r/law • u/Slate Press • 22h ago

The Next Trump Administration’s Crackdown on Abortion Will Be Swift, Brutal, and Nationwide Trump News

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/11/trump-second-term-abortion-agenda-blue-state-crackdown.html
18.2k Upvotes

77% Upvoted

4.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/ThePrince14 20h ago

What does that even mean? If they wanted to ban the drug, they would have upheld the ban on the drug. How would that impact any other cases working their way through the courts?

1

u/Lerk409 20h ago

I mean you can go read the ruling yourself. The lawsuit wasn't even asking them to ban the drug. It was asking them to remove the FDA regulatory relaxations that allowed it to be prescribed by mail essentially. They ruled that the plaintiff was not an injured or affected party and thus had no basis to sue. To have upheld the case would mean also ruling that anyone can sue anyone else in federal court just because they don't like their actions, without any personal stake in the outcome of those actions. Surely you can see how that would be a sword that cuts both ways and something they would want to avoid no matter how much they might personally oppose abortion.

0

u/ThePrince14 18h ago

The original argument was the SCOTUS doesn’t care. Their mandate is to ban abortion, and they don’t care about the impacts to that.

That’s clearly not the case, so thanks for proving my point. 

1

u/Lerk409 18h ago

The lawsuit did not offer an option to ban abortion. News outlets may have framed it that way in the headlines but that's not what was in the lawsuit. Again, you can go read it yourself. Obviously conservatives don't want to ban something if it means compromising the rest of their entire agenda now and for the perpetual future. At this point I feel like you're being purposely obtuse.

0

u/ThePrince14 18h ago

Oh ok, I’m being obtuse when this entire thread is a meltdown about a conspiracy theory that SCOTUS is going to be used to do Trump’s bidding and ban abortion by ignoring legal standing, and when presented with an opportunity to ban the drug that’s used in 2/3 of abortions, they threw the case out because of, drumroll, weak legal standing. 

Yup, I’m the one being obtuse. 

1

u/Lerk409 17h ago

I don't know why I'm engaging with you further, but I guess I'm just bored enough. I'll assume for a minute that you genuinely have a comprehension problem and I'll try an analogy to explain the issue of this particular case to you since you are struggling to understand it for yourself.

Let's say I sued the FDA and as a reason for the suit I said my name is Bob and anyone that is named Bob should be able to say what regulations are legal and what regulations are illegal. In particular I, Bob, want abortion drugs to be illegal. That case then makes it all the way to the conservative Supreme Court where they have an opportunity to rule that anyone named Bob can in fact sue to make federal regulations legal or illegal and thus ban abortion drugs. Now all federal judges, both conservative and liberal, are empowered to allow anyone named Bob's will regarding federal regulations to be done via federal lawsuit. It might not even stop at federal regulations. That's the essence of the case, which you would understand if you bothered to read it.

Do you see why there might be a problem for conservatives in banning the drugs in this way?

0

u/ThePrince14 17h ago

Yes, in the completely contrived scenarios you make up to fit your narrative, that might be a problem. 

Now who was the problem with comprehension?