Is there the beginnings of a split among the conservative Justices?

According to Linda Greenhouse, in today’s New York Times   there appears to be a discernible split in the Supreme Court conservative camp. Greenhouse argues persuasively that the last two positions taken by the courts’ conservative justices indicate that Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas have become quite frustrated with Roberts and Kavanaugh’s most recent stances.

If true, the left can let out a sigh of relief at least for the short term.
 The ACA ruling by the Texas judge means that the case will be wending its way to SCOTUS in the near future. To consider that the five conservative justices do not currently see eye to eye means that there is hope out there on the horizon yet for Obamacare and the millions of Americans praying for its preservation.

When a case comes up to the Supreme Court to be considered for a review, at least four justices have to say yes, the case has merit and should receive a review by the Supreme Court.. before it will be officially reviewed. A case involving Planned Parenthood (PP)  in which  two red states wanted to make PP ineligible as a provider for Medicaid reimbursement had been challenged. Five lower courts had ruled that the red states were acting unlawfully to deny patients coverage through PP.. Only one judge agreed with the red states position so it was sent up to the Supreme Court for possible review.

The fact that the Supreme Court refused to review the case meant that one, the case did not get four votes needed to review the case and second,. that the case reverted to the lower courts majority position and therefore was deemed unlawful in both states.. Thus Medicaid patients in those red states may still choose Planned Parenthood as the health provider to use with their Medicaid dollars.

Justice Thomas took particular umbrage that Roberts and Kavanugh chose not to go along with the other three conservative justices. He even went so far as saying that Roberts and Kavanaugh were afraid of negative public opinion, Since  even though abortion was not involved in the case, whenever PP is sued, people automatically link it with the abortion issue. Thomas’s written dissent suggests that both Roberts and  Kavanaugh shied away from reviewing the case re PP because the abortion issue would surely have been raised. .  

No one really knows why they demurred. Perhaps Roberts feared that the Kavanaugh hearing significantly  impugned the reputation of the entire court system and did not want more controversy to envelope the court so soon after Kavanaugh took his seat.

 He no doubt was chagrined at the intensity of the battle surrounding the Kavanaugh hearings and how it broke down along party lines. Trump’s attacks against federal judges prompted a quick and strong rebuttal from Roberts as well.  Robert  takes his mantle of Chief Justice seriously. He wants to protect the reputation of the Roberts Court as much as he can. He does not want his court to be tarnished any further as awaits the inexorable arrival of Roe v.Wade.

Kavanaugh’s refusal to vote yes to hear the PP case remains a mystery. Greenhouse suggests that Kavanaugh realizes that Roberts is feeling isolated – being attacked on both the right and the left and needs a friend. Another reason could be that Kavanaugh wants to remain in the shadows for a while until  many Americans forget about the display during the hearings of his non-judicial temperament and  thus complete lack of fitness for the office.

Either way, the left can celebrate this fissure in the conservative block of Supreme Court Justices. Lets hope the split persists and that the justices on the conservative side  continue to grow further apart. A yawning divide between the two would be one of the best gift that Santa could deliver the left next week.. 


Enjoy the article. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/opinion/abortion-planned-parenthood-supreme-court.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront