Author Topic: Extreme right-wing partisan decisions made by the Republican Supreme Court  (Read 35752 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Figured we should start a thread to record what the politically and religiously stacked Supreme Court is getting up to.

They've been working hard to allow voter discrimination that benefits Republicans:(https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/brnovich-vra-scotus-decision-arizona-voting-right/619330/).

They're working to make it more difficult for unions to operate:(https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/supreme-court-california-unions/index.html), (https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/john-roberts-conservative-california-unions/index.html)

And of course, we already know that they've voted for the end of Roe v. Wade:(https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473).

More recently they ruled for additional gun violence by saying that the second amendment means that states can no longer regulate concealed carry (https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-bruen/index.html).




They're in for life, so there is a lot more than this to look forward to during the slide into darkness.  Let's document it here!
« Last Edit: June 23, 2022, 09:58:40 AM by GuitarStv »

StarBright

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3270
They basically gutted Miranda this morning (by making it essentially unenforceable):
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-miranda-rights/index.html

And opened up religious schools to federal funding yesterday:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/court-strikes-down-maines-ban-on-using-public-funds-at-religious-schools/

My stomach is churning this morning. Folks think we'll get Dobbs (Roe decision) tomorrow.


talltexan

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5344
I heard reporting that the liberal justices are delaying their dissents until last possible moment to maximize the women in trigger-law states who can seek care.

turketron

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
  • Age: 38
  • Location: WI
And opened up religious schools to federal funding yesterday:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/court-strikes-down-maines-ban-on-using-public-funds-at-religious-schools/

Cool, can't wait for the Satanic Temple to open a school using federal funds. That's the religious freedom they were talking about, right?

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
And opened up religious schools to federal funding yesterday:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/court-strikes-down-maines-ban-on-using-public-funds-at-religious-schools/

Cool, can't wait for the Satanic Temple to open a school using federal funds. That's the religious freedom they were talking about, right?

Nah.  It'll be acceptable for a Christian school but the moment a Muslim school tries it, this Court will carve out a narrow exception based on "community standards" or some other originalist gobbly-gook.

StarBright

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3270
I heard reporting that the liberal justices are delaying their dissents until last possible moment to maximize the women in trigger-law states who can seek care.

ugh- that is heartbreaking.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6633
They're working to make it more difficult for unions to operate:(https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/supreme-court-california-unions/index.html), (https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics/john-roberts-conservative-california-unions/index.html)
This seems like a pretty narrow ruling from the perspective of unions.  I think most farm workers are temporary with housing not on the farm - so there's a way to reach them (but that's a wild guess based on remembering one documentary from years ago).

For Apple store employees, the sidewalk isn't Apple property.  I suspect visible union organizing at Apple and other companies will have a broader impact than where agricultural union reps can visit without paying.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Expected later this year . . . West_Virginia_v._EPA.  At stake - the EPA's ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8823
  • Location: Avalon
And here is the Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v Jackson that ends the constitutional right to abortion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

I am profoundly saddened that American women have just been made slaves again.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2022, 08:29:03 AM by former player »

turketron

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
  • Age: 38
  • Location: WI
Welp, we had our one kid, time to schedule a vasectomy

LaineyAZ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
And here is the Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v Jackson that ends the constitutional right to abortion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

I am profoundly saddened that American women have just been made slaves again.

Dammit.  I was holding on to a bit of hope that the fierce backlash from the leaked draft opinion would cause the court to moderate the final version, but I was wrong. 
All of this is so infuriating.  Wondering now if all of those people who don't bother to vote will wake the fuck up.

Gronnie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 630
  • Age: 37
  • Location: MN
The rulings on Roe v Wade and conceal carry are both constitutionally correct.

They aren't outlawing abortion -- they are leaving it up to the states. This is constitutionally correct according to the 10th amendment.

Meanwhile -- the right to bear arms shall not be infringed is specifically spelled out in the constitution. According to the supremacy clause states can't infringe upon that right.

sixwings

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.

sui generis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3104
  • she/her
Thomas' concurring opinion proposes overturning Griswold (right to birth control), Lawrence (sodomy laws) and Obergefell (gay marriage).  It's what's up next for the radical right.  They do, after all, have to have constant scare and fear and anger campaigns to keep their base rabid, so this is what will keep the mouths frothing and the money rolling in.

As for what is constitutionally correct, @Gronnie your assertion is weak, as most assertions are.

Gronnie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 630
  • Age: 37
  • Location: MN
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.

There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.

Gronnie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 630
  • Age: 37
  • Location: MN
Thomas' concurring opinion proposes overturning Griswold (right to birth control), Lawrence (sodomy laws) and Obergefell (gay marriage).  It's what's up next for the radical right.  They do, after all, have to have constant scare and fear and anger campaigns to keep their base rabid, so this is what will keep the mouths frothing and the money rolling in.

As for what is constitutionally correct, @Gronnie your assertion is weak, as most assertions are.

The burden is on you to explain why it's weak (something tells me your explanation won't be very impressive) -- sounds to me like you are just arguing from emotion.

Let me also make it clear that I'm all for abortion rights and live in a state where it's constitutionally protected and am glad of it.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2022, 09:21:26 AM by Gronnie »

sixwings

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.

There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.

Roe v Wade wasn't actually about abortion, it was about privacy between a woman and her doctor. Life is more complex in 2022 than what a relatively short document that a bunch of white men drafted in 1787 could have even dreamed of. It's why originalism is stupid for stupid people.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20746
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
The rulings on Roe v Wade and conceal carry are both constitutionally correct.

They aren't outlawing abortion -- they are leaving it up to the states. This is constitutionally correct according to the 10th amendment.

Meanwhile -- the right to bear arms shall not be infringed is specifically spelled out in the constitution. According to the supremacy clause states can't infringe upon that right.

Information question here - in Canada the Federal government has jurisdiction over criminal law and the Provincial governments have jurisdiction over civil law.  So the Federal government was able to pass legislation that having or providing an abortion was not a criminal act.  Then the provinces, being in charge of health care, each provide health care including abortions.  But a province could/can not make an abortion illegal, because that is not their jurisdiction.

So who in the US has jurisdiction over criminal law?  Because if it is the Feds, that means a state can't criminalize abortion.  But if it is a mix then a State can criminalize something (i.e. abortion) that the Federal government has said is legal?  That makes for a very messy legal system.


Gronnie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 630
  • Age: 37
  • Location: MN
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.

There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.

....It's why originalism is stupid for stupid people.

This post right here is why liberals always seem to lose shortly after coming into power. Attacks and arguments from emotion, "tolerance" as long as everyone believes what they believe, etc.

Gronnie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 630
  • Age: 37
  • Location: MN
The rulings on Roe v Wade and conceal carry are both constitutionally correct.

They aren't outlawing abortion -- they are leaving it up to the states. This is constitutionally correct according to the 10th amendment.

Meanwhile -- the right to bear arms shall not be infringed is specifically spelled out in the constitution. According to the supremacy clause states can't infringe upon that right.

Information question here - in Canada the Federal government has jurisdiction over criminal law and the Provincial governments have jurisdiction over civil law.  So the Federal government was able to pass legislation that having or providing an abortion was not a criminal act.  Then the provinces, being in charge of health care, each provide health care including abortions.  But a province could/can not make an abortion illegal, because that is not their jurisdiction.

So who in the US has jurisdiction over criminal law?  Because if it is the Feds, that means a state can't criminalize abortion.  But if it is a mix then a State can criminalize something (i.e. abortion) that the Federal government has said is legal?  That makes for a very messy legal system.

A good example in the US would be marijuana laws. It's still federally illegal, it just hasn't been enforced. So even in states where it's legal technically one could still be prosecuted federally. This is also part of why a lot of marijuana companies have trouble finding things such as banks that will work with them.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8823
  • Location: Avalon
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.

There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.

....It's why originalism is stupid for stupid people.

This post right here is why liberals always seem to lose shortly after coming into power. Attacks and arguments from emotion, "tolerance" as long as everyone believes what they believe, etc.
It is difficult to provide clever responses to stupid arguments.

But in response to your arguments on abortion and guns -

1.  The thirteenth amendment outlaws slavery, and making a woman bear a foetus she doesn't want to is slavery, and

2.  The right to bear arms is explicitly limited by its purpose of creating a militia and is therefore necessarily and clearly a right that is subject to restriction.

Gronnie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 630
  • Age: 37
  • Location: MN
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.

There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.

....It's why originalism is stupid for stupid people.

This post right here is why liberals always seem to lose shortly after coming into power. Attacks and arguments from emotion, "tolerance" as long as everyone believes what they believe, etc.
It is difficult to provide clever responses to stupid arguments.

But in response to your arguments on abortion and guns -

1.  The thirteenth amendment outlaws slavery, and making a woman bear a foetus she doesn't want to is slavery, and

2.  The right to bear arms is explicitly limited by its purpose of creating a militia and is therefore necessarily and clearly a right that is subject to restriction.

1. All I can say to that is "lol wat?"
2. I don't think militia means what you think it means

They aren't stupid arguments, they just don't align with your worldview.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.

There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.

....It's why originalism is stupid for stupid people.

This post right here is why liberals always seem to lose shortly after coming into power. Attacks and arguments from emotion, "tolerance" as long as everyone believes what they believe, etc.
It is difficult to provide clever responses to stupid arguments.

But in response to your arguments on abortion and guns -

1.  The thirteenth amendment outlaws slavery, and making a woman bear a foetus she doesn't want to is slavery, and

2.  The right to bear arms is explicitly limited by its purpose of creating a militia and is therefore necessarily and clearly a right that is subject to restriction.

Further,

1) There is also 50 years of precedence written by SC Justices.

2) As mentioned, not all constitutional rights are absolute. Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is the typical example. Owning an operation Stokes howitzer is another (even with a federal firearms license, some states disallow it).
« Last Edit: June 24, 2022, 09:53:37 AM by bacchi »

talltexan

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5344
For the originalists here, it does seem like there's at least one signatory to the Constitution who found abortion access to be a useful thing:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/ben-franklin-american-instructor-textbook-abortion-recipe.html

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
The law that the Supreme Court struck down regarding carrying firearms had stood in New York for 108 years with nobody batting an eye.  This happened because it didn't prevent anyone from purchasing firearms to join their local militia.  It didn't prevent anyone from carrying a weapon on public land.  It only required that a person hiding a handgun on their person while wandering around on public land get a license to do so.

There's nothing in an originalist interpretation of the 2nd amendment that supports this SC decision.  The justices weren't making stupid arguments . . . but they were activist arguments pushing a modern political agenda rather than based upon historical consideration of the document they're supposed to be based on.



As far as slavery/abortion . . .

If you are a matching kidney donor and your neighbour will die of kidney failure without you donating it, you're not required to give him access to your body.  Even if he dies from your refusal.

By the same token, a woman who doesn't want a fetus in her should not be forced against her will to donate her womb, blood, and nutrients from the food she eats to the fetus.  Even if the fetus will die when refused this.

Otherwise, you are giving one person (the fetus) control of another person (the mother) and forcing her to obey the wishes of the other against her will.  Which certainly sounds like the definition of slavery.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
The law that the Supreme Court struck down regarding carrying firearms had stood in New York for 108 years with nobody batting an eye.  This happened because it didn't prevent anyone from purchasing firearms to join their local militia.  It didn't prevent anyone from carrying a weapon on public land.  It only required that a person hiding a handgun on their person while wandering around on public land get a license to do so.

100% incorrect. The NY law required an applicant to show “special cause” to be granted a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This is what was struck down, you do not need to show “special cause” to exercise a right.

StarBright

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3270
The rulings on Roe v Wade and conceal carry are both constitutionally correct.

They aren't outlawing abortion -- they are leaving it up to the states. This is constitutionally correct according to the 10th amendment.

Meanwhile -- the right to bear arms shall not be infringed is specifically spelled out in the constitution. According to the supremacy clause states can't infringe upon that right.

Information question here - in Canada the Federal government has jurisdiction over criminal law and the Provincial governments have jurisdiction over civil law.  So the Federal government was able to pass legislation that having or providing an abortion was not a criminal act.  Then the provinces, being in charge of health care, each provide health care including abortions.  But a province could/can not make an abortion illegal, because that is not their jurisdiction.

So who in the US has jurisdiction over criminal law?  Because if it is the Feds, that means a state can't criminalize abortion.  But if it is a mix then a State can criminalize something (i.e. abortion) that the Federal government has said is legal?  That makes for a very messy legal system.

It is a mix, but because of the 10th amendment, states essentially have jurisdiction on criminal law. I feel like I read once that 90+ percent of criminal laws are state laws. The 10th amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So states make most of the civil and criminal laws and then it gets litigated in state and federal courts up the chain to see if it has constitutional coverage under the amendments. Federal laws also get litigated by the SCOTUS.

That was one of the reasons the gun case was also a big deal yesterday. It actually expanded gun rights. Usually the second amendment covers guns, but in the opinion yesterday they also set precedent for the right to conceal carry under the 14th amendment.

Roe was covered under the 14th amendment as well.

ETA - this is frankly why women are also second class citizens under US law. Women are not granted equal protection in the constitution or amendments other than the right to vote. So any other freedoms that women currently have can theoretically be overturned by a supreme court case. And that wasn't really a concern until recently, because no court has actively removed rights from individuals until the last few years (There are probably some other examples, but to me, SCOTUS overturning part of the voting rights act a few years ago was the first major step in removing rights). Generally once rights are granted, they aren't taken away again. (also - someone correct me if I am wrong about this!!)

« Last Edit: June 24, 2022, 10:06:28 AM by StarBright »

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
The law that the Supreme Court struck down regarding carrying firearms had stood in New York for 108 years with nobody batting an eye.  This happened because it didn't prevent anyone from purchasing firearms to join their local militia.  It didn't prevent anyone from carrying a weapon on public land.  It only required that a person hiding a handgun on their person while wandering around on public land get a license to do so.

100% incorrect. The NY law required an applicant to show “special cause” to be granted a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This is what was struck down, you do not need to show “special cause” to exercise a right.

Thanks for the clarification here. I was pretty certain the ruling only said they couldn't deny a permit because the person didn't have a reason, not that there couldn't be a permit at all. I thought it commented to that effect on a portion I read very specifically.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
The law that the Supreme Court struck down regarding carrying firearms had stood in New York for 108 years with nobody batting an eye.  This happened because it didn't prevent anyone from purchasing firearms to join their local militia.  It didn't prevent anyone from carrying a weapon on public land.  It only required that a person hiding a handgun on their person while wandering around on public land get a license to do so.

100% incorrect. The NY law required an applicant to show “special cause” to be granted a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This is what was struck down, you do not need to show “special cause” to exercise a right.

Thanks for the clarification here. I was pretty certain the ruling only said they couldn't deny a permit because the person didn't have a reason, not that there couldn't be a permit at all. I thought it commented to that effect on a portion I read very specifically.

Yup, background check and permitting process, including a class and potentially a test, still applies. But now it won’t be restricted to whatever VIPs the local bureaucrats deem worthy.

Phenix

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 305
  • Location: Ohio
As far as slavery/abortion . . .

If you are a matching kidney donor and your neighbour will die of kidney failure without you donating it, you're not required to give him access to your body.  Even if he dies from your refusal.

By the same token, a woman who doesn't want a fetus in her should not be forced against her will to donate her womb, blood, and nutrients from the food she eats to the fetus.  Even if the fetus will die when refused this.

Otherwise, you are giving one person clump of cells (the fetus) control of another person (the mother birthing person) and forcing her him/her/them to obey the wishes of the other against her his/her/their will.  Which certainly sounds like the definition of slavery.

FTFY

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8823
  • Location: Avalon
The law that the Supreme Court struck down regarding carrying firearms had stood in New York for 108 years with nobody batting an eye.  This happened because it didn't prevent anyone from purchasing firearms to join their local militia.  It didn't prevent anyone from carrying a weapon on public land.  It only required that a person hiding a handgun on their person while wandering around on public land get a license to do so.

100% incorrect. The NY law required an applicant to show “special cause” to be granted a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This is what was struck down, you do not need to show “special cause” to exercise a right.

Thanks for the clarification here. I was pretty certain the ruling only said they couldn't deny a permit because the person didn't have a reason, not that there couldn't be a permit at all. I thought it commented to that effect on a portion I read very specifically.

Yup, background check and permitting process, including a class and potentially a test, still applies. But now it won’t be restricted to whatever VIPs the local bureaucrats deem worthy.
I think you mean that it won't be restricted to people who have a reason for carrying concealed.

(It still appears possible to restrict concealed carry on the grounds that the person is unfit.  Just not because they want to look like a cowboy in Times Square.)

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6633
Sure, for originalists, which is a stupid approach in 2022.

There's no interpretation to be made -- the Constitution doesn't even mention abortion and is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.

....It's why originalism is stupid for stupid people.
This post right here is why liberals always seem to lose shortly after coming into power. Attacks and arguments from emotion, "tolerance" as long as everyone believes what they believe, etc.
So you're saying the other poster might need to use "stupid" 3 times in a sentence to convince you?  I mean, after all they tried 1 ("stupid approach") and 2 ("stupid for stupid people") already... I hope I'm not spoiling anything by predicting 3.

Sibley

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7428
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
The rulings on Roe v Wade and conceal carry are both constitutionally correct.

They aren't outlawing abortion -- they are leaving it up to the states. This is constitutionally correct according to the 10th amendment.

Meanwhile -- the right to bear arms shall not be infringed is specifically spelled out in the constitution. According to the supremacy clause states can't infringe upon that right.

Information question here - in Canada the Federal government has jurisdiction over criminal law and the Provincial governments have jurisdiction over civil law.  So the Federal government was able to pass legislation that having or providing an abortion was not a criminal act.  Then the provinces, being in charge of health care, each provide health care including abortions.  But a province could/can not make an abortion illegal, because that is not their jurisdiction.

So who in the US has jurisdiction over criminal law?  Because if it is the Feds, that means a state can't criminalize abortion.  But if it is a mix then a State can criminalize something (i.e. abortion) that the Federal government has said is legal?  That makes for a very messy legal system.

To answer your question: both. Yes, its messy.

And for the people throwing around insults, cut it out. It doesn't help.

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10880
Quote
As far as slavery/abortion . . .

If you are a matching kidney donor and your neighbour will die of kidney failure without you donating it, you're not required to give him access to your body.  Even if he dies from your refusal.

By the same token, a woman who doesn't want a fetus in her should not be forced against her will to donate her womb, blood, and nutrients from the food she eats to the fetus.  Even if the fetus will die when refused this.

Otherwise, you are giving one person (the fetus) control of another person (the mother) and forcing her to obey the wishes of the other against her will.  Which certainly sounds like the definition of slavery.
Oh, don't even both with this.  The other side doesn't care about that.  Blah blah the BABY.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Clarence Thomas, concurring opinion in Dobbs:

Quote from: thomas
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents,

That's "correct[ing] the error" in the Court's contraception, sodomy, and gay marriage rulings.

I remember our own John Galt, who insisted that the new Justices wouldn't overturn 50 years of precedent.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Clarence Thomas, concurring opinion in Dobbs:

Quote from: thomas
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents,

That's "correct[ing] the error" in the Court's contraception, sodomy, and gay marriage rulings.

I remember our own John Galt, who insisted that the new Justices wouldn't overturn 50 years of precedent.

Yes, he has been very quiet ever since every single one of his hard argued predictions regarding the impartiality and adherence to established legal precedent that the Supreme Court would follow was proven false.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Clarence Thomas, concurring opinion in Dobbs:

Quote from: thomas
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents,

That's "correct[ing] the error" in the Court's contraception, sodomy, and gay marriage rulings.

I remember our own John Galt, who insisted that the new Justices wouldn't overturn 50 years of precedent.

Yes, he has been very quiet ever since every single one of his hard argued predictions regarding the impartiality and adherence to established legal precedent that the Supreme Court would follow was proven false.

funny how all the conservatives' rules only apply to others, isn't it...

"It's too close to an election, you can't appoint Supreme Court justice"

"lol nevermind"

mtnrider

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Location: Frozen tundra in the Northeast
This is unbelievable.

I was going to make a comment about a woman's bodily rights and the bizarre interpretation of a well regulated militia that used muzzle loaders.  But these things have all been said before.  I am speechless.

Hall11235

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Mass
Its a sad time to be an American.

Between the horrifying developments wrt women's rights, large amounts of gun violence, and that our planet is burning up, its hard to feel anything other than existential dread at what the future holds for our children.

getsorted

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1664
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Deepest Midwest
As far as slavery/abortion . . .

If you are a matching kidney donor and your neighbour will die of kidney failure without you donating it, you're not required to give him access to your body.  Even if he dies from your refusal.

By the same token, a woman who doesn't want a fetus in her should not be forced against her will to donate her womb, blood, and nutrients from the food she eats to the fetus.  Even if the fetus will die when refused this.

Otherwise, you are giving one person (the fetus) control of another person (the mother) and forcing her to obey the wishes of the other against her will.  Which certainly sounds like the definition of slavery.

When I am using this metaphor, I find it is more effective if I use a father and their child instead of neighbors. A father cannot be forced to provide a kidney for his child, even if the child will die without it. He can't even be forced to donate blood. That is how much more sovereign male bodies are than female bodies.

OzzieandHarriet

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
I feel like someone has died. All of this is tragic (in more ways than one), and so unnecessary.

jeninco

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3997
  • Location: .... duh?
I feel like someone has died. All of this is tragic (in more ways than one), and so unnecessary.

Well, yeah. The temporary illusion that women are full-fledged citizens, with the right to control their own bodies (and thus their futures.) Dead as a doornail, just the way the Evangelistan (and their minions in congress) want it.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
I feel like someone has died. All of this is tragic (in more ways than one), and so unnecessary.

Yeah. What died was women ever believing they might one day be fully equal to men in this country.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
While overturning Roe v. Wade, Thomas wrote in his opinion "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell".

Seems like a hint as to future directions for the extreme right wing activist supreme court.  So let's see, that would cover the removal of:
- the right of married couples to buy contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut)
- the right to consensual gay sex (Lawrence v. Texas)
- the right to same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges)

geekette

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2550
But he doesn’t want to touch Loving vs Virginia. Of course.

ministashy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 233
Of course not.  Though once he dies, I'm sure that will be on the chopping block too.  Conservatives have always been 'rights for me but not for thee'.

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
They basically gutted Miranda this morning (by making it essentially unenforceable):
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-miranda-rights/index.html
The Biden administration sided with what the Supreme Court ruled.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
More recently they ruled for additional gun violence by saying that the second amendment means that states can no longer regulate concealed carry (https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-bruen/index.html).

This is gonna be lit. /s

In all seriousness if you are on this forum you can probably relocate out of the USA. I would give that some serious thought, personally.

chemistk

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1739
  • Location: Mid-Atlantic
Instead of running away from the issue, perhaps this is the best time for those here who are interested to look for ways to make a meaningful difference. Local government is the incubator for a lot of the attitudes that enable these things to occur at the national level.

I know, for me, it's enough of a reason to do what I can to make sure my kids aren't going to grow up in a world where these protections have been rolled back.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Instead of running away from the issue, perhaps this is the best time for those here who are interested to look for ways to make a meaningful difference. Local government is the incubator for a lot of the attitudes that enable these things to occur at the national level.

Are you going to move to a red state to do it (perhaps you already have)? Because the Senate (and electoral college) is the linchpin.

But you can actually run away and contribute at the same time. US citizens living abroad still get to vote and contribute money to political campaigns.

I'm done giving money to politicians. From now on my money goes directly to help people with things like housing/food/abortion.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2022, 03:00:47 PM by PDXTabs »