Something really interesting happened recently at the U.S. Supreme Court.
For those of you who failed high school social studies, let me remind you that for a case to reach the Supreme Court, four members of the Court must agree to grant a “writ of certiorari.” This is otherwise known as the “Rule of Four.”
Now, several years ago the state of Oklahoma, in all of its wisdom, enacted the cleverly titled “Oklahoma Ultrasound Act” that required a physician or certified technician to perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly for a woman that desired an abortion. The technician would also have had to provide a simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting, display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them and describe the presence of organs if viewable.
A state trial court struck down the statute and later the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld that decision. Then, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, a Republican, decided to appeal that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The one thing that most people do not understand is that when a state appeals any cases, it actually costs the taxpayers a bunch of money because of the expensive legal process. Don’t get me started on that issue.
So, at some point this case was considered by the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. They all meet in a private room and there is absolutely no record of the proceedings. The Chief Justice simply asks the justices to vote on whether or not to grant cert in the thousands of cases before them.
Truth be told – I was not in that room. But I will bet the ranch that the Court’s extreme right wing – Scalia, Alito and Thomas – voted to grant cert. But the next day, the Court announced that it was not granting cert to this abortion-related case, no doubt shocking a lot of people and ticking off the anti-abortion movement. The decision to not review the case upheld the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision striking down the statute.
So, what happened?
No doubt that the liberal wing of the Court – Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Breyer – voted to not grant cert. And Justice Kennedy, who is always a swing vote on the issue, probably just decided he’d had enough of abortion cases for the time being so he joined the liberals.
That leaves Justice Roberts, an anti-abortion conservative who could have been the fourth vote.
Thank you, Justice Roberts???
Related articles
- Oklahoma Rejected by Top Court on Ultrasound Abortion Law (bloomberg.com)
- Oklahoma law requiring ultrasounds before abortions ruled unconstitutional (kfor.com)
- Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court (howappealing.law.com)
- Maher slams the ‘thunderously wrong’ Roberts-led Supreme Court: ‘You f*cked up!’ (rawstory.com)
- Cherokee child handed over to adoptive parents (bigstory.ap.org)
- Oklahoma Rejected by High Court on Ultrasound Abortion Law – San Francisco Chronicle (sfgate.com)
- High Court Rejects 2nd Oklahoma Abortion Law Case (personalliberty.com)
- Abortion ultrasound case won’t be heard (kjrh.com)
- U.S. Supreme Court declines to review $111 million patent case over power converter systems – @Reuters (reuters.com)


November 18, 2013 at 2:08 pm
Sorry, folks, that my text does not wrap around the photo. I’m just so proud that I could insert the photo myself and put in a clever caption! Maybe the administrator can come in and wrap the text around to the top like they usually do 🙂
LikeLike
February 7, 2014 at 9:24 pm
Whether we like it or not, it’s what we will have to work with. All legislation uneogreds changes and revisions as time goes on and needs evolve. Let’s all try and work together to make it better instead of complaining about each other – – it’s our system of government. It’s not perfect, but it’s all we have right now.
LikeLike
November 18, 2013 at 2:17 pm
Could there be a grander strategy here?
Are the conservative members waiting for a better case so they can better nip away at R v W?
LikeLike
November 18, 2013 at 2:25 pm
Did you ever read the Blackmun opinion in R v W.
Isn’t it a little strange?
The R V W decision was written Very poorly in my opinion.
I would love to know what they were thinking when they wrote that.
It could have been written so much better.
Do you agree or disagree?
LikeLike
November 18, 2013 at 3:36 pm
How was it written, and how do you think it should have been written, Cal?
LikeLike
November 18, 2013 at 11:40 pm
I think (I’m not an expert by any means),
One realizes it is important to understand that the seven middle-aged to elderly men in the majority certainly didn’t think they were making a statement about women’s rights: women and their voices are nearly absent from the opinion.
It reads more like about the rights of doctors – professionals – who faced prosecution in states for acting in a way they considered the best interests of their patients.
I think the 14th Amendment should have given cause for broader protections of women’s rights.
How Blackmun arbitrarily used trimesters is also bizarre given the nature of that very special 14th amendment protection.
To this very day, that amendment, I’m guessing, is one of the most powerful and important tools to uphold individual rights.
I think from Brown vs BOE, to present day immigration, voting restriction BS, equal protection, due process, right to privacy, etc., . . .
If the Blackmun opinion had been written with greater strength it would have held up better over time.
Obviously, it appears that the conservative states are trying to circumvent R v W with their bizarre legislation that helps no one.
What do you think?
LikeLike
November 23, 2013 at 5:48 am
That is incredible!
I just read it.
You are exactly right!
L
LikeLike
February 8, 2014 at 9:12 pm
, the next step should be a lobnbiyg effort of the state legislation to fix this broken law. I hate to come down on the side of the ACLU(I disagree with their position, I think the fact that it was a parent violating their child’s privacy is central to the case and they should never have taken this case) but the law doesn’t have anything about it in there, so what are you gonna do? Better to not have judges legislating from the bench, even if that would make the decision more just in our minds. That’s only my opinion, and I still agree that a mother has broad rights over her child’s privacy, and whatever she finds out ought to be court admissible. Just imagine if she’d overheard her daughter talking about shooting up the school? Or more specific to this case, what if her boyfriend had been talking about it? This law needs to be changed, big time. Thanks for leaving the comments open so I could ramble 😀 Cheers,M@
LikeLike
February 25, 2015 at 10:26 am
I don’t even know what to say, this made things so much easier!
LikeLike
November 23, 2013 at 9:26 am
Balckmun did the best he could with what he had at the time; it’s quite likely that were he to write it today, it would be far, far more strongly written, given the great changes in attitudes towards women.
LikeLike
November 26, 2013 at 6:33 am
Excellent post.
I’m looking forward to the end of the Chthonic Republican Hegemony on the rump end of the Supreme Court.
LikeLike
November 26, 2013 at 8:47 am
Would be nice if it happened, Elena, but with the burgeoning plutocracy exerting more and more influence in distorting elections, it’s not at all likely. See the movie, “Hot Coffee.” Towards the end, it talks about the Koch Brothers having pretty much bought every state Supreme Court whose judges are elected rather than appointed.
LikeLike