|
Kalman posted:I think it was an appropriate case, to be clear - I’m on the dissenter’s side here. But it’s important to distinguish between a merits decision - the law is fine - and a procedure decision - the law may or may not be fine but we’re not making that decision because there’s a flaw in how the case got to us. If they’d ruled it constitutional, it’d be much harder to get it struck down in the future. You have either: 1) Been convinced by the Roberts court that it is not a political machine, despite all the available evidence or 2) Are pretending to have been convinced, because you feel that it agrees with your politics, and the act of pretending helps spread the virus of the idea of an a-political Roberts court The idea that SCOTUS is helpless to grant relief in the face of this law is pure conservative fart-huffing.
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
Reminder: https://twitter.com/GBBranstetter/status/1439340799091691524 They do not loving care that they're being nakedly partisan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I think it was an appropriate case, to be clear - I’m on the dissenter’s side here. But it’s important to distinguish between a merits decision - the law is fine - and a procedure decision - the law may or may not be fine but we’re not making that decision because there’s a flaw in how the case got to us. If they’d ruled it constitutional, it’d be much harder to get it struck down in the future. Eh, in this case, it is very clear that motivated reasoning drove the decision, so the distinction between process and merits wasn't relevant and isn't material. More importantly we shouldn't pretend that it was; we should call out the decision as motivated solely by partisan bias at every opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 01:12
|
|
|
I think there's a point for any institution where they can transition from "flawed but worth parsing or fixing" to "too broken and false to accept or divine". And to my mind the Supreme Court under Roberts has passed that point. I'm not interested in looking into the tea leaves to try and sort out whether their latest verdict is slightly more driven by conservative jurisprudence than Republican politics. The group is illegitimately constituted, the opinions are reckless and unreasonable, the members are corrupt and false, and the institution is broken and unnecessary. Much like listening to Fox pundits or wading through the swamps of conservative Twitter, the Robert's Court opinions don't offer any actual insight beyond the latest display of right-wing power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 02:34
|
|
|
Right; we might as well just start over at this point
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 02:39
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Eh, in this case, it is very clear that motivated reasoning drove the decision, so the distinction between process and merits wasn't relevant and isn't material. More importantly we shouldn't pretend that it was; we should call out the decision as motivated solely by partisan bias at every opportunity. The distinction is very material because it’s the difference between a lower court being bound to rule the law is constitutional once a procedural proper case exists and the lower court being free to rule otherwise. I think they absolutely had the power to take it and it was nakedly political to pretend procedure barred it; at the same time, it is flatly incorrect to state that the court has ruled the Texas law is constitutional.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 03:50
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Right; we might as well just start over at this point That's exactly right. I kinda doubt it will work, but another continental congress is the right move.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 03:53
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The distinction is very material because it’s the difference between a lower court being bound to rule the law is constitutional once a procedural proper case exists and the lower court being free to rule otherwise. You did and I missed it, sorry! E: I still don't see how there can possibly be a more appropriate case that will sway SCOTUS into action, given the law's construction. Stickman fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 03:55
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The distinction is very material because it’s the difference between a lower court being bound to rule the law is constitutional once a procedural proper case exists and the lower court being free to rule otherwise. I found the important part. I can only hope that there are a bunch of federal judges out there who aren't afraid to give the shadow docket the middle finger, and start throwing around some injunctions so that women suffer less harm while a "procedural proper case" is found.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 03:59
|
|
|
Stickman posted:E: I still don't see how there can possibly be a more appropriate case that will sway SCOTUS into action, given the law's construction. Well, at a minimum, a case brought by someone against whom the law has actually been enforced would be an easy example. (Or a case where the unconstitutionality is a defense to a claim under SB8.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 04:27
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Well, at a minimum, a case brought by someone against whom the law has actually been enforced would be an easy example. (Or a case where the unconstitutionality is a defense to a claim under SB8.) The law as written flies in the face of the US legal system and the idea the SCOTUS need to wait for it to be enforced on someone to strike it down immediately is laughable. If New York passed a similar law that allowed citizens to sue gun owners for unsafe firearm usage the SCOTUS would strike it down (and it's likely be a 9-0 decision) before the governor finished signing it into law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 04:36
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Well, at a minimum, a case brought by someone against whom the law has actually been enforced would be an easy example. (Or a case where the unconstitutionality is a defense to a claim under SB8.) The thing is that if you wait until the law has actually been enforced, then you've allowed Texas to shut down all abortion access in the state because of the chilling effect of the law, and SCOTUS know this. That's the whole point. The constitutional calvinball aspect of the law would absolutely have been used to stop it before it went into effect if it was something that SCOTUS wanted to stop, because there are very obvious ramifications of allowing this law to go into effect, and the 5-4 majority that decided not to stop it like those ramifications so they let it go ahead even while knowing that they would almost certainly declare it unconstitutional in a year or two. This has already happened. Women are already being denied abortions in Texas because of the chilling effect of this law existing even though no one has been sued under it yet, so saying you have to wait until someone has been sued under this law is a bad argument because clearly the law has effects on abortion access in Texas even if nobody ever actually files a lawsuit. SCOTUS has a very easy argument against this law, which is that it unilaterally rewrites the way laws work in the United States in a way that should not be legal. It undermines the rule of law and the constitution if a state can arbitrarily declare that constitutional rights don't count as long as it isn't the state violating them. Under that principle you could do literally anything that has been declared unconstitutional. You could ban interracial marriage, overturning Loving, by saying that you can sue people who are in interracial marriages for a billion dollars. You could ban gun ownership, as has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread. You could overturn freedom of religion by saying anyone can sue the owner or operator of a mosque or synagogue. This is a facially unconstitutional way to write a law and whether or not it's enforced is irrelevant because the very fact that the law exists means it is stopping abortion access in Texas. SCOTUS knows this and they chose not to act because they want to stop abortion access in Texas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 14:14
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:
I don't think that he's done this on the issue of abortion, but doesn't Thomas believe in an insane legal philosophy that has caused him to rule against his personal beliefs a few times?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 14:24
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:I don't think that he's done this on the issue of abortion, but doesn't Thomas believe in an insane legal philosophy that has caused him to rule against his personal beliefs a few times? No, the opposite. He throws his originalism out the window when it arrives at a non-conservative result.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 14:31
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The thing is that if you wait until the law has actually been enforced, then you've allowed Texas to shut down all abortion access in the state because of the chilling effect of the law, and SCOTUS know this. That's the whole point. The constitutional calvinball aspect of the law would absolutely have been used to stop it before it went into effect if it was something that SCOTUS wanted to stop, because there are very obvious ramifications of allowing this law to go into effect, and the 5-4 majority that decided not to stop it like those ramifications so they let it go ahead even while knowing that they would almost certainly declare it unconstitutional in a year or two. This has already happened. Women are already being denied abortions in Texas because of the chilling effect of this law existing even though no one has been sued under it yet, so saying you have to wait until someone has been sued under this law is a bad argument because clearly the law has effects on abortion access in Texas even if nobody ever actually files a lawsuit. How much confidence do you have that the supreme court will declare this law unconstitutional? Because it seems to me that they let it go because they’re planning to overturn Roe v Wade during the next session.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 14:31
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:How much confidence do you have that the supreme court will declare this law unconstitutional? Because it seems to me that they let it go because they’re planning to overturn Roe v Wade during the next session. Nothing the Court does surprises me anymore, but I do expect the Texas law to eventually be declared unconstitutional even if they overturn Roe, because it would give too much power to blue states if they decide to use the Texas strategy for other ends - i.e., letting this law stand gives any state the power to overturn constitutional rights, even the ones Republicans like. The Republicans on the bench don't need to empower states to overturn federal laws and rights when the Court already has absolute power over federal laws and rights. If they overturn Roe then Texas no longer needs vigilante lawsuits, it can just have the police arrest people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 14:37
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:How much confidence do you have that the supreme court will declare this law unconstitutional? Because it seems to me that they let it go because they’re planning to overturn Roe v Wade during the next session. Even if they do decide the Texas law is unconstitutional, it'll probably be a 5-4 decision that basically says "Sorry, this specific approach is unconstitutional, so come back with a different approach and we'll be cool with that", and then they'll use the Mississippi case to gut Roe, which gives Texas a guideline for passing a "SCOTUS-proof" abortion ban.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 14:43
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Nothing the Court does surprises me anymore, but I do expect the Texas law to eventually be declared unconstitutional even if they overturn Roe, because it would give too much power to blue states if they decide to use the Texas strategy for other ends - i.e., letting this law stand gives any state the power to overturn constitutional rights, even the ones Republicans like. The Republicans on the bench don't need to empower states to overturn federal laws and rights when the Court already has absolute power over federal laws and rights. If they overturn Roe then Texas no longer needs vigilante lawsuits, it can just have the police arrest people. It’s not overturning an express constitutional right like with guns, so if the court overturns Griswold and it’s ilk, then TX scheme doesn’t go after a constitutionally protected right. That’s the difference. Also, on a slightly related note, Loving v. Virginia isn’t exactly analogous to roe et al because the anti-miscegeny laws as those laws were tossed because they violated both equal protection and due process.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 14:46
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Well, at a minimum, a case brought by someone against whom the law has actually been enforced would be an easy example. (Or a case where the unconstitutionality is a defense to a claim under SB8.) What about the US federal case?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 14:53
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:I don't think that he's done this on the issue of abortion, but doesn't Thomas believe in an insane legal philosophy that has caused him to rule against his personal beliefs a few times? No, his insane legal philosophy is a fig leaf for ruling on his personal beliefs 100% of the time Sometimes his personal beliefs conflict with mainstream conservative beliefs, most notably on whether the federal government can arrest people for growing and smoking their own marijuana, you may be thinking of that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 14:57
|
|
|
I wonder if overturning Roe would be nakedly political enough to make court packing politically viable. I feel like it would be for a party more savvy than the Democrats, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 15:00
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:How much confidence do you have that the supreme court will declare this law unconstitutional? Because it seems to me that they let it go because they’re planning to overturn Roe v Wade during the next session. We’ll be lucky to get out of this without fetal personhood. Minimum prediction under this SCOTUS: 0. Best case: a federal right to abortion is gone. Worst case: fetal personhood 1. Every right not explicitly enumerated in the constitution will be left up to states 2. Because Religion is enumerated explicitly, it will trump any ‘weaker’ considerations at federal and state level. 3. Chevron deference will go away, effectively curtailing the power of the federal government, and forcing Congress to legislate if they want anything done. Which ain’t gonna happen Get used to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 15:03
|
|
|
moths posted:I wonder if overturning Roe would be nakedly political enough to make court packing politically viable. Overturning Roe would be a huge gift to the DSCC because they could fundraise off it like crazy. They wouldn't kill that golden goose by packing the court. It's not like overturning Roe even affects them, just poor women who live in states that didn't vote for senate Democrats anyway so they have no reason to care
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 15:12
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:How much confidence do you have that the supreme court will declare this law unconstitutional? Because it seems to me that they let it go because they’re planning to overturn Roe v Wade during the next session. Yes, this is what will happen. They will very likely rule this is unconstitutional because the enforcement mechanism is so loving insane, but next year they're going to say that states can ban abortion whenever so this law won't be needed by then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 15:15
|
|
|
This discussion is fitting since a year ago yesterday a selfish rear end in a top hat died and put us in this position. RIP in piss RBG. Charlz Guybon posted:I don't think that he's done this on the issue of abortion, but doesn't Thomas believe in an insane legal philosophy that has caused him to rule against his personal beliefs a few times? Thomas (and Alito) has outright called for stuff like abortion and SSM to be struck down via legal challenges. He might be the most nakedly political person on the bench since Roberts pretends to be impartial and Alito couches his in just being a colossal rear end in a top hat. vyelkin posted:Nothing the Court does surprises me anymore, but I do expect the Texas law to eventually be declared unconstitutional even if they overturn Roe, because it would give too much power to blue states if they decide to use the Texas strategy for other ends - i.e., letting this law stand gives any state the power to overturn constitutional rights, even the ones Republicans like. The Republicans on the bench don't need to empower states to overturn federal laws and rights when the Court already has absolute power over federal laws and rights. If they overturn Roe then Texas no longer needs vigilante lawsuits, it can just have the police arrest people. If the abortion law is allowed to stand then I absolutely want to see blue states pass similar laws with regards to guns and people/companies imposing their religious beliefs on others. What's more likely is they use the upcoming 15 week ban challenge to overturn Roe and then maybe strike down SB8 as moot but it's also entirely possible they'd let it stand since it'd be "used to report and punish murder via civil penalties too" or some equally insane logic. moths posted:I wonder if overturning Roe would be nakedly political enough to make court packing politically viable. Court packing will never be politically viable for the Dems because of  but it will absolutely happen under a unified GOP government the instant they ever find themselves not in control of the judiciary (unlikely to happen for the next several decades) or because they don't like some non-conservative circuits continued existence.Keep in mind that Manchin and multiple other elected Dems are firmly anti-choice and support striking down abortion rights (even if they won't say so publicly). That rear end in a top hat won't even support abolishing the filibuster to pass desperately needed voting rights legislation so there's no loving chance he or the others will vote to expand the courts because of a fight over abortion rights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 15:29
|
|
|
The truth is that America is a deeply conservative country that cannot be dragged into the 20th century by the force of law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 15:35
|
|
|
morothar posted:We’ll be lucky to get out of this without fetal personhood. Am I doomposting if I mention that my recurring nightmare is that the only things that happens post-outlawing of abortion are some very large peaceful protests in major cities, where maybe Kamala Harris or Pete gives a speech with the concluding remark that “we must keep fighting! Vote in the midterms!” and maybe some tshirts and tote bags are made with that quote on them and then everyone shrugs and accepts it? And then because the wedge isn’t novel any more, people shrug and accept the loss of more rights as a further consequence? I just don’t think Americans have it in them to actually demand something and get it, because they ultimately only give a poo poo about themselves and 60% of them will know they live in a state with legal abortion and antidiscrimination laws.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 15:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Overturning Roe would be a huge gift to the DSCC because they could fundraise off it like crazy. It would take some hard spin to sell it though. No step along this path could have been prevented by having more money; it's been a steady flow of either incompetence or indifference that's gotten us this far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 15:48
|
|
|
moths posted:It would take some hard spin to sell it though. A while ago they seem to have figured out that when democrats are frightened and demoralized, they donate to election campaigns whether it’s rational or not. The dnc raked in a ton when Ginsberg died, I’m pretty sure. Also that doomed challenger against McConnell and Jon Osoff (lol) in 2017.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 15:55
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:I just don’t think Americans have it in them to actually demand something and get it, because they ultimately only give a poo poo about themselves and 60% of them will know they live in a state with legal abortion and antidiscrimination laws. They only give a poo poo about themselves and people close to them but most people probably know a lot more women who have gotten abortions than they are currently aware of
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 16:05
|
|
|
haveblue posted:They only give a poo poo about themselves and people close to them but most people probably know a lot more women who have gotten abortions than they are currently aware of I’m worried the best we can do is “move to a blue state, then!” as that fits right into American individualism and selfishness. Most of the people a person knows live in the same region that they do. I don’t know—I’m a man and if the state I’m living in now outlaws abortion, I’m getting the gently caress out of there, and I’m in a profession where good jobs are extremely scarce.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 16:16
|
|
|
ulmont posted:What about the US federal case? Which one?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 16:19
|
|
|
moths posted:It would take some hard spin to sell it though. That doesn't matter imo. Amy McGrath didn't rake in millions of out of state dollars because everyone rationally calculated that the Kentucky Senate race was the most optimal place for Democrats to blow their wad, or that McGrath, a candidate who had to vastly outspend her primary opponent to drag herself over the finish line, had an unusually high chance of beating McConnell (every one of my friends who reposted her stuff didn't even know that she is a pro-Trump Democrat whose platform was attacking McConnell for blocking Trump's agenda) It was consumerism and branding: send us your money to stick it to McConnell show that you're on the team. Roe will work the same way VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 16:29
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:The truth is that America is a deeply conservative country that cannot be dragged into the 20th century by the force of law. *looks at the overwhelming positive polling for UHC, UBI, the NGD and gun control* Hmm yes, very conservative, definitely not a country where the entrenched ruling parties are simply able to pit people against their own interests through massive propaganda pushes. Antifa Turkeesian posted:I’m worried the best we can do is “move to a blue state, then!” as that fits right into American individualism and selfishness. Most of the people a person knows live in the same region that they do. Moving to as blue state won't mean much if the SCOTUS rules that abortion is illegal, and they absolutely can do so by declaring a zygote is a person or whatever other insane religious bullshit they want to go with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 16:36
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:*looks at the overwhelming positive polling for UHC, UBI, the NGD and gun control*
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 00:35
|
|
|
I absolutely believe that the demographics who don't immediately hang up on or walk away from pollsters asking about guns support gun control.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 00:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No, his insane legal philosophy is a fig leaf for ruling on his personal beliefs 100% of the time Yeah, that's what I was thinking of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 03:40
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:
Is there a realistic chance of that happening? My understanding of the Mississippi case was that the two most likely outcomes were either a 6-3 "States can implement whatever absurd restrictions they want on abortion, as long as they don't outright ban it" ruling, so Roberts can say he technically upheld Roe, or a 5-4, "Roe is overturned, it goes back to the states".
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 04:25
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Is there a realistic chance of that happening? It completely comes down to how far out Kavanaugh and Gorsuch want to walk. In a 6-3 court Roberts can't stop or counteract them following Thomas and Barrett if they both want to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
Until we get rid of the senate and first past the post the show will go on, you can't do anything as the system is designed to work exactly as it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 07:38
|
|
