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.
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
This isn't responsive to my post though. The 5th circuit court didn't make a mistake, neither did the original appeals. They're done the same thing over and over again, but only for specific clients and not for others. Why?
do you agree with the case being heard and getting a clean 9-0 against, or you think it would have been proper not to hear it?
I think it is fine and (not especially unusual) for the SCOTUS to take a case when the ramifications of the Circuit decision are significant and the SCOTUS believes that the Circuit Court got it wrong.
The appellate courts seem to be approving of wildly impossible theories of standing and harms when it comes to conservative parties but don't seem to be taking up the same cases for liberal parties and they have done it multiple times. Once could be construed at a mistake. Multiple times is a pattern. The question is, if judges are supposed to be objective, calling balls and strikes, without regard to politics or party, do these judges seem to be not doing that?
The appellate courts seem to be approving of wildly impossible theories of standing and harms when it comes to conservative parties but don't seem to be taking up the same cases for liberal parties and they have done it multiple times. Once could be construed at a mistake. Multiple times is a pattern. The question is, if judges are supposed to be objective, calling balls and strikes, without regard to politics or party, do these judges seem to be not doing that?
Judges aren't necessarily all objective. There can be a pattern of trying to stretch the law to achieve political outcomes.
That's what leftists judges do BY DESIGN TRANSPARENTLY every single time they have the chance to be clear, that's their explicit judicial ideology. That trying to achieve a social justice outcome from the bench is always moral, and an imperative, the law can be damned. And they have shown it like, now, again, 3 votes to allow the ATF to make up the law because they think that would reduce gun deaths.
Republicans don't do it nearly as much especially at the SCOTUS level but clearly they do it sometimes, and the 5th court of appeal might be doing it more than usual for republicans sure.
What's your objection? when your enemies do it all the times and it worked for decades to rape the constitution beyond recognition building a society that reflects leftists anticonstitutional values, it's hard to resist doing it yourself sometimes.
But... 6 out of 6 of the purported "extremists" in SCOTUS said well no guys, we don't play the same horrific, nation-destroying game the left has played for 60+ years, we want to win by playing according to the rules.
Your paranoia and political extremist views certainly poison your view of the court system (and the healthcare, political parties, individual freedoms and role of govt institutions). Courts try to resolve ever growing complex issues that require laws and rights to be viewed in new ways. Just because four morons on the supreme court believe in strict scrutiny (only when it suits them) it doesn’t mean the rest of our court system has to act like we live in 1776 in order to provide justice.
Who cares about all fundamental constitutional principles like enumerated rights and division of power, we will find "new (leftist) ways" to achieve leftist outcomes in the penumbra of the constitution.
Judges aren't necessarily all objective. There can be a pattern of trying to stretch the law to achieve political outcomes.
That's what leftists judges do BY DESIGN TRANSPARENTLY every single time they have the chance to be clear, that's their explicit judicial ideology. That trying to achieve a social justice outcome from the bench is always moral, and an imperative, the law can be damned. And they have shown it like, now, again, 3 votes to allow the ATF to make up the law because they think th
It's so naive to think that judicial activism is mostly the province of one side or the other of the political spectrum.
It's so naive to think that judicial activism is mostly the province of one side or the other of the political spectrum.
I strongly disagree, there isn't anything passed by rightwing scotus decisions in the last 60+ years that even comes close to the egregiously wrongly decided roe v wade or the even worse long series of abuses of the commerce clause that completly warped the power relationship between the federal government and states in a way that goes contrary to the spirit and letter of the constitution.
I mean leftist judges for a while even came up with the completly insane idea that the death penalty was against the federal constitution . Comon, it's not even close. 5-4 with 5 different opinions on why it was proper to put a moratorium on the death penalty in all the country. One of the most inane shitshows in american political history, a farce.
Leftist judges in Korematsu burnt the federal constitution to actual ashes as well. And no a state of war does NOT justify that. Strict scrutiny lol.
Burger is possibly the "most wrong ever" scotus judges though, always on the wrong side of the law, ultra radical leftist when it was agains the constitution to do so, and cultural conservative when it was .... against the constitution to do so lol (Bowers v. Hardwick)
I mean i get you maybe dislike Citizen United but there isn't even a comparison to make on legislation from the bench, the left did it so much more often and with so much bigger implications is hard to understand why you want to claim it didn't, in the last 60-70 years.
I mean leftists themselves praise the Burger court to this day exactly because of that.
The leftists lost Korematsu, my dude.
Who cares about all fundamental constitutional principles like enumerated rights and division of power, we will find "new (leftist) ways" to achieve leftist outcomes in the penumbra of the constitution.
Who cares what the founding fathers meant about the 2nd amendment, 75 years before the Gatling gun. I donÂ’t think asking what they would do about ak47s, hand grenades and drones firing missiles gives you the answers to such modern day issues.
Judges aren't necessarily all objective. There can be a pattern of trying to stretch the law to achieve political outcomes.
That's what leftists judges do BY DESIGN TRANSPARENTLY every single time they have the chance to be clear, that's their explicit judicial ideology. That trying to achieve a social justice outcome from the bench is always moral, and an imperative, the law can be damned. And they have shown it like, now, again, 3 votes to allow the ATF to make up the law because they think th
Seems like judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder.
A federal court in Texas that has become a favored destination for conservatives suing to block President Joe Biden's agenda on Monday adopted a new rule that would automatically pause decisions by judges to transfer cases to other jurisdictions.
A majority of judges on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas approved a rule that would stay for 21 days any decisions to transfer civil cases to courts outside of the jurisdiction of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
...
The rule will make it more difficult for the Biden administration to avoid defending against lawsuits in the Northern District, whose small courthouses in cities like Amarillo and Forth Worth have become a favored venue for challenges to its policies.
Humm seems some judges are didnt get the memo that they're not supposed to be 'activist judges'
If the actual text of the Constitution were so clear there wouldn't be activist judges DUCY?
fact is there are. they are activists toward outcomes and they completely invent interpretations of the constitutions that aren't even vaguely admissable.
they correctly understood that given SCOTUS has nothing over it, they can magically invent literally everything they want.
they call it the penumbra of the constitution
Humm seems some judges are didnt get the memo that they're not supposed to be 'activist judges'
I don't see any legal opposition to their decisions in the article, do you?
is what they are doing even vaguely unconstitutional? that they try to do their best to achieve their preferred outcomes WITHIN THE RULE OF LAW is like the actual game, the reason why they are picked to begin with.
fact is there are. they are activists toward outcomes and they completely invent interpretations of the constitutions that aren't even vaguely admissable.
they correctly understood that given SCOTUS has nothing over it, they can magically invent literally everything they want.
they call it the penumbra of the constitution
So you oppose the court finding a penumbra of privacy rights in the Constitution?
i am in favour of no government intervention in the use of contraceptives? ofc I am.
i think gvmnt shouldn't have any say on that (married or unmarried sex shouldn't make a difference either).
this has nothing to do with me being able to claim Griswold was egregiously wrongly decided.
grunching a bit but; venue shopping shouldn't be a thing we allow to exist. and victory lapping on a failure to show standing ruling as if it legitimizes the conservative side of the Court is hilariously silly.
grunching a bit but; venue shopping shouldn't be a thing we allow to exist. and victory lapping on a failure to show standing ruling as if it legitimizes the conservative side of the Court is hilariously silly.
I dislike venue shopping, but what do you propose for federal cases that affect the whole country?
and SCOTUS proved when a case is badly decided it gets tossed away no matter how much the right might like the outcome, even by 6 actual right-wing judges.
every one of them agreed the case had no standing. but you guys want to deny that's proof of exceptional intellectual honesty from them.
a leftist court would jump at ANY opportunity to craft a leftist outcome completely disregarding the law in the process as it has done a lot of times in the last 80 years
yes obviously, it was an outrageously wrongly decided case legally (remember: outcomes for society are never relevant to determine the reasonableness of a legal decision)
And the fifty years of following starie decisis? Were those acts that treason by the court members that deserve the harshest possible punishment?
