Supreme Court Gives Biden Disastrous Decision - Brutal News

Hey ladies and gentlemen, this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America, and the Supreme

Court just pulled a fast one on President Joe Biden and the Democrats

Before we get started, please make sure you like, comment, share, and subscribe

Those little things really help us out, and they help our channel continue to grow

Reporting was that hours before the debate here, what the Biden administration wanted

was a ruling that would have banned emergency abortions in the state of Idaho

However, that's not what they got. The Supreme Court kinda sorta allowed these emergency abortions to continue

These are not abortions where the woman's life is in danger. These are abortions where she might have to have a hysterectomy, or there might be some

medical complications. They're more elective abortions than they sound like when you say emergency

But the Supreme Court did not rule to keep them legal forever

What they did was they said they didn't have the jurisdiction to rule

And then the conservative justices basically wrote out a roadmap for attorneys about how

to get the case back before them, where presumably they'll strike it down

And this infuriated Justice Katonji, who sits on the court and she's Biden's appointee

she wrote her dissent, and it was scathing. And then you see the reporters basically talk about how this was a setup by the Supreme

Court to basically bail Trump out, so he didn't have to talk about this tonight, and so it

wouldn't be an issue for the election this year. It's actually genius if that's what they did

I want you to watch this report on it, and then please give me your opinions in the comments

It did not confirm that it was actually the opinion. Instead, the statement said that the actual formal opinion would be released in due course

Well, it looks like in due course is today. So as we reported yesterday, in this opinion, the court sides with the Biden administration

for now, but this is specific to the state of Idaho. They're saying, look, in the state of Idaho right now, if doctors need to perform abortions

to stabilize a woman in an emergency room setting, they can continue to do that, even

though the state law would require doctors to wait until a woman's life is in danger

But the reason this doesn't really resolve the issue is because this only applies to Idaho

And in her concurrence, Justice Katonji Brown-Jackson, she said, look, this isn't a victory because

you're not answering the question of what doctors are required to do by law now that

you've sort of tossed Roe v. Wade, overturned Roe v. Wade, and tossed this issue down to

the states. So technically, it's a win for the Biden administration in this highly watched abortion case, but

it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Yeah, right. Because you have the Idaho ban, but also 13 other states, right, with the near total abortion

ban, including in Texas. And there's a lawsuit challenging the Texas ban

And so this could end up right back before the high court soon, right? This is precisely Justice Katonji Brown-Jackson's point that she makes in the dissent

She says, we punted today. That's what they did. They granted certiorari the Supreme Court

They took the case several months ago. And now today they're saying, whoops, we messed up

We never should have taken the case back down to the normal course. And what Justice Jackson is saying is we should be able to rule here because federal

law, when it conflicts with state law, should prevail, which would mean broader abortion

rights, broader obligations by doctors to perform emergency surgeries. And Justice Jackson says the result of what we've done here today is we're going to have

inconsistency state to state. We're going to subject the country to ongoing litigation working its way through the federal

district courts, courts of appeals before, I think, and I think Justice Jackson agrees

ultimately will end up back at the Supreme Court. When you have such a square clash between federal law and state law, and the issue is

so fundamental as to when do doctors have to give emergency care to patients, to women

who are pregnant? That's such an important question. There's such a square conflict here

It will end up before the Supreme Court, but not for potential