The Supreme Court discussion thread
So it now seems absolutely certain that the court will end up hearing an abortion related case sometime in the future. How should they adjudicate these new laws?
FWIW, I've always thought that the decision in Roe is worth reading, because it makes an interesting legal and philosophical argument in support of the compromise the justices reached, attempting to balance the the constitutional "right to privacy" which entails women's right to self-determination and the "legitimate state interest" in regulating abortion, e.g.
The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus.... As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.
This balancing of interests leads them to make the viability of the fetus an inflection point with regard to when the state may legitimately assert an interest in requiring that the life of the fetus be protected.
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Does the compromise outlined in Roe still make sense?
I also think there's probably room for a discussion about the role of the courts more generally, here, and particularly the way they are becoming politicized simply because the appointment process is so heavily politicized, i.e. the refusal to hold a vote on Merrick Garland, the Kavanaugh hearings, etc. But then one of the criticisms of Roe itself is that the compromise they reached might have been more appropriately reached via a legislative process, rather than by the courts. I've always thought that would have been optimal, but then I would not have traded the "optimal" legislative process for abortion being illegal the last 50 years either. So I am a supporter of Roe.
Any thoughts on the live hearing yesterday about the Colorado case?
I have only listened to the arguments/questions posed to Jason Murray through its conclusion, but I was very surprised that Kagan seemed to gut him, followed by Jackson.
Any thoughts on the live hearing yesterday about the Colorado case?
I have only listened to the arguments/questions posed to Jason Murray through its conclusion, but I was very surprised that Kagan seemed to gut him, followed by Jackson.
The tl;Dr is that it's going to be 7-2 or 8-1 that Colorado can't decide if someone is an insurrectionist on its own.
Other details matter and they are still TBD, but the idea that a single state can claim someone is an insurrectionist without something that compels all other states to do the same is a legal joke and will be annihilated and even Kagan made it clear it is not what the constitution implies.
If only the 6 would have been like the very possible 3 leading to a 9-0 vote when it came to abortion.
Just listened to the full live stream and my guess is 8-1
Could be 9-0. Jackson seemed to painfully agree with kagan
The tl;Dr is that it's going to be 7-2 or 8-1 that Colorado can't decide if someone is an insurrectionist on its own.
Other details matter and they are still TBD, but the idea that a single state can claim someone is an insurrectionist without something that compels all other states to do the same is a legal joke and will be annihilated and even Kagan made it clear it is not what the constitution implies.
So who decides if he committed an insurrection or not
That will absolutely not be the basis of the ruling.
because the 14a (that section) was written explicitly to disallow states to elect ex confederate insurrectionists to congress, so it was an explicit impingement on state rights, as Roberts said immediately when the discussion started.
disregard POTUS for a moment, think an house district, if trump is an insurrectionist no state can allow his candidacy for Congress anywhere right? no matter what the state court thinks right? a federal constitution provision doesn't allow that, so it must be a federal entity to tell you who is allowed and who is not under the 14a
Does that assume there is a federal entity around to do so
Is there one right now?
Does that assume there is a federal entity around to do so
Is there one right now?
It's not clear what it should be which is why we need SCOTUS to answer that, hopefully they will clarifi with this decision what exactly will constitute insurrection and disqualify for candidacy in the 50 states.
Remember the law stays even well after Trump is just a bad collective memory
Trump was acquitted on charges of insurrection in February 2021 by the senate
https://www.justice.gov/file/19386/downl...
We have been asked to consider whether a former President may be indicted and tried for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate.1 In 1973, in a district court filing addressing a related question in the criminal tax evasion investigation of Vice President Agnew, the Department took the position that acquittal by the Senate creates no bar to criminal prosecution. A 1973 Office of Legal Counsel (“ OLC” ) memorandum discussing the same question adopted the same position. As far as we are aware, no court has ever ruled on this precise issue. During the impeachment of Judge Alcee Hastings in the late 1980s, though, a district court and both the House and Senate passed on the related question whether an acquittal in a criminal prosecution should bar an impeachment trial for the same offenses. Each of those bodies concluded that the Constitution permits an official to be tried by the Senate for offenses of which he has been acquitted in the courts. Although we recognize that there are reasonable arguments for the opposing view, on balance, and largely for some of the same structural reasons identified in the United States’s filing in the Agnew case and the 1973 OLC memorandum, we think the better view is that a former President may be prosecuted for crimes of which he was acquitted by the Senate. Our conclusion concerning the constitutional permissibility of indictment and trial following a Senate acquittal is of course distinct from the question whether an indictment should be brought in any particular case.
because the 14a (that section) was written explicitly to disallow states to elect ex confederate insurrectionists to congress, so it was an explicit impingement on state rights, as Roberts said immediately when the discussion started.
disregard POTUS for a moment, think an house district, if trump is an insurrectionist no state can allow his candidacy for Congress anywhere right? no matter what the state court thinks right? a federal constitution provision doesn't allow that, so it must be a fede
Are you sure you listened to the oral arguments from the Trump v. Anderson case?
That's pretty ridiculous and i think the Supreme Court would rule differently
A politicized SC maybe .
But senate ruling as nothing to do with real law …
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/const....
As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed
I’m surprise ( sarcastic) u support a judicial system like China where legal Justice is often decided by politicians interest instead of true law ….
By using the word ridiculous probably means you are in favour of president trump should have full immunity too because he told u so ..
It's not what i support i believe it is what the constitution supports under impeachment
This is what I was addressing too .
Even if he was aquitted by a partisan senate from impeachment or w.e else, he still could be judge by a court of law ….
U know real judicial court of law , like the 2 passages I highlighted u .
This past Sunday's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver was great; all about the SC.
27 days left for Clarence Thomas to take John's million dollar a year (plus a 2 million+ dollar coach) offer!
This past Sunday's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver was great; all about the SC.
27 days left for Clarence Thomas to take John's million dollar a year (plus a 2 million+ dollar coach) offer!
Haven't seen it, but will chip in to comment that Oliver was definitely one of our better exports. All his in depth pieces are fire.
This past Sunday's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver was great; all about the SC.
27 days left for Clarence Thomas to take John's million dollar a year (plus a 2 million+ dollar coach) offer!
I have no idea what the story is but do u mean John Oliver offer to pay 1 million for him to retires from SC ?
1 million per year.
Plus a signing bonus of a motor home valued over 2 million.
