Jackson Jambalaya

Do lawyers get double time over a holiday weekend? Triple time? Cha-ching....

History will record nothing was accomplished during the Hearing.

I really should’ve become a lawyer instead of a doctor.

"Do lawyers get double time over a holiday weekend? Triple time? Cha-ching...."

I'm pretty sure the Plaintiff attorneys are pro bono or essentially so. And they are serious lawyers and litigators. I'm going to guess that the justices of the MSSC aren't having quite the 4th of July weekend they expected even just a couple of weeks ago. Judge Halford seems to be an interesting choice so it will be interesting to see if she does something interesting. I mean, apart from finding that since the MSSC plainly said the right to an abortion in Mississippi is protected by the state's Constitution, women have a constitutional right to an abortion in Mississippi.

As an aside, if the fireworks or freakfest you wanted to see the weekend gets rained out or runs into other issues, there will probably be some fireworks AT a freakfest here in the not-too-distant future.

To paraphrase a long-deceased wise old Mississippi lawyer and legal scholar (back when Mississippi had such as that) who was paraphrasing others: those who would beseech Lady Justice to bestow the favor of her worldly and unfaltering wisdom would do well to keep in mind that she has the heart and soul of a poet. In more modern terms, don't go around demanding shit you just ain't ready to handle...fate will probably let you have it. Those demanding an encore of "Gimme Some Certiorari (and Make It Hurt)," the cover version by Johnny and The Divided Court, not the original version, as but one recent example.

Hail the Liberal NWO !!!

@6:16

That’s the dumbest comment I, a lawyer, have ever read.

Will a Constitutional Convention be called? Enlighten me, how else can this become the law of Mississippi . Since Dobbs was based On a law that was unconstitutional in Mississippi, does this bring into question the SC ruling ?

8:52. In a word, no. The Dobbs case was strictly an issue about Roe and the federal constitution. Federal court decisions concerning the federal constitution are not binding on State courts unless State constitutions, statutes or decisions are in direct conflict. But even there, if a State legal provision offers greater benefits or protections to citizens, that provision will not be held to violate the "supremacy clause" of the federal constitution. The Fordice decision every one is having fun with did nothing more than engraft the reasoning of Roe and apply it to a said-to-be STATE constitutional right to privacy. A decision by the federal supreme court about the federal constitution does not in and of itself affect a State constitution. We still have a federal system of government despite the best efforts of some to destroy that, at least in practice. However, it is hard to see how the State abortion right, based wholly on Roe, will survive now that Roe has been overruled. There is certainly no basis outside of engrafting Roe onto the State constitution to support the notion that there is a Mississippi constitutional right to abortion.

@8:50
The NWO is far from liberal. It is the most corporate-fascist plutocracy you can ever imagine.

"Since Dobbs was based On a law that was unconstitutional in Mississippi, does this bring into question the SC ruling ?"

We reach the heart of the situation. Dobbs didn't rule upon the Mississippi Constitution (or Fordice), it simply said that the US Constitution didn't protect nor prohibit abortion and the states had the right and responsibility to decide the abortion issue within their borders. The MSSC had already ruled on the "right" issue - predating and unrelated in any way to Dobbs - using its sole discretion as the interpreter of the Mississippi Constitution, via Fordice, when found the right to an abortion was protected by the state's constitution. The SCOTUS isn't concerned whether the MSSC rulings about the MS constitution are what it would rule, only (if asked and accepted) whether the MSSC ruling in question is or is not at odds with the US Constitution. Since the SCOTUS said it was up to the states, the MSSC finding that abortion is a protected right under the state constitution, that's that for the SCOTUS (and in no conflict with Dobbs). Folks can parse it any way they want to try, but for now, infringing on the right to an abortion is prohibited under the Mississippi Constitution, as declared by the final arbiter, the MSSC.

The bottom line is that the SCOTUS said it was a "states' rights" question and the MSSC has already answered that question by stating outright that abortion is a protected right.

So it did, 9:40, but whether that decision in 1998 will survive the death of Roe remains to be seen. We have to bear in mind that the 1998 MSSCT decision in this regard was based wholly upon Roe, and all the MSSCT did was cut and paste it onto the State constitution. I wouldn't be so surprised to see the MSSCT say (with two dissents) that the cut and paste job was only as good as the thing cut and pasted. That said, I fully expect the chancery court to recognize the Fordice decision and find that the "trigger" law violates the STATE constitution. I don't see how the chancery court cannot do this, and I only hope that Lynn Fitch's crew has the wit to make a careful record of its argument in the chancery court. There will be an appeal, which will be expedited. Then we will see. In any case, it ought to be a priority for the legislature to propose an amendment to the STATE constitution to deal with this issue once and for all as a matter of STATE law.

"There is certainly no basis outside of engrafting Roe onto the State constitution to support the notion that there is a Mississippi constitutional right to abortion."

Your analysis is thoughtful but it is wrong from a legal standpoint. The MSSC didn't rule that because of Roe or any other SCOTUS ruling, or the US Constitution, or anything else, its interpretation of the MS Constitution and its ruling must therefore conform to something extemporaneous and superseding to the Mississippi Constitution, it interpreted the MS Constitution as protecting the right to an abortion:

"The right to choose to have an abortion, like many other medical procedures, is included in the right to autonomous bodily integrity. While we do not find the Mississippi Constitution to provide an explicit right to an abortion, abortion is protected within the penumbras of the right to privacy."

Therefore, until the MSSC overrules Fordice or an amendment to the MS Constitution passes, the right to an abortion is a right in Mississippi under its own constitution, as found by the final arbiter, the MSSC. We can speculate on what might happen or what this or that MS court(s) might do, but what the MSSC said is clear.

Since the Dobbs case was based on a nullity, the Supreme Court must vacate their ruling.

There must be a justicible case before the court, and the Supreme Court will have to find another vehicle.

9:40 is correct. If it’s not a US Constitutional right, it’s left to the states. There are only so many things that are Constitutional rights. They are enumerated. That’s how our federal government was founded.

9:40. The MSSCT did so in 1998, totally relying on Roe. We'll see whether the MSSCT continues to hold that as a matter of State constitutional law in light of Roe's demise.

I think a couple of jurist commented and they are saying Abortion is legal in Mississippi and it will be for the foreseeable future. How can this happen?

Fordice relied on Roe? You sure?

My goodness the legal arguments in the comments are very impressive! But, you've forgotten to notice the "elephant in the living room".
The judiciary has been politicized to the extent that even the Supreme Court ( see Thomas and Gorsuch) have just put myths and facts not in evidence into their opinions. They've thrown precedent out the window.
They are about to , no doubt, make the worst gerrymandering legal.
And, you seriously think this decision will be based on law and facts in evidence?
You tolerated the erosion of ethics in your profession for decades. Now you'll pay the piper. Your legal skill is useless. It's now your political contribution and fanny kissing abilities will determine your success or failure.
If you adopt an "end justifies the means" philosophy, you best be sure you know what "the ending" is!

Fordice did not rely on Roe. Just read it, assuming you can.

So, as an unintended consequence, while Lynn Fitch is celebrating the demise of Roe, based, she claims, on her filing...isn't it ironic that one consequence is remembering (thanks to *Fordice*) that women in Mississippi still have the right to abortion?

Wait! WHAT?

The old adage 'Be careful what you ask for' has never been more apparent, unless it was when the Madison Mayor forced the court to ignore the voice of the people as relates to medical marijuana...while nobody realized this would endanger the state law regarding voter I.D.

I could see the Court stringing down the trigger law but upholding the 15 week ban under Fordice. I'm no predicting it will happen, just saying I could see it.

Not only is Fordice _NOT_ based upon Roe, it pointedly uses Mississippi case law [e.g., "As this Court stated in Young v. Jackson, 572 So.2d 378 (Miss. 1990), 'It requires little awareness of personal prejudice and human nature to know that, generally speaking, no aspects of life is [sic] more personal and private than those having to do with one's ... reproductive system.' Young, 572 So.2d at 382."] and that of other states to make with particularity a "states' rights" argument/defense of a woman's right to "an abortion" (sometimes "prior to viability" is used, sometimes not). Such a "state law/rights" approach is perfectly in-line with Dobbs, not Roe.

Moreover, Fordice's most significant approval of Federal/SCOTUS law wasn't Roe, it was Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992) ["Casey," in Fordice], in which the MSSC stated,

"[W]e adopt the well-reasoned decision in Casey, applying the undue burden standard to analyze laws restricting abortion. "

As an aside, from Casey:

"Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice Thomas join, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

[...] The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting."

Again, the MSSC didn't say, "Based upon Roe...," or "Because Roe forces us to...," "...we find abortion is a Federally protected right and we must allow it..." The MSSC found and stated plainly that the Mississippi Constitution protected the right to "an abortion." While it did cite with approval Casey and other SCOTUS opinions, the MSSC - not the SCOTUS - is the final word on interpreting the Mississippi Constitution. The SCOTUS can find that the MSSC's opinion is at odds with the US Constitution, but it cannot and will not substitute its interpretation of a state's constitution for the interpretation by a state's supreme court (or whatever entity is the state's interpreter of its own constitution).

"I could see the Court stringing down the trigger law but upholding the 15 week ban under Fordice."

A resolution none of the combatants particularly like but most could grudgingly accept is a hallmark of a fair settlement. Since it would be about the situation had this shitstorm not been created by certain parties, Lady Justice's poetic soul might move her to bestow her favor upon it. My guess is that it will take a bit more given up by the anti-abortion side, but at least in concept I think you've about called it.

Why are we assuming that 'earlier' state court rulings remain in place AFTER the Federal Supremes just 'left it to the states'. The chatter thus far, nationally, has been that states must NOW rule within their own borders.

What makes you people so sure that Fordice or any other old rulings in various states will still be consequential....instead of doing what the US Supremes suggested...which is to saddle up their individual ponies and make new law (going forward).

And, along the same lines, what if the Federal Supremes were to rule that states, not the feds, have a right to form and enforce their own sodomy laws?...remember when federal, not long ago,law struck down Mississippi and Alabama's law against rear-entry? Given this possible scenario, that could again become valid law. Extrapolating this out further, this might be the way to preclude in-migration of Californians.

Damn, 10:48. I can't even respond that. I suggest an entry-level course in government.

12:04 a.m. wrote: "There are only so many things that are Constitutional rights. They are enumerated. That’s how our federal government was founded."

What about the 9th Amendment? (It's number nine in the Bill of Rights)

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"What makes you people so sure that Fordice or any other old rulings in various states will still be consequential"

I can only speak for myself but at the very latest, pre-law classes or about a week into 1L, and almost certainly well before either. It's been a while. I cannot tell you specifically the moment I learned that 2+2=4 either.

As to "new law," you may be confusing statutes with case law. The state legislatures are free to pass any statutes they wish, subject to challenge. In Mississippi, as it currently stands, while the legislature is free to pass anything it wishes, Fordice is the (current) final word on "abortion" being a constitutionally-protected right. As such, anything that arguably runs afoul of that would be subject to challenge, which is exactly what happened.

As to abortion or anything else, case law from 1998 isn't "old," but even if it were, law from the early 1800s is still good and cited with moderate regularity both in argument/briefing and by the appellate courts. For example, Fordice contains, "This Court in 1898, stated, ''An infant in the mother's womb, not being in rerum natura, is not considered as a person who can be killed within the description of murder... .'' State v. Prude, 76 Miss. 543, 544, 24 So. 871, 871 (1899) (citations omitted)," along with other Mississippi citations from the 1920s, 30s, 40s, etc. Many citations to more-recent law could be replaced or supplemented with citation to prior precedent because that is precisely how Federal and Mississippi law works - Google "stare decisis" and "string cite/citation" (for the baby lawyers, don't do it except in rare circumstances) for more information. For example, many contract and jurisdictional principals are supportable with 100s of citations over 100-plus years but most writers pick a recent case to signal current law. If it is a less-encountered principal/argument, an early case might be added to the citation to demonstrate "long settled." With interpretation of the Constitution, age doesn't matter - the last word on the subject is the law, whether from 1822, 1922, or 2022. But...

The viable "age" challenge to "old" precedent, that it is so far afield from the general consensus of current thinking as to be rendered obsolete, doesn't exist here. The vast majority (as in "essentially all") of the people in Mississippi and the US have not migrated since 1998 to a single, largely similar view that all or most all abortion should be banned. It may even be true that a simple majority support the right to abortions "on demand" up to a certain number of weeks. Either way, there is no basis to argue "age" has rendered Fordice offensive by its obsolesce.

Put it on the ballot

That’s what they fear 7:44 .