Context: On Tuesday, SCOTUS is scheduled to hear a case involving mifepristone, an abortion drug: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/25/1240282129/mifepristone-supreme-court-fda-medication-abortion-explainer
Not one of those fuckers hold a medical degree and only two are women. SCOTUS should stay in its lane and not be adjudicating this.
Agreed, but actually three of them are women. It’s just that one is Amy Coney Barrett.
Still, I’m curious just how much of an overstepping of bounds the court would be willing to do here, especially since banning abortion seems to be a political death sentence for Republicans.
OMG, how could I have forgotten Amy?!
Maybe because she is forgettable? ;)
Well, SCOTUS is not expected to be an expert on everything it rules on. It’s expected to rule on what it is an expert on (Constitutional law) and that could encompass anything. I think better phrasing would be “SCOTUS needs to gather the opinions of experts in the relevant fields, find the intersections of the Constitution where applicable, and issue a fair ruling.” If the court had to be experts in every field for any issue that came in front of them, we would never get rulings on anything.
