As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The Supreme Court Has Overturned Roe v Wade

13839414344103

Posts

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.

    I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.

    Electing judges is wrong but so are lifetime appointments which is really what makes SCOTUS undemocratic. Theoretically they should be appointed by a democratically elected executive and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. But even under the best of circumstances, as the nation changes you end up with justices that no longer represent the desires of the electorate.

    Justices should not be lifetime appointments. Put them on a 6 year schedule, with 3 replaced every 2 years.

    This seems like it misses the bigger issue. Having constitutional law flip 180 every presidential term would be very bad for stability.

    As opposed to having our legislative or executive branches potentially flip every 2-4 years?

    Clarence Thomas was appointed by George Bush Sr in 1991. The fact that he's still serving right now is entirely against democracy, because the people have no voice in his continued service. Having an unelected body deciding the course of our country for the next 30+ years (based on the age of recent appointees) is also undemocratic.

    And it's not like the current SC is exactly good for stability, in that they are reversing Roe Vs. Wade, have decided that corporations are people, that money is free speech, that the VRA no long applies because racism is solved, etc.

    Something being undemocratic by definition does not mean it's undemocratic in the sense of "functionally a democracy"

    We can't have national elections for every single government position.

    I am not suggesting that all officials be elected. Besides, we can't have elections for SCOTUS unless we amend the constitution. Appointments are supposed to represent the will of the people, albeit with one degree of removal from direct elections.

    Considering you had to be 18 to vote for George Bush Sr, who was elected in 1988, that means you'd have needed to be born in 1970 or earlier to have had any influence on Clarence Thomas's appointment to SCOTUS. According to some quick googling, approximately 2/3rds of the population alive today was ineligible to have had any say on the appointment. That's what I mean when I say that his continued service is undemocratic.

    And do you really think we're living in a functional democracy at the moment?

    Yes, we do. It isn't perfect, bit it's still functional.

  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.

    I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.

    Electing judges is wrong but so are lifetime appointments which is really what makes SCOTUS undemocratic. Theoretically they should be appointed by a democratically elected executive and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. But even under the best of circumstances, as the nation changes you end up with justices that no longer represent the desires of the electorate.

    Justices should not be lifetime appointments. Put them on a 6 year schedule, with 3 replaced every 2 years.

    This seems like it misses the bigger issue. Having constitutional law flip 180 every presidential term would be very bad for stability.

    As opposed to having our legislative or executive branches potentially flip every 2-4 years?

    Clarence Thomas was appointed by George Bush Sr in 1991. The fact that he's still serving right now is entirely against democracy, because the people have no voice in his continued service. Having an unelected body deciding the course of our country for the next 30+ years (based on the age of recent appointees) is also undemocratic.

    And it's not like the current SC is exactly good for stability, in that they are reversing Roe Vs. Wade, have decided that corporations are people, that money is free speech, that the VRA no long applies because racism is solved, etc.

    Something being undemocratic by definition does not mean it's undemocratic in the sense of "functionally a democracy"

    We can't have national elections for every single government position.

    I am not suggesting that all officials be elected. Besides, we can't have elections for SCOTUS unless we amend the constitution. Appointments are supposed to represent the will of the people, albeit with one degree of removal from direct elections.

    Considering you had to be 18 to vote for George Bush Sr, who was elected in 1988, that means you'd have needed to be born in 1970 or earlier to have had any influence on Clarence Thomas's appointment to SCOTUS. According to some quick googling, approximately 2/3rds of the population alive today was ineligible to have had any say on the appointment. That's what I mean when I say that his continued service is undemocratic.

    And do you really think we're living in a functional democracy at the moment?

    Yes, we do. It isn't perfect, bit it's still functional.

    Depends where you live. Wisconsin is not really a functional democracy at the moment due to extreme gerrymandering. (I think its something like democrats need +20 or something to get a bare majority?)

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    I will absolutely acknowledge Wisonsin, but that's not what is being talked about.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Several hundred kids walked out to protest Dobbs today at my school. But I'm in the People's Republic of Ann Arbor.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    We're in the top 3 democracies of countries organized by landmass

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I will absolutely acknowledge Wisonsin, but that's not what is being talked about.

    So the fact that the Dem's in the Senate represent well over 50% of the populace while only holding 50% of the seats (and that's counting Manchin as a Dem) functional? Or the fact that they haven't had an incoming president win the popular vote in nearly 3 decades?

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Hydropolo wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I will absolutely acknowledge Wisonsin, but that's not what is being talked about.

    So the fact that the Dem's in the Senate represent well over 50% of the populace while only holding 50% of the seats (and that's counting Manchin as a Dem) functional? Or the fact that they haven't had an incoming president win the popular vote in nearly 3 decades?

    What. Again, the 2020 popular vote was 51% to 46%. And if I understand your second metric correctly, GWB won the popular vote his second time around. This idea that there is this vast Democratic silent majority that would secure eternal liberal rule if only we had free elections and the Senate didn't exist simply does not reflect the actual reality of the American electorate.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • MagellMagell Detroit Machine Guns Fort MyersRegistered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Hydropolo wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I will absolutely acknowledge Wisonsin, but that's not what is being talked about.

    So the fact that the Dem's in the Senate represent well over 50% of the populace while only holding 50% of the seats (and that's counting Manchin as a Dem) functional? Or the fact that they haven't had an incoming president win the popular vote in nearly 3 decades?

    What. Again, the 2020 popular vote was 51% to 46%. And if I understand your second metric correctly, GWB won the popular vote his second time around. This idea that there is this vast Democratic silent majority that would secure eternal liberal rule if only we had free elections and the Senate didn't exist simply does not reflect the actual reality of the American electorate.

    It definitely does. Bush only won his second term because of 9/11

  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    There is an enormous incumbent advantage.

    Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
  • HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    What, exactly, is the debate here. Whether law and policy reflect majoritarian preferences? And whether to the degree it does this, can we say that our democracy is functional?

    This is an odd thread to be debating this particular question of, tbh, political philosophy. The SCOTUS is an intentionally countermajoritarian branch in an otherwise broadly democratic, representative, system. There is definitely democracy-enhancing value to that, see e.g. Carolene Products fn. 4 (“discrete and insular minorities”). There is also democracy-undermining value, see e.g. the obvious like Shelby County and Rucho and the less obvious like the pandemic line of religious freedom cases.

    The wiki on this phenom — The counter-majoritarian difficulty — is v brief and doesn’t go in depth, but is a decent blurb on the origins of the phrase by Bickel: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-majoritarian_difficulty#:~:text=The counter-majoritarian difficulty (sometimes,or popularly-created) laws.

    The thing is that SCOTUS is obviously not even the only countermajoritarian mechanism built into the constitution, the electoral college Obvs being one of them. The idea of one person one vote and relative parity of population across congressional districts is also not even in the constitution expressly. There isn’t actually much at all in the constitution tying the concept of majority rule to a majority of the population, however thinly that population has been understood (all people, except black people and women). Depending on how you define “democracy” we were only arguably even close after the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

    So whether democracy in this country is “functional” is a matter of degree and scale. We’re less functional as a whole than we used to be pre-Bush v. Gore (21st c. Original Sin imo) and in some states, severely less functional (largely due to gerrymandering, see Wisconsin, Texas, Mississippi; but as a counter example, see also North Carolina, which has been the state that defined gerrymandering law for 30 years).

    SCOTUS has been hastening democratic decline, but it’s disconnection from popular will isn’t really the reason. Its political capture by a minority agenda is. Because of political and legal entrenchment there really isn’t a solution to this aside from two very very very difficult options: 1) political control of all other branches of federal govt and a critical mass of state govts willing to and capable of radically altering SCOTUS’s institutional features through law or constitutional amendment (e.g. court packing, term limits, paneling); or 2) old fashioned violent revolution, and I really don’t think I should have to explain why that’s a whole can of worms risking a lot worse than the broken system sought to be replaced.

    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    What, exactly, is the debate here. Whether law and policy reflect majoritarian preferences? And whether to the degree it does this, can we say that our democracy is functional?

    This is an odd thread to be debating this particular question of, tbh, political philosophy. The SCOTUS is an intentionally countermajoritarian branch in an otherwise broadly democratic, representative, system. There is definitely democracy-enhancing value to that, see e.g. Carolene Products fn. 4 (“discrete and insular minorities”). There is also democracy-undermining value, see e.g. the obvious like Shelby County and Rucho and the less obvious like the pandemic line of religious freedom cases.

    The wiki on this phenom — The counter-majoritarian difficulty — is v brief and doesn’t go in depth, but is a decent blurb on the origins of the phrase by Bickel: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-majoritarian_difficulty#:~:text=The counter-majoritarian difficulty (sometimes,or popularly-created) laws.

    The thing is that SCOTUS is obviously not even the only countermajoritarian mechanism built into the constitution, the electoral college Obvs being one of them. The idea of one person one vote and relative parity of population across congressional districts is also not even in the constitution expressly. There isn’t actually much at all in the constitution tying the concept of majority rule to a majority of the population, however thinly that population has been understood (all people, except black people and women). Depending on how you define “democracy” we were only arguably even close after the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

    So whether democracy in this country is “functional” is a matter of degree and scale. We’re less functional as a whole than we used to be pre-Bush v. Gore (21st c. Original Sin imo) and in some states, severely less functional (largely due to gerrymandering, see Wisconsin, Texas, Mississippi; but as a counter example, see also North Carolina, which has been the state that defined gerrymandering law for 30 years).

    SCOTUS has been hastening democratic decline, but it’s disconnection from popular will isn’t really the reason. Its political capture by a minority agenda is. Because of political and legal entrenchment there really isn’t a solution to this aside from two very very very difficult options: 1) political control of all other branches of federal govt and a critical mass of state govts willing to and capable of radically altering SCOTUS’s institutional features through law or constitutional amendment (e.g. court packing, term limits, paneling); or 2) old fashioned violent revolution, and I really don’t think I should have to explain why that’s a whole can of worms risking a lot worse than the broken system sought to be replaced.

    You don't need control that expansive to pack the courts (in whatever fashion you choose). 50 Senators who want to do it and the White House is enough afaik.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Hydropolo wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I will absolutely acknowledge Wisonsin, but that's not what is being talked about.

    So the fact that the Dem's in the Senate represent well over 50% of the populace while only holding 50% of the seats (and that's counting Manchin as a Dem) functional? Or the fact that they haven't had an incoming president win the popular vote in nearly 3 decades?

    What. Again, the 2020 popular vote was 51% to 46%. And if I understand your second metric correctly, GWB won the popular vote his second time around. This idea that there is this vast Democratic silent majority that would secure eternal liberal rule if only we had free elections and the Senate didn't exist simply does not reflect the actual reality of the American electorate.

    It may surprise you to know, that voter suppression means that many people cant vote, and that many of those people who can’t vote would vote for a democrat. Democrats don’t just vote less because young people and minorities are fundamentally disengaged. Many of them don’t vote because they physically cannot. Conversely, Democratic states routinely make it easy for their republicans to vote, operating on a principle that if they make it easy to vote then it will be easier for them to win.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    What, exactly, is the debate here. Whether law and policy reflect majoritarian preferences? And whether to the degree it does this, can we say that our democracy is functional?

    This is an odd thread to be debating this particular question of, tbh, political philosophy. The SCOTUS is an intentionally countermajoritarian branch in an otherwise broadly democratic, representative, system. There is definitely democracy-enhancing value to that, see e.g. Carolene Products fn. 4 (“discrete and insular minorities”). There is also democracy-undermining value, see e.g. the obvious like Shelby County and Rucho and the less obvious like the pandemic line of religious freedom cases.

    The wiki on this phenom — The counter-majoritarian difficulty — is v brief and doesn’t go in depth, but is a decent blurb on the origins of the phrase by Bickel: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-majoritarian_difficulty#:~:text=The counter-majoritarian difficulty (sometimes,or popularly-created) laws.

    The thing is that SCOTUS is obviously not even the only countermajoritarian mechanism built into the constitution, the electoral college Obvs being one of them. The idea of one person one vote and relative parity of population across congressional districts is also not even in the constitution expressly. There isn’t actually much at all in the constitution tying the concept of majority rule to a majority of the population, however thinly that population has been understood (all people, except black people and women). Depending on how you define “democracy” we were only arguably even close after the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

    So whether democracy in this country is “functional” is a matter of degree and scale. We’re less functional as a whole than we used to be pre-Bush v. Gore (21st c. Original Sin imo) and in some states, severely less functional (largely due to gerrymandering, see Wisconsin, Texas, Mississippi; but as a counter example, see also North Carolina, which has been the state that defined gerrymandering law for 30 years).

    SCOTUS has been hastening democratic decline, but it’s disconnection from popular will isn’t really the reason. Its political capture by a minority agenda is. Because of political and legal entrenchment there really isn’t a solution to this aside from two very very very difficult options: 1) political control of all other branches of federal govt and a critical mass of state govts willing to and capable of radically altering SCOTUS’s institutional features through law or constitutional amendment (e.g. court packing, term limits, paneling); or 2) old fashioned violent revolution, and I really don’t think I should have to explain why that’s a whole can of worms risking a lot worse than the broken system sought to be replaced.

    You don't need control that expansive to pack the courts (in whatever fashion you choose). 50 Senators who want to do it and the White House is enough afaik.

    Need to pass a law, so you'd need the House too. Usually the Senate is the bottleneck, but this would be the exact sort of thing that the Problem Solvers caucus and their ilk would freak over.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited May 2022
    daveNYC wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    What, exactly, is the debate here. Whether law and policy reflect majoritarian preferences? And whether to the degree it does this, can we say that our democracy is functional?

    This is an odd thread to be debating this particular question of, tbh, political philosophy. The SCOTUS is an intentionally countermajoritarian branch in an otherwise broadly democratic, representative, system. There is definitely democracy-enhancing value to that, see e.g. Carolene Products fn. 4 (“discrete and insular minorities”). There is also democracy-undermining value, see e.g. the obvious like Shelby County and Rucho and the less obvious like the pandemic line of religious freedom cases.

    The wiki on this phenom — The counter-majoritarian difficulty — is v brief and doesn’t go in depth, but is a decent blurb on the origins of the phrase by Bickel: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-majoritarian_difficulty#:~:text=The counter-majoritarian difficulty (sometimes,or popularly-created) laws.

    The thing is that SCOTUS is obviously not even the only countermajoritarian mechanism built into the constitution, the electoral college Obvs being one of them. The idea of one person one vote and relative parity of population across congressional districts is also not even in the constitution expressly. There isn’t actually much at all in the constitution tying the concept of majority rule to a majority of the population, however thinly that population has been understood (all people, except black people and women). Depending on how you define “democracy” we were only arguably even close after the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

    So whether democracy in this country is “functional” is a matter of degree and scale. We’re less functional as a whole than we used to be pre-Bush v. Gore (21st c. Original Sin imo) and in some states, severely less functional (largely due to gerrymandering, see Wisconsin, Texas, Mississippi; but as a counter example, see also North Carolina, which has been the state that defined gerrymandering law for 30 years).

    SCOTUS has been hastening democratic decline, but it’s disconnection from popular will isn’t really the reason. Its political capture by a minority agenda is. Because of political and legal entrenchment there really isn’t a solution to this aside from two very very very difficult options: 1) political control of all other branches of federal govt and a critical mass of state govts willing to and capable of radically altering SCOTUS’s institutional features through law or constitutional amendment (e.g. court packing, term limits, paneling); or 2) old fashioned violent revolution, and I really don’t think I should have to explain why that’s a whole can of worms risking a lot worse than the broken system sought to be replaced.

    You don't need control that expansive to pack the courts (in whatever fashion you choose). 50 Senators who want to do it and the White House is enough afaik.

    Need to pass a law, so you'd need the House too. Usually the Senate is the bottleneck, but this would be the exact sort of thing that the Problem Solvers caucus and their ilk would freak over.

    There's no way you get 50 Senators on board without having the House behind you. Senators are even more stuck in their ways then the stodgiest idiots in the House.

    shryke on
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I will absolutely acknowledge Wisonsin, but that's not what is being talked about.

    Actually, to me at least, it is. The entire issue is having a government that is representative of the people. Wisconsin is an example of failing this due to Gerrymandering, SCOTUS due to lifetime appointments, etc.

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    SCOTUS has been hastening democratic decline, but it’s disconnection from popular will isn’t really the reason. Its political capture by a minority agenda is.

    My point is that it's not actually that much of a minority agenda. Polls may show 50-60% support for keeping Roe v Wade, but once you actually start asking specifics the actual set of policies and restrictions that seem to have the broadest support do not actually match Roe v Wade.

    SCOTUS was probably always too blunt a tool to effectively resolve this issue. And an actual solution cannot be achieved just by gaming the system better to flip the SCOTUS position back. It requires creating a legal structure that a broad consensus of Americans fully support and that 99% can at least live with, and gathering the necessary support for it. That probably means restrictions somewhere in the second trimester and, given the significant regional variation in opinion, differences between states.

    Although in practice given the ongoing collapse of the US federal government I'm not optimistic about any of that actually happening anytime soon.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Manning'sEquationManning'sEquation Registered User regular
    When does this ruling go into effect?

  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited May 2022
    When does this ruling go into effect?

    Technically the ruling hasn’t happened yet, set for the end of the current session I think is the assumption.

    Once made, goes into effect immediately.

    Edit: current session ends in…. End of June? I think?

    ronzo on
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    ronzo wrote: »
    When does this ruling go into effect?

    Technically the ruling hasn’t happened yet, set for the end of the current session I think is the assumption.

    Once made, goes into effect immediately.

    Edit: current session ends in…. End of June? I think?

    Yup. One of the things reported on extensively, is that that about half the states have laws already on the books that are enforceable the moment that the ruling comes down. No need to pass the state legislature and be passed by the governor, they're already there.

    Some states (Michigan at least), have had their governor and attorney general say "Yeah, we're not gonna do it", but states that don't have a sane executive/AG, they're gonna start looking to make "examples" immediately.

  • HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    SCOTUS has been hastening democratic decline, but it’s disconnection from popular will isn’t really the reason. Its political capture by a minority agenda is.

    My point is that it's not actually that much of a minority agenda. Polls may show 50-60% support for keeping Roe v Wade, but once you actually start asking specifics the actual set of policies and restrictions that seem to have the broadest support do not actually match Roe v Wade.

    SCOTUS was probably always too blunt a tool to effectively resolve this issue. And an actual solution cannot be achieved just by gaming the system better to flip the SCOTUS position back. It requires creating a legal structure that a broad consensus of Americans fully support and that 99% can at least live with, and gathering the necessary support for it. That probably means restrictions somewhere in the second trimester and, given the significant regional variation in opinion, differences between states.

    Although in practice given the ongoing collapse of the US federal government I'm not optimistic about any of that actually happening anytime soon.

    I’m not talking about the actual set of policies. I’m talking about rights, not the splintering of opinions once you start asking questions about the devil in the details. The public broadly supports a right to an abortion; to the extent there is splintered opinion about the line to be drawn, Roe’s line at viability was itself qualified by Casey to restrict regulations that in purpose or effect impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to an abortion l (although “purpose” was dropped in the caselaw)

    You’re adopting the language and critique of Roe’s opponents, which is that Roe was not proper constitutional interpretation but judicial policymaking outside of the competence of the Court. The critics are wrong because the issue is the right. Is it fundamental to liberty to control one’s reproduction even if some philosophies and religions would hold otherwise. Yes. Where should the line be drawn? That is the tough question that cannot help but be influenced by policy and no judicial expertise, but a line must be drawn, and it was appropriately drawn from prior laws and authorities that fixed the transition between harm to the mother to harm to the child at quickening.

    SCOTUS Is not a tool to “resolve” a metaphysical issue. It is a tool to resolve issues of law, which include constitutional rights issues. The constitutional issue was the liberty of women to control reproduction. It was never going to and never could resolve except piecemeal on subsequent cases the precise lines to be fixed in all circumstances foreseeable and not at the time the right was fixed in constitutional law. The entire point of having a countermajoritarian institution is *not* to be waylaid by the vagaries, ambiguities, and inconsistencies of consensus building on policy details. That is backwards and more clearly the province of legislatures than the declaration of rights.

    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
  • MegaMan001MegaMan001 CRNA Rochester, MNRegistered User regular
    I really like the idea of expanding the court and randomly assigning cases so there isn't this long game of running up a case to target a specific generation of justices.

    I am in the business of saving lives.
  • HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    SCOTUS has been hastening democratic decline, but it’s disconnection from popular will isn’t really the reason. Its political capture by a minority agenda is.

    My point is that it's not actually that much of a minority agenda. Polls may show 50-60% support for keeping Roe v Wade, but once you actually start asking specifics the actual set of policies and restrictions that seem to have the broadest support do not actually match Roe v Wade.

    SCOTUS was probably always too blunt a tool to effectively resolve this issue. And an actual solution cannot be achieved just by gaming the system better to flip the SCOTUS position back. It requires creating a legal structure that a broad consensus of Americans fully support and that 99% can at least live with, and gathering the necessary support for it. That probably means restrictions somewhere in the second trimester and, given the significant regional variation in opinion, differences between states.

    Although in practice given the ongoing collapse of the US federal government I'm not optimistic about any of that actually happening anytime soon.

    This is largely giving up the ground that this should be an issue at all. Even if it had majority support, it's largely allowing one group to exert their will (and a largely religious will at that) on others. This should be patently unconstitutional.

  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    MegaMan001 wrote: »
    I really like the idea of expanding the court and randomly assigning cases so there isn't this long game of running up a case to target a specific generation of justices.

    The concern I have for that, is Republicans especially seem dead set on running up as many cases as they can (how many on just abortion, or on voting rights), and you run into the issue of not being able to establish precedent.

    Yes, I know precedent is currently being dragged out back and drowned in a bucket.

    But one of the core concepts of the SCOTUS is that at any one time, they're the ultimate decider of these things, and there'd (theoretically) be some consistency.

    Tennessee, Texas, Mississipi and Alabama throw up four similar yet distinct cases, and you have the potential for four different contradictory rulings.

    I'm not saying it's not a better idea than currently exists, but it certainly brings it's own set of problems.

    Honestly, if I was designing it from scratch, I'd have had the various circuits be the final adjudicators, and SCOTUS only handle issues where two circuits conflict. Has it's own problems, but would at least mean the entirety of the country doesn't go to shit.

    I'm seriously concerned that Republicans will put an abortion ban in place nationwide in the next decade or so.

  • MatevMatev Cero Miedo Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    MegaMan001 wrote: »
    I really like the idea of expanding the court and randomly assigning cases so there isn't this long game of running up a case to target a specific generation of justices.

    The concern I have for that, is Republicans especially seem dead set on running up as many cases as they can (how many on just abortion, or on voting rights), and you run into the issue of not being able to establish precedent.

    Yes, I know precedent is currently being dragged out back and drowned in a bucket.

    But one of the core concepts of the SCOTUS is that at any one time, they're the ultimate decider of these things, and there'd (theoretically) be some consistency.

    Tennessee, Texas, Mississipi and Alabama throw up four similar yet distinct cases, and you have the potential for four different contradictory rulings.

    I'm not saying it's not a better idea than currently exists, but it certainly brings it's own set of problems.

    Honestly, if I was designing it from scratch, I'd have had the various circuits be the final adjudicators, and SCOTUS only handle issues where two circuits conflict. Has it's own problems, but would at least mean the entirety of the country doesn't go to shit.

    I'm seriously concerned that Republicans will put an abortion ban in place nationwide in the next decade or so.

    They’ll do it within a year if things go south this fall.

    "Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
    Hail Hydra
  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    Matev wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    MegaMan001 wrote: »
    I really like the idea of expanding the court and randomly assigning cases so there isn't this long game of running up a case to target a specific generation of justices.

    The concern I have for that, is Republicans especially seem dead set on running up as many cases as they can (how many on just abortion, or on voting rights), and you run into the issue of not being able to establish precedent.

    Yes, I know precedent is currently being dragged out back and drowned in a bucket.

    But one of the core concepts of the SCOTUS is that at any one time, they're the ultimate decider of these things, and there'd (theoretically) be some consistency.

    Tennessee, Texas, Mississipi and Alabama throw up four similar yet distinct cases, and you have the potential for four different contradictory rulings.

    I'm not saying it's not a better idea than currently exists, but it certainly brings it's own set of problems.

    Honestly, if I was designing it from scratch, I'd have had the various circuits be the final adjudicators, and SCOTUS only handle issues where two circuits conflict. Has it's own problems, but would at least mean the entirety of the country doesn't go to shit.

    I'm seriously concerned that Republicans will put an abortion ban in place nationwide in the next decade or so.

    They’ll do it within a year if things go south this fall.

    The might try, but no way Biden would sign it into law, and if the Republicans have the votes to override a veto we're turbo-fucked regardless.

    Now after the next Presidential election? That's the real worry.

    steam_sig.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    MegaMan001 wrote: »
    I really like the idea of expanding the court and randomly assigning cases so there isn't this long game of running up a case to target a specific generation of justices.

    The concern I have for that, is Republicans especially seem dead set on running up as many cases as they can (how many on just abortion, or on voting rights), and you run into the issue of not being able to establish precedent.

    Yes, I know precedent is currently being dragged out back and drowned in a bucket.

    But one of the core concepts of the SCOTUS is that at any one time, they're the ultimate decider of these things, and there'd (theoretically) be some consistency.

    Tennessee, Texas, Mississipi and Alabama throw up four similar yet distinct cases, and you have the potential for four different contradictory rulings.

    I'm not saying it's not a better idea than currently exists, but it certainly brings it's own set of problems.

    Honestly, if I was designing it from scratch, I'd have had the various circuits be the final adjudicators, and SCOTUS only handle issues where two circuits conflict. Has it's own problems, but would at least mean the entirety of the country doesn't go to shit.

    I'm seriously concerned that Republicans will put an abortion ban in place nationwide in the next decade or so.

    That suggestion wouldn't really change anything. The right already uses the Fifth circuit to pump crazy circuit split decisions into the SCOTUS's lap.

  • HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    MegaMan001 wrote: »
    I really like the idea of expanding the court and randomly assigning cases so there isn't this long game of running up a case to target a specific generation of justices.

    The concern I have for that, is Republicans especially seem dead set on running up as many cases as they can (how many on just abortion, or on voting rights), and you run into the issue of not being able to establish precedent.

    Yes, I know precedent is currently being dragged out back and drowned in a bucket.

    But one of the core concepts of the SCOTUS is that at any one time, they're the ultimate decider of these things, and there'd (theoretically) be some consistency.

    Tennessee, Texas, Mississipi and Alabama throw up four similar yet distinct cases, and you have the potential for four different contradictory rulings.

    I'm not saying it's not a better idea than currently exists, but it certainly brings it's own set of problems.

    Honestly, if I was designing it from scratch, I'd have had the various circuits be the final adjudicators, and SCOTUS only handle issues where two circuits conflict. Has it's own problems, but would at least mean the entirety of the country doesn't go to shit.

    I'm seriously concerned that Republicans will put an abortion ban in place nationwide in the next decade or so.

    That suggestion wouldn't really change anything. The right already uses the Fifth circuit to pump crazy circuit split decisions into the SCOTUS's lap.

    It also won't change anything re issues of law that only come up, or are likely to only come up, through a single jurisdiction. Not just issues of constitutional law, but imagine for a moment if somehow every state except Texas abolished the death penalty and the only 8th Amd challenges arise there. Then again in this hypothetical that will never happen, the SCOTUS is ready to overturn its terrible 8th Amd precedents on cruel and unusual punishment, because developments in the law and society have left obsolete the previous rules and understandings on methods of execution, and the issue becomes ripe for reconsideration. If there is no circuit to split with, the 5th Circuit's application of existing SCOTUS precedent would never be capable of review and bad SCOTUS precedent (I am, of course, taking a positioin here) never capable of reconsideration.

    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
  • Manning'sEquationManning'sEquation Registered User regular
    edited May 2022

    chrisnl wrote: »
    Matev wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    MegaMan001 wrote: »
    I really like the idea of expanding the court and randomly assigning cases so there isn't this long game of running up a case to target a specific generation of justices.

    The concern I have for that, is Republicans especially seem dead set on running up as many cases as they can (how many on just abortion, or on voting rights), and you run into the issue of not being able to establish precedent.

    Yes, I know precedent is currently being dragged out back and drowned in a bucket.

    But one of the core concepts of the SCOTUS is that at any one time, they're the ultimate decider of these things, and there'd (theoretically) be some consistency.

    Tennessee, Texas, Mississipi and Alabama throw up four similar yet distinct cases, and you have the potential for four different contradictory rulings.

    I'm not saying it's not a better idea than currently exists, but it certainly brings it's own set of problems.

    Honestly, if I was designing it from scratch, I'd have had the various circuits be the final adjudicators, and SCOTUS only handle issues where two circuits conflict. Has it's own problems, but would at least mean the entirety of the country doesn't go to shit.

    I'm seriously concerned that Republicans will put an abortion ban in place nationwide in the next decade or so.

    They’ll do it within a year if things go south this fall.

    The might try, but no way Biden would sign it into law, and if the Republicans have the votes to override a veto we're turbo-fucked regardless.

    Now after the next Presidential election? That's the real worry.

    Even if the Republicans have a super majority there is no way they will use it effectively. Just the party that shall not be named failed to ise thier super majority when they had it.... I mean a republican from Massachusetts winning that seatbis not something I saw coming.

    Manning'sEquation on
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    MegaMan001 wrote: »
    I really like the idea of expanding the court and randomly assigning cases so there isn't this long game of running up a case to target a specific generation of justices.

    The concern I have for that, is Republicans especially seem dead set on running up as many cases as they can (how many on just abortion, or on voting rights), and you run into the issue of not being able to establish precedent.

    Yes, I know precedent is currently being dragged out back and drowned in a bucket.

    But one of the core concepts of the SCOTUS is that at any one time, they're the ultimate decider of these things, and there'd (theoretically) be some consistency.

    Tennessee, Texas, Mississipi and Alabama throw up four similar yet distinct cases, and you have the potential for four different contradictory rulings.

    I'm not saying it's not a better idea than currently exists, but it certainly brings it's own set of problems.

    Honestly, if I was designing it from scratch, I'd have had the various circuits be the final adjudicators, and SCOTUS only handle issues where two circuits conflict. Has it's own problems, but would at least mean the entirety of the country doesn't go to shit.

    I'm seriously concerned that Republicans will put an abortion ban in place nationwide in the next decade or so.

    That suggestion wouldn't really change anything. The right already uses the Fifth circuit to pump crazy circuit split decisions into the SCOTUS's lap.

    It also won't change anything re issues of law that only come up, or are likely to only come up, through a single jurisdiction. Not just issues of constitutional law, but imagine for a moment if somehow every state except Texas abolished the death penalty and the only 8th Amd challenges arise there. Then again in this hypothetical that will never happen, the SCOTUS is ready to overturn its terrible 8th Amd precedents on cruel and unusual punishment, because developments in the law and society have left obsolete the previous rules and understandings on methods of execution, and the issue becomes ripe for reconsideration. If there is no circuit to split with, the 5th Circuit's application of existing SCOTUS precedent would never be capable of review and bad SCOTUS precedent (I am, of course, taking a positioin here) never capable of reconsideration.

    I wish we lived in that world, instead of the one where half the court justifies putting people to death with ad hominem attacks on their colleagues. (I know it's come up before where at least one of them has written into their opinion crap about the liberals just being against the death penalty and so their reasoning is all made up to support that. Literally projecting in a SCOTUS opinion.)

    The conservatives on the court bend over backwards to let capital punishment go through.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    I've mentioned it before, but I do suspect that leaker was a shitty conservative and that part of the goal was to allow shit ass republican controlled legislatures right up trigger laws that would kick into effect once the decision drops.

  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    I've mentioned it before, but I do suspect that leaker was a shitty conservative and that part of the goal was to allow shit ass republican controlled legislatures right up trigger laws that would kick into effect once the decision drops.

    Most (all?) of them were written and signed ages ago.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    I've mentioned it before, but I do suspect that leaker was a shitty conservative and that part of the goal was to allow shit ass republican controlled legislatures right up trigger laws that would kick into effect once the decision drops.

    Most (all?) of them were written and signed ages ago.

    The leaker was clearly a conservative who, excited to have 5 signatures on board for such a home run opinion for their side, leaked it to reign in someone who might have been wavering on some of the more flat out psychopath language (threatening the elimination of gay marriage and inter racial marriage and so on). Either that, or maybe a ploy to 'soften' the blow when they come out with a 'very reasonable' change to the time you are allowed to have an abortion to be 4 weeks or something.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    edited May 2022
    chrisnl wrote: »
    Matev wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    MegaMan001 wrote: »
    I really like the idea of expanding the court and randomly assigning cases so there isn't this long game of running up a case to target a specific generation of justices.

    The concern I have for that, is Republicans especially seem dead set on running up as many cases as they can (how many on just abortion, or on voting rights), and you run into the issue of not being able to establish precedent.

    Yes, I know precedent is currently being dragged out back and drowned in a bucket.

    But one of the core concepts of the SCOTUS is that at any one time, they're the ultimate decider of these things, and there'd (theoretically) be some consistency.

    Tennessee, Texas, Mississipi and Alabama throw up four similar yet distinct cases, and you have the potential for four different contradictory rulings.

    I'm not saying it's not a better idea than currently exists, but it certainly brings it's own set of problems.

    Honestly, if I was designing it from scratch, I'd have had the various circuits be the final adjudicators, and SCOTUS only handle issues where two circuits conflict. Has it's own problems, but would at least mean the entirety of the country doesn't go to shit.

    I'm seriously concerned that Republicans will put an abortion ban in place nationwide in the next decade or so.

    They’ll do it within a year if things go south this fall.

    The might try, but no way Biden would sign it into law, and if the Republicans have the votes to override a veto we're turbo-fucked regardless.

    Now after the next Presidential election? That's the real worry.

    Even if the Republicans have a super majority there is no way they will use it effectively. Just the party that shall not be named failed to ise thier super majority when they had it.... I mean a republican from Massachusetts winning that seatbis not something I saw coming.

    I am not confident of this. Last time they were still afraid of losing elections. This time, I'm not so sure.

    edit: messed up the quotes

    Calica on
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    Sounds like there's some rumblings of cell phone searches for clerks in the court.
    Supreme Court officials are escalating their search for the source of the leaked draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, taking steps to require law clerks to provide cell phone records and sign affidavits, three sources with knowledge of the efforts have told CNN.
    Some clerks are apparently so alarmed over the moves, particularly the sudden requests for private cell data, that they have begun exploring whether to hire outside counsel.
    The court's moves are unprecedented and the most striking development to date in the investigation into who might have provided Politico with the draft opinion it published on May 2. The probe has intensified the already high tensions at the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority is poised to roll back a half-century of abortion rights and privacy protections.

    Chief Justice John Roberts met with law clerks as a group after the breach, CNN has learned, but it is not known whether any systematic individual interviews have occurred.

    Roberts meeting them gets my conspiracy brain tingling.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Seems they're going all-in on no longer having the right to privacy.

    Wonder if they'll have the same attitude for Ginni Thomas's cell phone.

    Somehow, I doubt they'll be open to that.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    Sounds like there's some rumblings of cell phone searches for clerks in the court.
    Supreme Court officials are escalating their search for the source of the leaked draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, taking steps to require law clerks to provide cell phone records and sign affidavits, three sources with knowledge of the efforts have told CNN.
    Some clerks are apparently so alarmed over the moves, particularly the sudden requests for private cell data, that they have begun exploring whether to hire outside counsel.
    The court's moves are unprecedented and the most striking development to date in the investigation into who might have provided Politico with the draft opinion it published on May 2. The probe has intensified the already high tensions at the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority is poised to roll back a half-century of abortion rights and privacy protections.

    Chief Justice John Roberts met with law clerks as a group after the breach, CNN has learned, but it is not known whether any systematic individual interviews have occurred.

    Roberts meeting them gets my conspiracy brain tingling.

    Knowing the news would go out, this smells like another way to divert outrage away from the content of the draft.

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    Sounds like there's some rumblings of cell phone searches for clerks in the court.
    Supreme Court officials are escalating their search for the source of the leaked draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, taking steps to require law clerks to provide cell phone records and sign affidavits, three sources with knowledge of the efforts have told CNN.
    Some clerks are apparently so alarmed over the moves, particularly the sudden requests for private cell data, that they have begun exploring whether to hire outside counsel.
    The court's moves are unprecedented and the most striking development to date in the investigation into who might have provided Politico with the draft opinion it published on May 2. The probe has intensified the already high tensions at the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority is poised to roll back a half-century of abortion rights and privacy protections.

    Chief Justice John Roberts met with law clerks as a group after the breach, CNN has learned, but it is not known whether any systematic individual interviews have occurred.

    Roberts meeting them gets my conspiracy brain tingling.

    I'm on Team Ginny Thomas is a Loon and Likely Leaked the Opinion to Put Wavering Conservatives on Notice.

    So I doubt a search of law clerk phones will turn up anything.

    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    Sounds like there's some rumblings of cell phone searches for clerks in the court.
    Supreme Court officials are escalating their search for the source of the leaked draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, taking steps to require law clerks to provide cell phone records and sign affidavits, three sources with knowledge of the efforts have told CNN.
    Some clerks are apparently so alarmed over the moves, particularly the sudden requests for private cell data, that they have begun exploring whether to hire outside counsel.
    The court's moves are unprecedented and the most striking development to date in the investigation into who might have provided Politico with the draft opinion it published on May 2. The probe has intensified the already high tensions at the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority is poised to roll back a half-century of abortion rights and privacy protections.

    Chief Justice John Roberts met with law clerks as a group after the breach, CNN has learned, but it is not known whether any systematic individual interviews have occurred.

    Roberts meeting them gets my conspiracy brain tingling.

    I'm on Team Ginny Thomas is a Loon and Likely Leaked the Opinion to Put Wavering Conservatives on Notice.

    So I doubt a search of law clerk phones will turn up anything.

    Honestly they should all get together with some good old collective action and refuse. If one of them was a leaker they would have scrubbed their phone the minute such a thing was mentioned. What I think this actually is an attempt to scroll through their texts to find juicy gossip about the leak and scapegoat one or several of them. And if they don't find that, someone on the liberal side is going to have something personal and embarrassing leaked.

  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    Sounds like there's some rumblings of cell phone searches for clerks in the court.
    Supreme Court officials are escalating their search for the source of the leaked draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, taking steps to require law clerks to provide cell phone records and sign affidavits, three sources with knowledge of the efforts have told CNN.
    Some clerks are apparently so alarmed over the moves, particularly the sudden requests for private cell data, that they have begun exploring whether to hire outside counsel.
    The court's moves are unprecedented and the most striking development to date in the investigation into who might have provided Politico with the draft opinion it published on May 2. The probe has intensified the already high tensions at the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority is poised to roll back a half-century of abortion rights and privacy protections.

    Chief Justice John Roberts met with law clerks as a group after the breach, CNN has learned, but it is not known whether any systematic individual interviews have occurred.

    Roberts meeting them gets my conspiracy brain tingling.

    I'm on Team Ginny Thomas is a Loon and Likely Leaked the Opinion to Put Wavering Conservatives on Notice.

    So I doubt a search of law clerk phones will turn up anything.

    Honestly they should all get together with some good old collective action and refuse. If one of them was a leaker they would have scrubbed their phone the minute such a thing was mentioned. What I think this actually is an attempt to scroll through their texts to find juicy gossip about the leak and scapegoat one or several of them. And if they don't find that, someone on the liberal side is going to have something personal and embarrassing leaked.

    Of course, if only a few (or just one) do so and resign, not only will the MASSIVE hypocrisy not register or shame them (see refusals to cooperate with DOJ or 1/6), but given the current conservative media apparatus, the lives of those will immediately be at risk, and will likely remain so long term.

    It won't matter if they were responsible or not.

    This is what Frankenstein has unleashed. The monster IS the mob.

    And if any harm befalls them, we'll, it was just mental illness on the part of the perpetrator, if not a claim justice served.

  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    I shudder to even think what SCOTUS opinions would look like without the clerks to write them

This discussion has been closed.