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.
Supreme Court 'openly colluding' with Trump
The one thing I find so difficult to stomach in all of this -
is the self-satisfied, smug, 'you can't touch us', expressions on these men's faces.
It says everything about how they see themselves - not an once of humility or
grace in any of them. Jurors they may be, servants of the constitution, they are not.
The last king that believed in total immunity was separated from his head in 1649.
There is plenty to be concerned about with this Supreme Court, but this video is a disgrace.
Just heard excerpts of the recent SC hearings on the trail.
The main Trump lawyer said that the president may be immune from assassinating his political opponents!
President Biden should immediately order the assassination of that lawyer, seems like that would send a good signal to get the SC back into the real world. If it seems necessary that more is needed, tell the "justices" appointed by Trump that he will have their grandchildren tortured in front of them if they rule that the president can
I’d delete this asap. Mods as well
Unfortunately many people underestimated the partisan ship of the current court. (I didn't.)
Trump could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and at least 4 SC justices would use any excuse they could to let him off.
You clearly haven't been paying attention if you think this is the case. The vote to let Congress see 1/6 documents was 8-1 and every justice has signaled they are completely disinterested in "absolute" immunity that Trump claims.
Trump shoots someone on 5th Avenue for shitz and gigglez, every one of them will say it's a "private act" in the legal construct they seem to be building and allow a conviction to go forward.
You clearly haven't been paying attention if you think this is the case. The vote to let Congress see 1/6 documents was 8-1 and every justice has signaled they are completely disinterested in "absolute" immunity that Trump claims.
Trump shoots someone on 5th Avenue for shitz and gigglez, every one of them will say it's a "private act" in the legal construct they seem to be building and allow a conviction to go forward.
Then why aren't they now laughing the absolute immunity out of the court like they should be doing?
And why won't they say the crimes are all private acts now?
Do you really believe they aren't at least trying to help him stall justice until after the election?
steamraise,
The Supreme Court never rules from the bench during oral arguments.
Can you or anyone explain in like one paragraph why this would be sent back to the lower court? Or direct me if it has been explained earlier in the thread?
I keep hearing this is likely to happen but with no legal explanation why.
Then why aren't they now laughing the absolute immunity out of the court like they should be doing?
And why won't they say the crimes are all private acts now?
Do you really believe they aren't at least trying to help him stall justice until after the election?
By SCOTUS standards... what they said in the oral arguments were the equivalent of laughing absolute immunity out of court.
Can you or anyone explain in like one paragraph why this would be sent back to the lower court? Or direct me if it has been explained earlier in the thread?
I keep hearing this is likely to happen but with no legal explanation why.
The Court could, and probably will, rule that the president has immunity for official acts but not private acts and send the case back to the lower courts to determine in the first instance which allegations involve official acts and which allegations involve private conduct.
The Court could, and probably will, rule that the president has immunity for official acts but not private acts and send the case back to the lower courts to determine in the first instance which allegations involve official acts and which allegations involve private conduct.
That would make sense, but I thought the lower court would have already determined that the charges were all private acts. Did they not rule on that already?
I'll put the question to you. If Roberts wants to overturn Roe, then why hasn't he pushed the court in that direction? He certainly has had opportunities. You act like he is playing some sort of long game, but that's preposterous. If Roberts wanted to overturn Roe, now would be the time. If a Democrat is elected president for the next eight years, you very easily could wind up with a liberal majority on the court.
Roberts is no liberal. But he is concerned with preserving the reputation of the
You may be Nostradamus.
Well you were right though
Roe was a pretty unfounded decision. He knew that and avoided it like the plague. But once it got on the docket there isn't much he could do
Not really. I predicted that Roberts would sway another conservative to his way of thinking. I obviously was wrong about that.
This was the #74 post and was before the death of RBG in September. Roberts became the minority voice and the crazy conservatives had the votes at that time.
This election cycle will tell us if the rest of your prediction comes true but I think Dobbs has been killing the Republicans in the interim.
I assume they take the copout and send this **** back down to the lower courts till after the election
Well you were right though
Roe was a pretty unfounded decision. He knew that and avoided it like the plague. But once it got on the docket there isn't much he could do
Pro choice dropped the ****ing ball by not passing a law in the last 50 whatever years and sacrificing a few weeks to lock up the rights of 99% of the normal abortion time lines.
Pro choice dropped the ****ing ball by not passing a law in the last 50 whatever years and sacrificing a few weeks to lock up the rights of 99% of the normal abortion time lines.
I had thought this for many years, but if this had been done while democrats were in power, wouldn't it just have been scratched out the next time republicans took power? Or do you think they wouldn't have bothered since Roe was still on the books?
Yeah, and obviously because they're killing themselves to help Trump in any way they can. But they still have to have a claimed legal basis.
I just can't imagine how the lower court wouldn't have already determined the charges were for public acts. Did they screw up and miss it? Or some real reason why they couldn't have done that previously?
I also don't understand why it couldn't be continued after the election. Certainly no rule about presidents-elect not being subject to prosecution. And I think am ongoing court case should continue even after inauguration. Maybe they couldn't send the president to prison, but his 4 years could be spent knowing that the day he leaves office he will be sent straight there.
I had thought this for many years, but if this had been done while democrats were in power, wouldn't it just have been scratched out the next time republicans took power? Or do you think they wouldn't have bothered since Roe was still on the books?
You very well be correct but at least they would have made pro life actually try and change it back and judging from every state ballot abortion is on that has gone poorly. I think you get enough republicans who won't stick their neck out to make it not an issue that is winnable.
