|
Post by majorminor on Jun 24, 2022 11:24:42 GMT -5
I never would have believed it.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 24, 2022 11:36:38 GMT -5
There's one more big shoe to drop in WV v. EPA that could destroy EPA's ability to regulate CO 2. In fact, in the shadows of Roe v. Wade it's kind of been overlooked by the left but in the last couple of weeks even Politico has recognized it. If that comes through as is widely expected, one can't hardly ignore what Trump accomplished managed to accomplish in a term marred by massive Deep State bullshit. Might even be better than Reagan and that's saying something. Maybe yet this afternoon. Looking forward to that one.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 24, 2022 11:47:52 GMT -5
President Trump appointed three justices. After that, I thought this decision was likely.
I want to read the opinion but I'm a little afraid to. A synopsis of the rationale that I read said that the court reasoned that because no right to abortion was recognized when the Constitution was drafted, there is no constitutionally protected right. If that is what the opinion says, there's probably no right to purchase birth control pills or enter into a same-sex marriage. Laws against sodomy could probably be revived. I don't think that's a sensible view of the Constitution. I hope the opinion was narrower than the synopsis suggested. Either way, now it's the law.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Jun 24, 2022 12:21:34 GMT -5
And here I always thought it involved alternate ways to cross the Potomac.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,904
|
Post by Dub on Jun 24, 2022 12:44:31 GMT -5
Couldn’t resist adding this.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 24, 2022 12:49:40 GMT -5
President Trump appointed three justices. After that, I thought this decision was likely. I want to read the opinion but I'm a little afraid to. A synopsis of the rationale that I read said that the court reasoned that because no right to abortion was recognized when the Constitution was drafted, there is no constitutionally protected right. If that is what the opinion says, there's probably no right to purchase birth control pills or enter into a same-sex marriage. Laws against sodomy could probably be revived. I don't think that's a sensible view of the Constitution. I hope the opinion was narrower than the synopsis suggested. Either way, now it's the law. Well, as I said in a different thread, the courts don't make the laws, they just rule on the constitutionality of them. The court can rule a law unconstitutional in which case it can't be enforced but laws are made by legislatures and by design most of them should be by state legislatures because the feds don't have the power to make them. Today's ruling was that Row v Wade didn't have the power to legalize abortion in all the states so now it's up to the states to do their jobs. Same with the gun carry decision. The constitution says you have the right to carry, so although the states can try to put limits on it they probably can't because 2A says they can't. What is happening is that the court is returning to the constitution and not the liberal policy of legislating from the bench. It's how it's supposed to work. I don't have an opinion on abortion, other than it usually kills potential Democrats so I support it, but I support the court's right to stay within its constitutional limits.
|
|
|
Post by howard lee on Jun 24, 2022 12:50:11 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Mr. Carlin on this issue. I watch what's going on, and it seems like conservatives are OK with the idea of the courts (why not legislatures?) not controlling their gun rights (militia my ass), but it's OK for the courts to control the uteri of their wives and daughters.
I will not be available for any Q&A. Have a nice weekend.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 24, 2022 13:22:51 GMT -5
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,904
|
Post by Dub on Jun 24, 2022 13:30:03 GMT -5
What is happening is that the court is returning to the constitution and not the liberal policy of legislating from the bench. It's how it's supposed to work. I don't have an opinion on abortion, other than it usually kills potential Democrats so I support it, but I support the court's right to stay within its constitutional limits. To me, this is interesting. I come down on the left (not necessarily “liberal”) side of most issues, but I always thought having courts “make” laws was a bad idea. I’ve always thought our representatives should have the integrity and courage to enact meaningful legislation where needed and I see the value of expecting the Supreme Court to rule on constitutionality from an academic perspective rather than be driven by popular opinion. I’ve always thought it was up to us to see that the laws we want are enacted and enforced. In this instance (Roe v Wade) I think the court is constructing a pseudo-academic argument in order to implement their own desires and the desires of their political comrades-in-arms. This isn’t a new tactic for the Supreme Court to take by any means but it does democracy and our country a great disservice.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 24, 2022 13:30:20 GMT -5
Overturning Roe is bad enough, but the Alito reasoning behind it--that anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is up for (state-led) grabs--suggests that other overturnings are being contemplated. Where in the Constitution is contraception mentioned? Or marriage? Or gender equality? The "originalist" view seems well suited to reactionary efforts to allow local control of what we have come to see as basic human rights. After all, the Founding Fathers didn't include any Mothers, amirite?
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 24, 2022 13:57:50 GMT -5
What is happening is that the court is returning to the constitution and not the liberal policy of legislating from the bench. It's how it's supposed to work. I don't have an opinion on abortion, other than it usually kills potential Democrats so I support it, but I support the court's right to stay within its constitutional limits. To me, this is interesting. I come down on the left (not necessarily “liberal”) side of most issues, but I always thought having courts “make” laws was a bad idea. I’ve always thought our representatives should have the integrity and courage to enact meaningful legislation where needed and I see the value of expecting the Supreme Court to rule on constitutionality from an academic perspective rather than be driven by popular opinion. I’ve always thought it was up to us to see that the laws we want are enacted and enforced. In this instance (Roe v Wade) I think the court is constructing a pseudo-academic argument in order to implement their own desires and the desires of their political comrades-in-arms. This isn’t a new tactic for the Supreme Court to take by any means but it does democracy and our country a great disservice. "In this instance (Roe v Wade) I think the court is constructing a pseudo-academic argument in order to implement their own desires and the desires of their political comrades-in-arms. This isn’t a new tactic for the Supreme Court to take by any means but it does democracy and our country a great disservice. " Dub, that's how Democrats always do it. This court is going back to the way the constitution says it is to be done and I applaud them for finally doing it. As to whether any other "Faux laws" made from the bench will be overturned, well someone will have to sue someone and get it all the way up to the Supreme Court as a constitutional question or they won't touch it and it will be left to the states involved.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 24, 2022 13:58:51 GMT -5
Oh, and if you want to change the constitution to allow your preferences, there is a way to do that, just read the constitution.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Jun 24, 2022 14:18:18 GMT -5
I have a guess hearts and minds will not be changed by this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 24, 2022 14:52:29 GMT -5
Let's see what happens when and if a challenge to Loving makes to the SC level.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 24, 2022 15:14:13 GMT -5
Let's see what happens when and if a challenge to Loving makes to the SC level. What on earth does Loving have to do with Roe?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 24, 2022 15:25:21 GMT -5
What is happening is that the court is returning to the constitution and not the liberal policy of legislating from the bench. It's how it's supposed to work. I don't have an opinion on abortion, other than it usually kills potential Democrats so I support it, but I support the court's right to stay within its constitutional limits. To me, this is interesting. I come down on the left (not necessarily “liberal”) side of most issues, but I always thought having courts “make” laws was a bad idea. I’ve always thought our representatives should have the integrity and courage to enact meaningful legislation where needed and I see the value of expecting the Supreme Court to rule on constitutionality from an academic perspective rather than be driven by popular opinion. I’ve always thought it was up to us to see that the laws we want are enacted and enforced. In this instance (Roe v Wade) I think the court is constructing a pseudo-academic argument in order to implement their own desires and the desires of their political comrades-in-arms. This isn’t a new tactic for the Supreme Court to take by any means but it does democracy and our country a great disservice. The decision today just kicks the abortion decision back to individual states. It's not pseudo-academic at all. You want abortion legalized? Work through your state's legislative process the way the Constitution designed it. The idea of legislating through the courts (or the Executive branch for that matter) is set to be blown up by West Virginia v. EPA. That's the one that will be fun to watch. It's all a matter of getting government to function the way it was originally designed to.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Jun 24, 2022 15:30:49 GMT -5
Let's see what happens when and if a challenge to Loving makes to the SC level. What on earth does Loving have to do with Roe? It is another example of a time the court overrode the will of the people of a state (as expressed by their legislature) and declared that the right of interracial couples to marry was too fundamental to be restricted by a state law. The logic seems perfectly analogous. I have no doubt that there remain elements of the population that think Loving was wrong and should be overturned. I can only pray that they are an insignificant minority.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 24, 2022 15:33:56 GMT -5
Prohibitions of interracial and same-sex marriage have been been ruled out by the Court. One of them, Loving v. Virginia, struck down laws against interracial marriage. One of the SC justices is half of such a marriage.
Other personal and domestic matters have been protected against local/state interference by SC rulings, viz. contraception, sexual behavior (between consenting adults). Then, of course, there are Brown v. Board of Education (school segregation), Shelley v. Kraemer (restrictive covenants). Maybe the Court will decide that stare decisis needs to be rewound to Plessy v. Ferguson--or, for that matter, Dred Scott.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 24, 2022 15:37:52 GMT -5
What on earth does Loving have to do with Roe? It is another example of a time the court overrode the will of the people of a state (as expressed by their legislature) and declared that the right of interracial couples to marry was too fundamental to be restricted by a state law. The logic seems perfectly analogous. I have no doubt that there remain elements of the population that think Loving was wrong and should be overturned. I can only pray that they are an insignificant minority. And what exactly was the basis that it was decided on? Which part of the Constitution did it violate?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 24, 2022 15:40:56 GMT -5
Prohibitions of interracial and same-sex marriage have been been ruled out by the Court. One of them, Loving v. Virginia, struck down laws against interracial marriage. One of the SC justices is half of such a marriage. Other personal and domestic matters have been protected against local/state interference by SC rulings, viz. contraception, sexual behavior (between consenting adults). Then, of course, there are Brown v. Board of Education (school segregation), Shelley v. Kraemer (restrictive covenants). Maybe the Court will decide that stare decisis needs to be rewound to Plessy v. Ferguson--or, for that matter, Dred Scott. Again, that's pretty broad brush. Since you're an expert, what specifically was the basis of Loving?
|
|