|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:I would love to see at least one poster ITT grapple with the legal reasoning of the opinion, page after page of outrage about it is pretty boring. The argument is pretty simple for both sides, and if this was 1965 (Griswold v Connecticut) it would not have been crazy to rule the other way. The main objection at this point is that 2 generations of precedent apparently didn't matter. Our side basically said that there had to be a right to privacy in the constitution even if it wasn't spelled out, or otherwise a lot of the bill of rights would not have made much sense. Then, from a right to privacy you have contraception, then abortion, then etc. They could have ruled "nope, don't see privacy in the constitution and there isn't an ancient tradition for a right to contraception, so get out of here". But they didn't, and we've been counting on that right to privacy for going on 60 years. The christian jihadists on the supreme court decided all that time and how society evolved doesn't matter, just "beep boop beep, no privacy in constitution, abortion isn't protected, beep boop beep".
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
Vegetable posted:My understanding is that Roe v Wade was already a mess of a legal judgement. It was prescriptive in a kinda arbitrary way, and some progressive jurists themselves think it doesn’t hold much water. Eh, that's not really true. It's based on sound precedent, such as the aforementioned Griswold v Connecticut, the case which held that states can't ban contraception because such a ban would violate the right to make intimate personal decisions for one's self, in private. It draws on a lot of different amendments as evidence that such a foundational right, while never explicitly stated in the Constitution, was nonetheless foundational to many of the other rights it described. That's been read by bad-faith Heritage types-- like Alito, in this very opinion-- as "look at this ridiculous Frankenstein of a decision, it can't make up its mind where its imaginary 'right to privacy' even lives!!!!" You could maybe draw on the Ninth Amendment to get to the same result in a simpler way, and Thurgood Marshall advocated that reasoning in his concurrence to Roe, but not enough of his fellows wanted to sign on.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:03
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:"Didn't read lol" has fewer words than both of those posts I don't know what you're expecting - Alito is well known for his meager understanding or respect for American law. It's almost a hundred pages of "the word abortion isn't in the Constitution" followed by incoherent citations, but that doesn't mean anything because realistically the Republicans have made it very clear that they are neither motivated nor bound by legal reasoning or precedent.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:03
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Eh, that's not really true. It's based on sound precedent, such as the aforementioned Griswold v Connecticut, the case which held that states can't ban contraception because such a ban would violate the right to make intimate personal decisions for one's self, in private. It draws on a lot of different amendments as evidence that such a foundational right, while never explicitly stated in the Constitution, was nonetheless foundational to many of the other rights it described. That's been read by bad-faith Heritage types-- like Alito, in this very opinion-- as "look at this ridiculous Frankenstein of a decision, it can't make up its mind where its imaginary 'right to privacy' even lives!!!!" thanks for some clarity
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:06
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I don't know what you're expecting - Alito is well known for his meager understanding or respect for American law. It's almost a hundred pages of "the word abortion isn't in the Constitution" followed by incoherent citations, but that doesn't mean anything because realistically the Republicans have made it very clear that they are neither motivated nor bound by legal reasoning or precedent. I'm honestly shocked he didn't reference Air Bud in this draft.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:07
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:I would love to see at least one poster ITT grapple with the legal reasoning of the opinion, page after page of outrage about it is pretty boring. I was considering doing a standard summary, but there’s no point while the thread is just getting white noised.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:My understanding is that Roe v Wade was already a mess of a legal judgement. It was prescriptive in a kinda arbitrary way, and some progressive jurists themselves think it doesn’t hold much water. I don't think Roe should be overturned for all kind of reasons, but judicial conservatives are most certainly correct that it is a weak and poorly argued decision. Women in this country would have been much better served by a vigorous legislative push by the abortion movement over the past few decades, instead of desperately trying to prop up a fatally flawed Supreme Court decision amid infighting and all kinds of excesses. ulmont posted:I was considering doing a standard summary, but there’s no point while the thread is just getting white noised.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:10
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Well, then, for some reason Alito felt the need to claim in his opinion that sure, maybe it could theoretically apply to same sex marriage or contraception, but it didn't and you shouldn't worry about it, even though both you and I know that he's lying through his teeth. It seems like he thinks there's some value in keeping up that pretense, even if you don't think so. Well, it could be hedging over other conservatives on the court being squishy with the other privacy cases. Gorsuch’s take on orientation discrimination would indicate he might not be a slam dunk on obergefell challenges for example, even if he ends up at the outcome from a different rationale than the initial case. Him, Roberts, and Kav probably aren’t guaranteed overturners on griswold, loving, or Lawrence. Abortion is in many ways a lightning rod for all of them because there’s very little generational difference on it within the GOP and they have an argument from disgust they can make in the nominal GOP arguments. Much less, if they open the door on some of those without knowing that their block is all in for overturning, they open the door to getting two-stepped by their own caucus entering a nominal originalist rationale to uphold privacy or interracial marriage and mooting the diss track they live on substantial due process. Alito unquestionably would roll all these things back if it’s just him, but the real limiting question to how far this goes is essentially how much Kav or Gorsuch want to be able to go in public in DC.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:14
|
|
|
It seems extremely unlikely to me that Kav, Gorsuch, or Roberts would vote to overturn Loving or Lawrence. I could see Gorsuch and maybe Kavanaugh overturning Griswold, but not Roberts.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:19
|
|
|
So explain to me like I'm five how Congress passing some sort of federal guarantee of abortion rights would be safe from the SCOTUS striking it down later? Like isn't 'actually this law is unconstitutional' part and parcel of how and why we are here?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:21
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:So explain to me like I'm five how Congress passing some sort of federal guarantee of abortion rights would be safe from the SCOTUS striking it down later? Like isn't 'actually this law is unconstitutional' part and parcel of how and why we are here? edit: first of all, addressing your "be safe from the SCOTUS", we all understand that Alito and 4 others can just play Calvinball. I'm assuming you are asking about a world where Roe v Wade is gone, how can congress legalize abortion in a way that is consistent with how conservative justices rule (before they change arbitrarily in response) It would not simply be "States can't outlaw abortion because we say so". They probably cant do that. The interstate commerce clause is something conservatives do respect, hell they even used it to say a Federal marijuana ban was ok, since they are regulating commerce between the states. In this case, the Feds would identify abortion as a service provided by a professional qualified caregiver. When the Feds don't regulate a good or service, then states can and do, but state regulation can not interfere or conflict with Federal regulation of interstate commerce when the Feds do choose to get involved. So, the Feds get involved in regulating the service of abortion like they would if they had chosen to regulate food and drugs, or environmental standards for manufacturing, or professional standards for engineers. This would just be one more, the Feds now regulate a subset of medical providers, specifically abortion providers. Then abortion providers would need to get the education, training, fill out forms, pay fees, whatever to get a Federal abortion license and probably submit to federal inspection of their facilities. If that is done, if the Feds create an abortion regulatory scheme, then the states can't go "but not in our state, you can't do abortions at all here" because the supremacy clause applies. Rigel fucked around with this message at 00:32 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:28
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I was considering doing a standard summary, but there’s no point while the thread is just getting white noised. Ulmont for thread IK.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:31
|
|
|
at a very high level, the concern over whether this court recognizes privacy theory has to do with whether we have literally any codified or implied individual right to self determination this is a terrifying issue because self determination shouldn't be on the table as a political bargaining chip or a scary thing that needs to be taken away by hyperobsessive reactionaries
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:33
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Won't be surprised if we see a Brown v. Board challenge with this court. I wonder how much that would be necessary at this point. As much as Roe was chipped away at over the decades, I'd argue it's been worse for Brown. Segregation is the defacto condition of most US cities and suburbs. It tends to be divided among class lines instead of strictly racial ones, but the overlap there isn't exactly subtle. They've already done away with busing and the push for charter schools has only really expedited the process, so there's not really anything for them to fight for on this one. I guess once they've stripped the due process clause from the 14th and everything that springs from it they might go after Brown, but only in so far as they would want to make specific kinds of schooling illegal. (Like, you must have a white male Christianist pastor to count as an accredited institution or similar.)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:33
|
|
|
Rigel posted:edit: first of all, addressing your "be safe from the SCOTUS", we all understand that Alito and 4 others can just play Calvinball. I'm assuming you are asking about a world where Roe v Wade is gone, how can congress legalize abortion in a way that is consistent with how conservative justices rule (before they change arbitrarily in response) I meant that if Obama or Biden had followed through and done whatever it was that they meant by 'guarantee a federal right to abortion' how would that be meaningfully different from Roe v. Wade. Which you seem to explain. But I thought the entire point of SCOTUS was to check the legislative, in theory? Like in this case there's no way for SCOTUS to challenge that ruling?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:35
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:(a) you have to do some pretty crazy logical cartwheels to find a right to abortion in the Constitution I think it was two or three years ago that we got into privacy theory pretty deeply in here, and a primary takeaway is that it is an important synthesis because there really is no other place in our system of governance that comes close to touching upon what is or isn't the sanctity of human thought and expression that we purportedly collectively place high on the totem pole of American values like I know that I'm talking about this in very philosophical terms, but there really isn't anything else in our legal system that comes remotely close to giving a poo poo about self determination of this lump of fat that sits between our ears that nature somehow trained to think understand me when I tell you this: if you want to go and insist that this is not something that law of people can or should comment on, then the society that you think you belong to is a fraud Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 00:41 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:38
|
|
|
Isn’t their a case on the docket that will eliminate gun control? This year is going to be a right wing bonanza.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:38
|
|
|
my starting place on this issue is that intelligent life ought to self-determine fight me on whether or not that ought to be the starting place for this, then let's work backwards from there or at least have the decency to admit that you don't believe that that should be a thing
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:39
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:Like in this case there's no way for SCOTUS to challenge that ruling? and thats where my comment about "Alito and 4 others could always just say gently caress it and play Calvinball" disclaimer comes in. If we assumed they wont do that (LOLOL), then there's not an obvious way to strike down the federal abortion regulatory scheme or to say that in this case states can still ban it. We all know they would anyway, but that is the naive explanation of how to do it if we somehow were dumb enough to say they wouldn't intervene anyway for some bullshit reason. Presumably if we ever had the votes to pass Federal abortion, we would also have the votes to pack the court. And yeah, we should do both.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:40
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:So explain to me like I'm five how Congress passing some sort of federal guarantee of abortion rights would be safe from the SCOTUS striking it down later? Like isn't 'actually this law is unconstitutional' part and parcel of how and why we are here? Technically it wouldn't be, since Shelby County was a clear message from the SCOTUS that they can and will ignore limitations on their authority and that the other branches will just shrug and accept it. Even if the Dems weren't worthless garbage and passes a bill protecting abortion access and explicitly revoking the courts' jurisdiction over it the SCOTUS could and would rule that the law is Unconstitutional because they say so, ignoring the Executive and Legislature's authority to limit the Judiciary which is a power they have even if it's rarely used.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:40
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:It seems extremely unlikely to me that Kav, Gorsuch, or Roberts would vote to overturn Loving or Lawrence. I could see Gorsuch and maybe Kavanaugh overturning Griswold, but not Roberts. The only way I could see them going after griswold is essentially for them to want to go “there is no right to privacy but this would be *insert dumb capitalism talking point here* so birth control is fine again no privacy though*. It’s 80-90% approval in the country, though they could cede some ground on things that are nominally abortifacient in the eyes of forced birthers.The reason this works so well for abortion is because the opposition is incredibly fragmented and nuanced so working in broad strokes is hard to have coherent opposition to when there are like 5 camps that disagree with this ruling that don’t agree with each other. Loving is like 94% approval on top of griswold, so you’re not talking about nuanced stances with fragmented opposition, it’s pure binary, and it’s not an easy thing to brand against so why have the fight? Gay marriage is around 70% approval now and lower hanging fruit but also something that they might just play a long game with by trying to move opinion like they did with Roe while figuring out the actual argument they would want to advance. It wouldn’t shock me if they turn their eye more on trans issues because it’s going to be an easier argument from a point of gore (replace the baby part lines with lines about bottom surgery) for them to go after as a new fracture point given the whole LGB/TERF splits from the libs because the thing the conservative legal movement objectively does is find actual stress points and seize moments they want rather than just running at windmills endlessly. RoboChrist 9000 posted:So explain to me like I'm five how Congress passing some sort of federal guarantee of abortion rights would be safe from the SCOTUS striking it down later? Like isn't 'actually this law is unconstitutional' part and parcel of how and why we are here? I mean, yeah. Biden’s not doing everything he could, but the idea that these guys wouldn’t just take it a step further and be like “this doesn’t work under the commerce clause, 10th amendment nullifies this” is silly. They won this round the second ACB got in because roberts couldn’t restrain the majority anymore. If you want to fight this politically, you’re in the realm of either court packing, ignoring judicial review, or hoping to god for an electoral solution that doesn’t result in more of these same now, because a political counter movement here is going to take time, organizing, and anger that democrats have objectively squandered and require a positive view of the legal system and a legal movement that goes beyond whatever lib status quo fighting theu like to do now.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:46
|
|
|
I don’t know if this is the thread for this, and I want to stress that this is purely hypothetical, but is it hard to learn how to perform abortions? Are home abortions, probably through chemical means rather than mechanical, a practical possibility?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:47
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:I don’t know if this is the thread for this, and I want to stress that this is purely hypothetical, but is it hard to learn how to perform abortions? Are home abortions, probably through chemical means rather than mechanical, a practical possibility? The podcast Science Vs. had a really interesting episode that they just recently reran that interviewed a woman who was part of the abortion underground pre-Roe and who literally went around the country teaching women how to perform abortions at least somewhat safely. (As well as just general womens health stuff.) She learned from someone who was performing illegal abortions so I don’t know that it’s something you’d get out of a book, but it’s definitely possible to learn. Also interesting to hear how much *more* dismissive of womens health concerns gynos used to be.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:I don’t know if this is the thread for this, and I want to stress that this is purely hypothetical, but is it hard to learn how to perform abortions? Are home abortions, probably through chemical means rather than mechanical, a practical possibility? https://twitter.com/coffeewcomrades/status/1521563681175314432
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 01:01
|
|
|
Many/most abortions are "take these pills, watch for some extremely rare complications, no follow up". Another sketchy thing with Alito's "no historical right to abortion" is that there is absolutely a historical right to hire medical care. Hypothetical founding father wouldn't be okay with banning otherwise useful medical procedures for moral reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 01:07
|
|
|
davecrazy posted:Isn’t their a case on the docket that will eliminate gun control? The issue in NYSRPA is whether or not New York can require you to show 'proper cause' in order to get a concealed firearm carry permit. In theory I suppose the court could rule that permitless carry is legal everywhere, but from oral argument it mostly seems like they'll go with 'you have to have a consistent, objective standard for giving out permits.'
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 01:08
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:It seems extremely unlikely to me that Kav, Gorsuch, or Roberts would vote to overturn Loving or Lawrence. I could see Gorsuch and maybe Kavanaugh overturning Griswold, but not Roberts. *Thomas* has said he believes _Loving_ was wrongly decided.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 01:18
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:So explain to me like I'm five how Congress passing some sort of federal guarantee of abortion rights would be safe from the SCOTUS striking it down later? Like isn't 'actually this law is unconstitutional' part and parcel of how and why we are here? Why would Congress pass such a thing when it would require 67 votes in the Senate?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 01:27
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:*Thomas* has said he believes _Loving_ was wrongly decided.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 01:27
|
|
|
The text of the draft makes reference to abortion's 'special moral status' and cites a bunch of court cases talking about like...fetal personhood. It definitely feels like laying the groundwork to enumerate a 'fetal personhood' principle - which would strike down any codified law and be a hair away from illegalization.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 01:35
|
|
|
Flappy Bert posted:The issue in NYSRPA is whether or not New York can require you to show 'proper cause' in order to get a concealed firearm carry permit. In theory I suppose the court could rule that permitless carry is legal everywhere, but from oral argument it mostly seems like they'll go with 'you have to have a consistent, objective standard for giving out permits.' This will be an objective improvement on the de facto paper bag/wealth test that the current lack of oversight on the permitting process enables
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 01:38
|
|
|
Javid posted:This will be an objective improvement on the de facto paper bag/wealth test that the current lack of oversight on the permitting process enables
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 01:53
|
|
|
Hypothetically, if this leak was found to be a deliberate or negligent act by one of the justices, could they face any meaningful punishment or repercussions? (You know if it came from the liberal side, the chuds will be howling for blood--but if it came from the conservative side, zero shits will be given.)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 01:54
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Carry permits are a good example of systemic racism. https://hwfo.substack.com/p/explaining-systemic-racism-to-the?s=r From our local expert on racism. e: lmao at that link. Cool substack you have there quote:[I support the current thing NPC meme image omitted] Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 02:11 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and can only be removed by a 2/3 vote by the senate.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 01:58
|
|
|
Number_6 posted:Hypothetically, if this leak was found to be a deliberate or negligent act by one of the justices, could they face any meaningful punishment or repercussions? (You know if it came from the liberal side, the chuds will be howling for blood--but if it came from the conservative side, zero shits will be given.) The only check on a SCOTUS judge is impeachment. e: or technically death.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 01:59
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and can only be removed by a 2/3 vote by the senate. Technically, the court could be restructured without removing them from their seats. E.g., if we added 9 new judges and set them to hear cases in panels of 3, randomly rotating, that coudl work. Alternatively, a law mandating that judges go into retirement status at age 75, while technically retaining their positions, could be valid. See, e.g., quote:As a retired Supreme Court Justice, O'Connor continued to receive a full salary, maintained a staffed office with at least one law clerk, and heard cases on a part-time basis in federal district courts and courts of appeals as a visiting judge.[116] By 2008, O'Connor had sat for cases with the 2nd, 8th, and 9th Circuits.[117][118] O'Connor heard an Arizona voting rights case which the Supreme Court later reviewed.[116] In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, a 7–2 majority affirmed O'Connor and the rest of 9th Circuit panel, and struck down a provision of Arizona's voting registration law.[119] O'Connor hired a law clerk for the October 2015 term, but did not hire a law clerk for the subsequent term.[120][121]
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:08
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:I think the opinion kind of takes that approach? There is a fair amount of weirdo dicta, this is Alito after all. But two of the basic points are that (a) you have to do some pretty crazy logical cartwheels to find a right to abortion in the Constitution and (b) abortion looks much less like a right deeply rooted in history and tradition than something Americans hotly disagree about and should be resolved through politics and legislation, instead of through judicial fiat. Yet somehow even the incoming conservative Justices agreed Roe was settled law in their confirmation hearings, and abortion historically wasn't a major wedge issue until the Christofash lost the fight on segregation and interracial marriage. 'Roe was weirdly argued' only comes up when someone is looking for an excuse to go after it that isn't admitting the desire to push the social rules of a specific sect of Christianity as the law of the land. A legislative solution would be much better, and has been campaigned on for more than half a century, but the issue was seen as settled so it was never treated as a legislative priority by the party using the wedge issue to fundraise.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:13
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:A legislative solution would be much better A legislative solution is subject to the whims of Congress and can be repealed anytime people want to vote to repeal it. A judicial solution is subject to the whims of the Supreme Court, which typically only reverses itself generationally.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
A legislative solution is ALSO subject to the whims of the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:55
|
|
