Law SCOTUS: Apex Court of Last Resort

[Deorum]

 

[Rob Battisti]

To me, saying “nationally” is kind of redundant, since rights are nationally recognized, and SCOTUS decisions are nationally binding.

I think saying they just sent it back to the stages, while technically true, really minimizes what they did here. They took something recognized as an unenumerated right away from the people at large, and set it up to not only be restricted or outright eliminated in several states, but teed it up to be potentially eliminated nationwide by Congress. That’s pretty egregious, and AFAIK it’s an unprecedented action.

Not only that, their reasoning also put other unenumerated rights on the chopping block, and Thomas signaled he’d like to revisit previous cases and fuck with those too (like Griswold v Connecticut, for example).
I’m still shocked that they did that shit. They have to be one of the most activist courts ever. Congress should take some steps to reign in their activism, and their corruption.

This is the most interesting argument for the decision and one I touched on a few times ITT. 9th vs 10th.

This is why spelling it out matters and why it gets messy when it’s not spelled out.

I agree in more oversight of the court and said as much.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Exactly. Just imagine if they ruled that freedom of speech is actually not guaranteed in the First Amendment. States would still have to pass laws infringing upon it for it to actually be taken away, but you'd no longer have the federal gov't protecting the right. I don't think this is hard to explain, but partisans just don't like saying unpopular things their party supports in plain English. Reminds me of Orwell's Politics and the English Language.

Using language that appeals to a basic sense of fairness is definitely a strategy for building systems of inequity. I mean, it's always been like this; states right for reactionary states when they don't want the feds telling them not to discriminate, and federal rule when reactionary states want to use the federal government to impose reactionary measures on everyone else. The notion that everything is better when people can all just make up their own minds sounds fair and even on the surface, but it's just a load of horseshit re: abortion in particular because 1) the goal was to eliminate abortion rights immediately wherever they could and 2) specifically use it to position for a national abortion ban once the partisan makeup of the government can facilitate it. Disingenuous at best, outright lying at (most likely) worst.

 

[Deorum]

This is the most interesting argument for the decision and one I touched on a few times ITT. 9th vs 10th.

This is why spelling it out matters and why it gets messy when it’s not spelled out.

I agree in more oversight of the court and said as much.

Roe v. Wade, along with many other landmark cases (Brown v. Board of Education, Griswold v. Connecticut, Loving v. Virginia, Lawrence v. Texas, Obergefell v. Hodges) is also heavily centered around 14A argument and litigation. There is a hell of a lot that can be reasonably conferred and derived from this:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[BFoe]

This is the most interesting argument for the decision and one I touched on a few times ITT. 9th vs 10th.

This is why spelling it out matters and why it gets messy when it’s not spelled out.

I agree in more oversight of the court and said as much.

I’ve also talked about this topic before, but I’m really dismayed with what I consider a manipulation of the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment deals with powers—like regulatory powers—that aren’t designated to the federal government or prohibited from the states—things like regulating hunting and fishing licenses, or setting the drinking age.

I think that it’s pretty ludicrous to claim that the state has the power to deprive a woman with a molar pregnancy, or ectopic pregnancy, or some condition that can cause a potentially dangerous miscarriage of medical care to handle it. I think it’s likewise a gross overreach for a government to order a woman who has been raped to carry that fetus to term. Or even to deny a woman a the right to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason. These are basic rights of personal autonomy and liberty, it’s a far cry from what the 10th Amendment is supposed to encompass.

 

[BFoe]

Roe v. Wade, along with many other landmark cases (Brown v. Board of Education, Griswold v. Connecticut, Loving v. Virginia, Lawrence v. Texas, Obergefell v. Hodges) is also heavily centered around 14A argument and litigation. There is a hell of a lot that can be reasonably conferred and derived from this:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Not only that, but the author of the 14th Amendment stated that the right to “uninterrupted enjoyment of every limb of one’s body” (i.e. “bodily autonomy”) and the “right to choose a family for oneself” were things that he intended the amendment to encompass. In a SCOTUS case from 1923 called Meyer v Nebraska, SCOTUS said the Due Process Clause of the 14th encompasses“the right to marry, establish a home, and bring up children.” To me, it’s pretty clear reproductive freedoms would be included.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I’ve also talked about this topic before, but I’m really dismayed with what I consider a manipulation of the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment deals with powers—like regulatory powers—that aren’t designated to the federal government or prohibited from the states—things like regulating hunting and fishing licenses, or setting the drinking age.

I think that it’s pretty ludicrous to claim that the state has the power to deprive a woman with a molar pregnancy, or ectopic pregnancy, or some condition that can cause a potentially dangerous miscarriage of medical care to handle it. I think it’s likewise a gross overreach for a government to order a woman who has been raped to carry that fetus to term. Or even to deny a woman a the right to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason. These are basic rights of personal autonomy and liberty, it’s a far cry from what the 10th Amendment is supposed to encompass.

I don’t disagree with you but there are nuances and opinions on what can be or can’t be regulated. That’s the issue.

Would you agree with this amendment? I was just playing around with in in GPT to come up with something…

### Proposed Amendment: The Medical Autonomy Amendment

**Section 1:**
No person shall, by any law or ordinance, or through force or deprivation of liberty, be compelled to submit to any medical procedure without their explicit and informed consent.

**Section 2:**
The right of the people to elect, according to their own judgment and conscience, to undergo any lawful medical procedure shall not be infringed, provided that such procedure is chosen with full knowledge and voluntary assent.

**Section 3:**
Nothing in this article shall be construed to prevent the enactment of reasonable regulations necessary for the preservation of public health and safety, so long as such regulations do not encroach upon the fundamental right of individuals to make autonomous decisions regarding their own medical care.

**Section 4:**
This amendment shall be self-executing and shall bind all levels of government within the United States.

**Section 5:**
The Congress shall have the authority to enforce this article by appropriate legislation, ensuring the protection of the people's rights to medical autonomy against all encroachments.

 

[Deorum]

I don’t disagree with you but there are nuances and opinions on what can be or can’t be regulated. That’s the issue.

Would you agree with this amendment? I was just playing around with in in GPT to come up with something…

Heh. This amendment proposal reads like protections born from the fuckery that was COVID, and I like it.

Not only that, but the author of the 14th Amendment stated that the right to “uninterrupted enjoyment of every limb of one’s body” (i.e. “bodily autonomy”) and the “right to choose a family for oneself” were things that he intended the amendment to encompass. In a SCOTUS case from 1923 called Meyer v Nebraska, SCOTUS said the Due Process Clause of the 14th encompasses“the right to marry, establish a home, and bring up children.” To me, it’s pretty clear reproductive freedoms would be included.

I don't think there's really any doubt. I find abortions to be fucking tragic at best, and especially beyond the first trimester. I think it was @filthybliss who posted some statistics yesterday that put me at ease, although I generally hold a 'pro-choice' position for pragmatic and societal reasons. Any would-be parent that would even seriously entertain the thought of aborting their child probably isn't fit to be one.

The 'pro-life' Republicans who simultaneously aim to slash spending on the social safety net are dabbling in incongruous goofball shit. I do feel like the contention over it is certainly more valid than a lot of other items, such as restricting access to contraceptives, banning interracial marriage, and criminalizing gay sex. Those are pretty extreme violations of the 14A, and I mean purely in the sense of depriving right to life and liberty, before we even get into the due process clause or equal protection under the law.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Heh. This amendment proposal reads like protections born from the fuckery that was COVID, and I like it.



I don't think there's really any doubt. I find abortions to be fucking tragic at best, and especially beyond the first trimester. I think it was @filthybliss who posted some statistics yesterday that put me at ease, although I generally hold a 'pro-choice' position for pragmatic and societal reasons. Any would-be parent that would even seriously entertain the thought of aborting their child probably isn't fit to be one.

The 'pro-life' Republicans who simultaneously aim to slash spending on the social safety net are dabbling in incongruous goofball shit. I do feel like the contention over it is certainly more valid than a lot of other items, such as restricting access to contraceptives, banning interracial marriage, and criminalizing gay sex. Those are pretty extreme violations of the 14A, and I mean purely in the sense of depriving right to life and liberty, before we even get into the due process clause or equal protection under the law.

The 14th is a hodgepodge of confusion IMO.

I’d like an actual bodily autonomy amendment

 

[Deorum]

The 14th is a hodgepodge of confusion IMO.

I’d like an actual bodily autonomy amendment

It's "Due Process" that seems to fuck people up, and has them scratching their heads. I think that's because most people automatically tend to only interpret it in a procedural sense.

A Due Process Clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibit the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" by the federal and state governments, respectively, without due process of law. The U.S. Supreme Court interprets these clauses to guarantee a variety of protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings); substantive due process (a guarantee of some fundamental rights); a prohibition against vague laws; incorporation of the Bill of Rights to state governments; and equal protection under the laws of the federal government.

 

[Rob Battisti]

It's "Due Process" that seems to fuck people up, and has them scratching their heads. I think that's because most people automatically tend to only interpret it in a procedural sense.

A Due Process Clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibit the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" by the federal and state governments, respectively, without due process of law. The U.S. Supreme Court interprets these clauses to guarantee a variety of protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings); substantive due process (a guarantee of some fundamental rights); a prohibition against vague laws; incorporation of the Bill of Rights to state governments; and equal protection under the laws of the federal government.

It’s the word “liberty” in an of itself that makes it confusing. What can it mean? What doesn’t it mean? Does it mean “bodily autonomy”? Who knows!

 

[Rob Battisti]

Would y’all have liked Roe more if Casey didn’t introduce “undue burden”?

 

[BFoe]

It's "Due Process" that seems to fuck people up, and has them scratching their heads. I think that's because most people automatically tend to only interpret it in a procedural sense.

A Due Process Clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibit the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" by the federal and state governments, respectively, without due process of law. The U.S. Supreme Court interprets these clauses to guarantee a variety of protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings); substantive due process (a guarantee of some fundamental rights); a prohibition against vague laws; incorporation of the Bill of Rights to state governments; and equal protection under the laws of the federal government.

Well our Federalist Society friends don’t believe in substantive due process. People like Antonin Scalia and Thomas outright deny that it is a thing, and they only accept the concept of procedural due process.
Clarence “Ya Boi” Thomas is on record saying “the due process clause protects no unenumerated rights.” That’s some scary shit to hear a Supreme Court justice say.

Would y’all have liked Roe more if Casey didn’t introduce “undue burden”?

I don’t hate undue burden, but I think the strict scrutiny test is more applicable.
What I hate more than anything is the ridiculous Glucksberg Test that was introduced into the equation by Dobbs, and was likewise introduced into 2A cases in Bruen. It’s just fraught with problems.

I don’t disagree with you but there are nuances and opinions on what can be or can’t be regulated. That’s the issue.

Would you agree with this amendment? I was just playing around with in in GPT to come up with something…

This is ok. It doesn’t look like it really addresses my main concern though. Like the example of that woman in Oklahoma who needed an abortion because of a cancerous molar pregnancy. What in that amendment guarantees her right to that medical care won’t be infringed? The text states she has a right to elect to undergo any legal medical procedure—but who decided what’s legal? I assume the states would, so they could still deny her that care under the framework of that amendment.

 

[Deorum]

Well our Federalist Society friends don’t believe in substantive due process. People like Antonin Scalia and Thomas outright deny that it is a thing, and they only accept the concept of procedural due process. Clarence “Ya Boi” Thomas is on record saying “the due process clause protects no unenumerated rights.” That’s some scary shit to hear a Supreme Court justice say.

Yeah, I'm aware. I definitely place more emphasis and value on the explicitly enumerated rights, but I've never believed them to be the only freedoms the Constitution protects. To hold that view is to essentially clamor for less liberty, and it's pretty fucking stupid on its face. What does the 9A itself say? The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Yeah, I'm aware. I definitely place more emphasis and value on the explicitly enumerated rights, but I've never believed them to be the only freedoms the Constitution protects. To hold that view is to essentially clamor for less liberty, and it's pretty fucking stupid on its face. What does the 9A itself say? The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 9th, like the 14th, is super confusing.

 

[Deorum]

It’s the word “liberty” in an of itself that makes it confusing. What can it mean? What doesn’t it mean? Does it mean “bodily autonomy”? Who knows!

The 9th, like the 14th, is super confusing.

Well, we know what it means. The perpetual question is always over what exactly that encompasses, and as Gorsuch said, "These are questions in which reasonable people can disagree." The clear (framer) intent is that it's left for the people to decide through their elected representatives via legislation at both federal and state levels -- and on those grounds dealing strictly between the 9th vs. 10th, the states' rights argument probably takes objective precedence on most of the controversial and socially charged issues. The existence of the 14th in conjunction with the 9th is what throws a wrench into and has diluted the 10th.

 

[BFoe]

The 9th, like the 14th, is super confusing.

Well, we know what it means. The perpetual question is always over what exactly that encompasses, and as Gorsuch said, "These are questions in which reasonable people can disagree." The clear (framer) intent is that it's left for the people to decide through their elected representatives via legislation at both federal and state levels -- and on those grounds dealing strictly between the 9th vs. 10th, the states' rights argument probably takes objective precedence on most of the controversial and socially charged issues. The existence of the 14th in conjunction with the 9th is what throws a wrench into and has diluted the 10th.

I think since government power is derived from the people, it should be looked at in terms of what compelling state interest a law serves, and be tailored in as narrow a fashion as possible.

So in the case of abortion: nothing in the Constitution explicitly empowers the federal or state governments to make these kinds of laws, so what interest are they serving, and how does it balance against a person’s freedoms and liberties?

The interest would have to be protecting the citizenry, but I think you have a hard time making that argument in the early stages of pregnancy. Early on, I don’t see any compelling interest the government has in the matter. In the later stages they can assert that interest—but it doesn’t outweigh a person’s life, or liberty, or health, if they are facing serious health complications from a pregnancy. I just don’t see it.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I think since government power is derived from the people, it should be looked at in terms of what compelling state interest a law serves, and be tailored in as narrow a fashion as possible.

So in the case of abortion: nothing in the Constitution explicitly empowers the federal or state governments to make these kinds of laws, so what interest are they serving, and how does it balance against a person’s freedoms and liberties?

The interest would have to be protecting the citizenry, but I think you have a hard time making that argument in the early stages of pregnancy. Early on, I don’t see any compelling interest the government has in the matter. In the later stages they can assert that interest—but it doesn’t outweigh a person’s life, or liberty, or health, if they are facing serious health complications from a pregnancy. I just don’t see it.

Good post.

This brings me back to Casey and “undue burden”.

Would Roe have been more tolerable if it was the trimester framework instead of what came next?

 

[Deorum]

Clarence “Ya Boi” Thomas

 

[Deorum]

Alito said that “No provision in the Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period.”

These guys are telling us in no uncertain terms that they believe they are the true power in this country.

My god, this was fucking nuts.



@Islam Imamate