Rush: Roberts 'Flip-Flopped' on Louisiana Abortion Ruling After Ruling the Opposite in 2016 Texas Case
- 12.9K Views
Well, it’s official: Whether he ‘evolved’ to this point or he was always a liberal at heart, Chief Justice John Roberts is now the new Anthony Kennedy, following a horrible decision involving a Louisiana abortion law on Monday.
In a 5-4 ruling (wouldn’t it be great if someday we could get constitutional rulings of 6-3 or 7-2?), Roberts sided with the high court’s Left-wing justices in striking down a law that required doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
And why? Because in case something goes wrong with the procedure, the physician performing it will have the ability to not only admit his patient but care for her in the aftermath.
That seems like one of the most reasonable ‘abortion’ provisions anyone could imagine, especially since the procedure remains one of the most unregulated of all medical procedures.
But no. Roberts didn’t think so.
“The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike,” he wrote in a separate opinion ( ‘The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by [a] Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”
Is that so?
What’s true is that SCOTUS struck down a very similar law in Texas in 2016. But, as conservative talk radio giant Rush Limbaugh pointed on his show Monday, Roberts dissented from the majority’s opinion back then – meaning he believed in 2016 that the Texas law was constitutional.
The host said:
What happened is the court struck it down in 2016, but back then Roberts dissented in the Texas case and did not join the Democrat justices. Same case, different state, and justice flip-flops — Justice Roberts flip-flops. In Louisiana, he made it clear that he couldn’t side with the conservatives on this case because it violates Roe v. Wade.
But in 2016, almost an identical law from the state of Texas, Roberts dissented. So everybody’s wondering, “What’s going on here? This is not a matter of law.” The theory is something beyond the judgment of law or the adjudication of the case and the case law specifically is going on here with Roberts because it doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t make any sense intellectually.
It doesn’t make any sense judicially. And, of course, now this end result leaves us with two different standards in Texas and Louisiana.
“If you abort babies and you’re not required to have doctors with admitting privileges in one state while other doctors are required to have admitting privileges, then how in the world is the health of women being promoted here? Isn’t that the point?” Limbaugh continued.
He wasn’t the only one who saw hypocrisy. So did constitutional originalist Justice Clarence Thomas, albeit for a different reason.
In dissenting from the majority, Thomas wrote, “Today a majority of the Court perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction.
“The plurality and THE CHIEF JUSTICE ultimately cast aside this jurisdictional barrier to conclude that Louisiana’s law is unconstitutional under our precedents,” he continued. “But those decisions created the right to abortion out of whole cloth, without a shred of support from the Constitution’s text. Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled.”
Limbaugh also noted during his opening hour that he’d been told Roberts wanted to be the new Kennedy. Looks like whoever told him that was right, the Constitution being only a secondary consideration.