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.
So now Congress can impeach a judge for whatever made up reasons it wants and it doesn't have to follow any prior standards or case law?
It always could and you know that very well.
It doesn't have to "follow" anything at all and never did.
Same as SCOTUS, they can literally decide anything they want about the constitutionality or lack thereof of any law or action by the executive.
SCOTUS could even reverse Marbury and stop judicial review entirely tomorrow and it would be ... Completly and fully constitutional.
Interesting POV. I guess we have to wait for the SC to weigh in on the matter.
Sounds a bit too mcuh like Roberts thinking:
Impeach judges cos you dont like rulings?
****
Dont like.
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?
Congress has to follow the rules for impeachment proceedings, but otherwise I think that the answer to your question is yes. If a House of Representatives that was totally in the tank voted to impeach, and 2/3 of the Senate were in the tank and voted to convict, then what is the remedy? As far as I know, there is no mechanism to appeal a conviction on impeachment charges.
So it's a separation of powers issue and the chief justice is acting unconstitutionally?
Looooooooooooooooooooooool.
It wouldn't be unconstitutional for a SCOTUS judge to go on television and put the president on blast. But it would create the appearance of bias, which is an obvious problem when you consider that the United States is by far the most frequent party to litigation before the SCOTUS.
I'm still misreading it then
Congress has to follow the rules for impeachment proceedings, but otherwise I think that the answer to your question is yes. If a House of Representatives that was totally in the tank voted to impeach, and 2/3 of the Senate were in the tank and voted to convict, then what is the remedy? As far as I know, there is no mechanism to appeal a conviction on impeachment charges.
I disagree. The standard in the constitution is “high crimes and misdemeanors” and we have a body of legislative decisions regarding what they have historically found to be impeachable offenses (and what are not). There is also precedent, both law and legislative procedure about the due process owed to the person impeached.
While I won’t argue there are bright line rules or cases congress must follow, it is not as simplistic as because the Republicans control both Senate and House they can impeach the guys who rule against Trump either.
It wouldn't be unconstitutional for a SCOTUS judge to go on television and put the president on blast. But it would create the appearance of bias, which is an obvious problem when you consider that the United States is by far the most frequent party to litigation before the SCOTUS.
Idk. I was replying to Luciom hinting that the Chief Justice shouldn’t be influencing congress and their possible future impeachments.
I disagree. The standard in the constitution is “high crimes and misdemeanors” and we have a body of legislative decisions regarding what they have historically found to be impeachable offenses (and what are not). There is also precedent, both law and legislative procedure about the due process owed to the person impeached.
While I won’t argue there are bright line rules or cases congress must follow, it is not as simplistic as because the Republicans control both Senate and House they can imp
there is no need to control the Senate to impeach as the Mayorkas impeachment has shown.
not sure why you think the Senate is needed to impeach at all.
anyway the catch all offense to use is "breach of public trust" which can mean anything basically (that's what they used for Mayorkas).
Idk. I was replying to Luciom hinting that the Chief Justice shouldn’t be influencing congress and their possible future impeachments.
I didn't hint anything like that, I was agreeing with rococo even the mild looking comment was already a very strong one given it was basically unprecedented.
yes but we are talking impeachment alone.
And that's what Roberts was referring to.
Roberts doesn't like the impeachment themselves, if the worry was about convincting he wouldn't have spoken, as everyone and his mom knows no one is actually getting convicted of impeachment among those judges.
Roberts is disliking a lot the fact itself the House is writing those letters of impeachment for those judges
…. otherwise I think that the answer to your question is yes. If a House of Representatives that was totally in the tank voted to impeach, and 2/3 of the Senate were in the tank and voted to convict………
….it is not as simplistic as because the Republicans control both Senate and House they can impeach the guys who rule against Trump either.
You were not part of the conversation. We were clearly referring to both House and Senate.
Go the **** away.
I disagree. The standard in the constitution is “high crimes and misdemeanors” and we have a body of legislative decisions regarding what they have historically found to be impeachable offenses (and what are not). There is also precedent, both law and legislative procedure about the due process owed to the person impeached.
While I won’t argue there are bright line rules or cases congress must follow, it is not as simplistic as because the Republicans control both Senate and
Ultimately the politicians voting to impeach/convict have to answer to their constituents. If they want to ignore the "high crimes and misdemeanors" and vote to acquit because their constituents don't care and are Trump dumb **** cultists, you get what we had in the Senate when Trump walked. Ultimately the rules only get enforced if the populace cares. And right now it doesn't.
In the 1970s the GOP was committed to Conservatism and had a soul, and as such were gonna roast Nixon so he quit. The GOP is a soulless shitshow now filled with cranks and grifters and headed by an adjudicated rapist, serial adulterer and convicted felon. With such ****faces in charge, things are not going to work like they should.
I know it’s not the same to impeach a judge as it is a POTUS, but the idea still applies. They can ultimately vote however they want. It’s kinda like jury nullification.
I disagree. The standard in the constitution is “high crimes and misdemeanors” and we have a body of legislative decisions regarding what they have historically found to be impeachable offenses (and what are not). There is also precedent, both law and legislative procedure about the due process owed to the person impeached.
While I won’t argue there are bright line rules or cases congress must follow, it is not as simplistic as because the Republicans control both Senate and House they can imp
Are you saying that there is a path to a court vacating a conviction in the Senate? That's news to me, but I am far from an expert on impeachment proceedings, so I could be wrong.
I don't think anybody who has been following modern "conservatism" for the last 10-15 years is very surprised at the idea behind the impeachment. The idea that disagreeing with their politics is unconstitutional has been the backbone of a lot of their rhetoric. It is effective too. Even with a fraudulent criminal at the helm and a lot of corruption on open display, they have convinced themselves and a lot of other people that they best represent the law.
Nor is the submissiveness of the modern "conservative" very surprising either, you don't court people like Orbán for a near decade because you want your supporters and politicians to speak freely. You want them to be submissive. Their options are agree or self-censor. If they do not, then they are no longer welcome.
What is perhaps surprising is how little spine there was in the GOP, how quickly it was taken over by Trumpists and how how happy they seem about it.
[...]
Nor is the submissiveness of the modern "conservative" very surprising either, you don't court people like Orbán for a near decade because you want your supporters and politicians to speak freely. You want them to be submissive. Their options are agree or self-censor. If they do not, then they are no longer welcome.
[...]
A point I forgot here is to just look to this forum to the enormous difference between the traditional conservative and his modern counterpart.
The modern "conservative" pretty much just makes it their life's work to parrot the exact views they are fed from pundits and ideological leaders, some to the point where their posts are just verbatim taken from the social media posts they include. There is an almost complete absence of individual thought that is in stark contrast to those few who have held onto more traditional conservative beliefs. It seems obvious to an observer that is not part of their eco-system that this is a political ideology that makes it a sin to question what you are presented.
In fact, if they see a lone voice of dissent from within party ranks, then their knee-jerk reaction is to brand them a "traitor to the cause" through the use of various colorful terms.
Now, obviously, most of us as influenced by social media and influencers to some degree. Even if we do not use social media, their enormous reach steers political discourse around us and their views get amplified. While that is an important topic in its own right, my point here is more the complete abdication of personal views and reasoning that has become a defining trait of political ideologies like Trumpism, MAGA and Qanon, and now have also taken over modern American "conservatism".
Are you saying that there is a path to a court vacating a conviction in the Senate? That's news to me, but I am far from an expert on impeachment proceedings, so I could be wrong.
No, there is no appeal afaik. There have been a few interlocutory appeals on judges due process rights over the years
I don't think anybody who has been following modern "conservatism" for the last 10-15 years is very surprised at the idea behind the impeachment. The idea that disagreeing with their politics is unconstitutional has been the backbone of a lot of their rhetoric. It is effective too. Even with a fraudulent criminal at the helm and a lot of corruption on open display, they have convinced themselves and a lot of other people that they best represent the law.
Nor is the submissiveness of the modern "
The surprise is attempting an impeach you know has 0 possibility of success for convinction, not the fact that they think the house has the right to impeach any judge who operates under a leftist judicial philosophy (which, literally, the house has the constitutional power to).
Mayorkas impeachment (0 chance of conviction as well) was in an election year to bring the attention to the border issue which was polling great for republicans, so it made sense.
Impeaching judges in early 2025 doesn't make political sense, that's the surprise. As much as you can hate republicans you can't deny they have been fairly good at executing political stunts of various kinds to their advantage, so the assumption was that they would have kept doing so.
There is no issue of "having spine" at play. Republicans radicalized as a reaction to democrats radicalization and continuous attempts to destroy the very fabric of society. Republicans think democrats are inimical to the country, truly a domestic enemy. So winning elections by any mean necessary is a moral imperative to keep the enemy of the people away from power. And that applies to using that power in any way necessary to reduce democrats power and make it harder for them to ever again get into position of powers politically.
That's not about Trump and it's not going away when Trump retires or dies. More and more people in many countries see domestic leftism as the true, unique threat to their own welfare and are willing to do more and more to fight it and eliminate it from society.
Right, everyone else thinks exactly like you. All your supporters are just in hiding and the other 98% opposing your bullshit are all just radical leftists who hate you (not that any of us really care what a fascist from Italy thinks).
Right, everyone else thinks exactly like you. All your supporters are just in hiding and the other 98% opposing your bullshit are all just radical leftists who hate you (not that any of us really care what a fascist from Italy thinks).
I am describing the content pushed by major republican accounts on social media. Say like Kirk or Catturd and the like.
They are declaring war
Newt Gingrich
@newtgingrich
Chief Justice Roberts and his colleagues should accept immediate review on any number of emergency petitions filed by the Justice Department on behalf of the President and the American people and reverse the outrageous district courts immediately--but do so in very broad language that directs the district court judges to stop meddling in the operation of the executive branch where, under the separation of powers doctrine, they have no jurisdiction and their orders will not be enforced.
7:39 AM · Mar 19, 2025
·
298.4K
Views
https://x.com/newtgingrich/status/190224...
