From the Left



Famed lawyer warns of conservative Supreme Court

John Micek on

For Kathryn Kolbert, the current threat to women’s health care could not be more clear: A strengthened conservative majority on the Supreme Court will result in both the Affordable Care Act and Roe v. Wade being overturned.

In the case of the former, that would mean the end of protections for people with preexisting conditions, and the ban on lifetime caps, as well as the end of a provision that allows young people to stay on their parents’ plans up to age 26 - moves that would all disproportionately impact women.

In the case of the latter, the regulation of abortion would be returned to states, where it’s likely that between 18 and 24 states would ban or severely restrict abortion services entirely, she said, adding that access to other important reproductive health services, such as contraception, also would be impacted.

“All the rights we hold dear … are in jeopardy,” Kolbert said during a joint news conference in suburban Philadelphia last week, where she and Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf called on the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate to put the brakes on confirming nominee Amy Coney Barrett until after the election.

In 1992, Kolbert was the lead attorney in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the landmark Supreme Court case that effectively guaranteed the right to abortion, though it did give states the right to regulate the procedure after a fetus was considered “viable,” or able to survive on its own outside the womb.

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin has called Kolbert’s defense of the right to abortion “one of the most audacious litigation strategies in Supreme Court history.” Between 1985 and 1998, Kolbert was involved in every reproductive rights case to be argued before the Supreme Court, according to an official biography.


Pennsylvania’s senior senator, Democrat Bob Casey, of Scranton, has already said he has no plans to meet with Barrett. That leaves Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, who’s publicly reversed himself on the position he took on President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick, federal Judge Merrick Garland. Back then, with 11 months to go before the election, Toomey joined fellow Republicans to say the Senate needed to put off naming a replacement until after the election.

This year, Toomey says moving ahead with Barrett’s nomination is fair game because, unlike 2016, the White House and Senate are both controlled by Republicans, and that Trump should get his pick. It’s a bit of rhetorical sound and fury signifying some epic hypocrisy.

If Republicans manage to ram through Barrett’s nomination before Election Day - or worse, during a lame-duck session in which potentially defeated senators would not have to face the voters - the Indiana jurist could be on the bench in time to rule on the Republican spearheaded challenge to the Affordable Care Act.

Barrett already has said she opposes the law, and once wrote that she believes that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who had previously voted to save the statute, “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning,” when he did so.


swipe to next page
Copyright 2020 John Micek, All Rights Reserved. Credit:



David M. Hitch Chris Britt Signe Wilkinson Milt Priggee Joey Weatherford Scott Stantis