Confidence in the Supreme Court has plummeted since the conservative trial of the Trump years, polls show. But take a closer look: The personal details and processes in some lower federal courts shouldn’t inspire confidence either. And the consequences of the judges’ decisions in these many courtrooms can be as far-reaching as those of the Supremes.
Case in point: The federal courthouse in Amarillo, Texas, where in a hearing Wednesday, the lone judge for a sprawling, remote county considered whether an abortion pill was used in more than half of all aborted pregnancies in the country, including miscarriages. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk could decide to grant that order as early as this week, effectively banning the pill even in states where abortion is legal, while the lawsuit casts doubt on the drug’s safety.
Whatever you think about abortion, you should be shocked by this lawsuit. It’s been more than 20 years and countless doses since the Food and Drug Administration tested and approved mifepristone as part of a two-drug abortion regimen. Since then, the agency has repeatedly re-approved it, and mountains of medical data have confirmed its safety.
At Kacsmaryk’s trial, the anti-abortion activists who brought the case acknowledged that it would be unprecedented for a court to order the government to withdraw a long-approved drug from the market.
And yet… the anti-abortion groups, which FDA scientists have doubts about, have reason to be optimistic that Kacsmaryk will do away with them. After all, they chose this judge to hear their case because of his obvious sympathy for their cause, just as other conservative activists did during his four years on the bench.
For right-wing “forum buyers” is Kacsmaryk one of the go-to guys.
Like so many others former President Trump has elected to the Bundesbank, he is white, male, young – just 39 years old when he was nominated for the lifetime job of better government for decades – and reliable, radical, conservative. He joined the Federalist Society while in law school, worked on Republican campaigns in Texas, including for Senator Ted Cruz, and came directly to the Federal Bank through the attorney for a Christian “religious freedom” rights group, the First Liberty Institute .
As his outspoken anti-abortion activist recently told The Washington Post about her big brother’s role in the abortion pill case, “I feel like he was made for it. He’s right where he needs to be.”
Trump probably thought so. Spurred on by evangelicals, the Federalist Society and even the right-wing Heritage Foundation, former President Kacsmaryk had to be nominated three times in three years before a Republican-controlled Senate narrowly confirmed him. Kacsmaryk’s views were almost exaggerated, even for some Republicans.
His confirmation hearings demonstrated not only his anti-abortion stance, but also his view that LGBTQ people have mental disorders and that legalizing same-sex marriage would put the nation “on a path to potential tyranny.” He wrote that “the pro-marriage movement”—which advocates marriage between a man and a woman—should follow the lead of the opponents of Roe vs. Wade: Play a long game and fight to “break the fall in 40 years”. to restore “traditional marriage.”
No wonder Kacsmaryk reportedly has a figurine of Clarence Thomas on his desk. Judge Thomas upheld the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe last June suggested that the Supreme Court also “reconsider” constitutional protections for same-sex marriage, same-sex intimacy and birth control.
Kacsmaryk twice spoke out against President Biden’s attempts to end Trump’s “stay in Mexico” policy on asylum seekers. He also decided against a federal program that makes contraceptives available to teens, says it violates the rights of parents. And he tossed out a Biden policy that said health care providers should not discriminate against LGTBQ people, despite the Supreme Court’s decision that an anti-discrimination law covered those groups. Kacsmaryk began his disagreement with Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., citing his disapproval of that decision.
But the case of the abortion pill attracted the most controversy. Rightly so: It underscores how radical the nation has been in cracking down on women’s reproductive rights after half a century of Roe’s constitutional protections.
With the Dobbs decision, the Supreme Court threw abortion rights back to the states, “to the elected representatives of the people,” Alito wrote. At the same time, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh stated that judges would no longer rule on “these difficult moral and political issues.”
The was what conservatives called their holy grail for decades: let the states decide. In fact, the Red States rushed to enact a near-total ban. According to the Guttmacher Institute on Abortion Rights, which tracks U.S. abortion laws, 24 states have enacted or are expected to enact such bans (some are being challenged in court).
But now abortion advocates want more: a national ban. With no hope of getting such legislation from a Democratic president and a divided Congress, they once again turned to the federal courts for the next best thing: a ruling with national panache banning medical abortion. So much for Alito and Kavanaugh’s predictions.
Reports from Wednesday’s hearing showed that Kacsmaryk was, as usual, looking for a way to support anti-abortion activists. If he concludes that the FDA and the medical community have been wrong about mifespristone for nearly 23 years, it’s a good bet he will be confirmed ultra-conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals whose jurisdiction includes Texas. Then the case goes to the Supreme Court. We know which way it’s going.
And the judges wonder why they have a record disapproval rate of 58%, why so many Americans view the judiciary as ideological rather than impartial and no less political than the other two branches of government.
Very simple: nowadays the judiciary is often.
Source: LA Times