Dem
51
GOP
49
Actually, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two big cases yesterday. The first centers on a conflict between federal statutes and Idaho law over the performance of emergency abortions. And the second is the Donald Trump ballot eligibility case.
Starting with the abortion case, Idaho's Defense of Life Act forbids virtually all abortions, unless the physician is absolutely certain that the death of the mother is imminent. That's a subjective decision, of course, and doctors who found that their judgment was not in agreement with that of bureaucrats and/or judges—who, one should note, are not medical professionals—would be at risk of steep fines and/or loss of licensure. Needless to say, this makes it nearly impossible to get even a life-saving abortion in Idaho.
Meanwhile, the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act says that emergency rooms must provide life-stabilizing treatment regardless of ability to pay. And the Biden administration has taken the position that the Idaho law is in conflict with the federal law. If so, the federal law would take precedence, of course. An Idaho court already found the Idaho law to be in violation of the state Constitution, but yesterday the Supremes stayed that decision, meaning that Idaho can continue to enforce its statute. SCOTUS will hear arguments in April, and will presumably announce its decision in late June or early July (the usual timetable). The message to pregnant Idaho women who find themselves in life-threatening situations in the next 6 months would appear to be: Tough luck.
And then there is the Trump case. That one will be fast-tracked, with arguments scheduled for Feb. 8. We have much to say about this subject, and will say it in an item later this week. For now, we will just point out that Colorado's primary is on Mar. 5, and Colorado is a vote-by-mail state. So, even if SCOTUS rules overnight, Feb. 9 will not be soon enough, as voters will already have ballots in hand.
The Colorado ruling is stayed, courtesy of the state's Supreme Court, so Trump's name will be on those ballots. The ruling surely has to come down before Super Tuesday, and if it's adverse to Trump, there will undoubtedly be hundreds of thousands of votes for him in Colorado nonetheless, at least some of them cast before the decision is known. That means an adverse decision will disenfranchise some voters. In short, by taking their sweet time, the Court is going to take a situation that is guaranteed to be messy, and make it just a little bit messier. (Z)