1 1
JoeWeber

The Supreme Court is our biggest problem

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Keeping away from Roe, both New York and Massachusetts (which I’m personally familiar with) had their long-standing (I believe on the order of 80-100 years) gun laws overturned. How is that not being activist and turning it back to the people ?who elected those administrations).

Wendy P.

As much as I dislike it I find it hard to make a case that the 2nd amendment is not being interpreted correct by this court. There isn't a lot of ambiguity in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Keeping away from Roe, both New York and Massachusetts (which I’m personally familiar with) had their long-standing (I believe on the order of 80-100 years) gun laws overturned. How is that not being activist and turning it back to the people ?who elected those administrations).

Wendy P.

How? It’s that ol’ conservative light field again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2022 at 5:45 PM, wmw999 said:

Keeping away from Roe, both New York and Massachusetts (which I’m personally familiar with) had their long-standing (I believe on the order of 80-100 years) gun laws overturned. How is that not being activist and turning it back to the people ?who elected those administrations).

Wendy P.

Ms Wendy - The way I understand it is the SC ruled that R v W was not based on the Constitution and the gun laws are firmly supported under the 2nd A. That's fairly simple to understand. I'm sure that hundreds, if not thousands, of hours were spent by dozens of legal minds reviewing the Constitution and associated laws or whatever. I'm comfortable with the fact that they are, or should be, fully capable of making that analysis. Whether politics tainted the thinking is another issue. I certainly hope it didn't. 

By moving the abortion issue to the State level the electorate has a voice. The South Carolina politicians will have discussions, I'll be watching with interest. I know the position of our Governor and disagree with it.

We should note that various courts have put holds on certain State actions that limit access to abortions. IMO It's appropriate to have meaningful discussions by each State that allow the citizens to be heard. It would be nice if religion were left out of it but I doubt that will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2022 at 10:53 AM, jakee said:

Yes it is.

Then explain overturning Roe v Wade. They handed an enormous amount of power back to State and Federal government to clamp down on people’s rights, and according to Thomas’s concurrence they’re aiming at a lot more.

They reversed R v W because their analysis determined that there is no basis for it in the Constitution. The decision making was passed back to the States where, apparently, it belongs. 

It seems silly to automatically assume that the States will "clamp down on people's rights." At the State level the citizenry has the opportunity to be legally involved in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, billeisele said:

We should note that various courts have put holds on certain State actions that limit access to abortions. IMO It's appropriate to have meaningful discussions by each State that allow the citizens to be heard. It would be nice if religion were left out of it but I doubt that will happen.

Why should this not be settled on a national level? You know, like what ended up happening with slavery. States rights are somehow more important than human rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

Why should this not be settled on a national level? You know, like what ended up happening with slavery. States rights are somehow more important than human rights?

We agree. It would be great for that to occur. What the SC said was that it can't be done based on the Constitution.

Congress could take action. We'll see if that occurs. It's so emotionally charged and tainted with strong religious beliefs the politicians may not want to get involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, billeisele said:

What the SC said was that it can't be done based on the Constitution.

That is what the current SC said after several members were carefully selected and vetted by the Federalist Society to get that result. Until then the Constitution was judged by the SC to say that people had a right to privacy that precluded the government intervening. The SC has been broken and manipulated. Will the people stand for it? We will see in November.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billeisele said:

We agree. It would be great for that to occur. What the SC said was that it can't be done based on the Constitution.

Congress could take action. We'll see if that occurs. It's so emotionally charged and tainted with strong religious beliefs the politicians may not want to get involved.

That’s it? That’s your perfectly neutral and polite analysis? Show something real, man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billeisele said:

I'm sure that hundreds, if not thousands, of hours were spent by dozens of legal minds reviewing the Constitution and associated laws or whatever. I'm comfortable with the fact that they are, or should be, fully capable of making that analysis

I don't think the previous justices just pulled their opinions out their rear ends; they were also legal minds, with associates and clerks assisting them.

Wendy P.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I don't think the previous justices just pulled their opinions out their rear ends; they were also legal minds, with associates and clerks assisting them.

Wendy P.

As compared to the new justices which refereed to their bibles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I don't think the previous justices just pulled their opinions out their rear ends; they were also legal minds, with associates and clerks assisting them.

Wendy P.

Yep. So which Court one was correct? The current Court wrote a fairly scathing opinion of the original ruling saying it was, "....egregiously wrong," the arguments "exceptionally weak" and so "damaging" that they amounted to "an abuse of judicial authority." 

Without reading the full SC opinion, the appendix, references, and the consenting and dissenting documents then all of us are forming opinions based off of summary info we've seen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, billeisele said:

Ms Wendy - The way I understand it is the SC ruled that R v W was not based on the Constitution . . . 

You have a common misconception that seems to be rooted in the right.  The Constitution does not tell people what their rights are.  The Constitution tells the government what rights they may take from people.  For example, Article 1 Section 8 tells us that the Constitution can tax the people to provide for an armed forces and for the general welfare; that takes away the right to not pay taxes.  If the Constitution does not describe what rights may be taken away, then those rights revert to the states or the people.

In this case, women had the inherent right to an abortion, just as they have an inherent right to marry someone who is not their race, or get cosmetic surgery, or sue someone, or become pilots.  None of those rights are called out in the Constitution, nor do they need to be  States may on occasion try to take those rights away,  The Supreme Court's primary job is to protect those rights.

We are now entering a phase where the Supreme Court will begin removing those rights for people in pursuit of the politiical ideology of their benefactors.  They have already removed the protection on a women's right for bodily autonomy.  They have signaled that they will try to do something similar with other currently-protected rights, like the right of women to get birth control, and the right of black students to go to the same schools as white students.  Other republicans have signaled that the right to marry someone outside your race will be reconsidered as well - and given the political connection between the SC and the republicans, it's fair to say that that right is at risk as well.

The US has had a long tradition of increasing rights for all.  We ended slavery.  We affirmed that women have the right to vote.  We said that blacks to attend the same schools as whites.  We guaranteed the right for blacks to marry whites, for gay people to marry each other, and indeed for gay people to exist at all.

We have now reversed this trend.  And if you think that they are going to stop at abortion - or that they will never get to a right that you value - you haven't been paying attention.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

That’s it? That’s your perfectly neutral and polite analysis? Show something real, man.

LOL Is this when the "You can't handle the Truth" quote comes out? No, kidding.

It would have been nice if the SC had left it alone. Some are saying that there should be limits, referencing how many times should one be allowed to have an abortion simply as a form of birth control. When there was no rape or incest, no health issues, no deformed fetus, no nothing just that a baby isn't wanted. For some it's a valid question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, billeisele said:

 Some are saying that there should be limits, referencing how many times should one be allowed to have an abortion simply as a form of birth control. When there was no rape or incest, no health issues, no deformed fetus, no nothing just that a baby isn't wanted. For some it's a valid question.

Then they can answer that for themselves.  They should have no right to impose that answer on anyone else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, billvon said:

You have a common misconception that seems to be rooted in the right.  The Constitution does not tell people what their rights are.  The Constitution tells the government what rights they may take from people.  For example, Article 1 Section 8 tells us that the Constitution can tax the people to provide for an armed forces and for the general welfare; that takes away the right to not pay taxes.  If the Constitution does not describe what rights may be taken away, then those rights revert to the states or the people.

In this case, women had the inherent right to an abortion, just as they have an inherent right to marry someone who is not their race, or get cosmetic surgery, or sue someone, or become pilots.  None of those rights are called out in the Constitution, nor do they need to be  States may on occasion try to take those rights away,  The Supreme Court's primary job is to protect those rights.

We are now entering a phase where the Supreme Court will begin removing those rights for people in pursuit of the politiical ideology of their benefactors.  They have already removed the protection on a women's right for bodily autonomy.  They have signaled that they will try to do something similar with other currently-protected rights, like the right of women to get birth control, and the right of black students to go to the same schools as white students.  Other republicans have signaled that the right to marry someone outside your race will be reconsidered as well - and given the political connection between the SC and the republicans, it's fair to say that that right is at risk as well.

The US has had a long tradition of increasing rights for all.  We ended slavery.  We affirmed that women have the right to vote.  We said that blacks to attend the same schools as whites.  We guaranteed the right for blacks to marry whites, for gay people to marry each other, and indeed for gay people to exist at all.

We have now reversed this trend.  And if you think that they are going to stop at abortion - or that they will never get to a right that you value - you haven't been paying attention.

An interesting perspective. I guess we'll see if the doomsday predictions come true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, billeisele said:

LOL Is this when the "You can't handle the Truth" quote comes out? No, kidding.

It would have been nice if the SC had left it alone. Some are saying that there should be limits, referencing how many times should one be allowed to have an abortion simply as a form of birth control. When there was no rape or incest, no health issues, no deformed fetus, no nothing just that a baby isn't wanted. For some it's a valid question.

You're happy with the decision, just say so. The "some are saying" and the "For some" pretenses are silly deflections. The decision is a travesty and a wholesale diminution of a women's rights and agency. Well, at least that's what some are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, billeisele said:

An interesting perspective. I guess we'll see if the doomsday predictions come true.

They already have for some women.  I know women who got abortions that prevented doomsday for them.  The next generation are facing those doomsdays now,  A ten year old was almost recently forced to bear her rapist's baby - but fortunately was able to get to a state where abortion is still legal.  I don't know what your morality is, but I'd call forcing a ten year old to have a baby doomsday - at least for her and her family.

But there won't be any doomsday events for white males for a long time, based on the current makeup of the Supreme Court.  The problem is that you can't un-give that power.  Stare decisis was once well respected by the courts.  That has been shattered.  Not only have they shown they are not going to respect precedent, they went out of their way to say that the precedent on Roe v Wade was egregiously wrong.

So consider some future time where the Supreme Court swings liberal again.  Without stare decisis, they could easily decide that the right to own a gun is a collective, and not an individual, right.  In other words, as long as a state has a general path to own a gun (say, by joining the police) then it is legal for that state to ban private ownership.

You OK with that?  Would that be "doomsday" for you?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/03/ohio-indiana-abortion-rape-victim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

You're happy with the decision, just say so. The "some are saying" and the "For some" pretenses are silly deflections. The decision is a travesty and a wholesale diminution of a women's rights and agency. Well, at least that's what some are saying.

U R sounding like a grumpy old guy and seem upset that I read a lot and am aware of others written thoughts. Sorry to bring more info to the convo that disturbs you.

And you ignored my statement, "It would have been nice if the SC had left it alone."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, billvon said:

You have a common misconception that seems to be rooted in the right.  The Constitution does not tell people what their rights are.  The Constitution tells the government what rights they may take from people.  For example, Article 1 Section 8 tells us that the Constitution can tax the people to provide for an armed forces and for the general welfare; that takes away the right to not pay taxes.  If the Constitution does not describe what rights may be taken away, then those rights revert to the states or the people.

In this case, women had the inherent right to an abortion, just as they have an inherent right to marry someone who is not their race, or get cosmetic surgery, or sue someone, or become pilots.  None of those rights are called out in the Constitution, nor do they need to be  States may on occasion try to take those rights away,  The Supreme Court's primary job is to protect those rights.

We are now entering a phase where the Supreme Court will begin removing those rights for people in pursuit of the politiical ideology of their benefactors.  They have already removed the protection on a women's right for bodily autonomy.  They have signaled that they will try to do something similar with other currently-protected rights, like the right of women to get birth control, and the right of black students to go to the same schools as white students.  Other republicans have signaled that the right to marry someone outside your race will be reconsidered as well - and given the political connection between the SC and the republicans, it's fair to say that that right is at risk as well.

The US has had a long tradition of increasing rights for all.  We ended slavery.  We affirmed that women have the right to vote.  We said that blacks to attend the same schools as whites.  We guaranteed the right for blacks to marry whites, for gay people to marry each other, and indeed for gay people to exist at all.

We have now reversed this trend.  And if you think that they are going to stop at abortion - or that they will never get to a right that you value - you haven't been paying attention.

Hi Bill,

Re:   The Constitution does not tell people what their rights are.  The Constitution tells the government what rights they may take from people. 

THIS - THIS - THIS

I am completely lost why people, who consider themselves thinking people, cannot grasp this.

Thanks for the great commentary.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billeisele said:

LOL Is this when the "You can't handle the Truth" quote comes out? No, kidding.

It would have been nice if the SC had left it alone. Some are saying that there should be limits, referencing how many times should one be allowed to have an abortion simply as a form of birth control. When there was no rape or incest, no health issues, no deformed fetus, no nothing just that a baby isn't wanted. For some it's a valid question.

So how do you feel about the governor of S. Dakota stating  on television that a 10 year old victim of rape should be forced to bear her rapist's child and that said governor supports legislation to make that happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, billeisele said:

U R sounding like a grumpy old guy and seem upset that I read a lot and am aware of others written thoughts. Sorry to bring more info to the convo that disturbs you.

And you ignored my statement, "It would have been nice if the SC had left it alone."

You brought what actually to the conversation other than vague references to "some (people) are saying"? That's bringing nothing. And "it would have been nice if the SC had left it alone" is contextually a vacant statement. Jeez, Bill, the avoidance of upending, criminalizing, diminishing and destroying peoples futures while at the same time accepting that the decision will kill mothers isn't just nice. The decision is a horror show. And yes, it does make me angry.

Edited by JoeWeber
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, billeisele said:

Ms Wendy - The way I understand it is the SC ruled that R v W was not based on the Constitution and the gun laws are firmly supported under the 2nd A. That's fairly simple to understand. I'm sure that hundreds, if not thousands, of hours were spent by dozens of legal minds reviewing the Constitution and associated laws or whatever. I'm comfortable with the fact that they are, or should be, fully capable of making that analysis. Whether politics tainted the thinking is another issue. I certainly hope it didn't. 

In other words, you've stuck your head in the sand. Roe v Wade was upheld through numerous chalenges over numerous decades by numerous different benches and members of the Supreme Court. Then it gets overturned by a bunch of newly appointed religious zealots who were put in place by a politician whose campaign promise was to appoint Justices who would overturn Roe v Wade. But you still hope the decision was based on solid legal work and not politics? What planet are you living on?

Quote

By moving the abortion issue to the State level the electorate has a voice. 

And by taking the gun issue away from State level the electorate doesn't have a voice. So your claim that their ethos is to return power to the people is clearly false.

Quote

We should note that various courts have put holds on certain State actions that limit access to abortions. IMO It's appropriate to have meaningful discussions by each State that allow the citizens to be heard. It would be nice if religion were left out of it but I doubt that will happen.

It's fine for them to be heard, but what you hear shouldn't always be acted on. Citizens shouldn't be allowed to overule other citizens rights, and anyone who really thinks about everything that's involved should realise that abortion is a human right. 

Regardless of which - the citizens have been heard and abortion is strongly supported throughout the nation. As already stated, it is mostly the anti-democratic abuses of political process that has allowed the Republican party to dominate legislatures and push their radical agenda to a degree that is absolutely not reflected by the voter demographics of their states or the nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, billeisele said:

They reversed R v W because their analysis determined that there is no basis for it in the Constitution. The decision making was passed back to the States where, apparently, it belongs. 

Why do you believe them? 

Why do you trust that this panel of Justices, appointed on a promise to overturn Roe v Wade no matter what, accurately analysed and interpreted the Constitution when every other panel of Justices since 1973 says they are wrong?

Quote

It seems silly to automatically assume that the States will "clamp down on people's rights." At the State level the citizenry has the opportunity to be legally involved in the process.

I'm not assuming they will, they already fucking have. It's not a hypothetical, it's already the fucking law. Denying that black and white fact isn't silly, it's dishonest and despicable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, billeisele said:

Yep. So which Court one was correct? The current Court wrote a fairly scathing opinion of the original ruling saying it was, "....egregiously wrong," the arguments "exceptionally weak" and so "damaging" that they amounted to "an abuse of judicial authority." 

Without reading the full SC opinion, the appendix, references, and the consenting and dissenting documents then all of us are forming opinions based off of summary info we've seen. 

That same 'current court' blatantly LIED in the ruling about prayer by the football coach on the field immediately after the game.

The current court has at least 3 members who perjured themselves during their confirmation hearings.

Forgive me if I don't think that their 'interpretation' of anything is worth much.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1