The Commission will hold a public virtual meeting on December 7, 2021 from 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST).The purpose of this meeting is for the Commissioners to review the draft Commission Report and vote on its submission to the President pursuant to Executive Order 14023. This meeting is open to the public and will be live-streamed at www.whitehouse.gov/pcscotus/. Materials relevant to the public meeting will be posted at www.whitehouse.gov/pcscotus/ prior to the meeting.
So, we should be getting to the final report. As noted in the past, I have wished that more attention would be given to this. Still think it can and somewhat similarly it will be useful in the long term. There are so many other things going on. And, a major purpose of this was to kick the can down the road anyways. Once it is out, more focus can be put on the issues. Plus, once other major things are addressed, more attention can be put on it.
I hope the final report is well done and means will be available to promote it to the general public. The 9/11 Commission Report was well written and ultimately made into a graphic novel. I don't think this will placed in graphic form, probably, but other means can be used such as a website or summaries that can be helpful.
I don't want it just to be a government report that is forgotten about as the 2022 elections are focused upon.
“So we look at them like a ticking time bomb and wait for the complications to develop,” Dr. Palmer said of her patients.I tacked on a notice to the last Supreme Court entry that on Monday there dropped an opinion on an interstate water dispute. There was some expectation when the Supreme Court announced last Friday that one or more opinions would drop on Monday that it could involve the Texas abortion cases. I thought too maybe the death penalty case involving prayer/laying hands in the execution chamber. That too was pushed ahead of the pack.
But, again, it was (as is usual for November opinions) nothing that big. The Order List was a nothingburger too. For whatever reason, they dropped the granting of a case (involving a voting rights matter, but only setting terms on how it can be litigated -- like one of the abortion cases, this long term has potential to help the conservatives, but in some other situation, it might help liberals) on Wednesday.
The quote is from an article about how Texas doctors are concerned about how the law makes it harder for them to take care of the health of their patients. As with abortion generally, very hard cases (I add the qualifier since the others are often not very "easy") are a small portion of the whole. They are focused upon for understandable reasons, such as the usual hypotheticals that might not be typical.
They still arise. And, they reflect a wider concern. Abortion is part of health care. Now, you might be morally and religiously opposed to it. It is still part of health care. Pregnancy and childbirth among other things has health related effects. Some pregnancies are particularly problematic here, but they all have a range of health effects. And, people obtain abortions in part to avoid some of them. It is part of why it should be an health option, including when paid by insurance, private or government (Medicaid, military health plans etc.) in nature.
(The article was flagged here too. It reminds me of a pro-life -- article's word -- physician providing a quote that "even a girl as young as 9 or 10" (again, the author's words) "can" give birth safely. Well, I guess anything is possible. And, to use her [yes, the doctor is a woman] word, it depends just what "safely" means. Low enough standard, why not?)
But, the Supreme Court did not hand down the cases yet. The expectation is that they will at least in some fashion hold that there is a right to bring lawsuits against the Texas law. Note the two cases are not about the substance of the law, but the right to bring cases against it. Both in state court and as part of a federal government civil action.
The Supreme Court is letting the law stay in effect while this is all pending. They had a chance to "stay" the law, hold it from being applied, while the litigation is pending. They rejected that September 1st by a vote of 5-4. And, now doctors have to risk the lives of their patients. It is a total travesty. As some debate the specifics of how a lawsuit could be made here, people are being harmed, including but not limited to a threat to their constitutional rights.
And, the supposition -- one that is arguably not a gimmee but is expected -- is that the Supreme Court will eventually at least hold that the law can be challenged now. Which should, I say should, mean that it quickly is held up since it is blatantly unconstitutional under Planned Parenthood v. Casey. As other things occurred, people -- girls, women, and all others involved (non-binary, trans) -- in the second most populous state of the nation are being harmed. And, it damn well should be getting more attention.
Thanks a lot tainted corruptly put together Supreme Court. And, we are back to the PSCOTUS Commission and the long term effects. Short term, there is little ground to be too optimistic. But, pushing back will help somewhat, including to address the rights and well being of the people involved. And, the importance of the 2022 elections, which will not just be -- oh well, sigh -- the Trump Party will win.
At least, it need not, should not, just be that.
(I checked the public comments and there were like 300 in one day recently. That seemed a bit much and a spot check of a few of the first bunch suggests some right wing website asked for anti-change comments. Or, the site decided to collect a bunch of troll-like quickie hit shots together.)
ETA: I added something I forgot to put in the first time, but read this after writing this. Payne v. Tennessee is famous for being Justice Marshall's last dissent (at least of a regular opinion; he actually wrote at least one more death penalty dissent in regard to a last minute order), somewhat hypocritically criticizing the quick overruling of a precedent. That is, he wasn't exactly consistently regarding being loyal to conservative precedents. His law clerk, Justice Kagan, has shown more of that.
But, as is often the case, the result was not the end of the line. I say more in the comment there, but it often is the case that such a litigant finds a way to linger, sometimes gaining relief in state court or some other way. Such was the case here -- if long after the fact -- the state recently passed a law allowing him to make an intellectual disability claim.
Again, this is not totally surprising, and the professor in my view doesn't really accurately flesh out the situation. Regularly, people are procedurally barred from making a claim. The unlikely thing here is that the state actually changed the law to open the door. Even there, I figure over the years states passed laws tinkering with the process, allowing the death penalty, but adding some procedural protection that helped some people.
I'm unsure about the timing here. It does look like Payne was sentenced to die, and that factored into the timing of the law being passed. I saw one reference that there was a fear it would not be passed in time. Another person in Tennessee was scheduled to die, raised an intellectual disability claim of some sort, and argued COVID should push things forward since he could not properly make the claim. His sentence was postponed.
Anyway, Purvis Payne is off death row -- after thirty years -- but is still in prison. He claims innocence, and like the Oklahoma person who had his sentence commuted, who knows how strong the claim is. But, horrible crimes or not, over thirty years is pretty long. I think unless there is a very compelling reason, at most, that is too long. He's in his 50s now, so is not as old a someone in prison for over 30 years might be believed to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!