wire, the high court&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.foxnews.com\/politics\/supreme-court-texas-abortion-lawsuit-may-proceed\">decided<\/a>&nbsp;to allow abortion providers to continue with a lawsuit against the state, but it is allowing the legislation to stay in effect as the legal battles continue. \u201cThe ruling is procedural and will not be the final word on the law\u2019s constitutionality,\u201d Fox News&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.foxnews.com\/politics\/supreme-court-texas-abortion-lawsuit-may-proceed\">reported<\/a>.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">The Supreme Court also got rid of a challenge brought by the Department of Justice against the Texas pro-life measure.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">In the Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Jackson&nbsp;decision concerning the abortion providers\u2019 case, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion, stating:<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">The Court holds that the petitioners may bring a pre-enforcement challenge in federal court as one means to test S. B. 8\u2019s compliance with the Federal Constitution. Other pre-enforcement challenges are possible too; one such case is ongoing in state court in which the plaintiffs have raised both federal and state constitutional claims against S. B. 8. Any individual sued under S. B. 8 may raise state and federal constitutional arguments in his or her defense without limitation. Whatever a state statute may or may not say about a defense, applicable federal constitutional defenses always stand available when properly asserted.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Gorsuch went on to respond to several of Justice Sonia Sotomayor\u2019s objections to the ruling.&nbsp;He wrote:&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR offers a radical answer, suggesting once more that this Court should cast aside its precedents requiring federal courts to abide by traditional equitable principles.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>\u2026<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Nor does JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR explain where her novel plan to overthrow this Court\u2019s precedents and expand the equitable powers of federal courts would stop\u2014or on what theory it might plausibly happen to reach just this case or maybe those exactly like it&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">He wrote, \u201c[Justice Sotomayor] charges this Court with \u2018shrink[ing]\u2019 from the task of defending the supremacy of the Federal Constitution over state law. \u2026That rhetoric bears no relation to reality.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">\u201cThe truth is, many paths exist to vindicate the supremacy of federal law in this area,\u201d he went on.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Gorsuch responded to a portion of Sotomayor\u2019s opinion in which Sotomayor discussed the different effects of S.B.8, writing, \u201cThis is a brazen challenge to our federal structure. It echoes the philosophy of John C. Calhoun, a virulent defender of the slaveholding South who insisted that States had the right to \u2018veto\u2019 or \u2018nullif[y]\u2019 any federal law with which they disagreed.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Gorsuch stated:<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR\u2019S suggestion that the Court\u2019s ruling somehow \u201cclears the way\u201d for the \u201cnullification\u201d of federal law along the lines of what happened in the Jim Crow South not only wildly mischaracterizes the impact of today\u2019s decision, it cheapens the gravity of past wrongs.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">To Sotomayor\u2019s concern that this ruling opens the door for other states to pass laws similar to the Texas ban, Gorsuch pointed out this isn\u2019t a good reason to \u201c[throw] aside our traditional rules.\u201d&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">\u201cIf other States pass similar legislation, pre-enforcement challenges like the one the Court approves today may be available in federal court to test the constitutionality of those laws,\u201d he wrote.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Gorsuch pointed out how it would be wrong of the high court to act outside of tradition, and pressed the importance of the different branches of government and the power that each of them holds.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">He added:<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">To the extent JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR seems to wish even more tools existed to combat this type of law, Congress is free to provide them. \u2026 But one thing this Court may never do is disregard the traditional limits on the jurisdiction of federal courts just to see a favored result win the day. At the end of that road is a world in which \u201c[t]he division of power\u201d among the branches of Government \u201ccould exist no longer, and the other departments would be swallowed up by the judiciary.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from one part of the ruling, stating, \u201cI part ways with the principal opinion only in its conclusion that the four licensing-official respondents are appropriate defendants under Ex parte Young.\u201d&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Thomas stated that the District Court should \u201cdismiss this case against all respondents, including the four licensing officials, because petitioners may not avail themselves of the exception to sovereign immunity recognized in Ex parte Young.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Chief Justice John Roberts wrote an opinion on the decision, writing that the provisions in S.B. 8 \u201ceffectively chill the provision of abortions in Texas.\u201d He was joined by the more liberal wing of the Court, who concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Roberts explained, \u201cAs eight Members of the Court agree \u2026 petitioners may bring a pre-enforcement suit challenging the Texas law in federal court under Ex parte Young \u2026 because there exist state executive officials who retain authority to enforce it.\u201d&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">\u201cIn my view, several other respondents are also proper defendants,\u201d Roberts noted,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On Friday, the Supreme Court issued its ruling on two cases concerning a pro-life law in Texas that bans abortions after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which is typically around six weeks of pregnancy.\u00a0As reported by The Daily Wire, the high court\u00a0decided\u00a0to allow abortion providers to continue with a lawsuit against the state, but it is allowing the legislation to stay in effect as the legal battles continue. \u201cThe ruling is procedural and will not be the final word on the law\u2019s constitutionality,\u201d Fox News\u00a0reported.\u00a0The Supreme Court also got rid of a challenge brought by the Department of Justice against the Texas pro-life measure.In the Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Jackson\u00a0decision concerning the abortion providers\u2019 case, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion, stating:The Court holds that the petitioners may bring a pre-enforcement challenge in federal court as one means to test S. B. 8\u2019s compliance with the Federal Constitution. Other pre-enforcement challenges are possible too; one such case is ongoing in state court in which the plaintiffs have raised both federal and state constitutional claims against S. B. 8. Any individual sued under S. B. 8 may raise state and federal constitutional arguments in his or her defense without limitation. Whatever a state statute may or may not say about a defense, applicable federal constitutional defenses always stand available when properly asserted.\u00a0Gorsuch went on to respond to several of Justice Sonia Sotomayor\u2019s objections to the ruling.\u00a0He wrote:\u00a0JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR offers a radical answer, suggesting once more that this Court should cast aside its precedents requiring federal courts to abide by traditional equitable principles.\u00a0\u2026Nor does JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR explain where her novel plan to overthrow this Court\u2019s precedents and expand the equitable powers of federal courts would stop\u2014or on what theory it might plausibly happen to reach just this case or maybe those exactly like it\u00a0He wrote, \u201c[Justice Sotomayor] charges this Court with \u2018shrink[ing]\u2019 from the task of defending the supremacy of the Federal Constitution over state law. \u2026That rhetoric bears no relation to reality.\u201d\u201cThe truth is, many paths exist to vindicate the supremacy of federal law in this area,\u201d he went on.Gorsuch responded to a portion of Sotomayor\u2019s opinion in which Sotomayor discussed the different effects of S.B.8, writing, \u201cThis is a brazen challenge to our federal structure. It echoes the philosophy of John C. Calhoun, a virulent defender of the slaveholding South who insisted that States had the right to \u2018veto\u2019 or \u2018nullif[y]\u2019 any federal law with which they disagreed.\u201dGorsuch stated:JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR\u2019S suggestion that the Court\u2019s ruling somehow \u201cclears the way\u201d for the \u201cnullification\u201d of federal law along the lines of what happened in the Jim Crow South not only wildly mischaracterizes the impact of today\u2019s decision, it cheapens the gravity of past wrongs.To Sotomayor\u2019s concern that this ruling opens the door for other states to pass laws similar to the Texas ban, Gorsuch pointed out this isn\u2019t a good reason to \u201c[throw] aside our traditional rules.\u201d\u00a0\u201cIf other States pass similar legislation, pre-enforcement challenges like the one the Court approves today may be available in federal court to test the constitutionality of those laws,\u201d he wrote.\u00a0Gorsuch pointed out how it would be wrong of the high court to act outside of tradition, and pressed the importance of the different branches of government and the power that each of them holds.\u00a0He added:To the extent JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR seems to wish even more tools existed to combat this type of law, Congress is free to provide them. \u2026 But one thing this Court may never do is disregard the traditional limits on the jurisdiction of federal courts just to see a favored result win the day. At the end of that road is a world in which \u201c[t]he division of power\u201d among the branches of Government \u201ccould exist no longer, and the other departments would be swallowed up by the judiciary.\u201dJustice Clarence Thomas dissented from one part of the ruling, stating, \u201cI part ways with the principal opinion only in its conclusion that the four licensing-official respondents are appropriate defendants under Ex parte Young.\u201d\u00a0Thomas stated that the District Court should \u201cdismiss this case against all respondents, including the four licensing officials, because petitioners may not avail themselves of the exception to sovereign immunity recognized in Ex parte Young.\u201dChief Justice John Roberts wrote an opinion on the decision, writing that the provisions in S.B. 8 \u201ceffectively chill the provision of abortions in Texas.\u201d He was joined by the more liberal wing of the Court, who concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part.Roberts explained, \u201cAs eight Members of the Court agree \u2026 petitioners may bring a pre-enforcement suit challenging the Texas law in federal court under Ex parte Young \u2026 because there exist state executive officials who retain authority to enforce it.\u201d\u00a0\u201cIn my view, several other respondents are also proper defendants,\u201d Roberts noted, going on to explain the figures he believed could also be defendants.\u00a0He concluded, \u201cThe nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.\u201dIn Justice Sotomayor\u2019s opinion, she criticized the law itself, as she has done in the past, and pointed out several issues with the court\u2019s decision.\u00a0She stated:\u00a0The Court should have put an end to this madness months ago, before S. B. 8 first went into effect. It failed to do so then, and it fails again today. I concur in the Court\u2019s judgment that the petitioners\u2019 suit may proceed against certain executive licensing officials who retain enforcement authority under Texas law, and I trust the District Court will act expeditiously to enter much-needed relief. I dissent, however, from the Court\u2019s dangerous departure from its precedents, which establish that federal courts can and should issue relief when a State enacts a law that chills the exercise of a constitutional right and aims to evade judicial review.\u00a0The Daily Wire is one of America\u2019s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":95,"featured_media":2315279,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1106958","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1106958","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/95"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1106958"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1106958\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2315279"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1106958"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1106958"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1106958"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}