SCOTUS leak suggests Roe v. Wade to be overturned

[Dreiko]

Didn't Biden threaten to expand the court if it was found to be too partisan? What happened to that? See, I don't think republicans are the only ones doing these things. Democrats know it and let em do it to have a boogieman to run against so they won't have to actually do anything that helps people.

Maybe. I'm probably not a true lefties anyway

I think the issue is that people use their advocacy for those other issues as an excuse to not care about class struggle and to get to claim to be a leftist because they don't hate trans people or whatever. It's the types who unironically celebrated the first lgbt bomber plane crew or something along those lines. It's the types who crafted that diverse CIA agent advertisement everyone memed on.

 

[gorfias]

I disagree on two counts.

The US system for the appointment of judges is politicised, and one has to believe politicised by intent. The judiciary have independence (in their way), but their appointment by the executive and legislature means that they should be approximately representative of public will. Although, of course, stacking the court then becomes deeply problematic, which leads me to my second issue.

As you say, "adherence to the law as they understand it." But this is not really objective, it's subjective. And it's political. Someone politically ideological is basically guaranteed to interpret law in a manner friendly to their political ideology.

As some might say about Roe v. Wade and is equally true of scrapping Roe v. Wade, judges can find justifications to make pretty much any old shit up. The very fact a Supreme Court can reverse what a previous Supreme Court has ruled is effectively proof of that. Thus where you say "understand it", I would suggest that is at best euphemism, and "what they want it to be" is more accurate, because their understanding of law is directed by their motivations.

Which leads me back to why US judges should be asked questions on how they would rule on hot topics: it tells us what their motivations are, and what political ends they are going to serve. And to go back to the issue of stacking the court, a stacked court, being unrepresentative of the population (and quite possibly even the bulk of the nation's judges and legal opinion), is going to cause considerable ill-feeling and resentment. Alito's majority brief describes Roe v. Wade as causing the USA a great deal of harm. It's a pathetic and risible claim because reversing it, particularly by the way the court was stacked to do so - is very likely to cause just as much if not more harm.

It used to be said that, "first comes the election, then the decisions". The court was expected, liked or not, to follow the political wind. It has never been a perfect system.
When I write that the Justice needs to follow the law as understood, I am calling into question this concept: DID the Roe Justices really understand the law to mean what they found it did? To be honest, I do not think that. Even Justice RBG didn't. I think that they had an agenda. They wanted a political outcome that did not reflect what they really thought the law meant. And the US has been torn apart by that ever since.
You write that, "judges can find justifications to make pretty much any old shit up". I think it was Scalia that wrote if the plain meaning of the written law can be reasonably understood, one should not look to other writings (even the Federalist Papers) as it would be like entering a room full of people looking for a familiar face.
My hopes if Roe is over-turned:
1) People stop looking to the courts to create laws they want rather than persuade the electorate of why their views should be law;
2) Court appointments become a mundane matter again that few even notice;
3) The Courts really do enforce minority rights over majorities when that is what a reasonable person would interpret the law to really mean;
4) As to reproductive rights, we really start debating them rather than have an elite body instruct us as to what they are.

Long term, I hope we come to an agreed upon framework that will cause some frustration to everyone, but some level of legitimacy to everyone.

 

[Cheetodust]

Didn't Biden threaten to expand the court if it was found to be too partisan? What happened to that? See, I don't think republicans are the only ones doing these things. Democrats know it and let em do it to have a boogieman to run against so they won't have to actually do anything that helps people.


I think the issue is that people use their advocacy for those other issues as an excuse to not care about class struggle and to get to claim to be a leftist because they don't hate trans people or whatever. It's the types who unironically celebrated the first lgbt bomber plane crew or something along those lines. It's the types who crafted that diverse CIA agent advertisement everyone memed on.

Or the kind of people who celebrated Leo Varadkar becoming the first openly gay Taoiseach of Ireland despite the fact that he brings nothing but Tory views to the table and was a man so Conservative his Conservative party often hid him away because he kept saying things that reminded people that Fine Gael were founded by full on goose stepping, sieg heiling fascists.

 

[Agema]

It used to be said that, "first comes the election, then the decisions". The court was expected, liked or not, to follow the political wind. It has never been a perfect system.
When I write that the Justice needs to follow the law as understood, I am calling into question this concept: DID the Roe Justices really understand the law to mean what they found it did? To be honest, I do not think that. Even Justice RBG didn't. I think that they had an agenda. They wanted a political outcome that did not reflect what they really thought the law meant. And the US has been torn apart by that ever since.

I think you might be questioning what is ultimately a technicality. I don't think there's any practical difference between making a judicial decision the judge doesn't truly believe in to meet a political outcome, and being led to believe in a certain interpretation of law because of a desire for certain political outcomes.

You write that, "judges can find justifications to make pretty much any old shit up". I think it was Scalia that wrote if the plain meaning of the written law can be reasonably understood, one should not look to other writings (even the Federalist Papers) as it would be like entering a room full of people looking for a familiar face.

It's interesting you cite Scalia, because Scalia was known to strongly advance constitutional originalism. Yet when one looks through, there's plenty of evidence he was not necessarily very consistent about it - or at minimum, that his interpretations are far from certain.

For instance, the First Amendment states "Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I fail to see how any Constitutional originalist would therefore argue that individual states cannot do these things. But that's a lot of established decisions to overturn, and I cannot help but feel it's really not going to make the USA a more attractive place.

My hopes if Roe is over-turned:
1) People stop looking to the courts to create laws they want rather than persuade the electorate of why their views should be law;
2) Court appointments become a mundane matter again that few even notice;
3) The Courts really do enforce minority rights over majorities when that is what a reasonable person would interpret the law to really mean;
4) As to reproductive rights, we really start debating them rather than have an elite body instruct us as to what they are.

1) This will not and cannot happen. The judiciary is a branch of government: it will now and forever make judgements that determine the interpretation of law with potentially high impact on people.
2) This will not happen. Because courts exercise huge power, those with the ambition and desire for results will always seek compliant judges. The best (and even then, imperfect) way to resolve this is to remove court appointments from political decision - be that democratic vote or appointment by democratic representatives.
3) Okay... although "reasonable person" starts being very tricky, and goes into the core issue of some jurisprudence. Originalism, after all, effectively defines a "reasonable person" to be a "reasonable person of 1776", not a reasonable person of 2022.
4) A parliament of elected representatives is an elite body: is this not precisely the basis of many Americans' dissatisfaction with their government, that it does not adequately represent their people?

 

[Casual Shinji]

So, can we make seatbelts illegal, and then excuse it with 'then you shouldn't have been driving' and 'then be a better driver, I'm sure you'll manage'?

 

[tstorm823]

It takes a village to raise a child. How can you justify your supposed "pro-life" stance when it stops existing at such an arbitrary point?

I don't like the term "pro-life", not cause I'm not but because almost everyone is for life, it's not a useful term. Limited to the discussion of abortion, "anti-choice" is actually a more honest descriptor, as that is how we legally treat homicide. If someone makes the choice for someone to die when nobody had to, that's illegal. If somebody dies not as the result of anyone choosing for it to happen, that's not illegal. Choice is very much the problem.

Do you truly, as a Catholic and American, have zero obligation to help your fellow man if you aren't personally related to them?

I have lots of moral obligation, but we're talking about legal obligation.

And as far as your stupid meme, that's not "everything I don't like is communism". You're actually describing communism. "Why doesn't everyone have exactly equal responsibility to care for one another? Why are you stopping at personal responsibility based on traditional family structures?" Because I'm a conservative, not a communist.

 

[tstorm823]

So, can we make seatbelts illegal, and then excuse it with 'then you shouldn't have been driving' and 'then be a better driver, I'm sure you'll manage'?

If you invented a device that protected you in the case of a car accident by murdering another driver, we would make it illegal without hesitation.

 

[Casual Shinji]

If you invented a device that protected you in the case of a car accident by murdering another driver, we would make it illegal without hesitation.

No, you wouldn't, because they'd be outside the womb, which means conservatives wouldn't give a shit.

 

[Thaluikhain]

No, you wouldn't, because they'd be outside the womb, which means conservatives wouldn't give a shit.

Also, squint your brain a bit and you've got road rage and firearms, and conservatives are big on firearms.

 

[Bedinsis]

If you invented a device that protected you in the case of a car accident by murdering another driver, we would make it illegal without hesitation.

Self-driving cars are being developed as we speak. How the AI present in the driving software reacts to the trolley problem (hypothetical: "Oh no! There are five innocent children ahead that will die if I do not hit the breaks! But if I hit the breaks the vehicle behind me could hit me from behind and kill my driver! What do I do?") is a genuine concern. Do you think people would accept a car that risks a vehicle owner's safety in situations where doing so means other people's safety are more secured?

 

[Trunkage]

If you invented a device that protected you in the case of a car accident by murdering another driver, we would make it illegal without hesitation.

Isnt this one of the main of Landcruisers (and similar vehicles) and trucks?

Self-driving cars are being developed as we speak. How the AI present in the driving software reacts to the trolley problem (hypothetical: "Oh no! There are five innocent children ahead that will die if I do not hit the breaks! But if I hit the breaks the vehicle behind me could hit me from behind and kill my driver! What do I do?") is a genuine concern. Do you think people would accept a car that risks a vehicle owner's safety in situations where doing so means other people's safety are more secured?

The biggest problem with self-driving cares is Musk and his complete inability to comprehend the problem and willingness to just bull dozers literal people. And, instead of just fixing the problem, he fixes the laws so they has lower standards and able to kill more

 

[gorfias]

I think you might be questioning what is ultimately a technicality. I don't think there's any practical difference between making a judicial decision the judge doesn't truly believe in to meet a political outcome, and being led to believe in a certain interpretation of law because of a desire for certain political outcomes.



It's interesting you cite Scalia, because Scalia was known to strongly advance constitutional originalism. Yet when one looks through, there's plenty of evidence he was not necessarily very consistent about it - or at minimum, that his interpretations are far from certain.

For instance, the First Amendment states "Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I fail to see how any Constitutional originalist would therefore argue that individual states cannot do these things. But that's a lot of established decisions to overturn, and I cannot help but feel it's really not going to make the USA a more attractive place.



1) This will not and cannot happen. The judiciary is a branch of government: it will now and forever make judgements that determine the interpretation of law with potentially high impact on people.
2) This will not happen. Because courts exercise huge power, those with the ambition and desire for results will always seek compliant judges. The best (and even then, imperfect) way to resolve this is to remove court appointments from political decision - be that democratic vote or appointment by democratic representatives.
3) Okay... although "reasonable person" starts being very tricky, and goes into the core issue of some jurisprudence. Originalism, after all, effectively defines a "reasonable person" to be a "reasonable person of 1776", not a reasonable person of 2022.
4) A parliament of elected representatives is an elite body: is this not precisely the basis of many Americans' dissatisfaction with their government, that it does not adequately represent their people?

You write, " I don't think there's any practical difference between making a judicial decision the judge doesn't truly believe in to meet a political outcome, and being led to believe in a certain interpretation of law because of a desire for certain political outcomes." I think that makes all the difference in the world. At least trying to be impartial allows us to reason together. It is why we have trials.
Again, it is a very imperfect system. You note Scalia often strayed from his convictions which I'm sure is true. But have convictions besides, "once you are on the bench, just do whatever you want." To do whatever you want on the bench betrays the very concept of self governance. The judge becomes the law, not what our elected representatives enumerate. The law also loses credibility. The governed no longer believe these decisions are real. Which has always been the problem with Roe.

And there is a huge problem in our Congress regarding elites. In the House, there shouldn't be. These are supposed to be our neighbors. People we actually run into, talk to, have a beer with. To function as it did when first formed? I think there would need to be about 300,000 of them. Today, they may be more secure, supported by millionaires and elite than Senators (who originally were chosen by a State government, not the people).
Yeah. It's a mess right now. In another thread we spoke of a study showing they're not listening to us. If the concept of self government is to survive, we should want to fix this. Over-turning bad law might be a step in the right direction.

 

[Trunkage]

Didn't Biden threaten to expand the court if it was found to be too partisan? What happened to that? See, I don't think republicans are the only ones doing these things. Democrats know it and let em do it to have a boogieman to run against so they won't have to actually do anything that helps people.


I think the issue is that people use their advocacy for those other issues as an excuse to not care about class struggle and to get to claim to be a leftist because they don't hate trans people or whatever. It's the types who unironically celebrated the first lgbt bomber plane crew or something along those lines. It's the types who crafted that diverse CIA agent advertisement everyone memed on.

Well, I think x-reductionist is an over used term in some circles (class, race, sex etc.) Just because one person is oppressed by something (even more than most), doesn't mean that others cant be oppressed by something else.

 

[Trunkage]

My hopes if Roe is over-turned:
1) People stop looking to the courts to create laws they want rather than persuade the electorate of why their views should be law;

The US constitution is designed not to pass laws. It's even worse when the filibuster is being abused. I like the sentiment, but the reason why laws don't get made has got little to do with the supreme court. I would also way less power to be taken out of the executive branch as well. But, you have to understand, THIS IS ALL INTENTIONAL. They don't want the electorate involved.

2) Court appointments become a mundane matter again that few even notice;

They were only mundane because certain people got to pick every position. They are making a big PR blitz because they now don't always get their pick. What Trump did, stacking the courts, has always been the norm

3) The Courts really do enforce minority rights over majorities when that is what a reasonable person would interpret the law to really mean;

No, they don't. Never have, never will

4) As to reproductive rights, we really start debating them rather than have an elite body instruct us as to what they are.

It's funny how the word debate now means, "Do it my way."

Long term, I hope we come to an agreed upon framework that will cause some frustration to everyone, but some level of legitimacy to everyone.

The framework will be a banning everything. There will be no debating

 

[Seanchaidh]

Don't 'true leftists' call anyone who cares about anything other than improving class struggle due to capitalism a liberal?
If you care about anything other than that you're just a cursed liberal.

In fact, the opposite.

“The roots of sexism and homophobia are found in the same economic and political institutions that serve as the foundation of racism in this country and, more often than not, the same extremist circles that inflict violence on people of color are responsible for the eruptions of violence inspired by sexist and homophobic biases. Our political activism must clearly manifest our understanding of these connections.” -Angela Davis who is, among other things, a Marxist

Caring about "other things" is necessary in the class struggle. Not only for the sake of justice. Not only for the sake of solidarity as a practical matter. But also because all of these issues are intertwined.

 

[Silvanus]

Why not make every single human equally carry the responsibilities of parenthood for every child? You do understand you are describing communism, right?

That's not communism. It's closer to the kibbutz system.

 

[Agema]

You write, " I don't think there's any practical difference between making a judicial decision the judge doesn't truly believe in to meet a political outcome, and being led to believe in a certain interpretation of law because of a desire for certain political outcomes." I think that makes all the difference in the world. At least trying to be impartial allows us to reason together. It is why we have trials.

A trial can be weigh all sorts of evidential standards. Whilst there is rationality behind jurisprudence, it's not the same thing.

Again, it is a very imperfect system. You note Scalia often strayed from his convictions which I'm sure is true. But have convictions besides, "once you are on the bench, just do whatever you want." To do whatever you want on the bench betrays the very concept of self governance. The judge becomes the law, not what our elected representatives enumerate. The law also loses credibility. The governed no longer believe these decisions are real. Which has always been the problem with Roe.

Polls suggest the majority of Americans (70-80%) are fine with Roe v. Wade. So which "governed" are these who don't believe the decisions are real? The answer is I fear dangerously close to being ones who don't like the (political) result of the decision. I'm willing to bet, for instance, that not so many who object to Roe v. Wade also object to the decision on the 2000 Florida recount, which SCOTUS pulled out of their collective arses to decide an election in favour of the court majority's preferred candidate. Or countless other potentially weak rulings that didn't affect them negatively.

And there is a huge problem in our Congress regarding elites. In the House, there shouldn't be.

Effectively all of Congress bar a small handful are the socioeconomic elites from birth. They are not your neighbours and never have been, unless you live in a luxury condo, mansion, etc. The Founding Fathers were the upper middle classes of their day, and it's been that way ever since. When they said "tyranny of the majority", that was close to a euphemism for the working classes.

Over-turning bad law might be a step in the right direction.

What is "bad law"? I might argue law is a tool: it is good for no other reason than it makes the country, its society, and the people within stronger and happier. It's remarkable how many tyrannical and unjust regimes have done things legally. And furthermore, law for the law's sake will end in atrocity.

A major part of government and the law is protecting individuals against other individuals. But in a world where the rich and powerful can buy both the courts and the government, what you want most perhaps are judges who believe in the people. Scalia's record, for instance, is reckoned to be one of relentlessly facilitating the rich and powerful. The court decided "free speech" meant incredible freedom for big money to influence elections. This was fantastic for the elites, and arguably bad for democracy because it entrenched their advantages to sway government towards its will.

What if anyone wants to change that or anything else? Well, there's two ways. The first is to change the constitution, which is so hard it effectively allows a small minority to stonewall almost indefinitely. Or they stack SCOTUS.

 

[gorfias]

The US constitution is designed not to pass laws. It's even worse when the filibuster is being abused. I like the sentiment, but the reason why laws don't get made has got little to do with the supreme court. I would also way less power to be taken out of the executive branch as well. But, you have to understand, THIS IS ALL INTENTIONAL. They don't want the electorate involved.
They were only mundane because certain people got to pick every position. They are making a big PR blitz because they now don't always get their pick. What Trump did, stacking the courts, has always been the norm
No, they don't. Never have, never will
It's funny how the word debate now means, "Do it my way."

The framework will be a banning everything. There will be no debating

Yikes. Kinda black pilled!
But the US is full of laws. Some are so large people are voting for things they have not even read.

A trial can be weigh all sorts of evidential standards. Whilst there is rationality behind jurisprudence, it's not the same thing.



Polls suggest the majority of Americans (70-80%) are fine with Roe v. Wade. So which "governed" are these who don't believe the decisions are real? The answer is I fear dangerously close to being ones who don't like the (political) result of the decision. I'm willing to bet, for instance, that not so many who object to Roe v. Wade also object to the decision on the 2000 Florida recount, which SCOTUS pulled out of their collective arses to decide an election in favour of the court majority's preferred candidate. Or countless other potentially weak rulings that didn't affect them negatively.



Effectively all of Congress bar a small handful are the socioeconomic elites from birth. They are not your neighbours and never have been, unless you live in a luxury condo, mansion, etc. The Founding Fathers were the upper middle classes of their day, and it's been that way ever since. When they said "tyranny of the majority", that was close to a euphemism for the working classes.



What is "bad law"? I might argue law is a tool: it is good for no other reason than it makes the country, its society, and the people within stronger and happier. It's remarkable how many tyrannical and unjust regimes have done things legally. And furthermore, law for the law's sake will end in atrocity.

A major part of government and the law is protecting individuals against other individuals. But in a world where the rich and powerful can buy both the courts and the government, what you want most perhaps are judges who believe in the people. Scalia's record, for instance, is reckoned to be one of relentlessly facilitating the rich and powerful. The court decided "free speech" meant incredible freedom for big money to influence elections. This was fantastic for the elites, and arguably bad for democracy because it entrenched their advantages to sway government towards its will.

What if anyone wants to change that or anything else? Well, there's two ways. The first is to change the constitution, which is so hard it effectively allows a small minority to stonewall almost indefinitely. Or they stack SCOTUS.

You've probably read this a million times already:

A quote from A Man for All Seasons

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after ...

www.goodreads.com

I'm sure you are not advocating for anarchy and lawlessness but I really don't think we have laws if it is simply whatever, without convincing anyone, a judge says it is. Jurisprudence often uses the historical use of a given law (trial outcomes) to frame its rationale.
A majority of people might accept Roe as they have been told to do so but people paying attention likely see it as "bad law". In my use of the term "bad law" I don't mean it's a decision I dislike, but that the reasoning behind it is not convincing. Having an unconvincing decision have such a huge impact on a given society is going to be trouble.

 

[Dreiko]

Well, I think x-reductionist is an over used term in some circles (class, race, sex etc.) Just because one person is oppressed by something (even more than most), doesn't mean that others cant be oppressed by something else.

The thing is that in some of those issues, solving one issue helps every other issue too. Like for example, helping people escape poverty helps trans people too cause they're disproportionately poor or homeless cause they get kicked out by their families. But the problem is you can't tout that approach as being uniquely a trans-policy because it helps everyone, and people who are into this just to market themselves as being virtuous would abandon such a plan in favor of another one which can be marketed as being "woke" more directly and clearly, even if that bill actually helped less or not at all.


Basically people care more about virtue signaling and complying with their agenda even if it means sacrificing everything in order to do so. They care about being perceived as being good people for their opinions more than just having opinions that generate the most good if it may be easy to overlook by the culture. If they won't get their brownie points they don't care.

 

[Hades]

Really, every step in this process shows how the minority can completely terrorize the majority and force through legislation that don't have any support in American society. This isn't a system that is even remotely functioning.

Trump could only install a conservative super majority because he was elected into office over the outright rejection of the American electorate. And while he stacked the supreme court he never once managed to gain the support of the American electorate. Not once in his entire four year reign.

And meanwhile in the previous administration which actually DID have a mandate from the American public the Republicans insisted that Obama actually did not have the mandate to select new judges. And they could enforce this nonsense because of their position in the senate, where a minority of the electorate can gain full control of the senate, and block everything the majority wants, while pushing their own unpopular policies down the throat of the majority.

Then the judges themselves. The American public at large likely would not endorse a rapist and a religious fundamentalist on the supreme court but its not up to them. It was up to a president without a mandate to select those judges, and it was up to a senate that also lacked a mandate to confirm them. Never in the whole process was it anything other than a fringe minority being able to force a kicking and screaming nation to bend to their whims without this fringe minority having to compromise anything themselves.