Wednesday, December 12, 2018

Justice Brett Kavanaugh--Huge Disappointment

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

The US Supreme Court, including newly appointed Brett Kavanaugh, miserably failed pro-life citizens this week.

In refusing to take a case involving two states wanting to essentially defund Planned Parenthood, the Court missed an opportunity to bring clarity to an area of the law about which the lower courts are very divided and confused.

Justice Thomas, who did not join the majority, gave a fiery dissent.

Be informed.

Six of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court, this week, refused to take two cases out of Kansas and Louisiana---cases that could have allowed the states to defund the abortion giant Planned Parenthood.

Heritage Foundation's Daily Signal called it a missed opportunity.

Justice Clarence Thomas saw it as much more than a "missed opportunity."

He was passionate.

The background.


Both states and several others moved to revoke taxpayer funding for the abortion champion after videos exposed Planned Parenthood allegedly selling body parts of aborted babies. Planned Parenthood sued the states, and the 10 Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Kansas cannot defund PP, despite an investigation by the US Department of Justice into its aborted baby body parts trade.

Justice Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito dissented, the other 6 justices chose to duck the issue and refuse to hear it.

Granted, the issue was about more than abortion. It involved a number of parts including Medicaid, but the confusion in lower courts could have been cleared up if the Supreme Court would have done their job.

The real question was, "Does the federal law allow individual Medicaid recipients to sue over states' Medicaid provider decisions?

While these cases are not directly associated with abortion, abortion looms large in the background.

And this was an important issue which is wrought with confusion in the lower courts. The Supreme Court chose not to bring clarity.

Justice Thomas strongly disagreed with his colleagues.


In his written dissent, the dependable, conservative constitutionalist said,
"What explains the Court's refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named Planned Parenthood."

Thomas said the court made a “mess” of the matter, and blamed the other justices for not wanting to touch a case involving the abortion giant Planned Parenthood.

“What explains the court’s refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood',” Thomas wrote in his dissenting opinion.

Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined Thomas, but Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the four liberal justices in refusing to hear the case.

Thomas said he was particularly troubled by the majority decision because the case has nothing to do with abortion. Instead, it is about Medicaid and patients’ rights.

“It is true that these particular cases arose after several States alleged that Planned Parenthood affiliates had, among other things, engaged in ‘the illegal sale of fetal organs’ and ‘fraudulent billing practices,’ and thus removed Planned Parenthood as a state Medicaid provider.”
“But these cases are not about abortion rights,” he continued. “They are about private rights of action under the Medicaid Act. Resolving the question presented here would not even affect Planned Parenthood’s ability to challenge the States’ decisions.”
“Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty,” Thomas concluded.

I certainly hope this is not a precursor to the way Roberts and Kavanaugh will rule in cases that are specifically about abortion...and Planned Parenthood.

The folks at One News Now and their parent American Family Association had encouraged conservatives to be careful with Kavanaugh---particularly regarding abortion.

In fact, I quoted them following President Trump's nomination of Kavanaugh, however, once the nomination was in place and hearings underway, most conservatives supported his confirmation.

American Family Association officially backed off their concern, and based on the assurances of most evangelical leaders, AFA put their support behind Kavanaugh.

One News Now said this yesterday:

Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined a majority of the high court in a 6-3 decision that turned away an appeal from two states, Kansas and Louisiana, after they withheld tax funds from Planned Parenthood, the country's biggest abortion provider and a hero of Democrats and far-left feminists.
Only four votes were necessary for the high court to take up the case, so pro-life groups were shocked that the embattled pro-life nominee they stood behind over the summer voted with the majority.

I was personally shocked and disappointed as well.

The future will confirm which way Kavanaugh will go regarding the most important issues and beliefs of those who supported Kavanaugh's nomination.

Jameson Taylor of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy said "we need to pray for them" following the 6-3 ruling.

Taylor continued with this: "This is a time for sackcloth, for ashes. We have an abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, that was caught trafficking in baby body parts...and they're getting off free."

Be Informed. Be Prayerful. Be Discerning.


8 comments:

  1. We've been rolled by the RINOs once again, Gary.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Many people think the Supreme Court can rule as it wills but it can't. Liberal justices pushed their agenda because they knew the moral right would roll over because they value getting along more than what is right

    You need look no further than your selves for who to blame you were hoping Kavanaugh would fight the fight you were and are unwilling to fight.


    ReplyDelete
  3. Could the unthinkable be possible? Could it be that the corruption that rifles through the upper echelons of Federal Law Enforcement, revealed and supported by massive documentation and evidence, could also be present and growing in the nation's highest court?

    When Justice Roberts and/or Justice Cavanaugh vote inconsistent with the fundamental values they respected throughout their careers and their loyalty to the Constitution and consistent rule of law, could it be because they have been made to understand that harm could come to their loved ones if they fail to support selected issues?

    From what we have seen as evidence of what those on the Left are willing to do to "win" in their arrogance by forcing their values on all aspects of society, federal government, state and local government, and key selected individuals who disagree with their foundational values, how can a rational person come to believe they would not seek to intimidate and control members off the courts and most especially members of the nation's highest courts.

    We need look only to the Congress in their unwillingness to make new law regarding immigration. Instead the hard Left manipulates the court system to using them to make new law that often violates established federal law and/or our Constitution. In short, laws the hard Left is unable to pass in the congress are nevertheless established and supported by selected judicial venues where Leftist judges make new law, often going unchallenged.

    The current challenge is a perfect example of this process and it seems sadly consistent that our nation's highest court plays into this new form of corruption.

    Truth is a lonely warrior,

    Pray for Truth to prevail in the minds and hearts of those in power who have intentionally or unintentionally embraced deceit and evil while seeking to "win".

    G>T>

    ReplyDelete
  4. If a state does not like the service of a service provider, (whatever it might be) it has the right to refuse that service to it's state, right? That should allow for discussion between the service provider and the state as to what needs to change, and if it does not change to the satisfaction of the state, the state does not have to accept it's service, right?

    For a service provider to be forced upon the state, as it kills human beings, and forces the extraction of tax dollars of it's people, what is that except murder and extortion? It's abuse. It's oppression. It's unconstitutional, and no judges should become a party to it, by going along with it, supporting it, or otherwise condoning it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. We must pray. Praying is getting in the fight.

    ReplyDelete
  6. May God give us judges who stand up and say, "I Want This Case! I Want This Case!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I thank God for Justice Thomas.

    ReplyDelete

Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.