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.
Relying on dicta from a Supreme Court concurring opinion is not normally a basis for a decision at the trial level.
Dicta being a comment, observation, or suggestion made by a judge in an opinion that is not necessary to resolve a case.
Joe Biden, in a Monday address calling for sweeping reforms of the US supreme court, said the recent decision granting some immunity to presidents from criminal prosecution makes them a king before the law.
...
Biden said he is proposing a new constitutional amendment that explicitly applies the criminal code to presidents. The conduct of Donald Trump demand legislative changes, he said.
“No other former president has asked for this kind of immunity and none should have been given it,” Biden said. “The president must be accountable to the law … We are a nation of laws, not kings and dictators.”
A constitutional amendment requires two-thirds of both the US House and Senate to agree to it, followed by the government of three-quarters of the states.
Biden also said that the scandals involving supreme court justices have caused public opinion to question the court’s fairness and independence and impeded its mission.
He said: “The supreme court’s current code of conduct is weak and even more frighteningly voluntary.”
Biden called for a binding code of conduct for the supreme court and term limits for justices, noting that the United States was the only western democracy that gives lifetime appointments to its high court.
About time …
If they loved king so much , why did they fight the loyalist so hard ?
Considering how polarized our country is now, I can't see another constitutional amendment being passed in our lifetimes unless it was regarding some massive foreign terrorist attack on the US or something similar
Considering how polarized our country is now, I can't see another constitutional amendment being passed in our lifetimes unless it was regarding some massive foreign terrorist attack on the US or something similar
They probably know this very well, but you have to start somewhere and you have to start the messaging.
The supreme court's decision on presidential immunity represents an enormous power grab by the court, it is basically placing itself as a power behind the throne. And due to the nature of how legal immunity works, the term "throne" in this sense is dangerously literal.
Even in a polarized environment, I suspect most US citizens would agree that the US should not have a supreme court that can hand their favorite presidents more power than king George III ever had. It renders the American Revolutionary War moot. Perhaps sometime in the future you can do something about that, if it is still possible.
Supreme Court hands rare LOSS to Trump.
I guess the question to the Missouri taxpayers is:
who authorized spending time and money to get involved in the
legal issues of a Presidential candidate (who isn't even a citizen of the state)?
SCOTUS with an emergency rule, allowed Virginia to continue to purge non citizens from voting rolls, after a district judge (nominated by Biden) , 4th circuit confirming, previously had interrupted the attempt.
SCOTUS with an emergency rule, allowed Virginia to continue to purge non citizens from voting rolls, after a district judge (nominated by Biden) , 4th circuit confirming, previously had interrupted the attempt.
Correction - they also allowed Virginia to purge citizens from the voting rolls. That was the important part here - no one has a problem with non-citizens being purged.
Democrats are trying to convince Sotomayor to retire from the court at 70 , and fill the seat in the lame duck session before they lose control of presidency + senate, in the offchance she has to retire (or dies) during the next Trump term (which would destroy democrats' chances of getting back a SCOTUS majority for a generation ).
If only someone had convinced RBG that she wasn't immortal. I actually see women wearing shirts celebrating her, not realizing that her hubris destroyed her legacy.
If only someone had convinced RBG that she wasn't immortal. I actually see women wearing shirts celebrating her, not realizing that her hubris destroyed her legacy.
Makes me wonder if Sotomayor has the hubris to step down before Jan to ensure her seat remains securely liberal for years to come
