Or fetuses in the head as the case may be.First test of defunding Planned Parenthood funding for abortion – and the two Trump appointees show they can’t be counted on…vote to not hear cases.www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-leaves-legal-victory-place-planned-parenthood-n945946________________
Thanks for the correction JD.If the abortion debate doesn’t turn soon – it probably won’t________________
There’s more to this then just a simple conservative judges fail us view. There’s possibly an important legal ramification on making sure the cases you take and hope to make a precedent for a conservative view are the ones you really want to win.In other words you take a court case that will put a stake in the heart of Planned Parenthood for good. Not just one where you hope for a small moral victory.To give credit – I’m not that smart this was the view of someone I trust who has a decidedly Christian view toward politics________________
I don’t believe there is ANY legal ramification for taking smaller cases when it comes to the SCOTUS, there is no appeal from there. In this case you had TWO precedents set by NOT hearing the case. 1. States rights of funding private companies 2. Federal funding of abortionNeither of which mean you can’t hear further cases on the legality of abortion itself at later dates.
The conservative principle of being a strict constructionist can come into conflict with other conservative principles (like being against abortion).
In my opinion, a strict constructionist should have immediately recognized the state is under no obligation to fund Federal programs that fund private companies.Here’s a quote from a likely liberal law prof that seems to be the general consensus in the legal community.