3 ms·

SCOTUS also ruled in the abortion pill case [1]. 9-0 decision that the plaintiffs do not have standing to sue the FDA, thus the rules the FDA added to ease acce

SCOTUS also ruled in the abortion pill case [1]. 9-0 decision that the plaintiffs do not have standing to sue the FDA, thus the rules the FDA added to ease access to abortion pills stand. The crux of the argument being that they can present their case to the executive or legislative branches, but the courts are the wrong place to address the plaintiffs' concerns. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf

ddoolin 2y ago
Doubt it matters if SCOTUS ends up gutting regulatory agency power in the next few weeks.
- cogman10 2y ago
  It does matter because lack of standing is something that keeps the FDA safe from activists using the court to get their way when they can't do it through the executive or legislative system. The bigger issue with the FDA will be if a drug/food company sues them over a mandated safety procedure/requirement.
jfengel 2y ago
I'm genuinely shocked. Not because I think it's the wrong decision. I thought it was incredibly obvious. So obvious that nobody could possibly have passed such a law unless they expected a partisan court to concoct a reason to back it. At best I expected a 5-4 decision in favor of the right choice. Having all 9 justices make a decision that runs contrary to the ideology of a majority of them should make me question my belief that they will always choose ideology first and find a justification afterwards. And yet... "lack of standing" is frequently used when they know they'll look bad, so they pretend the question doesn't actually exist.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  Instead of questioning that belief, research why it formed?
  - jfengel 2y ago
    I know why it was formed: a large set of cases that were decided along partisan grounds, and where I consider the reasoning not merely incorrect but atrociously bad.
- smegger001 2y ago
  My guess is they dont want the same reasoning applied elsewhere
- sickofparadox 2y ago
  >Having all 9 justices make a decision that runs contrary to the ideology of a majority of them should make me question my belief that they will always choose ideology first and find a justification afterwards. This is an effect of media quite literally lying about the nature of the SCOTUS. The vast majority of cases they rule on are settled on apolitical lines. There has been a concerted effort in the past ~5 years to undermine the legitimacy of the court by trying to portray it as some hackneyed partisan legislature. Do some things get decided on political lines? Absolutely, but not any more than the SCOTUS has always handled these things. Populists, both left and right, benefit from eroding the perceived legitimacy of independent institutions.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - sickofparadox 2y ago
      "Packing the court" has a very specific meaning in the US, so it may be different in the Kings's English, but here it means filling courts with more judges for the purpose of ideologically outnumbering the other side. The US does not have a set size for its Supreme Court, but the number of Justices has remained (more or less) 9 for the whole modern history of the US. Also the Alito's wife thing is a great example of the media effort to undermine the legitimacy of the Court. By fabricating a narrative that an upside down American flag or the Pine Tree flag are "dedicated symbols of January 6th" or some nonsense, the media further damages the credibility of the court. The truth of the matter is, Alito's wife flew the flag upside down as a kind of SOS about a neighborhood dispute. Upside down flags equaling distress have been a standard that I learned about as a child. The Pine Tree flag has a huge history going back to the Revolutionary war, and has been flow at every kind of event conceivable. Simply being flown on January 6th does not mean that Jan 6thers suddenly own it, any more than BLM owns it, or a music festival or county fair own it.
  - chx 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - 2y ago
- projektfu 2y ago
  This was a difficult case for them to "follow their heart" in because the lower court had given standing that was so egregiously out of place that it would mean that standing would be given in similar cases having nothing to do with abortion. This could threaten some other sacred cows, and they never wanted that broad definition of standing in the first place. Some (e.g. the Strict Scrutiny podcast) have speculated that some cases are meant to make the SC look moderate, by giving them softballs to rule unanimously against the underlying ideological position they would normally uphold.
- dathinab 2y ago
  You can come find a lot of bad things about the current US supreme court (it's not hard). But they judges still pride themself about their position including their integrity. So especially for thing which are not very important fundamentals for their world personal political ideology they have been pushing a relative consistent approach where you can normally argue that it's a reasonable ruling if looking at it from a out of context perspective. Like out of context the repelling of the previous supreme court decision wrt. abortion makes sense (laws should be made by the legislative organ not the jurisdicative organ and that ruling required a law to be made, which didn't happen). Through in context things are very different.... Also to be clear this applies to many but not all of their recent decisions.

ddoolin 2y ago

Doubt it matters if SCOTUS ends up gutting regulatory agency power in the next few weeks.

cogman10 2y ago
It does matter because lack of standing is something that keeps the FDA safe from activists using the court to get their way when they can't do it through the executive or legislative system. The bigger issue with the FDA will be if a drug/food company sues them over a mandated safety procedure/requirement.

jfengel 2y ago

I'm genuinely shocked. Not because I think it's the wrong decision. I thought it was incredibly obvious. So obvious that nobody could possibly have passed such a law unless they expected a partisan court to concoct a reason to back it. At best I expected a 5-4 decision in favor of the right choice. Having all 9 justices make a decision that runs contrary to the ideology of a majority of them should make me question my belief that they will always choose ideology first and find a justification afterwards. And yet... "lack of standing" is frequently used when they know they'll look bad, so they pretend the question doesn't actually exist.

readthenotes1 2y ago
Instead of questioning that belief, research why it formed?
- jfengel 2y ago
  I know why it was formed: a large set of cases that were decided along partisan grounds, and where I consider the reasoning not merely incorrect but atrociously bad.
smegger001 2y ago
My guess is they dont want the same reasoning applied elsewhere
sickofparadox 2y ago
>Having all 9 justices make a decision that runs contrary to the ideology of a majority of them should make me question my belief that they will always choose ideology first and find a justification afterwards. This is an effect of media quite literally lying about the nature of the SCOTUS. The vast majority of cases they rule on are settled on apolitical lines. There has been a concerted effort in the past ~5 years to undermine the legitimacy of the court by trying to portray it as some hackneyed partisan legislature. Do some things get decided on political lines? Absolutely, but not any more than the SCOTUS has always handled these things. Populists, both left and right, benefit from eroding the perceived legitimacy of independent institutions.
- pjc50 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - sickofparadox 2y ago
    "Packing the court" has a very specific meaning in the US, so it may be different in the Kings's English, but here it means filling courts with more judges for the purpose of ideologically outnumbering the other side. The US does not have a set size for its Supreme Court, but the number of Justices has remained (more or less) 9 for the whole modern history of the US. Also the Alito's wife thing is a great example of the media effort to undermine the legitimacy of the Court. By fabricating a narrative that an upside down American flag or the Pine Tree flag are "dedicated symbols of January 6th" or some nonsense, the media further damages the credibility of the court. The truth of the matter is, Alito's wife flew the flag upside down as a kind of SOS about a neighborhood dispute. Upside down flags equaling distress have been a standard that I learned about as a child. The Pine Tree flag has a huge history going back to the Revolutionary war, and has been flow at every kind of event conceivable. Simply being flown on January 6th does not mean that Jan 6thers suddenly own it, any more than BLM owns it, or a music festival or county fair own it.
- chx 2y ago
  [flagged]
- 2y ago
projektfu 2y ago
This was a difficult case for them to "follow their heart" in because the lower court had given standing that was so egregiously out of place that it would mean that standing would be given in similar cases having nothing to do with abortion. This could threaten some other sacred cows, and they never wanted that broad definition of standing in the first place. Some (e.g. the Strict Scrutiny podcast) have speculated that some cases are meant to make the SC look moderate, by giving them softballs to rule unanimously against the underlying ideological position they would normally uphold.
dathinab 2y ago
You can come find a lot of bad things about the current US supreme court (it's not hard). But they judges still pride themself about their position including their integrity. So especially for thing which are not very important fundamentals for their world personal political ideology they have been pushing a relative consistent approach where you can normally argue that it's a reasonable ruling if looking at it from a out of context perspective. Like out of context the repelling of the previous supreme court decision wrt. abortion makes sense (laws should be made by the legislative organ not the jurisdicative organ and that ruling required a law to be made, which didn't happen). Through in context things are very different.... Also to be clear this applies to many but not all of their recent decisions.