Law SCOTUS: Apex Court of Last Resort

[Rob Battisti]

This is objectively false.

If it were true, then Republicans wouldn't have tried to keep abortion ballot initiatives from appearing on the ticket during elections.

Also, don't forget that the Republican Supreme Court justices that were confirmed by Republicans during the Trump era specifically said that they would not overturn Roe during approval hearings.

Why did they lie about this? Lol

You’re conflating what the ruling was versus what republicans are trying to do after the ruling.

Aka you’re dumb.

 

[Fedor>Cain]

You’re conflating what the ruling was versus what republicans are trying to do after the ruling.

Aka you’re dumb.

Lmfao.

I'm dumb because I see what they were trying to do? Religious weirdos were the only people trying to get rid of Roe.

Those same people appointed judges that would uproot half a century of legal precedent after they lied about it in a congressional approval hearing. Why do you think they lied about it? If it were because of "state's rights" then surely they wouldn't have lied to the people and would have said as much when asked about it in front of Congress, correct?

It seems like you are conflating Republican fanfiction for what happened in reality tbh.

Allowing state governments to ban abortion is government overreach, which is what the original court case ruled lol.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Lmfao.

I'm dumb because I see what they were trying to do? Religious weirdos were the only people trying to get rid of Roe.

Those same people appointed judges that would uproot half a century of legal precedent after they lied about it in a congressional approval hearing. Why do you think they lied about it? If it were because of "state's rights" then surely they wouldn't have lied to the people and would have said as much when asked about it in front of Congress, correct?

It seems like you are conflating Republican fanfiction for what happened in reality tbh.

Allowing state governments to ban abortion is government overreach, which is what the original court case ruled lol.

Are there states that have unrestricted abortion?

 

[Deorum]

 

[Deorum]

RBG really went from Leftist Icon to someone who really screwed her “side”.

RBG loved the adulation, fame, and power that came with remaining on the court. The criticisms are probably valid, she was into her 80s and already battling numerous ailments. We've recently seen both Kennedy and Breyer retire in good health for strategic purposes that benefited the party who nominated them.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Wow look at that! States making their own decisions. Guess I wasn’t “objectively false” after all. I always get a kick at the hacks who like those kinds of posts.

RBG loved the adulation, fame, and power that came with remaining on the court. The criticisms are probably valid, she was into her 80s and already battling numerous ailments. We've recently seen both Kennedy and Breyer retire in good health for strategic purposes that benefited the party who nominated them.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Lmfao.

I'm dumb because I see what they were trying to do? Religious weirdos were the only people trying to get rid of Roe.

Those same people appointed judges that would uproot half a century of legal precedent after they lied about it in a congressional approval hearing. Why do you think they lied about it? If it were because of "state's rights" then surely they wouldn't have lied to the people and would have said as much when asked about it in front of Congress, correct?

It seems like you are conflating Republican fanfiction for what happened in reality tbh.

Allowing state governments to ban abortion is government overreach, which is what the original court case ruled lol.

allowing states to make their own determinations on abortion is what happened, what I said happened and what you said was objectively false. Then you just posted that it is what happened. You, and the hack who liked your post, can go learn a thing or two about things that are “objectively false”.

 

[Deorum]

Wow look at that! States making their own decisions. Guess I wasn’t “objectively false” after all. I always get a kick at the hacks who like those kinds of posts.

I told @Mr Holmes a while back that NoDak was more deeply red than Wyoming. Similarly, if Obergefell v. Hodges (marriage equality) were to be overturned by SCOTUS, then it would still be legal in Wyoming. Not North Dakota.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I told @Mr Holmes a while back that NoDak was more deeply red than Wyoming. Similarly, if Obergefell v. Hodges (marriage equality) were to be overturned by SCOTUS, then it would still be legal in Wyoming. Not North Dakota.

Is NoDak THAT red? I can’t even imagine Texas making it illegal at this point

 

[Sinister]

allowing states to make their own determinations on abortion is what happened, what I said happened and what you said was objectively false. Then you just posted that it is what happened. You, and the hack who liked your post, can go learn a thing or two about things that are “objectively false”.

You said the entire purpose of overturning Roe was to return the position on abortion to the States. It's not, though, it was about the Supreme Court determining that there is no constitutional right to abortion. As was Stated earlier, the original case of Roe was about State Government overreach, into people's bedrooms and Doctor's offices. The "State's Rights" argument here is that the State has the right to do so. And it's not dissimilar to those who sighest the States have the right to segregate people by race, not recognize same-sex or interracial marriage, etc. The denial of rights, of federal protections, usually comes from this perspective.

"In essence, federalism won out in Dobbs over continued recognition of constitutionally-recognized rights. On the day Dobbs was released, June 24, 2022, Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) celebrated the decision for “defend[ing] … the foundational principle of federalism.”24 Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) declared Dobbs a win for “states’ rights.”25 One commentator analyzed how Dobbs weaponized states’ rights,26 rekindling “harsh images of federalism”27 from prior decades buttressing state resistance to desegregation and other civil rights that are now firmly recognized at every level of government.28

Supreme Court deference to state sovereignty in reversing a firmly-held constitutional right to abortion in Dobbs misconstrues underlying foundations of federalism. Ultimately, federalism is not about denying inherent liberty interests under substantive due process; it is about promoting them. The Constitutional framers clearly intended federalism to protect the “liberty of individualized citizens,”29 by offering “double security” for “the rights of the people.”30 In the Federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton explained how “federalism is a safeguard … against the overextension of government’s power.”31 As one modern commentator espouses, federalism provides a “two-tiered protection of individual rights” through the Fourteenth Amendment affording a “guaranteed minimum of protection,” with states able to proffer greater assurances.32

Multiple constitutional law commentators conclude how adjudicating federalism invariably entails promotion of individual rights. Professor Jonathan Adler equates federalism directly with the protection of individual rights.33 Dean Erwin Chemerinsky argues how it enhances liberties in furthering societal objectives.34 In the context of civil rights, Professor James Blumstein illustrates how federalism “decentralizes decision-making to promote autonomy, democracy, and freedom.”35 Another commentator surmises, “federalism is not merely a means to diffuse power; it is a principle to … [protect] the rights and privileges of all citizens.”36

That federalism is about protecting, promoting, and even advancing liberty interests intimates how the Dobbs Court erred in concluding that states’ interests warrant a return of regulatory authority over abortion. To the contrary, Americans’ fundamental freedoms adjudicated by Justices nearly a half-century ago merit continued respect for bestowed rights against their summary withdrawal. Under Dobbs’ majority reasoning, manifold other liberty interests previously framed by the Court (e.g., contraception, sexual intimacy, marital equality) may be at risk of reversal with epic potential impacts on population health and well-being.51 Doing so under the guise of federalism not only disrespects Americans’ freedoms, but also resounds historically-rejected premises of states’ rights as constitutionally-viable reasons to deny individual liberties. Positing constitutional structural principles like federalism in support of reversals of settled, rights-based reasoning is a dangerous path for the Court to follow. Ultimately, it may find the trail ends where federalism begins: at the doorstep of liberty."

 

[Rob Battisti]

You said the entire purpose of overturning Roe was to return the position on abortion to the States. It's not, though, it was about the Supreme Court determining that there is no constitutional right to abortion. As was Stated earlier, the original case of Roe was about State Government overreach, into people's bedrooms and Doctor's offices. The "State's Rights" argument here is that the State has the right to do so. And it's not dissimilar to those who sighest the States have the right to segregate people by race, not recognize same-sex or interracial marriage, etc. The denial of rights, of federal protections, usually comes from this perspective.

"In essence, federalism won out in Dobbs over continued recognition of constitutionally-recognized rights. On the day Dobbs was released, June 24, 2022, Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) celebrated the decision for “defend[ing] … the foundational principle of federalism.”24 Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) declared Dobbs a win for “states’ rights.”25 One commentator analyzed how Dobbs weaponized states’ rights,26 rekindling “harsh images of federalism”27 from prior decades buttressing state resistance to desegregation and other civil rights that are now firmly recognized at every level of government.28

Supreme Court deference to state sovereignty in reversing a firmly-held constitutional right to abortion in Dobbs misconstrues underlying foundations of federalism. Ultimately, federalism is not about denying inherent liberty interests under substantive due process; it is about promoting them. The Constitutional framers clearly intended federalism to protect the “liberty of individualized citizens,”29 by offering “double security” for “the rights of the people.”30 In the Federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton explained how “federalism is a safeguard … against the overextension of government’s power.”31 As one modern commentator espouses, federalism provides a “two-tiered protection of individual rights” through the Fourteenth Amendment affording a “guaranteed minimum of protection,” with states able to proffer greater assurances.32

Multiple constitutional law commentators conclude how adjudicating federalism invariably entails promotion of individual rights. Professor Jonathan Adler equates federalism directly with the protection of individual rights.33 Dean Erwin Chemerinsky argues how it enhances liberties in furthering societal objectives.34 In the context of civil rights, Professor James Blumstein illustrates how federalism “decentralizes decision-making to promote autonomy, democracy, and freedom.”35 Another commentator surmises, “federalism is not merely a means to diffuse power; it is a principle to … [protect] the rights and privileges of all citizens.”36

That federalism is about protecting, promoting, and even advancing liberty interests intimates how the Dobbs Court erred in concluding that states’ interests warrant a return of regulatory authority over abortion. To the contrary, Americans’ fundamental freedoms adjudicated by Justices nearly a half-century ago merit continued respect for bestowed rights against their summary withdrawal. Under Dobbs’ majority reasoning, manifold other liberty interests previously framed by the Court (e.g., contraception, sexual intimacy, marital equality) may be at risk of reversal with epic potential impacts on population health and well-being.51 Doing so under the guise of federalism not only disrespects Americans’ freedoms, but also resounds historically-rejected premises of states’ rights as constitutionally-viable reasons to deny individual liberties. Positing constitutional structural principles like federalism in support of reversals of settled, rights-based reasoning is a dangerous path for the Court to follow. Ultimately, it may find the trail ends where federalism begins: at the doorstep of liberty."

The Dobbs decision undeniably shifted the power to regulate abortion back to the states, which is precisely the outcome federalism envisions. The Supreme Court in Dobbs determined that there is no constitutional right to abortion, this decision inherently returned the issue to the states, where it had been prior to Roe v. Wade.

The core of the Dobbs ruling is not about endorsing state overreach, but rather about removing the federal judiciary from a position of creating rights not explicitly found in the Constitution. By overturning Roe, the Court recognized that the Constitution does not explicitly address abortion, thereby returning the authority to legislate on this issue to the states, where elected representatives and, by extension, the people, have the power to decide.

This was my biggest issue with the ruling, the democrats could have codified it rather than just hoping Roe stuck.

Federalism is about ensuring that issues not specifically addressed in the Constitution are managed at the state level, providing a safeguard against the overreach of centralized federal power.

This is why I think that the 9th versus 10th is so interesting. Could they have argued that abortion was covered under the 9th?

By returning the authority over abortion to the states, the Dobbs decision aligns with the original constitutional design, which allows states the flexibility to reflect the values of their citizens vs federal wide judiciary protections.

 

[kflo]

RBG loved the adulation, fame, and power that came with remaining on the court. The criticisms are probably valid, she was into her 80s and already battling numerous ailments. We've recently seen both Kennedy and Breyer retire in good health for strategic purposes that benefited the party who nominated them.

there's just something that doesn't sit right even in the idea that the job of the SC is a political one. i mean, clearly it is, but should it be?

 

[Deorum]

there's just something that doesn't sit right even in the idea that the job of the SC is a political one. i mean, clearly it is, but should it be?

It definitely ain't right, although Gorsuch claimed last week that the accusations of ideological and political partisanship on the court itself are overblown. He cited figures that he's actually in agreement with the liberal wing 45% of the time. And it's true to a degree that the decisions are not always what you expect. I'm sure @BFoe was pleasantly surprised by the United States v. Rahimi ruling that upheld the constitutionality of federal "red flag" laws. Gorsuch also penned the majority opinion on Bostock v. Clayton County, which determined and retroactively added sexual orientation to the characteristics protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (!).

Is NoDak THAT red? I can’t even imagine Texas making it illegal at this point

 

[BFoe]

It definitely ain't right, although Gorsuch claimed last week that the accusations of ideological and political partisanship on the court itself are overblown. He cited figures that he's actually in agreement with the liberal wing 45% of the time. And it's true to a degree that the decisions are not always what you expect. I'm sure @BFoe was pleasantly surprised by the United States v. Rahimi ruling that upheld the constitutionality of federal "red flag" laws. Gorsuch also penned the majority opinion on Bostock v. Clayton County, which determined and retroactively added sexual orientation to the characteristics protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (!).

I was happy to see the conclusion they reached in Rahimi, yes—not just because I like it, but because I think it’s the correct conclusion.

But it highlights the many problems with Bruen. Before the decision had been reached, I said this:

I can hardly wait to see Thomas’s next trick once Rahimi is decided. It would be a disaster to let domestic abusers have firearms, but I can’t fathom how he’d square that with Bruen.

And in fact, he couldn’t and didn’t square it with Bruen. The vote in Rahimi was 8-1, with Thomas dissenting and basically saying, “hey, you didn’t apply my decision in Bruen correctly.” The Court had to play reallly loose with that framework, and that underscores just one of several problems with it.

 

[BFoe]

allowing states to make their own determinations on abortion is what happened, what I said happened and what you said was objectively false. Then you just posted that it is what happened. You, and the hack who liked your post, can go learn a thing or two about things that are “objectively false”.

Well tbf it looked like what @Fedor>Cain said is that the purpose of SCOTUS’s decision was to restrict the right itself, and that clearly seems to be true. Abortion was recognized as a right with no conditions up until the point of viability, so any state which has something less than that framework would have restricted the right.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Well tbf it looked like what @Fedor>Cain said is that the purpose of SCOTUS’s decision was to restrict the right itself, and that clearly seems to be true. Abortion was recognized as a right with no conditions up until the point of viability, so any state which has something less than that framework would have restricted the right.

In the places that wanted it, they have it. If they don’t, they don’t.

I suppose if you wanted to use the language “restrict the right to abortion” you’d just have to say “nationally” in there.

They kicked it down to the states as I said.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It definitely ain't right, although Gorsuch claimed last week that the accusations of ideological and political partisanship on the court itself are overblown. He cited figures that he's actually in agreement with the liberal wing 45% of the time.

That's very misleading, though, as a lot of cases really aren't politically charged and actually do come down to people using their judgment.

 

[BFoe]

In the places that wanted it, they have it. If they don’t, they don’t.

I suppose if you wanted to use the language “restrict the right to abortion” you’d just have to say “nationally” in there.

They kicked it down to the states as I said.

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.

 

[Deorum]

That's very misleading, though, as a lot of cases really aren't politically charged and actually do come down to people using their judgment.

Yeah, a large majority of the cases they hear aren't likely to get any sort of news headline. The implications of Bostock v. Clayton County certainly had charged social and political elements, though. I was shocked at how they ruled, nevermind that Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion (also joined by Roberts). The Civil Rights Act of '64 is one of the most famous pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress but it clearly wasn't meant to cover sexual orientation at the time it became law. There had been a couple of prior landmark cases dealing with the 1A, but gay rights on the whole were still firmly bubbling under the mainstream.

 

[Jack V Savage]

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.

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.

Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so’. Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

While freely conceding that the Soviet régime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigours which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.