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.
Obviously the true DEI hire on the court is Clarence Thomas. He was only appointed because he's black, he would never have been confirmed he weren't black, and he was admitted to college and law school through affirmative action programs.
Probably the biggest hypocrite in the country.
would
Obviously the true DEI hire on the court is Clarence Thomas. He was only appointed because he's black, he would never have been confirmed he weren't black, and he was admitted to college and law school through affirmative action programs.
Probably the biggest hypocrite in the country.
he was very probably a DEI hire but Jackson was as well: Biden explicitly said he wanted a black woman, that's definitionally what a DEI hire is, somebody selected because of his sex or race
he was very probably a DEI hire but Jackson was as well: Biden explicitly said he wanted a black woman, that's definitionally what a DEI hire is, somebody selected because of his sex or race
Yeah that's true, and it was stupid of him to say that, but she's obviously more qualified and more intelligent than he ever was, and a white male with the same history would have been confirmed even more easily.
Every conservative Supreme Court justice is DEI. The vast majority of people that could be appointed to be a SCOTUS judge or write code at an adult level or do basic linear algebra etc are anti-conservative. Byproduct of being the dumb party.
Were you an adult and following the news at the time of the Clarence Thomas nomination? There's no way the democrats would have approved him if he had been white after all the sexual harassment allegations.
But he was taking the place of the first black justice, and they didn't want it to again be an all white court.
don't care about clarence thomas as he's a no in the would category for me dawg
rickroll is talking about sex or am I crazy?
If you know anything about Clarence you know he likes to get down.
so are you guys more of a junk in the trunk sotomayor crowd?
If the supreme court says "you can't do that" to trump, what enforcement ability do they have, and what can they do if he simply ignores them?
A disagreement is "you say I shouldn't do this but I think I should, lets talk about it"
Contempt is "you ordered me not to do this but I did it anyway"
Roberts is a giant pussy and part of the subservient cult
If the supreme court says "you can't do that" to trump, what enforcement ability do they have, and what can they do if he simply ignores them?
Trump doesn't actually do anything. The people carrying out unlawful orders could be be arrested or sued. That bit works until the police/ nilitary won't.
Just assuming. Lawyers here may know
Much easier to fix the right 'wise men'
Musk is pushing the attempts by a few house republicans to impeach several district judges who wrote inane injuctions against the Trump admin. Not just the latest one about the venezuelan immigrants being deported, but several others as well. It has been going on for weeks
A disagreement is "you say I shouldn't do this but I think I should, lets talk about it"
Contempt is "you ordered me not to do this but I did it anyway"
Roberts is a giant pussy and part of the subservient cult
I am no fan of Roberts, but he isn't the main problem right now. His options for action are fairly limited right now beyond accepting cases that are appealed from the lower appellate courts and ruling on those cases. For obvious reasons, SCOTUS judges don't go on TV and talk about how much the president sucks. Even the statement above is virtually without precedent.
If the supreme court says "you can't do that" to trump, what enforcement ability do they have, and what can they do if he simply ignores them?
Courts can hold people who ignore court orders in contempt, etc., and they can impose criminal sanctions in serious cases. But they obviously don't control the police and military.
I am no fan of Roberts, but he isn't the main problem right now. His options for action are fairly limited right now beyond accepting cases that are appealed from the lower appellate courts and ruling on those cases. For obvious reasons, SCOTUS judges don't go on TV and talk about how much the president sucks. Even the statement above is virtually without precedent.
Yes as "weak" as it looks to coordie, it's an incredibly powerful statement given that statutorily, congress has the entire power to decide who to impeach and why and no other power of government has ANY say at all on that in theory.
Yes as "weak" as it looks to coordie, it's an incredibly powerful statement given that statutorily, congress has the entire power to decide who to impeach and why and no other power of government has ANY say at all on that in theory.
So it's a separation of powers issue and the chief justice is acting unconstitutionally?
Looooooooooooooooooooooool.
Hm no. It's just a very very very rare statement by a SCOTUS member (the sitting chief no less) on how another power of government should (morally, not legally) behave.
There is no attempted usurpation of statutory powers, just a suggestion about how to use them.
And that's simply exceedingly rare as rococo pointed out. And because of that, very powerful even if it looks meek to outsider who don't follow these issues
So now Congress can impeach a judge for whatever made up reasons it wants and it doesn't have to follow any prior standards, rules or case law?
