The 9th Circuit allegedly selects its panels randomly, but challenges by critics to its methodology have gone unanswered; McCormack v. Herzog was written by a judge whose decision could have been predicted the moment he got the assignment. His decisions on civil rights, prisoner rights and defendant’s rights are routinely foregone conclusions. An abortion case, like this one, was already decided regardless of the issue. Of course he is not the only judge with a one track mind, but on abortion-unquestionable.
For some reason the plaintiff, who self induced an abortion, filed her complaint against the prosecuting attorney rather than the state of Idaho. Very unusual.
Idaho had previously lost an earlier abortion case with the same plaintiff, and the prospect of the 9th Circuit panel changing its mind in this case a foregone conclusion; McCormack v. Heidman, 694 F.3d 1004 (2012). That case was also written by the same predictable judge as well as the instant case of McCormack v. Herzog.
There is little point in summarizing the facts. The case rests on a judicial interpretation of Idaho state law restricting abortion under certain statutory conditions, and the 9th Circuit panel adopted the usual “unreasonable burden on women” routine to vitiate the statute. The 9th Circuit had also previously found an Arizona statute imposing limitations on abortion unenforceable on the same grounds. Strangely, another predictable judge wrote that opinion; Isaacson v. Horne, 716 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir).
The 9th Circuit will prevent enforcement of any abortion statute written by a state legislature. Federal court review of legislation written by sovereign states is common-and wrong. Roe v. Wade, one of the worst decisions ever written, barren of precedent, inventing a 14th Amendment issue, usurping the right of every state in the country to enact its own laws.
42 U.S.C. 1983, the statute invoked in this case, is increasingly the formula used to allege violation of civil rights. The statute enables the 9th Circuit and other federal courts to rule on state cases alleging violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment; Due Process; Equal Protection; Eighth Amendment; & First Amendment. Given the unlimited judicial interpretation of Constitutional law, particularly in the 9th Circuit, the boundless variety of decisions in these cases emerged. The “liberty” interest of the 14th Amendment invented by the Supreme Court is intangible, subjective and abstract. and The decision on abortion should be determined by voters in a democracy instead of three tenured federal judges imposing personal policy decisions. As in this case.