Tag: Alito

  • Leaked abortion draft made us ‘targets of assassination’, Samuel Alito says

    Leaked abortion draft made us ‘targets of assassination’, Samuel Alito says

    [ad_1]

    Samuel Alito said the decision he wrote removing the federal right to abortion made him and other US supreme court justices “targets of assassination” but denied claims he was responsible for its leak in draft form.

    “Those of us who were thought to be in the majority, thought to have approved my draft opinion, were really targets of assassination,” Alito told the Wall Street Journal in an interview published on Friday.

    “It was rational for people to believe they might be able to stop the decision in Dobbs by killing one of us.”

    Alito wrote the ruling in Dobbs v Jackson, the Mississippi case that overturned Roe v Wade, which established the right to abortion in 1973.

    Alito’s draft ruling was leaked to Politico on 2 May last year, to uproar and protest nationwide. The final ruling was issued on 24 June.

    On 8 June, an armed man was arrested outside the home of Brett Kavanaugh, with Alito one of six conservatives on the nine-justice court. Charged with attempted murder of a United States judge, the man pleaded not guilty.

    The conservative chief justice, John Roberts, voted against overturning Roe, but the three rightwingers installed by Republicans under Donald Trump ensured it fell regardless.

    Progressives charged that a conservative, perhaps the hardline Alito, might have orchestrated the leak in an attempt to lock in a majority for such a momentous decision.

    Alito said: “That’s infuriating to me. Look, this made us targets of assassination. Would I do that to myself? Would the five of us have done that to ourselves? It’s quite implausible.”

    The leak was investigated by the supreme court marshal, without establishing a perpetrator.

    Saying the marshal “did a good job with the resources that were available”, Alito said he had “a pretty good idea who is responsible, but that’s different from the level of proof that is needed to name somebody”.

    Alito said the leak “was a part of an effort to prevent the Dobbs draft … from becoming the decision of the court. And that’s how it was used for those six weeks by people on the outside, as part of the campaign to try to intimidate the court.”

    He also said the leak “created an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust”. The justices “worked through it”, he said, “and last year we got our work done … but it was damaging”.

    Last November, after a bombshell New York Times report, Alito denied leaking information about a decision in a 2014 case about contraception and religious rights.

    His Wall Street Journal interview seemed bound to further anger Democrats and progressives. Justices regularly claim not to be politically motivated, but even with a Democrat in the White House the court has made other momentous conservative rulings, notably including a loosening of gun-control laws.

    Joe Biden’s administration has shied from calls for reform, including the idea justices should be added to establish balance or give liberals a majority, reflecting Democratic control of the White House and Senate.

    Samuel Alito in March 2019.
    Samuel Alito in March 2019. Photograph: Susan Walsh/AP

    Alito told the Journal he did not “feel physically unsafe, because we now have a lot of protection”. He also said he was “driven around in basically a tank, and I’m not really supposed to go anyplace by myself without the tank and my members of the police force”.

    Complaining that criticism also stoked by corruption allegations against two more conservatives, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, were “new during my lifetime”, Alito said: “We are being hammered daily, and I think quite unfairly in a lot of instances.

    “And nobody, practically nobody, is defending us. The idea has always been that judges are not supposed to respond to criticisms, but if the courts are being unfairly attacked, the organised bar will come to their defense.”

    Alito said legal authorities had, “if anything … participated to some degree in these attacks”.

    He declined to comment on reporting by ProPublica about Thomas’s friendship with Harlan Crow, a Republican mega-donor who has bestowed gifts and purchases which Thomas largely did not disclose.

    But Alito did complain about how Kavanaugh was treated when allegations of sexual assault surfaced during his confirmation process.

    “After Justice Kavanaugh was accused of being a rapist … he made an impassioned speech, made an impassioned scene, and he was criticised because it was supposedly not judicious, not the proper behavior for a judge to speak in those terms.

    “I don’t know – if somebody calls you a rapist?”

    Accusations against Kavanaugh included attempted rape while a high school student. On Friday, the Guardian reported that new information showed serious omissions in a Senate investigation of the allegations, mounted when Republicans controlled the chamber.

    Polling shows that public trust in the supreme court has reached historic lows.

    “We’re being bombarded,” Alito complained, “and then those who are attacking us say: ‘Look how unpopular they are. Look how low their approval rating has sunk.’

    “Well, yeah, what do you expect when … day in and day out, ‘They’re illegitimate. They’re engaging in all sorts of unethical conduct. They’re doing this, they’re doing that’?”

    Such attacks, he said, “undermine confidence in the government [as] it’s one thing to say the court is wrong; it’s another thing to say it’s an illegitimate institution”.

    With some court-watchers, the interview landed heavily.

    Robert Maguire, research director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, an independent watchdog, said: “There is no depth to the pity [justices] – and Alito in particular – feel for themselves when they face public criticism.”



    [ad_2]
    #Leaked #abortion #draft #targets #assassination #Samuel #Alito
    ( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

  • Alito extends reprieve for abortion pill access, maintaining status quo for 2 more days

    Alito extends reprieve for abortion pill access, maintaining status quo for 2 more days

    [ad_1]

    supreme court abortion pill 01288

    The justices are mulling whether a ruling from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals should go into effect or whether it should be blocked while further appeals proceed.

    If allowed to take effect, the 5th Circuit’s April 12 ruling would suspend various policies the FDA has enacted since 2016 to make mifepristone more accessible — including telemedicine prescription, mail delivery, retail pharmacy dispensing and the approval of a generic version of the drug. The ruling also would scale back the approved “on label” use of the drug from 10 weeks of pregnancy to seven weeks — before many patients know they are pregnant.

    The appeals court suggested its ruling was a middle-ground approach because it did not go along with a Texas federal judge’s order to suspend mifepristone’s registration altogether.

    However, the FDA and the two drug companies that make mifepristone told the Supreme Court that the 5th Circuit’s ruling could amount to a nationwide ban of the drug because of lengthy delays in returning to labeling and protocols that have not been required for years.

    Anti-abortion medical groups that are challenging the drug disputed that characterization, saying the ruling would reimpose important safety restrictions on the drug.

    Alito acted single-handedly because he oversees emergency appeals from the 5th Circuit. It is not a clear signal about how Alito or the other justices will ultimately vote on whether to allow the 5th Circuit’s ruling to go into effect.

    [ad_2]
    #Alito #extends #reprieve #abortion #pill #access #maintaining #status #quo #days
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Alito keeps access to abortion pill unchanged for next five days while Supreme Court reviews emergency appeals

    Alito keeps access to abortion pill unchanged for next five days while Supreme Court reviews emergency appeals

    [ad_1]

    abortion pills 73837

    The appeals court ruling — if it takes effect — would suspend several policies the FDA has approved since 2016 to make mifepristone more accessible, including telemedicine prescription, mail delivery and retail pharmacy dispensing. The ruling also would suspend approval of the generic version of the drug and would narrow the window of time the drug can be prescribed from 10 to seven weeks of pregnancy — though off-label prescription after seven weeks would still be possible. The Biden administration warned the court in its Friday petition that letting these changes move forward would wreak “regulatory chaos” nationwide and harm patients.

    The ruling had been scheduled to take effect on Saturday. But it is now temporarily frozen by Alito’s interim orders — known as administrative stays — keeping everything on hold until next Wednesday night while the justices receive further briefing and decide whether to issue a longer stay.

    The anti-abortion medical groups challenging the pill’s approval have until noon on Tuesday to file responses. In a statement Friday, their attorney, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Erin Hawley, called Alito’s stay orders “standard operating procedure” that would give justices “sufficient time to consider the parties’ arguments before ruling.”

    Alito’s move maintains for now the current national patchwork of abortion access, with near-total bans on all forms of abortion in many red states and broad access to both medication abortion and surgical abortion in blue states.

    Alito, a George W. Bush appointee who wrote the court’s decision last year overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing a wave of GOP-led states to impose abortion bans, single-handedly issued the administrative stays on Friday because all emergency appeals from the 5th Circuit are initially directed to him. As is customary with interim orders, he did not elaborate on why he granted the temporary relief. But administrative stays are typically intended only to buy the court time in fast-moving litigation and do not foreshadow the justices’ substantive views.

    The FDA did not immediately comment on the stay orders or how the agency plans to enforce the restrictions if the high court allows them to go into effect.

    Abortion rights groups cheered the stay orders and vowed to keep pressing the court to permanently halt the looming restrictions on the drug. Anti-abortion groups called them disappointing, with one group, Students for Life, accusing the Supreme Court of “playing politics.”

    The legal battle over mifepristone escalated last week when a federal district judge in Texas, Matthew Kacsmaryk, issued an order suspending the approval of mifepristone nationwide and halting the various moves FDA has made since 2016 to broaden access to the drug.

    On Wednesday, a panel of the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit issued a 2-1 ruling putting a hold on the portion of the lower judge’s order that suspended the drug’s approval but allowing the rest of his decision to kick in on Saturday.

    That prompted the Justice Department and Danco, which makes the brand-name version of mifepristone, to turn to the high court for relief. They said that even the 5th Circuit panel’s approach – leaving the drug approved but rolling back expanded access in recent years – would be highly disruptive and could force the company to stop selling and distributing the drug for months.

    Adding to the turmoil is a separate ruling from a federal judge in Washington state, who last week ordered the FDA not to permit any new restrictions on access to mifepristone in 17 states and the District of Columbia.

    [ad_2]
    #Alito #access #abortion #pill #unchanged #days #Supreme #Court #reviews #emergency #appeals
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )