Rvw

[Too Tall]

RVW is in peril. Yesterday a preliminary opinion was leaked. We all read the news, no need to expand on that.

A. The most recent Justices lied like dogs during their nomination process. I will not entertain parsing their language "Roe is settled law". They lied, plain and simple.

B. Removing a constitutional right is fundamentally screwed. I'll say it just like that.

Discuss. Be civil. No cut and paste links, speak your mind please.

-J

[bigbill]

It was a leaked confidential document that is used by the justices in discussions. It wasn't a decision, just an opinion. After all these years, why hasn't Congress codified it? It seems overly political to leave it to the courts. I think everything so far is an overreaction other than the anger from both sides that the sanctity of the SCOTUS was violated. We're not privy to the inner workings of the current SCOTUS, opinion papers are probably part of the process when the nine justices discuss upcoming decisions.

[Saab2000]

The argument that the constitution doesn’t mention abortion, privacy or choice is simply preposterous. It doesn’t mention cycling either but that’s not being banned or sent to the states for regulation because it’s not mentioned in the constitution.

A person’s health care is the business of the person and the person’s doctor. It’s for sure not my business.

[Scott G.]

Now that we have saved the unborn, can we do something about the country
they're supposed to grow up in ?
Or does ones duty to ones neighbors & community expire once they're born ?

[echappist]

RVW is in peril. Yesterday a preliminary opinion was leaked. We all read the news, no need to expand on that.

A. The most recent Justices lied like dogs during their nomination process. I will not entertain parsing their language "Roe is settled law". They lied, plain and simple.

B. Removing a constitutional right is fundamentally screwed. I'll say it just like that.

Discuss. Be civil. No cut and paste links, speak your mind please.

-J

If only a certain senator would have taken off her Mr. Magoo glasses and did the duty entrusted to her, as opposed to clutching her pearls and pull her ingénue shtick time and time again.

I’m also upset that RBG let the hagiographic treatment of her get to her head (when she ought to have retired when Sen. Reid was majority leader).

On the other hand, i’d say the Chief Justice is one of the few conservatives to have conducted him/herself in a manner expected of a jurist. He might not personally agree with RvW, but he at least appears to take Stare Decisis into account as opposed to reflexively decide on the basis of his own moral convictions.

It was a leaked confidential document that is used by the justices in discussions. It wasn't a decision, just an opinion. After all these years, why hasn't Congress codified it? It seems overly political to leave it to the courts. I think everything so far is an overreaction other than the anger from both sides that the sanctity of the SCOTUS was violated. We're not privy to the inner workings of the current SCOTUS, opinion papers are probably part of the process when the nine justices discuss upcoming decisions.

What’s the point of codification when it could just be repealed via the legislative process?

And even if it could be codified, would the Supreme Court defer to the “will of the people”? Or would it say legislators overstepped, and that such a law should be struck down? It would be naive to think that the goal posts wouldnt be shifted.

[Mabouya]

Well, we'll now see how hard women will be willing to fight for the right to control their own bodies. So far they haven't objected that much to the various encroachments on R v W, and as I see it, it's up to them to decide how hard to push back. If they don't push very hard I wouldn't be surprised if Griswold would be next to go, at which point things would be very interesting.

[Too Tall]

The Fourteenth frickin' amendment.

Fundamental Constitutionally promised right. Buh bye.

[monadnocky]

"It's settled law" - Kavanaugh in response to a RvW question

"It’s not the law of Amy" - Amy Coney Barrett, in response to a question regarding whether laws could be undone by personal beliefs, including her own.

Feckless liars and political hacks.

[72gmc]

The argument that the constitution doesn’t mention abortion, privacy or choice is simply preposterous. It doesn’t mention cycling either but that’s not being banned or sent to the states for regulation because it’s not mentioned in the constitution.

A person’s health care is the business of the person and the person’s doctor. It’s for sure not my business.

Originalism and textualism are excuses for a certain kind of person to cosplay as a founding father. If they overturn RvW, I say remove every creature comfort and technology that didn't exist on June 21, 1788 from Supreme Court chambers and their taxpayer-provided homes. Help em' get into the role.

[j44ke]

Well, we'll now see how hard women will be willing to fight for the right to control their own bodies. So far they haven't objected that much to the various encroachments on R v W, and as I see it, it's up to them to decide how hard to push back. If they don't push very hard I wouldn't be surprised if Griswold would be next to go, at which point things would be very interesting.

I know what you are saying - you are talking voting statistics rather than ownership of the issue - but I’ll just say that I believe this to be a human issue.

[Mark Walberg]

They think they're stopping abortions. However, they are just stopping abortions for those without enough money to go to a state where it is allowed.

I've never understood why the same people against abortions are all for capital punishment. Doesn't seem to square to me.

[JoB]

Well, we'll now see how hard women will be willing to fight for the right to control their own bodies. So far they haven't objected that much to the various encroachments on R v W, and as I see it, it's up to them to decide how hard to push back. If they don't push very hard I wouldn't be surprised if Griswold would be next to go, at which point things would be very interesting.

This is not a "women" issue. Why do women have to clean up the mess again?
And I'd argue that "they" (who?) not objecting to various encroachments is categorically untrue.

[Mabouya]

Why do women have to clean up the mess again?

Because it's old white men who've f'd things up, and women will have to be the ones to help vote them out of office.

I don't expect men to be a whole lot of help on this issue.

[gregl]

Tearing down RvW isn’t about protecting the unborn. It’s about re-establishing white, male, Christian hegemony. It’s about rescinding the human rights accorded and affirmed to many US citizens since the end of WWII. I state this as a white, male (recovering) Christian.

Greg

[BBB]

Allow me to provide an Aussie perspective.

From my point of view, the appointment of judges to your Supreme Court is far too political. Judges should be above politics as they are (at least in Oz) one of the three arms of government and they will be called upon from time to time to deal with constitutional issues that go to the heart of the government's power to implement a particular legislative agenda. As such, they should appear a-political and decide cases according to law and not according to the prevailing political wind. In Australia the Commonwealth Attorney General (the same role that Merrick Garland occupies in your system) consults widely when selecting a High Court (the equivalent to your Supreme Court) Judge, and in private, and makes a recommendation to Cabinet (which can be best described as smallish group of government ministers, but is an informal body without a distinct legal status). This recommendation is generally adopted and then rubber stamped by the Governor General. It is usually done without rancor and the candidate is usually meritorious. Politics sometimes intervenes in the choice, but appointments are usually supported by both sides of politics.

In your case, the President selects the candidate and then they go through a public confirmation process. In the case of the last two Trump picks it was a sideshow. The difference I perceive is that the Judges are tarred with the political process instead of being above it by the confirmation process. Further, the process itself is not entirely public. From what I have read Susan Collins is complaining that the draft decision of the Supreme Court would indicate that two of the Judges nominated by Trump met with her in her office and gave private assurances and have now breached those assurances. Why are they meeting privately with someone who may be instrumental to their confirmation going through? What is the quid pro quo here? Unfortunately this puts the Judges in the political weeds.

The second problem as I see it is that the Supreme Court Judges are appointed for life. This will mean that the current conservative majority in the Supreme Court will stand for a long period of time, which given the very political process by which they were appointed will likely lead to political outcomes. While I think Judges need tenure and tenure free from interference to facilitate decisions being made according to law, a life time appointment is too much. There is the obvious political problem that I have noted, while the other obvious problem is do you really want an antiquarian Judge deciding legally complicated matters and matters of great public importance? In Australia Judges are required to retire at 70. They are usually appointed between the ages of 50 and 60. In my experience, while there are some Judges that are sharp as a tack at 69 as they were at 49, there are others who quite clearly are not. Statutory senility may be seen as a bit harsh (and with increasing life expectancy, there is an argument that 70 could be increased by a year or two, or five) but it keeps the fields fertile. Lifetime appointments, in my view at least, can have the opposite effect.

That's it from my perspective; a less political process for appointment may led to less political decisions and undo the lifetime appointment and provide tenure up to a certain age (72 or 75).

Back to the actual leak and without a commentary on the underlying issue at the heart of the case, was R v W egregiously wrong from the start, with exceptionally weak reasoning, as asserted in the leaked opinion? A seminal decision should have water tight reasoning, but not being a US lawyer, I have no idea if this was the case or not. Any insight would be appreciated (and without making it a commentary on the issue of abortion).

[zachateseverything]

The Fourteenth frickin' amendment.

Fundamental Constitutionally promised right. Buh bye.

Yeah. Even if you don't want, need, or care for abortions this is a fundamental attack on the right to privacy. The decisions that overturned bans on interracial marriage, contraception, and non-traditional sex practices can fall using similar "logic."

but those emails.

[j44ke]

Because it's old white men who've f'd things up, and women will have to be the ones to help vote them out of office.

I don't expect men to be a whole lot of help on this issue.

I do. I expect men and women both to make certain their views are heard.

I share my wife's view that the leak was on purpose. Hit everyone with the fire and brimstone written by Alito, then follow it with the actual decision written by Roberts. The initial outrage will be absorbed by a non-binding document - a rough draft - opening the door for a more accommodating final draft of the decision that will achieve the same ends effectively but with less virulent terms and possibly less destructive results. That would be as much as Roberts could ask for, now that he has completely lost control of the court.

These are two good articles to review if you are interested, both from Neal Katyal (one an interview and the other a "perspective" piece) who was acting Solicitor General during Obama.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and...o-overrule-roe

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...uences-katyal/

[vertical_doug]

Yeah. Even if you don't want, need, or care for abortions this is a fundamental attack on the right to privacy. The decisions that overturned bans on interracial marriage, contraception, and non-traditional sex practices can fall using similar "logic."

but those emails.

Yes, basically this is what Larry Tribe is arguing in the Boston Globe OpEd pages yesterday. Next, you will get states that ban abortion trying to get abortion travel bans in place, followed by same sex marriage etc.

Hopefully, this is a bridge too far that motivates the democrats to actually vote this fall.

(I tie some of this into the prosperity bible and conservative evangelicals (including some catholics). I hear more and more people are doing very well talked about being 'blessed'. I think this turns traditional Christian teachings upside down. Classic bible- it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. New Prosperity Bible- I am rich because God blessed me. It is a bit of changing the narrative to justify the means to an ends. . . scares the heck out of me.)

So maybe Amy, Neil and Brett lied under oath, but they are blessed so God must have wanted them to. The ends justifies the means....

[j44ke]

I paraphrased a quote from Francisco Franco in my last book. The original goes something like: You must make the law obey God's will and not man's desire to be free.

I think that's not an uncommon view of how law should work, even in societies that identify as democracies.

[htwoopup]

From The New Yorker...I put this here in case there are those that forget stuff that was not so long ago that those "traditionalists" seem to think is correct (I will leave out the concept of 'viable' embryo that would obviously not be viable with 1776 technology)...

" “Until the latter part of the 20th century,” he writes, “there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Zero. None.” Alito is entirely correct that, in 1973, the Supreme Court was somewhat out of step with its time in codifying women’s rights. When Roe was decided, a married woman in the United States needed her husband’s permission to get a credit card, something that did not change until 1974. No state outlawed marital rape until 1975. No man was found liable for sexual harassment until 1977. Pregnancy was a fireable offense until 1978. Alito does not itemize forms of gender-based subjugation that persisted after Roe, many of which might be persuasively argued as “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

As @gregl said above...