This Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court revealed a ruling upholding abortion rights in Louisiana. Specifically, the court overturned a Louisiana law that would have demanded that any doctor performing abortions have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The net effect of this punitive restriction could have left one single abortion clinic open in the entire state, and Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the court’s four liberal justices to keep the Louisiana abortion restrictions from going into effect. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the prominent Trump shill, promptly posted a melodramatic criticism of Roberts on Twitter.
He tweeted:
‘What’s next, Chief Justice Roberts? Our Second Amendment rights?’
What’s next, Chief Justice Roberts? Our Second Amendment rights? https://t.co/aMj3FeT9sQ
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) June 29, 2020
Jordan seems to imply that the court ruling upholding abortion rights in Louisiana was some kind of conscientious affront against the true rights of Americans, or something. In fact, the new ruling didn’t even establish an entirely new precedent. In his own commentary about the case, Roberts explained that he voted to overturn the Louisiana legislation in light of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn very similar legislation out of Texas just four years ago. Roberts was respecting basic legal precedent, although at the time of the original Texas case, he didn’t even agree with the decision. Meanwhile, Jordan and his allies seem determined to try and use the court for brazenly political purposes, no matter the court precedent in question.
Breyer writes the lead opinion for the four liberal justices. Roberts concurs in the judgment on grounds of stare decisis, finding that Whole Woman's Health (from which he dissented) obviously controls. Here is Roberts' kicker. https://t.co/QGBYA7716K pic.twitter.com/QAYFPcbTll
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 29, 2020
It’s worth noting — both of Trump’s nominees to the court voted to overturn the Louisiana legislation, no matter the previously existent precedent established in the Texas case. During his confirmation process, the Trump-nominated Justice Brett Kavanaugh insisted that right to an abortion in the United States was “settled,” implying that he wouldn’t question it on the bench. Yet, he has now proven that he actually doesn’t seem to have a problem with ignoring settled legal precedent.
But Kavanaugh, despite assurances from @SenatorCollins that he views abortion rights as "settled law," votes to severely restrict abortion access in LA. https://t.co/8lYm3ntV5H
— Ronald Brownstein (@RonBrownstein) June 29, 2020
Check out Twitter’s response to Jordan:
