|
GaussianCopula posted:I don't see the current draft opinion as "stripping away human rights". The Mississipi law that is going to be upheld bans abortions after the 15th week, which is one week more than German law allows, which is seen as reasonable. Mississippi has one abortion clinic.
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:It's not like the Supreme Court was good before the birth of the conservative legal movement. It had one short period of being pretty good. You can say basically the same thing about the entire American system of government.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 20:58
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Mississippi has one abortion clinic. On top of that, Mississippi has a trigger law (as do twelve other states), so when this decision goes through abortion becomes illegal immediately or shortly thereafter Piell fucked around with this message at 21:14 on May 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 21:11
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:I don't see the current draft opinion as "stripping away human rights". This statement represents a probably unbridgeable ideological divide. I'm not sure what relevance you think German law has, can you elaborate? Seems to me Germans are lacking an essential right but maybe it is solved by better public education about contraception or something like that.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2022 22:30
|
|
|
Piell posted:On top of that, Mississippi has a trigger law (as do twelve other states), so when this decision goes through abortion becomes illegal immediately or shortly thereafter https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/us/state-abortion-trigger-laws-roe-v-wade-overturned/index.html
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 00:19
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Judicial Review isn’t written in the constitution, it is inferred by the court itself And he might be acting illegally in so doing. The president does not have, and has never had, the power to decide what is legal and what is not, that power being vested in the judicial branch. He may have the ability to ignore the Supreme Court's rulings, but he very obviously does not have the legal authority to do so. GaussianCopula posted:I think the fact that the supreme court decides based on the law, even if you disagree with their particular philosophy of how they interpret the law, leads to more stable decisions than letting an directly elected president, who might not be the most stable genius, do it. I don't think it does in cases where the Supreme Court issues an opinion that meets the criteria I mentioned a few pages back—specifically, the leaked draft opinion contains factual errors about the history and current state of the law. Philosophy doesn't even come into the equation when the majority opinion boldly makes statements that are verifiably at odds with reality.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 05:30
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:This statement represents a probably unbridgeable ideological divide. I'm not sure what relevance you think German law has, can you elaborate? Seems to me Germans are lacking an essential right but maybe it is solved by better public education about contraception or something like that. Looking at the overview table on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law) most countries either use a time-limit that is below the 15weeks used in Mississippi. To me the key is that this is a question the democratically elected representatives of the people should decide and there is no consensus "human right" to medically not necessary abortions. tagesschau posted:I don't think it does in cases where the Supreme Court issues an opinion that meets the criteria I mentioned a few pages back—specifically, the leaked draft opinion contains factual errors about the history and current state of the law. Philosophy doesn't even come into the equation when the majority opinion boldly makes statements that are verifiably at odds with reality. Going by this NYT fact check https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/11/us/politics/alito-opinion-roe-fact-check.html it seems to me that it's mostly a "you can look at it the way Alito does, but you can also look at it from another perspective and reach different conclusions". And this is where I would referr back to my first point - decision such as the rules about abortion are peppered with value judgements, that should not be made by justices but by legislators. Additionally Roe v Wade probably has a very strong personal bias, that is not present in most other cases, as the conservative judges would not have been selected if their personal views on the topic were not very well known. VitalSigns posted:For example even reactionary voters want legal weed though at this point and it passes whenever it comes up on a referendum, but the central government doesn't have to give a poo poo. Even in a rough voting model you have to consider two factors - not only what a voter thinks about a certain issue, but also how much it's going to inform his voting intention. Most people, who do not smoke weed, simply don't care enough about weed while the people opposing it, care comparatively more.
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 13:43
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:there is no consensus "human right" to medically not necessary abortions. Interesting that you keep referring to consensus. Personally, I don't think it's up to everyone else to decide what my human rights are. Do you?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 14:00
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Even in a rough voting model you have to consider two factors - not only what a voter thinks about a certain issue, but also how much it's going to inform his voting intention. Most people, who do not smoke weed, simply don't care enough about weed while the people opposing it, care comparatively more. And don't forget, a few people with billions of dollars and armies of lobbyists care comparatively even more
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 14:02
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Interesting that you keep referring to consensus. Personally, I don't think it's up to everyone else to decide what my human rights are. Do you? Human rights are build on a societal consensus. That's why the constitution states "we hold these truths to be self-evident..."
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 14:10
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Human rights are build on a societal consensus. That's why the constitution states "we hold these truths to be self-evident..." Is it my turn to start saying “what even are rights maaan” that is popular in this thread? Also this is a load of horseshit. With this definition one could argue that there were no human right violations with slavery at the time even though there very much were. virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 14:29 on May 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 14:26
|
|
|
Like I said, unbridgeable ideological divide.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 14:43
|
|
|
I mean, I guess you can make the argument that time limits for abortions are "reasonable" provided they are 12+ weeks out, but on the other hand there's also absolutely no point because I doubt very many people are, after roughly three months of pregnancy, saying "actually? I don't want it any more!" and of the people who do make that decision, I imagine there's usually some pretty good reasons why that we, as a society, don't need to judge. But recognizing that decisions made around abortion are normal decisions made by normal people would involve recognizing that women are rational, and have agency, and that's just a bridge too far for a lot of people it seems.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 14:45
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Looking at the overview table on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law) most countries either use a time-limit that is below the 15weeks used in Mississippi. To me the key is that this is a question the democratically elected representatives of the people should decide and there is no consensus "human right" to medically not necessary abortions. Your stance here ignores the fact, which was pointed out to you above, that Mississippi also has a trigger law that will immediately ban abortions if Roe v Wade is overturned, as do twelve other states (and another ten states still have pre-Roe laws banning abortion on the books that could be enforced again if Roe is overturned). Thus, a ruling on Mississippi's 15-week abortion law that fully overturns Roe, as Alito's does, does not in fact lead to a 15-week abortion restriction in Mississippi, it results in a complete ban on abortions in Mississippi as well as half the other states in the USA. This is not some mystery unknown to the people making these decisions, either. Anti-abortion state politicians have been pretty transparently passing these kinds of laws specifically to challenge Roe with the goal of eventually getting a ruling just like the one Alito has written so that instead of incrementally moving the abortion line earlier each time, they can just use the trigger law to ban everything.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 14:49
|
|
|
The human right to have my escaped slaves tracked down, captured, bound, and delivered back to me on demand
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 14:51
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Human rights are build on a societal consensus. That's why the constitution states "we hold these truths to be self-evident..." I think the founders would have a problem with this argument. They believed that rights were a natural state of things and that a majority of people could easily become an oppressive force of winnow away people's rights via their government. This isn't some founders were super genius benevolent right givers who knew everything but the idea that rights come from consensus doesn't make sense. And on top of that the bill of rights was added as a hand shake agreement because they couldn't agree on what rights to include. Generally, I agree with the point that the court system is a necessary check and inevitable institution if you are doing and rule of law. Of course the issue with the Supreme Court is that it is stupid simple to gamify and when you have a political party and cabal of politicians who don't care about rights and only about power, the whole thing falls apart.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 14:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The human right to have my escaped slaves tracked down, captured, bound, and delivered back to me on demand "... pursuit of happiness" is quite literal. They wanted the right to pursue any slaves wherever they escaped to, particularly slaves named Happiness 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 15:01
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I mean, I guess you can make the argument that time limits for abortions are "reasonable" provided they are 12+ weeks out, Keep in mind that the number of weeks is counted from the end of the woman's last menstruation. By the time she finds out that she is overdue and does a pregnancy test she'll be at like 6 weeks already at minimum.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 15:14
|
|
vyelkin posted:Your stance here ignores the fact, which was pointed out to you above, that Mississippi also has a trigger law that will immediately ban abortions if Roe v Wade is overturned, as do twelve other states (and another ten states still have pre-Roe laws banning abortion on the books that could be enforced again if Roe is overturned). Thus, a ruling on Mississippi's 15-week abortion law that fully overturns Roe, as Alito's does, does not in fact lead to a 15-week abortion restriction in Mississippi, it results in a complete ban on abortions in Mississippi as well as half the other states in the USA. This is not some mystery unknown to the people making these decisions, either. Anti-abortion state politicians have been pretty transparently passing these kinds of laws specifically to challenge Roe with the goal of eventually getting a ruling just like the one Alito has written so that instead of incrementally moving the abortion line earlier each time, they can just use the trigger law to ban everything. Trigger laws are lovely because they exploit the asymetrie in motivation between people who think the status quo is fine and those that want it changed and in a perfect world they would not be legally possible. On the other hand, their existance can't influence the decisions of the court, as they could otherwise be used as a tool to influence/pressure judges. Mooseontheloose posted:I think the founders would have a problem with this argument. They believed that rights were a natural state of things and that a majority of people could easily become an oppressive force of winnow away people's rights via their government. This isn't some founders were super genius benevolent right givers who knew everything but the idea that rights come from consensus doesn't make sense. And on top of that the bill of rights was added as a hand shake agreement because they couldn't agree on what rights to include. Natural rights are one way to derive human rights but the key here is that it was the consensus of the founders that led to certain human rights being included in the constitution. From todays perspective the initial list obviously wasn't complete, which why the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th etc. amendment were necessary. And humanity has learned over the ages that rights can be revoked by oppressive regimes, which is why where the idea that constitutional law has a more demanding process to change it.
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 15:14
|
|
|
It's true, any influence on judges other than the raw text of the law in question taints the result. Why is why our judges are raised from birth alone inside sealed compounds, carefully sequestered away from any information about the world outside a courtroom for their entire lives
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Trigger laws are lovely because they exploit the asymetrie in motivation between people who think the status quo is fine and those that want it changed and in a perfect world they would not be legally possible. Care to weigh in on the 9th?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 15:31
|
|
|
Wow, there's really someone in here arguing that slaves only had the right to not be slaves once enough of their oppressors came to a consensus that they had that right. Wild stuff. There's no need for a "consensus" that people have the right to police their own bodies, and it's absurd to claim otherwise.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
haveblue posted:It's true, any influence on judges other than the raw text of the law in question taints the result. Why is why our judges are raised from birth alone inside sealed compounds, carefully sequestered away from any information about the world outside a courtroom for their entire lives Remember the time someone left a phone inside a circuit court compound? The whole herd of judges had to be destroyed! Truly a shame.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
Devorum posted:Wow, there's really someone in here arguing that slaves only had the right to not be slaves once enough of their oppressors came to a consensus that they had that right. Wild stuff. The nazi said nazi poo poo but bc hes being polite the mods are okay with it, lmao
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 15:48
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Care to weigh in on the 9th? I personally believe that Hugo Black's dissent in Grisworld is more persuasive than the interpretation by the majority in that case, because the link between the 9th and 14th as postulated by Goldberg seems to be a reach given the time between the three relevant events.
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 15:50
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:I personally believe that Hugo Black's dissent in Grisworld is more persuasive than the interpretation by the majority in that case, because the link between the 9th and 14th as postulated by Goldberg seems to be a reach given the time between the three relevant events. That was a concurrence not a dissent.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 15:51
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That was a concurrence not a dissent. Black was a dissent, Goldberg was a concurrence. My bad I could have made the concurrence part clearer in the op.
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That was a concurrence not a dissent. You're thinking of Goldberg's concurrence.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
This isn't even touching on the idea that anyone but the woman and her doctor can decide an abortion is "medically not necessary" An absurdity, to be sure.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
He ninja edited before I quoted him! He had Goldberg originally. I didn't notice in my quote that he had got me with the ninja.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 16:09
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I think the founders would have a problem with this argument. They believed that rights were a natural state of things and that a majority of people could easily become an oppressive force of winnow away people's rights via their government. This isn't some founders were super genius benevolent right givers who knew everything but the idea that rights come from consensus doesn't make sense. And on top of that the bill of rights was added as a hand shake agreement because they couldn't agree on what rights to include. As a practical matter, somebody has to determine everyone's rights, and better the majority than the minority. We can philosophize about natural rights, but ultimately some group with power has to legalize and enforce those rights, or they are just academic. The Founders didn't trust the unwashed masses, they put rich white landowners in charge, and that ruling minority enshrined slavery, so maybe we don't need to care what they think too much. The rights we recognize now didn't come from nature, they came from the blood and toil of revolutionaries.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 16:35
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Human rights are build on a societal consensus. That's why the constitution states "we hold these truths to be self-evident..." Not only is your interpretation here terrible, as others have pointed out, but that quotation is from the declaration of independence, not the constitution
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 16:59
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Trigger laws are lovely because they exploit the asymetrie in motivation between people who think the status quo is fine and those that want it changed and in a perfect world they would not be legally possible. In a perfect world, legislatures couldn't be gerrymandered to be entirely unrepresentative of the state they control, too, but reality doesn't bear that idea out. I am actually gobsmacked at how utterly idiotic the statement that judges cannot take existing laws into account when ruling on the merits of a law is. I don't think you have a clear understanding of your own argument, much less the existing conditions surrounding this decision.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 17:17
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:And he might be acting illegally in so doing. The president does not have, and has never had, the power to decide what is legal and what is not, that power being vested in the judicial branch. laws are enacted by the legislative branch. if you're unfamiliar with even the basics of US government structure i'm not sure what you think you have to add to the discussion besides questions. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 17:40
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:laws are enacted by the legislative branch. if you're unfamiliar with even the basics of US government structure i'm not sure what you think you have to add to the discussion besides questions. I suspect they were referring to the fact that while the legislative branch creates laws, the judicial branch is what determines the legality of those laws.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
Can we all just ignore the German neonazi that’s taken it upon themselves to sea-lion into the US SCOTUS thread with bad faith posting?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 18:04
|
|
|
IMO even if SCOTUS was the most legitimate body in recorded history and this leaked ruling was grounded in ironclad constitutional law, it would still be terrible because it appears poised to remove a woman's autonomy over what happens to her own body, and should be opposed by any means necessary. A system that allows that kind of thing to happen is not a system worth defending or preserving, regardless of its legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 18:15
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I suspect they were referring to the fact that while the legislative branch creates laws, the judicial branch is what determines the legality of those laws. the marbury court made up judicial review. it's a doctrine that's useful for advancing socially conservative political goals, such as lifetime political appointees might favor. it is defended by people who favor those goals, or people who have been duped.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 18:16
|
|
|
Sydin posted:IMO even if SCOTUS was the most legitimate body in recorded history and this leaked ruling was grounded in ironclad constitutional law, it would still be terrible because it appears poised to remove a woman's autonomy over what happens to her own body, and should be opposed by any means necessary. A system that allows that kind of thing to happen is not a system worth defending or preserving, regardless of its legitimacy. in bold, that is what ethically-minded people mean when they say "legitimate". by contrast when practically-minded people talk about legitimacy they just mean, how many other people will follow. so we can hope that decisions like this erode the practical legitimacy of the court, since, as you say, it is ethically illegitimate.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:the marbury court made up judicial review. it's a doctrine that's useful for advancing socially conservative political goals, such as lifetime political appointees might favor. it is defended by people who favor those goals, or people who have been duped. The concept of judicial review is inherent to the Supremacy Clause and the grant of power to the judiciary to address cases arising under the Constitution, but go ahead. Whether judicial review is good or not, the “it was made up in Marbury!” whining is a textualist argument that leads down a slope to remove many, many, many rights. There’s as much textual support for judicial review, if not more, as there is for a privacy right, the unanimous jury right, the right to court appointed counsel, or the right to Miranda warnings. The fact that sometimes the Court uses this power badly isn’t an argument that it lacks any Constitutional basis.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2022 18:22
|
|