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.
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 roe was on the books so it would have been unconstitutional for them to pass it at that time
But when is the last time the Republicans had a veto proof super majority
Obama said when he campaigned it was priority number 1. He had the super majority for 72 days but decided to push the issue down the road
10th amendment, regulating abortion isn't an enumerated power of the federal government.
According to the actual constitution only something which is explicitedly, expressedly allowed to the federal government can be done by it, everything else is strictly a state matter.
And even if a lot of previous courts close to annihilated this principle, this court finally recognizes it transparently, Dobbs makes it very clear.
Which btw is why even a federal abortion BAN would be completly unconstitutional and people on the constitutional right are trying to tell that to the theocratic right
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blo...
(here they go the 14a route but i think the 10a is cleaner)
'Stop the Steal' symbol at Justice Alito's house.
An upside-down flag, adopted by Trump supporters contesting the Biden victory,
flew over Justice Samuel Alito's front lawn as the Supreme Court was considering an election case.
In most countries, hanging the NATIONAL FLAG WRONGLY OR UPSIDE DOWN IS A CHARGEABLE OFFENCE.
For once i agree with pointless
They are actually happy Roe got overturned too. It gives them something to run on
dems are scum!
Yeah roe was on the books so it would have been unconstitutional for them to pass it at that time
But when is the last time the Republicans had a veto proof super majority
Obama said when he campaigned it was priority number 1. He had the super majority for 72 days but decided to push the issue down the road
case in point
'Stop the Steal' symbol at Justice Alito's house.
An upside-down flag, adopted by Trump supporters contesting the Biden victory,
flew over Justice Samuel Alito's front lawn as the Supreme Court was considering an election case.
In most countries, hanging the NATIONAL FLAG WRONGLY OR UPSIDE DOWN IS A CHARGEABLE OFFENCE.
He blamed it on his wife, lol.
This seals my opinion that he should be impeached, along with Clarence Thomas.
Just owning the libs in the neighborhood.
"A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody, ought not be trusted by anybody."
- Thomas Paine
Funniest part of Kid Rock's video is a shotgun is taking out all the cans from camera right.
Wonder how many takes it took before they realized Mr. Kid can't hit a house at 20 paces.
Justice Alito dumped Bud Light stock during MAGA boycott.
Just owning the libs in the neighborhood.
"A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody, ought not be trusted by anybody."
- Thomas Paine
Funniest part of Kid Rock's video is a shotgun is taking out all the cans from camera right.
Wonder how many takes it took before they realized Mr. Kid can't hit a house at 20 paces.
Justice Alito dumped Bud Light stock during MAGA boycott.
Not sure how this is an issue? Did Kid Rock call him before he shot up the Bud Light cans ?
Oh right he is a Trump selection so that what makes it bad
Alito was a Bush tapping
Second flag for Justice Alito
This time, it was the “Appeal to Heaven” flag, which, like the
inverted U.S. flag, was carried by rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6
“Appeal to Heaven” flag flew at the Alito home in the summer of 2023 — around the time
the Supreme Court was considering whether Jan. 6 rioters could be prosecuted for obstruction.
“That flag is not merely another January 6 signifier but also rooted in John Locke’s
‘appeal to heaven,’ meaning ‘a responsibility to rebel, even use violence, to overthrow unjust rule.’”
Amazing. I wonder why this is just becoming known now? Even with my low opinion of Alito, I didn't realize he was a Traitors supported the violent overthrow of the US government.
When I became a federal employee, I had to take an oath that I had never supported such action. Is that required for induction to the Supreme Court?
"why would leftist media time the release of information damaging to the right for the election year even if it happened before" is a question that we will never be able to answer, I am afraid.
Sorry, I don't believe that leftist media conspired to hide this news for a year.
Seriously, we have two SC justices that want a fascist state, two more that probably won't fight it, a wild card with Roberts. That's pretty scary.
Add that to a guy that has a pretty good chance of being our next president that has made it crystal clear he wants to be dictator. And, he'll flood every powerful position he can to try to make that happen. And, a senate that wants nothing more than to keep him in power.
I think ultimately we'll survive this, but it's going to be rough going if he wins.
For the lucioms, washoes, and babas of the world. You think you want this, but it won't turn out well. It never has and it never will.
Seriously, we have two SC justices that want a fascist state, two more that probably won't fight it, a wild card with Roberts. That's pretty scary.
Add that to a guy that has a pretty good chance of being our next president that has made it crystal clear he wants to be dictator. And, he'll flood every powerful position he can to try to make that happen. And, a senate that wants nothing more than to keep him in power.
I think ultimately we'll survive this, but it's going to be rough going if h
If you don't understand yet that Gorsuch is possibly the person in the court that will fight actually fascism the most (actual violence by the state that violates actual constitutional rights), please read any of his opinions again.
If instead you want to keep calling fascism stuff you dislike then well, dunno what to say to that
the ironing is delicious
typically for a biased court that operates under political preferences and not the actual law, according to some "experts", 9-0 in favor of the democrat position (which is the legally correct one)
ofc some people won't change the obscene attempt to delegitimize the court conservative members , but at least rational moderates can know who is in good faith and who isn't
That's good news, but it doesn't preserve access to those drugs.
Some states are making it very difficult to get them, even though si least one of the two is needed to treat health conditions having nothing to do with abortion or even pregnancy.
And this doesn't even prevent someone else from arguing the same thing. It just means that the people bringing the suit had no adverse effects from the actions of the FDA so they didn't have the right to bring the case. Rejecting the suit for standing is the least definitive way the SC could have decided the case.
It certainly doesn't show that none of the justices are extremely biased, which they definitely are.
typically for a biased court that operates under political preferences and not the actual law, according to some "experts", 9-0 in favor of the democrat position (which is the legally correct one)
ofc some people won't change the obscene attempt to delegitimize the court conservative members , but at least rational moderates can know who is in good faith and who isn't
I'm not sure if it's the Democratic position. This is the third time that the Supreme Court has struck down completely loopy standing cases from the 5th circuit. I mean it is kind of illegitimate that the case made it to the Supreme Court in the first case. How does a case that a 1st year law student can tell should be tossed make it through two rounds of appeals by people who are supposedly objective?
I'm not sure if it's the Democratic position. This is the third time that the Supreme Court has struck down completely loopy standing cases from the 5th circuit. I mean it is kind of illegitimate that the case made it to the Supreme Court in the first case. How does a case that a 1st year law student can tell should be tossed make it through two rounds of appeals by people who are supposedly objective?
Do we know the votes for certiorari?
And if a court of appeal makes a disastrous mistake it's good SCOTUS intervenes before other courts of appeal rule on similar matters to the contrary.
The country needs proper answers asap when it's not close constitutionally
