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.
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!
Great pension fund.
On the Chevron piece though. The court, even RBG and other liberal justices, was growing uneasy over how much Chevron expanded regulatory authority. It was clearly not intended for the deference to be as strong as it is today.
I did watch some of the right wing commentators claim what Oliver did was illegal but none of them went into great detail. Laughably, three of them said Trump should prosecute him when he wins.
Let’s hope the bait works.
It wasn't obvious but for now that's what the court of appeal says, waiting for SCOTUS to confirm that in full or change it in some ways.
If it was so obvious and clear SCOTUS would have refused to hear the case wouldn't it?
It's not obvious at all
It may turn out to be true if decided that way but lol at obvious
It’s obvious. There really isn’t anyone serious that thinks acquittal in the Senate prevents a trial/conviction in the courts.
It wasn't obvious but for now that's what the court of appeal says, waiting for SCOTUS to confirm that in full or change it in some ways.
If it was so obvious and clear SCOTUS would have refused to hear the case wouldn't it?
Sometimes the SCOTUS hears cases because the country needs an urgent resolution and a definitive statement from the highest court.
It wasn't obvious but for now that's what the court of appeal says, waiting for SCOTUS to confirm that in full or change it in some ways.
If it was so obvious and clear SCOTUS would have refused to hear the case wouldn't it?
It’s obvious.
It's not obvious at all
It may turn out to be true if decided that way but lol at obvious
Lol what do you teach your students if you don’t understand how the judicial system works
What part of the judicial system is the senate?
It’s obvious. There really isn’t anyone serious that thinks acquittal in the Senate prevents a trial/conviction in the courts.
Of course
It's not obvious at all
It may turn out to be true if decided that way but lol at obvious
We don't even know if the SCOTUS will decide to hear the case. If it does, there is some chance that the SCOTUS will somehow narrow the DC Circuit's reasoning. But there is virtually no chance that the SCOTUS will hold that Trump is protected from prosecution on grounds of double jeopardy or presidential immunity.
The best case scenario for Trump is that he loses 7-2, and a 9-0 opinion against him is infinitely more likely than the Court ruling in his favor. I honestly think that Trump's chances in that case are no better than 1 in 100. The arguments in favor of his position are risible in the extreme.
I used to think it couldn’t be too bad to serve as an adjunct professor at any law school.
2p2 disabused me of that notion. I could end up committing manslaughter because a student couldn’t understand the objective standard or couldnt understand congressional impeachment proceedings are not judicial/criminal proceedings.
Or one that doesn’t understand SCOTUS finds its own precedents binding on principle/tradition, not some kind of rule it’s legally/constitutionally bound to uphold.
I just don’t have the patience. And I would go insane if said student keeps wasting class time insisting he/she is right.
It's not obvious at all
It may turn out to be true if decided that way but lol at obvious
Of course it's obvious. Look for anybody making that argument in the 200 years pre Trump. It's the same as the VP having a huge roll in elections and you don't even have to be a lawyer to convince yourself it's nonsense. People only started making the crazy arguments after Trump hacks needed them to be true.
Of course it's obvious. Look for anybody making that argument in the 200 years pre Trump. It's the same as the VP having a huge roll in elections and you don't even have to be a lawyer to convince yourself it's nonsense. People only started making the crazy arguments after Trump hacks needed them to be true.
+ 1,000,000
A then version of GOP/Maga would have lost their crap if during the disputed presidential election of 2000 between Al Gore and G.W. Bush, if then vice president Al Gore (he was the incumbent vice president at the time) had stood before Congress and read any elector names he wanted and declared himself the next president. But somehow in 2020 Pence magically now had those powers.
Metsandfinsfan, on February 13, 2021, a 2/3 vote was required to uphold the House of Representatives article of impeachment against the former president Donald Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors. The U.S. Senate's vote count was 57 for guilty, and 43 for not guilty.
Refer to U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 117th Congress - 1st Session .
Trump will again be judged by juries within the criminal court of Georgia and again in a District of Columbia federal court. Similar to the U.S. Senate, criminal court juries should consider all the evidence as presented to them and come to an objective decision. Unlike the U.S. Senate vote, criminal courts require unanimous agreement among all of the members of the jury for a guilty verdict to be upheld.
But to Trump's disadvantage, (unlike the U.S. Senate), those juries are not elected officials substantially dependent on their political affiliations. It's been my experience and opinion; U.S. citizens do strive to uphold the oaths they swear to as members of a jury.
Respectfully, Supposn
so hm given that now even the 3 liberal judges said the same i did, are you satisfied? 9-0 that applying the insurrection clause is strictly a federal matter, states have no role in that.
The left want courts to legislate and ignore the constitution when it doesn't fit "what is best" so i doubt he is satisfied
The left want courts to legislate and ignore the constitution when it doesn't fit "what is best" so i doubt he is satisfied
well i meant, satisfied about the fact that it was abudantly clear the application of the insurrection clause is a strictly federal issue.
Now the 3 liberals might have an actual point of law when they claim federal courts as well as congress could apply that clause. But given the application has nationwide effects i think it should be SCOTUS in case.
Anyway aside from that, it's 100% clear now to, i hope, everyone, that disqualification from candidacy because of previous engagement in insurrection is something states have no saying about.
Which btw was a strong doubt of many democrat leaders in many states, as i reported before California did the right thing waiting this out. Many others did the same as well.
so hm given that now even the 3 liberal judges said the same i did, are you satisfied? 9-0 that applying the insurrection clause is strictly a federal matter, states have no role in that.
Actually, you are wrong. The Court held that the states have a role in determining insurrection for state level offices but not federal level offices. So your summary is incorrect. But obviously, in reference to Trump, they held Colorado was unable to keep him from the ballot in the upcoming federal election.
The left want courts to legislate and ignore the constitution when it doesn't fit "what is best" so i doubt he is satisfied
i'd argue the right leaning judges and justices legislate from the bench more than the left these days. "originalism" and "textualism" don't exist anymore. they are just things people on the right try and think about themselves while creating legal rulings out of thin air.
i'd argue the right leaning judges and justices legislate from the bench more than the left these days. "originalism" and "textualism" don't exist anymore. they are just things people on the right try and think about themselves while creating legal rulings out of thin air.
lol this is grotesque.
which decisions of the current scotus, or the previous one, would be legislation from the bench?
lol this is grotesque.
which decisions of the current scotus, or the previous one, would be legislation from the bench?
my comment wasn't only towards scotus. but at scotus the lack of any concept of originalism is my point. they just made a very obvious textually self executing section of an amendment non-self executing because they didn't like the idea of the result. i don't even think the outcome was wrong in terms of real world effect, but it's very obvious that: "No person shall.... But Congress may..." is self executing text.
