The next Supreme Court justice could gut Medicaid and Planned Parenthood

Dec 2015
13,224
8,400
In Your Heart!
The next Supreme Court justice could gut Medicaid and Planned Parenthood
By Joan McCarter

"The threats to health care in America in general and women's health in particular from the Supreme Court just got a lot more dire with Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement. And it's just what far-right radicals have been waiting for, the chance to turn their favorite hobby of literally making a federal case out of every grievance out of the certainty that some day they'll have the Supreme Court they need to reshape our society. And here we are. Ironically, one of their projects has been to curtail the rights of others to sue and they're very close to succeeding in one effort—preventing healthcare providers from suing over Medicaid's coverage decisions."
"This confirmation fight isn't just about Roe v. Wade, though that's what Republicans like Susan Collins would have you believe, so that she can continue to pretend that it's this one single issue that Donald Trump won't use as a litmus test for his choice. With a wink and nod, she and Trump can pretend that abortion is off the table so her vote doesn't hinge on that."






###########################################

One thing about Collins is that she wants to be all things to everyone. She has shown us in the past that just when Democrats thought they could count on her vote she will dutifully obey what her Republican controllers tell her to do. One can't therefore expect much help from her on this.

The threat to the vast majority of Americans is from Trump and Republicans. With Trump just salivating and licking at the chops ready to take away the safety program of the elderly, the sick, the retired and the poor as well as many others the ever-present threat is clearly very much there. But what does Trump and his fellow Republicans care? They don't have to rely on Medicaid or Planned Parenthood for anything so good riddance to both according to the signals they are sending on that.

But the question remains what do the vast majority of free-thinking women in America and their supporters think of that and do they perceive Trump as a threat to them in that regard?

 
Sep 2014
56,061
11,612
United States
Don't forget end abortion and take away the right to vote........so says Cryin' Chucky.

There may be more..........
 
Sep 2012
15,182
20,195
SoCal
‘We have to pick a great one’: Inside Trump’s plan for a new Supreme Court justice
With just four months until the midterm elections, when any Democratic gains in the Senate would jeopardize a Trump nominee, the White House is working with Senate Republican leaders to set a rapid timeline for voting on a nominee by October so they can take advantage of the GOP’s razor-thin majority in the chamber. Trump and senior White House officials already are personally lobbying key senators, laboring to till the ground ahead of what is expected to be a ferocious nomination battle.

...MORE...
Trump makes clear Roe v. Wade is on the chopping block
Anyone promising that Roe v. Wade will be overturned by President Trump's next Supreme Court justice is engaging in guesswork — and, in many cases, political advocacy. Abortion rights supporters are understandably concerned about nullifying one of the court's most prominent and passion-inducing precedents, yes, but we don't even have a nominee yet. This also happens to be a great way to rally the troops.

All of that said, they have clear — and increasing — reason for concern.

In an interview with Fox airing Sunday and Monday, Trump doubled down on his past rhetoric about sending the issue of abortion to the states, which is another way of saying overturning Roe. (Roe legalized abortion nationwide, meaning its repeal would allow states to decide the issue.) Trump said he would “probably not” ask potential nominees directly about Roe — given that such litmus tests are frowned upon — but then he reiterated his past view of how this issue would play out.

“Maybe someday it will be to the states,” he said. “You never know how that’s going to turn out. That’s a very complex question. The Roe v. Wade is probably the one that people are talking about in terms of having an effect, but we’ll see what happens. But it could very well end up with states at some point.”

...MORE...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Feb 2011
17,277
6,252
Boise, ID
Thread: The next Supreme Court justice could gut Medicaid and Planned Parenthood
:DDsmilie_panic:

The next Supreme Court Justice will need four other justices to agree with him or her. One of those would presumably be John Roberts, who, for example, bent over backwards to rationalize the Constitutionality of Obamacare.

 
Nov 2014
32,826
6,596
North Carolina

:DDsmilie_panic:

The next Supreme Court Justice will need four other justices to agree with him or her. One of those would presumably be John Roberts, who, for example, bent over backwards to rationalize the Constitutionality of Obamacare.

Roberts simply did what any Supreme Court Justice should do - which is to ignore the political rhetoric (such as President Obama saying the Obamacare mandate wasn't a tax) and observe that it actually was a tax - as the administration's own lawyer admitted during the course of the proceedings. And the Federal Government certainly has the constitutional power to tax in the name of promoting the general welfare.

If only more of our asinine judges would actually do this - instead of cherry picking the political rhetoric of politicians to justify throwing out laws they personally don't approve of.

As far as abortion goes... I believe the President has sent sufficient signals out to let everyone know what his position on the matter is. He would likely prefer abortion be regulated by the States. Whether you agree or don't agree with that position - it is a reasonable one as no where in the constitution does it explicitly guarantee the right to terminate the life of your unborn child and the privacy argument was always a shaky one considering all the other things the law does not allow someone to do with their own body (and let's not forget we are talking about two bodies here anyway).
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
17,277
6,252
Boise, ID
Roberts simply did what any Supreme Court Justice should do - which is to ignore the political rhetoric (such as President Obama saying the Obamacare mandate wasn't a tax) and observe that it actually was a tax - as the administration's own lawyer admitted during the course of the proceedings. And the Federal Government certainly has the constitutional power to tax in the name of promoting the general welfare.

If only more of our asinine judges would actually do this - instead of cherry picking the political rhetoric of politicians to justify throwing out laws they personally don't approve of.
How isn’t it a non-apportioned direct tax?
 
Nov 2014
32,826
6,596
North Carolina
How isn’t it a non-apportioned direct tax?
It is a tax. That was the point of my comment.

So Roberts didn't bend over backwards to approve anything. He simply observed the law as it was written instead of using the political rhetoric of President Obama (who claimed it wasn't a tax) to provide him with an excuse to throw out the law.

What Presidents say isn't or at least shouldn't be a concern of our judges. What matters is the text of the actual law.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Feb 2011
17,277
6,252
Boise, ID
It is a tax. That was the point of my comment.

So Roberts didn't bend over backwards to approve anything.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution says the federal government can’t levy direct taxes unless they’re apportioned by population. How was the mandate “tax” rationalized to not be a direct tax?

That’s why I said he bent over backwards.

Instead, he performed some contorted judicial yoga, declaring that the law’s individual mandate was a constitutionally allowed tax, siding with the liberal bloc and saving Obamacare.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-chief-justice-roberts-a-secret-liberal/amp/
 
Nov 2014
32,826
6,596
North Carolina
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution says the federal government can’t levy direct taxes unless they’re apportioned by population. How was the mandate “tax” rationalized to not be a direct tax?

That’s why I said he bent over backwards.
The constitution authorizes congress the power to tax in order to to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. It would be an unreasonable argument IMHO for someone to suggest the healthcare of a country's citizens do not fall under the country's general welfare.

I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say direct taxes or apportioned by population. So you would have to go into more detail about that before I could comment on that specifically.