The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
You have reached your article limit
to tackle state-sovereignty claim that Kentucky's attorney general is wielding to all but ban abortions after 15 weeks. [...] These [regulatory] issues* did not even register Tuesday at oral arguments, where the court focused instead on the ["]technical matter["] of whether the attorney general, a separately elected [BWAH!] office [of We the People], has the authority [BWAH!]to appeal in place of the state's [appointed] secretary of health [laws enacted by KY legislature?]. Due to a change in political administrations, the secretary is now a Democrat and has opted not to fight an injunction against HB 454 upheld by the Sixth Circuit.
"Why would we call it an abuse of discretion for a court of appeals, after it rendered its judgment, to say we don't really care what has happened in the political arena," Justice Sonia SOTOMAYOR grilled a deputy state solicitor general. "We don't want to be dragged into it. You agree to be bound by this judgment. You didn't appeal [US District, US 6th Cir., even though you were a party. Are you telling me you're now willing to waive the sovereign immunity of the state? Because that's what it sounds like."
Justice [Anti-RBG] asked why the petitioner didn't just intervene on behalf of the state -- a move that would have waived the state sovereign immunity. "We wouldn't be even having this discussion if you had intervened on behalf of Kentucky," the Trump appointee [?] [KY Deputy Solicitor General Matthew Kuhn] said. [...] BREYER pushed [ACLU attorney Alexa Kolbi-]Molinas on why Cameron could not defend the law. "The Sixth Circuit says this is unconstitutional, and somebody could have filed a defendant motion for rehearing, and then they could have tried to come here," Breyer said. "But the secretary of state said I'm not going to do that because there had been a political party change. And so at that point, the attorney general says well ... nobody's going to defend this so I better. Is that what happened? Am I totally wrong?"
"The Sixth Circuit says this is unconstitutional, and somebody could have filed a defendant motion for rehearing, and then they could have tried to come here," Breyer said. "But the secretary of state said I'm not going to do that because there had been a political party change. And so at that point, the attorney general says well ... nobody's going to defend this so I better. Is that what happened? Am I totally wrong?"
archived I cannot overstate how utterly irrelevant and ill-conceived this "issue"
So Nabakov.
by gmoke - Jun 6
by Oui - Jun 19
by Oui - Jun 182 comments
by Oui - Jun 181 comment
by Oui - Jun 1710 comments
by Oui - Jun 166 comments
by Oui - Jun 16
by Oui - Jun 162 comments
by Oui - Jun 1515 comments
by Oui - Jun 141 comment
by Oui - Jun 14
by Oui - Jun 13
by Oui - Jun 12
by Oui - Jun 11
by Oui - Jun 104 comments
by Oui - Jun 101 comment
by Oui - Jun 99 comments