Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
May 6, 2022 - 8:27am
The draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade is reason for feeling and expressing discontent with the Supreme Court, which is putting it mildly. That said, it is not a time to question the framework of the Founders that, in my opinion, wisely placed the Supreme Court in this position of power and influence, while trying to insulate it as best they could from the political process. Those insisting that the Justices be made accountable to the people have it wrong.
I am hoping, for example, that this episode does not result in an expanded number of Justices, known as packing the Court. I might be in favor of imposing term limits, but they would need to be terms lengthy enough to provide some of that necessary political insulation. I certainly would not be in favor of anything less than 10 years and probably thinking closer to 20 years. Shorter terms would result in a more constant turnover of Justices that, I believe, would result in instability in the Court itself and exacerbate current popular malaise by elevating even more the political and cultural warfare over nominations. We do not need more political and cultural circuses, which is largely what Senate confirmation hearings have become, with no end in sight to the escalation of the absurd.
In sum, it is not a time to throw the baby out with the bath water. Restraint is warranted. There certainly have been abominable decisions of the Supreme Court (e.g., Dred Scott and Plessy v, Ferguson), but, over the course of our history, the Court has played its role as envisioned by the Founders. We should be hesitant to alter that framework. Even amidst this tumult, proceed with caution.
Oh my. Ok, Corporations are allowed to have 'Free Speech' like People do, including financial support as part of that 'speech. Anonymous, of course.
Essentially, money talks, votes are jokes.
You (OK, not just you, but everybody convinced that the Citizens United decision signals the end of...democracy? Human civilization?) should really read it.
No, it doesn't allow Corporations to have free speech "like people do", it acknowledges that individuals don't give up their right to free speech when they act collectively. As for the "money talks" trope, Justice William O. Douglas (in a dissent on a ruling on the Taft-Hartley Act, joined by Warren Burger and Hugo Black) wrote in 1957:
...no one would seriously contend that the expenditure of money to print a newspaper deprives the publisher of freedom of the press. Nor can the fact that it costs money to make a speech-âwhether it be hiring a hall or purchasing time on the air-âmake the speech any the less an exercise of First Amendment rights.
That was 50+ years earlier, in a case muzzling a labor union, but the point is the same. That's what the ACLU (in a friend of the court brief) argued in supporting Citizens United and urging the law in question be overturned as unconstitutional. Which the court did, and properly so.
The Citizens United decision means that even people you (and the dominant political class at the time) hate get to have their say, and that no federal agency gets to ban a film (or—that's right—a book) because they don't like who wrote it.
No. No, it didn't. It didn't do a lot of the things it has been accused of since 2010—almost entirely by people who haven't read the decision—but whatevs.
Oh my. Ok, Corporations are allowed to have 'Free Speech' like People do, including financial support as part of that 'speech. Anonymous, of course. Essentially, money talks, votes are jokes.
Like Disney in Florida ? I bet you're okay with that.
Ah sweet Lazy, I see what you did there.
We can split hairs all day on semantics, intentions and interpretations and get lost chasing squirrels of avoidance of what's happening. But it won't stop
SCOTUS creating Legislation based on Belief, not science. If Privacy rights are arbitrary, there goes the argument against a National Gun Data base, or the elimination of online porn sites, health records, ...
Who decides which parts of the Constitution are worth keeping and those that should be tossed?
No. No, it didn't. It didn't do a lot of the things it has been accused of since 2010âalmost entirely by people who haven't read the decisionâbut whatevs.
Oh my. Ok, Corporations are allowed to have 'Free Speech' like People do, including financial support as part of that 'speech. Anonymous, of course.
Essentially, money talks, votes are jokes.
(neither is the word 'Corporation' but SCOTUS made them People.)
No. No, it didn't. It didn't do a lot of the things it has been accused of since 2010—almost entirely by people who haven't read the decision—but whatevs.
At large here is the unconstitutional practice of allowing religious belief to make law. This is the seminal issue of the founding of this country that no state religion will exist or any religion shall Govern. The Slaughter of the Crusades, the horrors of both Spanish and French Inquisitions, Protestants burning Catholics and vice versa over Ritual, and nearly 400 years of witch burnings were still strong in the psyches of early colonists and they were determined not to have this country do the same.
This is a fundamental unraveling of the core of this Nation.
I'd say regulating the internal organs of any human being in the U.S. is the very definition of Unlawful Search & Seizure.
In this case we are looking for legal protection from violation of individual rights by the states themselves, and the only mechanism we have for that is constitutional protection. Normal criminal law just doesn't work here; you can criminally prosecute another individual for robbing your house, say, but how do you prosecute a state? And even this is weak protection; you can invalidate a state's laws and free someone (who has the resources to appeal their case beyond a states' courts) from incarceration but they don't get the years in prison back and it doesn't stop the a determined state from enacting a new (nearly) identical law to prosecute others. In many cases the process is the punishment, even if you win. So it's a weak tool but it's what we have. The states' tool of oppression is the law, the counter to that is constitutional protection invalidating the law.
The right the court recognized in Roe v. Wade was the right to privacy, which is not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Neither is the right to bodily autonomy, which I think makes a stronger claim. Regardless, that's what the ninth amendment is for: unenumerated rights. States aren't getting the message, and this court isn't either. Congress can make it explicit.
(neither is the word 'Corporation' but SCOTUS made them People.)
Protecting rights is indeed the only legitimate basis for law, and that is normally left up to the states. There is no federal law against murder, in general, for instanceâgo strangle your neighbor and the feds won't arrest you for it unless the case meets some very specific circumstances (happened in a national park or other special jurisdiction, for instance). The laws of the states are what punish violations of our rights by ordinary people.
In this case we are looking for legal protection from violation of individual rights by the states themselves, and the only mechanism we have for that is constitutional protection. Normal criminal law just doesn't work here; you can criminally prosecute another individual for robbing your house, say, but how do you prosecute a state? And even this is weak protection; you can invalidate a state's laws and free someone (who has the resources to appeal their case beyond a states' courts) from incarceration but they don't get the years in prison back and it doesn't stop the a determined state from enacting a new (nearly) identical law to prosecute others. In many cases the process is the punishment, even if you win. So it's a weak tool but it's what we have. The states' tool of oppression is the law, the counter to that is constitutional protection invalidating the law.
The right the court recognized in Roe v. Wade was the right to privacy, which is not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Neither is the right to bodily autonomy, which I think makes a stronger claim. Regardless, that's what the ninth amendment is for: unenumerated rights. States aren't getting the message, and this court isn't either. Congress can make it explicit.
I agree abortion is an individual right that the court protected, and should protect, from laws that try take away that right. In this case, not interpreting a law, but protecting a right.
But perhaps because of the rules of certain "men," we need legislation, rule of law, to protect all.
Protecting rights is indeed the only legitimate basis for law, and that is normally left up to the states. There is no federal law against murder, in general, for instance—go strangle your neighbor and the feds won't arrest you for it unless the case meets some very specific circumstances (happened in a national park or other special jurisdiction, for instance). The laws of the states are what punish violations of our rights by ordinary people.
In this case we are looking for legal protection from violation of individual rights by the states themselves, and the only mechanism we have for that is constitutional protection. Normal criminal law just doesn't work here; you can criminally prosecute another individual for robbing your house, say, but how do you prosecute a state? And even this is weak protection; you can invalidate a state's laws and free someone (who has the resources to appeal their case beyond a states' courts) from incarceration but they don't get the years in prison back and it doesn't stop the a determined state from enacting a new (nearly) identical law to prosecute others. In many cases the process is the punishment, even if you win. So it's a weak tool but it's what we have. The states' tool of oppression is the law, the counter to that is constitutional protection invalidating the law.
The right the court recognized in Roe v. Wade was the right to privacy, which is not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Neither is the right to bodily autonomy, which I think makes a stronger claim. Regardless, that's what the ninth amendment is for: unenumerated rights. States aren't getting the message, and this court isn't either. Congress can make it explicit.
The usual path for Congress is to create civil law governing situations like those you describe (laws that force other people to do things) as opposed to criminal law (prohibiting people from doing things) by creating tort claims for people to sue under. You can't be sent to prison for refusing to serve someone at your restaurant, for instance, but you can be sued for it.
This is why Congress had to pass (and the states ratify) a constitutional amendment to allow it to prohibit alcohol. Oddly it didn't have to do that to ban all manner of other objects and substances...which is what happens when the rule of law ceases to matter.
I agree abortion is an individual right that the court protected, and should protect, from laws that try take away that right. In this case, not interpreting a law, but protecting a right.
But perhaps because of the rules of certain "men," we need legislation, rule of law, to protect all.
Congress can pass laws to protect individual rights...race, employment
The usual path for Congress is to create civil law governing situations like those you describe (laws that force other people to do things) as opposed to criminal law (prohibiting people from doing things) by creating tort claims for people to sue under. You can't be sent to prison for refusing to serve someone at your restaurant, for instance, but you can be sued for it.
This is why Congress had to pass (and the states ratify) a constitutional amendment to allow it to prohibit alcohol. Oddly it didn't have to do that to ban all manner of other objects and substances...which is what happens when the rule of law ceases to matter.
Congress cannot pass a national law that stands up to a Constitutionality test because it does not involve interstate commerce. That is the requirement for Congress to have the actual authority. That is why it goes back to the states.
Congress can pass laws to protect individual rights...race, employment
I haven't heard this anywhere....haven't read anything about it...watched one 30 second story on the news....
What if Roberts leaked the decision?
I am guessing that the potential swing vote is Kavanaugh. He's a Roberts wanna-be, and I'm guessing that Roberts now sees his legacy as the guy who leads the court to irrelevance. He may get a sense that Brett is torn, and ultimately Brett may be the guy to "save" the integrity of the bench. If Kavanaugh now votes against the change on the basis that it is settled law (as he said it was when he was asked during his confirmation), he becomes a hero to the left. As incomprehensible as it sounds...Kavanaugh becomes a Democratic hero.
It's not Q-level conspiracy stuff....but it would definitely make both Roberts and Kavanaugh historically popular.
Congress cannot pass a national law that stands up to a Constitutionality test because it does not involve interstate commerce. That is the requirement for Congress to have the actual authority. That is why it goes back to the states.
Immigrants come to the US to search for the American Dream. Work hard, and you can succeed.
When they arrive, they hear one side repeatedly referred to as socialist, and all they know is that's NOT what they want. The same side talks about closing the borders...and that would also help those who are already here in their minds.
Calling Democrats "socialist" and "communist" has been incredibly effective in recruiting voters who don't know any better.
Hmm, immigrants are simpletons then?
I've found many are against progressive democrats because of their focus on gov. attempting to solve social problems, rather than the individual...and many are against progressive immigration policy.
what causes immigrants that are clearly lefty liberals to support liberal policy, but vote for gov on the right?
life experience?
Bingo!
Immigrants come to the US to search for the American Dream. Work hard, and you can succeed.
When they arrive, they hear one side repeatedly referred to as socialist, and all they know is that's NOT what they want. The same side talks about closing the borders...and that would also help those who are already here in their minds.
Calling Democrats "socialist" and "communist" has been incredibly effective in recruiting voters who don't know any better.
(neither is the word 'Corporation' but SCOTUS made them People.)
