The US Supreme Court

Post Reply
User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by pErvinalia » Sat Jun 25, 2022 7:56 am

I wonder if we'll see any women fleeing states that make it a criminal offence. Make Arkansas Male Again!
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 20981
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by laklak » Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:04 am

The House GOP wants to pass a national law permitting abortion up to 15 weeks.

Whooda thunk that?

Of course the MSM headlines say they want to BAN abortion after 15 weeks.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Hermit » Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:08 am

laklak wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:04 am
The House GOP wants to pass a national law permitting abortion up to 15 weeks.

Whooda thunk that?

Of course the MSM headlines say they want to BAN abortion after 15 weeks.
That is because the 1973 Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade made access to abortions up to the 20-week mark unproblematic.

Also,
Some House Republicans who oppose abortion rights are pushing legislation to implement a nationwide abortion ban at 15 weeks
Link
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47191
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Tero » Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:24 am

laklak wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:04 am
The House GOP wants to pass a national law permitting abortion up to 15 weeks.

Whooda thunk that?

Of course the MSM headlines say they want to BAN abortion after 15 weeks.
But many states now have no abortion, so most Senate republicans will not pass such a law because it then brings it back.

At 15 weeks it will be OK, as there is just a little space invader, an alien, in there:
Image
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 20981
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by laklak » Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:29 am

Hermit wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:08 am
laklak wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:04 am
The House GOP wants to pass a national law permitting abortion up to 15 weeks.

Whooda thunk that?

Of course the MSM headlines say they want to BAN abortion after 15 weeks.
That is because the 1973 Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade made access to abortions up to the 20-week mark unproblematic.

Also,
Some House Republicans who oppose abortion rights are pushing legislation to implement a nationwide abortion ban at 15 weeks
Link
It beats the shit out of a blanket ban. I doubt it would pass SCOTUS, since they're just ruled that it's a state issue. OF course the same could be said for making it legal federally.

I've no idea what will happen, but it's not the end of the world as we know it, or the beginning of slavery, or any of the other OTT bullshit you hear.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47191
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Tero » Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:42 am

laklak wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:29 am
Hermit wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:08 am
laklak wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:04 am
The House GOP wants to pass a national law permitting abortion up to 15 weeks.

Whooda thunk that?

Of course the MSM headlines say they want to BAN abortion after 15 weeks.
That is because the 1973 Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade made access to abortions up to the 20-week mark unproblematic.

Also,
Some House Republicans who oppose abortion rights are pushing legislation to implement a nationwide abortion ban at 15 weeks
Link
It beats the shit out of a blanket ban. I doubt it would pass SCOTUS, since they're just ruled that it's a state issue. OF course the same could be said for making it legal federally.

I've no idea what will happen, but it's not the end of the world as we know it, or the beginning of slavery, or any of the other OTT bullshit you hear.
They did not rule it was a state issue. They just ruled it was not a federal issue. That is, there is no law or other that gives the feds power over it. There was no federal law. But if one was passed, it would be based on the "commerce clause" not the 14th amendment.
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47191
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Tero » Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:44 am

My state level Democrats react. We are not Texas yet, so they have some power. In fact we pass a lot of things based on an initiative where they collect signatures to get it to a referendum.

Democrat Megan Hunt, state senator

“Today, ABORTION IS STILL LEGAL in Nebraska. Abortion funds, clinics, and support networks are here to help you. Do not cancel your appointments, and if you need care, please reach out to a provider immediately. We have already defeated an abortion ban in Nebraska, and WE WILL DO IT AGAIN. We will defeat any other attempt to ban abortion in this state because the majority of Nebraskans understand that banning abortion is as extreme as it is unnecessary. We will not stand silently by while our rights are taken away. Together, we will fight for a better future, where all health care, including abortion, is accessible and where everyone is free to make decisions about our futures and our families whoever we are + wherever we live.”

Jane Kleeb, Nebraska Democratic Party chair

“The majority of Nebraskans believe abortion must remain legal and that women must have the right to make their own health decisions. Republicans from Don Bacon, to Mike Flood, Adrian Smith and Jim Pillen are putting women’s lives at-risk for their callous political agenda. We can block the ban at the ballot box by voting for our strong Democratic candidates.”
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Brian Peacock » Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:22 pm

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:34 pm
OK, weightier then...
Brian Peacock wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 8:58 am
I get all that. I guess my disquiet at the framing is that it leans into a view that the republic's ultimate institution of arbitration is necessarily political - that there needs to, or should be a left/right political balance to the court in order for it to function 'properly'. As mentioned before, to an outsider like myself it appears that, over time, certain institutional failings in the legislative and administrative branches of the US government have pushed the Supreme Court into having more of an executive role - which of course tends the SC as an institution towards the overtly political.
What do you see as the court taking on an executive role? I am unclear on what sort of actions taken by the contemporary court you believe fit the bill (in comparison to its earlier rulings) but I will briefly explain my understanding--

Politics have always played a significant part in the composition of the US Supreme Court, and have influenced its decisions as well. The ideal of an impartial body whose decisions are based on a just and neutral interpretation of the US Constitution has never been realized.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803) the court put itself in the position of 'ultimate institution of arbitration.' This was a political act by which the court asserted its interest in and relevance to questions of a political nature, among others. Though the court has the power to overturn a law (arguably an 'executive action') this has been the case since Marbury.

Cases like Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education were influenced to a significant extent by the politics of the day and in turn had definite political influence. However, the court cannot create laws nor enforce them, the latter being the function of the executive branch in the US system. Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I don't see that the position of the court in the government of the US has changed all that much.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 8:58 am
As a bit of a lefty myself I fear that that trend cannot be countered by leaning into the kind of political framing I highlighted. Not only does it tacitly imply that the political persuasion of SC judges is more important to the proper functioning of the court than their judicial experience &/or competence--buying into the narrative of the Right--but it could lead to a situation where that unelected body determines the bounds of national endeavour - which is fundamentally undemocratic.
Look at Roosevelt's court-packing plan for a historical example of the political entanglements of the court. The political leanings of the justices have always been relevant, and have taken precedence over other considerations at various points in US history. The court has from very early days been involved in determining the bounds of national endeavor, often having the most powerful influence. Fundamentally undemocratic though it is, not a recent development. Democracy has a voice in the matter (though see below) through the process of confirming new justices, inevitably involving political considerations. More a bug than a feature perhaps.
Thanks for the additional context :tup:

SCOTUS is a democratic institution, and therefore embedded in the political life of the nation. The constitution of the United States is a political document--the political document--that defines the nature of the state, the citizenry, the relationship between the two, and the means by which that relationship is to be administered through institutions like the executive, legislature and judiciary. It also defines the bounds of action the state and citizen can undertake through the codification of rights - which is wholly a political matter.

So I was a bit sloppy in my language there. I don't think that SCOTUS isn't or shouldn't be political in that sense, or that it should be avowedly non-political, only that, from where I sit, it appears to be tending towards the overtly Political in the partisan sense. The reason why this might be seems quite straightforward: packing SCOTUS with judges predisposed to a particular administration's political or ideological outlook appears to lend legitimacy to that administration's political or ideological outlook &/or agenda. In normal times an administration's policy agenda would traverse legislative processes and the SC would only test that which threatened to conflict with the provisions of constitution. However, with the legislature seemingly unable to function effectively at present, the executive, in the form of the office of the president, increasing relies on forwarding the administration's policy agenda through the constitutional equivalent of the Papal Fiat--the executive order--and does so in circumstances where a packed SC acts like a college of cardinals appointed solely to authorise the agenda of their patron.

So when I said that the SC was determining the bounds of national endeavour I was really thinking about the scope of executive power and the provision of policy, how the implementation of policy can side-step the legislature, and where the independence of the judiciary is sublimated, subsumed or superseded by a partisan, appointed SC.

The examples you've offered above suggest that, to some extent, this has always been the case - or at least that there has always been the impulse for an administration to nominate SC judges with obligingly sympathetic outlooks. The saving grace is that administrations only get four years whereas SC judges get a lifetime - the Popes are regularly replaced, ecumenical considerations shift as social conditions and attitudes drift, and over time the cardinals gain a bit of distance from their patrons and the political melee of their appointment, and can, in theory at least, exercise a greater degree of judicial independence. ... In theory, at least.

My broader point is that the judicial independence of the SC cannot be assured or maintained, particularly and vitally in the public consciousness, when the majority decisions of the court are routinely framed as being merely the decisions of right-wing (or left-wing) judges. To me, this seems like completely the wrong way to think about a body like SCOTUS and, as I said, leans into the view that the republic's 'ultimate institution of arbitration' is necessarily Political in the partisan sense, and therefore there should be an appropriate left/right political balance to the court in order for it to function 'properly'.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Wed Jun 22, 2022 10:34 pm
Brian Peacock wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 8:58 am
Of course, a fair reflection of the state of play is always needed to both maintain and challenge the working order of our democratic institutions, but the problem here--and it's not just an issue for the US--is that the good working order of our democratic processes and institutions should not depend upon the political persuasion of a democracy's elected officers and functionaries.
The anti-democratic nature of the US Senate (which confirms new justices) prevents a fair reflection of the state of play when it comes to the US Supreme Court. The performative pose of 'government is the problem' adopted by the Republican Party in the last 40 years or so has exacerbated this fundamental issue. Ideologically they abandoned the effort to maintain the federal government in good working order, choosing instead to pursue a fantasy version of 'freedom.' Their ideal of 'freedom' is selective, favoring certain elements of the population. As long as that's the case, the political persuasion of the elected officials and non-elected functionaries is crucial.
You make my point quite eloquently here - you've just replaced the idea that the SC is being framed as 'necessarily Political' with a statement that it's 'crucial' it is Political. I understand the pragmatism - I'm just extremely wary of it.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47191
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Tero » Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:52 pm

315B7FF0-1EAA-4A52-94D7-FA9BE84899FF.jpeg
Take your pick. There were 3 stories. Two shown..
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47191
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Tero » Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:52 pm

CB7748D7-5660-4573-87AC-FF7E0F939BC1.jpeg
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17879
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Sean Hayden » Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:27 pm

No response seems appropriate, except to dedicate myself to undermining Christian America in whatever way I can.

Lak, I disagree with you here. I think the water is boiling.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Svartalf » Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:54 pm

Tero wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 4:52 pm
CB7748D7-5660-4573-87AC-FF7E0F939BC1.jpeg
Do you think that will make it easier for me to get a couple?
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Svartalf » Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:56 pm

Sean Hayden wrote:
Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:27 pm
No response seems appropriate, except to dedicate myself to undermining Christian America in whatever way I can.

Lak, I disagree with you here. I think the water is boiling.
Do you think it would be possible to dissolve the GOP, and remove state status from civil liberties hostile states, so they can be made into territories and ruled straight from DC?
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17879
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Sean Hayden » Sat Jun 25, 2022 7:10 pm

I had similar thoughts after Texas threatened to secede --again-- a few days ago. But these are silly fantasies.

--//--

It's good to see you. :cheers:

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Svartalf » Sat Jun 25, 2022 7:19 pm

TX can threaten all it wants, it's legal fact since 1865 that no state can leave the union without winning a war first
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tero and 19 guests