Matthew T. Mangino
GateHouse Media
February 8, 2019
Chief Justice John Roberts recently voted with the Court’s
liberal members providing a victory to opponents of a 2014 Louisiana law that
required doctors offering abortion services to have hospital privileges within
30 miles of their office.
Those challenging the implementation of the Louisiana law
argued that it was identical to a Texas law the Supreme Court struck down in
2016. In that ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy joined with the liberal block of
the Court finding that the Texas law imposed an obstacle on women seeking
access to abortion services.
In 2016, Roberts voted with the conservatives in support of
the Texas law. Why did Roberts change his position on this hot-button political
issue? Some would suggest that he didn’t change his mind, the High Court set a
precedent in 2016 and Roberts now supports the Court’s precedent.
However, there may be more to Roberts’ change of heart than
just upholding precedent.
Last fall, after California Federal District Court Judge Jon Tigar put a temporary hold on the Trump administration’s plan to no longer consider asylum applications from immigrants who illegally cross the border, President Donald Trump referred to Tigar as an “Obama judge.”
Last fall, after California Federal District Court Judge Jon Tigar put a temporary hold on the Trump administration’s plan to no longer consider asylum applications from immigrants who illegally cross the border, President Donald Trump referred to Tigar as an “Obama judge.”
Chief Justice Roberts shot back, “We do not have Obama
judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an
extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal
right to those appearing before them.”
So what is Roberts trying to accomplish with his rebuke of
the president and his unlikely vote on abortion?
According to the Alliance for Justice, it is well known that
Roberts cares deeply about his own legacy and about the reputation of the Court
as an institution, so he wants to avoid the appearance of partisanship. The
Court now has five dyed-in-the-wool conservatives - two appointed by President
Trump.
In the last 20 years, conservatives on the Supreme Court
have been responsible for a number of decisions that, at a minimum, have the
appearance of partisanship starting with Bush v. Gore. In 2010, the High Court
turned politics on its head with the Citizens United decision and in 2013 the
Court eviscerated the Voting Rights Act.
It is no secret that Roberts is concerned with the
appearance of a partisan Supreme Court. In an interview with The Atlantic
Roberts said, “Politics are closely divided. The same with the Congress. There
ought to be some sense of some stability, if the government is not going to
polarize completely. It’s a high priority to keep any kind of partisan divide
out of the judiciary as well.”
If the Supreme Court becomes mired in hyper partisanship
then the court will be no better than the politicos who inhabit the White House
and D’s and R’s that occupy the capital.
What does the Louisiana decision mean for a woman’s right to
choose? During the salacious confirmation hearings for the newest member of the
Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the alarm sounded that a fifth conservative
justice could mean the end of Roe v. Wade.
Women’s rights groups were assured by GOP Senator Susan
Collin when she said she was satisfied that Justice Kavanaugh would protect
reproductive rights. Well, that hasn’t gone as planned. Not only did Kavanaugh
support the immediate implementation of the Louisiana law, he wrote a
dissenting opinion.
Chief Justice Roberts intervened and tilted the scales away
from implementation. But, what will tomorrow bring? The Louisiana law has never
gone into effect. It was blocked by a U.S. District Court Judge. The Fifth
Circuit overturned the District Court.
However, the Supreme Court did not overturn the law. The
Supreme Court only granted a delay to review the matter.
The Court may still refuse to hear the case and leave the
Circuit Court decision in place. According to NPR, that would be a tacit
acknowledgment that a majority of the justices no longer support the 2016
decision and may be an easy way out for Roberts.
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner’s Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner’s Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.
To visit the column CLICK HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment