SCOTUS ruling too late for the child

[*bfine32*]

Unfortunately level heads were too late for the child

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-hands-trump-win-pregnant-immigrant-teen-134103502.html

Quote:The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out a lower court ruling that let a pregnant illegal immigrant minor held in federal immigration custody obtain an abortion last year at age 17 over the objections of President Donald Trump's administration.

The justices provided a legal victory to Trump's administration even though the teenager already has had the abortion because it eliminated a precedent at the federal appeals court level that could have applied in similar circumstances in which other detained minors sought abortions.

In the unsigned opinion with no dissents, the justices threw out the lower court decision on the grounds that the dispute became moot once the teenager had the abortion.

Lots of discussion about this case here:

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Abortion-for-undocumented-teen-Pro-life-gov-official-thinks-not&highlight=abortion

Some folks are just more sensible than others.

[Au165]

I mean it's not a win really it's simply thrown out, weird the article phrases it that way. There is other pending litigation where the abortion hasn't happened yet where they will have the opportunity to make a real ruling.

[Belsnickel]

(06-05-2018, 08:29 AM)Au165 Wrote: I mean it's not a win really it's simply thrown out, weird the article phrases it that way. There is other pending litigation where the abortion hasn't happened yet where they will have the opportunity to make a real ruling.

It's a win in that it eliminates the precedent, so they can fight it if something similar happens in the future. However, this really isn't a "level heads" situation as we have no indication how the SCOTUS would have ruled. They said the point was moot, now, and so their ruling doesn't really provide any legal opinion.

[BmorePat87]

SCOTUS merely threw it out because she already had the abortion. Whether or not they would have allowed the abortion is unknown.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-654_5j3b.pdf

The next teen who faces this dilemma will have to start the fight all over again.

[treee]

What child?

[*bfine32*]

(06-05-2018, 08:29 AM)Au165 Wrote: I mean it's not a win really it's simply thrown out, weird the article phrases it that way. There is other pending litigation where the abortion hasn't happened yet where they will have the opportunity to make a real ruling.

Sure it is; not sure how anyone can view it otherwise. Like I said it was too late for this child; but it stops a ridiculous precedent and may help the next one. 

[Au165]

(06-05-2018, 01:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure it is; not sure how anyone can view it otherwise. Like I said it was too late for this child; but it stops a ridiculous precedent and may help the next one. 

It didn't help anything because there are still legal challenges pending that will bring up the exact same question, meaning this "ruling" did nothing but kick the can down the road. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-05-2018, 02:16 PM)Au165 Wrote: It didn't help anything because there are still legal challenges pending that will bring up the exact same question, meaning this "ruling" did nothing but kick the can down the road. 

It's been explained to you twice. It was a victory for Right to Lifers. The fact that you assert the exact same question will be brought up should be enough to prove the victory. If they would have allowed it to stand it would have been a victory for pro choice. 

[Au165]

(06-05-2018, 02:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's been explained to you twice. It was a victory for Right to Lifers. The fact that you assert the exact same question will be brought up should be enough to prove the victory. If they would have allowed it to stand it would have been a victory for pro choice. 

Did they stop this abortion from happening? Does it stop other abortions from happening? 

Since the answer to both is no, what did it really accomplish? They stalled is what they did, so while I guess it's better than the alternative it didn't progress their cause I guess would be the best way to describe it. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-05-2018, 02:31 PM)Au165 Wrote: Did they stop this abortion from happening? Does it stop other abortions from happening? 

Since the answer to both is no, what did it really accomplish? They stalled is what they did, so while I guess it's better than the alternative it didn't progress their cause I guess would be the best way to describe it. 

The answer to both are not no. Throwing this lower court decision out could easily keep another abortion from happening; as lawyers cannot point to precedence. 

Seems you're trying overly hard on this one. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-05-2018, 02:31 PM)Au165 Wrote: Did they stop this abortion from happening? Does it stop other abortions from happening? 

Since the answer to both is no, what did it really accomplish? They stalled is what they did, so while I guess it's better than the alternative it didn't progress their cause I guess would be the best way to describe it. 

If someone loses in a judicial proceeding and then the determination is removed from judicial precedent, that removal is a victory for the losing side. If the ruling remained as precedent then that would result in a fight that would be nearly impossible to win in a similar situation. By vacating the precedent, it allows the next case to be determined on its merits alone and not on the precedent of the earlier case.

As someone that sits on a quasi-judicial government body, I can tell you that when there is a precedent set against you, it makes things much harder.

[Au165]

(06-05-2018, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The answer to both are not no. Throwing this lower court decision out could easily keep another abortion from happening; as lawyers cannot point to precedence. 

Seems you're trying overly hard on this one. 

Abortions are still allowed under a nation wide court order while similar cases work through the court system. Those lawyers don't need precedent currently they just need to point to the court order until the supreme court is eventually forced to make a decision on a similar case.

Avoided precedent, didn't "save children".

[*bfine32*]

(06-05-2018, 02:49 PM)Au165 Wrote: Abortions are still allowed under a nation wide court order while similar cases work through the court system. Those lawyers don't need precedent currently they just need to point to the court order until the supreme court is eventually forced to make a decision on a similar case.

Avoided precedent, didn't "save children".

..and in the State of TX they still require parental consent as no precedent has been provided. WTS, I'm done; as you have dug your heels in. Everybody else knows this ruling is a victory for Right to Lifers. Hell you probably do to, just do not want to admit it. 

[Au165]

(06-05-2018, 03:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and in the State of TX they still require parental consent as no precedent has been provided.

Which is still against the standing court order from Judge Tanya Chutkan that came about from this case and wasn't thrown out, which means the state of Texas is in contempt of a federal court order if they try to stop them.

I think deep down you know you're wrong....you just don't want to admit it.

[jj22]

I was never a big fan of forcing people to have the baby, then when they need assistance raising them..... crickets from the "pro life" folks.


Well I guess not necessarily crickets as they attack them for being moochers, welfare queens, cut their Medicaid and child care programs etc. It's really quite unfortunate. If you force them to have the baby, you think you'd be willing to help them. But these same people aren't.

[*bfine32*]

(06-05-2018, 04:26 PM)jj22 Wrote: I was never a big fan of forcing people to have the baby, then when they need assistance raising them..... crickets from the "pro life" folks.


Well I guess not necessarily crickets as they attack them for being moochers, welfare queens, cut their Medicaid and child care programs etc. It's really quite unfortunate. If you force them to have the baby, you think you'd be willing to help them. But these same people aren't.

I would encourage any parent(s) to work and provide for their children, just not the ones seeking abortion; however, I know that is not always possible and/or wanted.

I would love to see the implementation of a National Adoption Agency that works with reluctant parents that can place children in the homes of families that want to care for them. 

Order in the state of which I'd like to see children:


Happy and healthy with their biological parent(s) and/or relative


Happy and healthy with an adoptive parent(s)


Dependent on society for quality of live











killed before given a chance
 

[Dill]

(06-05-2018, 03:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and in the State of TX they still require parental consent as no precedent has been provided. WTS, I'm done; as you have dug your heels in. Everybody else knows this ruling is a victory for Right to Lifers. Hell you probably do to, just do not want to admit it. 

Wait, Everyone else "knows" the ruling is a victory for right to lifers?  Abortion is still legal in the US, right?
Is the victory that the state may still have a chance to force pregnant and unaccompanied immigrant children to have babies?

And your're "done" but it's Au who has "dug in his heels"?

[Dill]

(06-05-2018, 04:26 PM)jj22 Wrote: I was never a big fan of forcing people to have the baby, then when they need assistance raising them..... crickets from the "pro life" folks.

Well I guess not necessarily crickets as they attack them for being moochers, welfare queens, cut their Medicaid and child care programs etc. It's really quite unfortunate. If you force them to have the baby, you think you'd be willing to help them. But these same people aren't.

Well there is some division among the pro-life camp. I have met traditional Catholics who do indeed help people AFTER they are born--especially the poor.

I usually ask pro lifers if they also support the death penalty and tax cuts for the rich. Those who do tend also to make your point about the "crickets."

[*bfine32*]

(06-06-2018, 10:50 PM)Dill Wrote: Well there is some division among the pro-life camp. I have met traditional Catholics who do indeed help people AFTER they are born--especially the poor.

I usually ask pro lifers if they also support the death penalty and tax cuts for the rich. Those who do tend also to make your point about the "crickets."

Well then you've asked some simple minded folks as there is no correlation between punishing a convicted felon for his/her crimes and killing an innocent child. Have no idea how tax cuts come in to play. That's most likely the reason they don't answer that question, but next time look into their eyes and you'll most likely see a WTF is this dude talking about expression. 

[Dill]

(06-06-2018, 10:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well then you've asked some simple minded folks as there is no correlation between punishing a convicted felon for his/her crimes and killing an innocent child. Have no idea how tax cuts come in to play. That's most likely the reason they don't answer that question, but next time look into their eyes and you'll most likely see a WTF is this dude talking about expression. 

No correlation between killing and killing (that's how you see abortion)?

Tax cuts also cut the social net, partly constructed to help children after they are born.

So we have a lot of people out there who claim they value a fetus before it is born, but show no interest once it is.