Latin: "to stand by things decided"
 
 That is the doctrine for US Court precedent.

 The latest Supreme Court decision regarding an abortion law / change is important, but not because of the result of the decision alone.

 
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf


 Chief Justice John Roberts, who dissented on the previous Texas ruling decided to change his stance based off of "stare decisis" or legal precedent.

 "instructs us to treat like cases alike, the Louisiana law burdens women seeking previability abortions to the same extent as the Texas law"


 This means Justice Roberts chose to uphold the standard of US law over  choosing a political stance.  This is exactly what a judge is supposed to do, and as such reduces the impact of things like politicians parading potential Justices names around in their election campaigns.  For instance when Trump said "That will happen, automatically in my opinion" when discussing Roe v Wade and who he will appoint as SC Justices.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-court-justices-to-o...


 The shut-down Texas law was almost identical to the current Louisiana one in question.  This was considered a potential "win" simply because the Supreme Court Justices changed and the balance of political affiliation shifted.  If an identical law passes based off of political affiliation, and not legal structure, we are all in trouble.

 Whether one agrees with the outcome of the decision or not, we should all be happy that law was actually followed over opinion, affiliation and campaign contributions.  

"Comment on why it is a good thing,
When the Feds say something is illegal.
That a State can say it is perfectly OK,
and the Feds do Nothing.
(Like MJ & sanctuary)"


 That's not what I am talking about.  I said agreeing or not agreeing with the judgement is not as important as a Supreme Court Justice maintaining the structure of law.

 I am saying a Supreme Court justice in exclusivity, to exclude any and all other professions, persons, things, laws, situations, or any related judicial or legal position, process or method.

 Specifically and only a Supreme Court Justice, is supposed to follow legal procedure, over... specifically "over" as in to prioritize first, law, over political affiliation.

 Specifically and only "Political Affiliation".

 A Supreme Court Judge is supposed to interpret law over personal or political opinion.


 If a State doesn't want to follow this, then don't and maybe lose the funding etc. associated with such things.  Just like MJ and sanctuary cities, and women's right to vote way back in the day.

"And another great move of putting, your, words in someone else's post.

"... Stop saying masks don't work because of Socialists ...""

 
 Describe to me how I put words into your post here in this thread and only this thread.  I very clearly clarified my post exclusively.

 When I use the words "I am saying" how am I referencing you?

 Or we can stop playing games and pretending that interpreting a phrase is equal to "quoting" a person.


 "Maybe" means exactly that.  Some State defiance results in reduced funding and some do not.

"However he made it quite clear that he's not going to second guess what a State considers to be a 'health law' even if it has no practical purpose. That is the real take home message."

 I do agree with that.


"More important is Gorsuch's leading opinion on the LGBT workplace law"

 This is also an example of putting law over opinion or affiliation.  I also feel it has substantial impact.  

introduce laws that make abortion more difficult or expensive or both, means that it disadvantages Black people into having unwanted pregnancies and this further tips the balance against the white population.

So the ideals behind the founder of Planned Parenthood is well known and understood.

I wonder why white people arent suffering from those numbers of
unwanted pregnancies..