Jump to content

US Politics: Supreme Courting to insanity.


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ants said:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but such a piece of legislation would have been superseded by this SC decision anyway. The Federal government can only legislate where the constitution says it can, which doesn’t include abortion. It does include rights, so they could legislate while Roe v Wade was in effect; but when the right ended this became state jurisdiction again. Any such legislation would become void. 

I believe you are incorrect.  The 9th Amendment expressly states that the lack of an enumerated in the Constitution right in no way invalidates other un enumerated rights under the US Constitution.  Therefore, had such a Statute stated that such a right exists it would have force and effect.

The question would change to whether the US Congress has the power to grant such a right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oy. Of course shit goes down when my laptop is broken for almost a week.Heard about Roe on German news. (On the same day, finally, a German law suppressing info on abortion finally got struck down.) Phew, but thank God they protected guns and prayers in public schools! I guess that means the injusices are now enjoying their well-deserved vacation?

Caught up with the first of the two hearings I missed. Interesting they scheduled another one.

 

I like to imagine tons of muslims, jews and any other religious folks doing these public prayers now, but we all know what would happen. SCOTUS are very creative. Not rooted in American history, maybe?

AOC is right:

Ofc we know Dem leadership won't do much. "Sure, taking away women's rights and getting minorities killed is bad. Did you know Mitch is a wondeful guy and we really need the Republican party? Just vote harder and chip in now! We got record donations after the Roe leak... Hey, Henry, can I buy you a beer?"

 

Edited by Mindwalker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I believe you are incorrect.  The 9th Amendment expressly states that the lack of an enumerated in the Constitution right in no way invalidates other un enumerated rights under the US Constitution.  Therefore, had such a Statute stated that such a right exists it would have force and effect.

The question would change to whether the US Congress has the power to grant such a right.

Oh joy, modern society continues to be handcuffed to a document from the 18th century written by men who had slaves and treated women like broodmares. Because that makes sense...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Oh joy, modern society continues to be handcuffed to a document from the 18th century written by men who had slaves and treated women like broodmares. Because that makes sense...

Then… it should be changed or all law should have a sunset provision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Then… it should be changed or all law should have a sunset provision.

This is one of the most conservative viewpoints you've had in a while, and is a current plank of the far right.

It's a very good way to ensure that virtually no social spending, regulation or corporate oversight occur. It's also a great way to ensure you never ever can plan for more than a few years at a time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

This is one of the most conservative viewpoints you've had in a while, and is a current plank of the far right.

It's a very good way to ensure that virtually no social spending, regulation or corporate oversight occur. It's also a great way to ensure you never ever can plan for more than a few years at a time. 

This is a specific response to Tywin’s criticism of the way law works.  It doesn’t cease to be effective or enforceable simply because you no longer like it or have serious moral issues with the people who enacted it… unless it is repealed or it has a sunset provision.  

I’m not advocating for such.  I’m simply saying if you want to take that view a sunset provision is a way to force legislators to revisit earlier enactments.  It’s that or actively repeal or amend.  Or use something other than “law” to govern society.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This is a specific response to Tywin’s criticism of the way law works.

It's more than just the law. The entire structure no longer works. All three branches are compromised. The Executive Branch has become so bloated and the presidency is dangerously powerful. It would be better served as figurehead position with a weak President. The Judicial Branch is so out of touch with society and needs major reforms. The courts at every level need to be expanded and lifetime appoints have to be done away with. And the Legislative Branch needs to be completely rethought. Frankly we should advocate for a parliamentary system, but absent that the Senate also needs major reforms. Every branch of our federal government is broken in some way and if that's the case it's better to start over rather than trying to tweak each of them. But that's not going to happen and each of the problems I highlighted are only going to get worse in the future. And we're all going to suffer for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's more than just the law. The entire structure no longer works. All three branches are compromised. The Executive Branch has become so bloated and the presidency is dangerously powerful. It would be better served as figurehead position with a weak President. The Judicial Branch is so out of touch with society and needs major reforms. The courts at every level need to be expanded and lifetime appoints have to be done away with. And the Legislative Branch needs to be completely rethought. Frankly we should advocate for a parliamentary system, but absent that the Senate also needs major reforms. Every branch of our federal government is broken in some way and if that's the case it's better to start over rather than trying to tweak each of them. But that's not going to happen and each of the problems I highlighted are only going to get worse in the future. And we're all going to suffer for it. 

I have been advocating a Constitutional Convention… starting over for going on two decades.  And I agree with most of your recommendations here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This argument is irrelevant.  To respond to @ants', no, the holding in Dobbs does not say abortion can only be legislated by states, it says that authority is returned to "elected representatives":

Quote

Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives

This is again reiterated in the conclusion of the opinion's syllabus:

Quote

It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” Casey, 505 U. S., at 979 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.

There is nothing in the decision that says the federal government/US Congress does not have the authority codify laws on abortion policy.  And even theoretically, if the Court struck down one of Congress' laws (and Roe wasn't even a law, of course), Congress is still perfectly free to pass the same exact law again and force the courts to strike it down again.  Unless there's a change in composition to the Court there's obviously no point to do this, other than to just be dicks (which, well, does seem to be the primary job for many current members of Congress), but conceivably they could.

Now, if you're asking how would this court respond if Congress and Biden successfully codified the WHPA, then yeah, that's a very open question.  Would this court strike it down?  Very possible!  But their basis in doing so wouldn't be on the holding in Dobbs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Among the matters of interest Heather Cox Richards outlines in today’s newsletter is her commentary on Clarence Thomas, and the concluding paragraph regarding the last 3 SCOTUS appointees:

Quote

... scholar of authoritarianism Ruth Ben-Ghiat today noted that there is a relationship between the insurrection and the radical Supreme Court decisions coming out. Justice Clarence Thomas has been writing opinions and footnotes that are to the right even of the rest of the radical court, and today he suggested he would like the court to revisit the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision that provides some protection to media outlets from being sued for defamation by requiring a plaintiff to prove the outlet acted with “actual malice.” Thomas wants to make it easier to sue media outlets because, he wrote, the “New York Times and its progeny have allowed media organizations and interest groups ‘to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.’”

Ben-Ghiat tweeted that “[s]elf-protection (and protection for corrupt family members) is a huge driver of authoritarian behaviors. He feels threatened and will try and change the legal order to avoid scrutiny. Radicalized people no longer care about ‘how it looks’ to outsiders.”

n this particular case, Thomas’s beef is with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for calling out Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc., as a “hate group” because of its opposition to homosexuality and gay rights. The SPLC identifies as hate groups any groups that “have beliefs or practices that malign or attack an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” “SPLC’s ‘hate group’ designation lumped Coral Ridge’s Christian ministry with groups like the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis,” Thomas complained, and that hurt their ability to raise money. ....

.... There is another link between the recent Supreme Court decisions and the January 6 attempt to destroy our democracy that creates an unprecedented situation. If Trump is prosecuted as the leader of an attempted coup, a coup that may have included some of those who voted for Trump’s three Supreme Court nominees, what does that do to their positions on the court?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Right up until it comes time to teach HS sex ed.

 

Unrelated, Driving While Black just got a lot worse in Florida:

 

All the much greater and obvious issues with this aside, 25 feet isn't very far at all if the window is down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are awesome. Thoughtful, smart, and rational and a whole bunch of other things I'm having a tough time describing. I missed this place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

All the much greater and obvious issues with this aside, 25 feet isn't very far at all if the window is down. 

It really isn’t. My neighbor was repairing a window when I got home yesterday, he wasn’t playing music that loud and I could hear it from more than 50 ft away. And of course cops will say it was 25 feet when it was actually 15, or maybe they’ll just completely lie and say they heard music when none was being played. It’s a terrible law open to rampant abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'audio that can be heard' is a spectacularly vague way to frame a law since everyone hears things differently (and older people hear less in general), particularly when you have scientific ways to describe sound (like decibels and frequencies and whatnot).

This is why we need more scientists running for offioe as opposed to corrupt businesspeople and religious wingnuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court has chipped away at the Voting Rights Act for 9 years. This case could be the next blow.
The diminished Voting Rights Act has already played a key role in the 2022 elections via redistricting.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/27/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-00042478

Quote

Now, a still-more conservative Court will hear arguments in the fall about Alabama’s redistricting, in a case targeting the other central piece of the Voting Rights Act: Section 2, which prohibits voting practices and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race. The result of the case could make it more difficult for minority communities to claim new election laws are discriminatory — and raise the bar for what has to happen to get relief from the courts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woo!  This is quite some stuff.  Enough violence to satisfy any audience, amirite?

Lots and lots of weapons of all varieties, romperisto laying hands in fury upon others, throwing food, breaking White House china.  And in the middle a pretty young woman.

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...