Supreme Court Cases Thread

[CHONGS]

A place to talk/yell about Supreme Court cases.


A split off the parent thread:

I think it's inevitable that Roe and Obergefell (among a lot more "liberal" decisions) will be overturned very soon.

And I simply do not think that. In fact, I find the suggestion silly.

I guess we'll see.

I guess so!

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-set-dive-mississippi-abortion-case-challenging-roe-v-n1285114

Looks like it might be time to see.  Roe is going down.

[Spracne]

My views have not changed. You can rarely, if ever, glean anything based on oral arguments. Roe and Casey and Whole Women's Health are the law of the land. Justice Sotomayor laid the gauntlet down today to the more moderate conservative Justices. In my opinion, she was speaking directly to C.J. Roberts. I think Gorsuch and Kavanaugh probably got the message, too.

[catastrophe]

Actually overturning Roe would come as a surprise to me, but lol at fearing the court would be viewed as a political institution. Like y’all really don’t remember how you got up there?

[Spracne]

Actually overturning Roe would come as a surprise to me, but lol at fearing the court would be viewed as a political institution. Like y’all really don’t remember how you got up there?

I think one's perspective shifts a bit when you're part of the brethren. You are one of nine. You care a little bit more about protecting your status and your institution, which means the status quo. You're also aware that, ahem, history has its eyes on you. RBG said it best when she said that nine is a fine number.

[catastrophe]

Well that’s fine but who doesn’t want to be on the Brown side vs Plessy? The argument goes both ways. Some of the most applauded Supreme Court cases were clearly political in the sense they reacted to shifts in public policy rather than in the constitution.

[Spracne]

Other than Brown overturning Plessy, can you think of a single high-profile case since where something remotely similar has happened? I can't, and I'm both a scholar and a gentleman. Overturning Roe and its progeny would be at that level. It is not to be taken lightly.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

CJR has that big "uphold precedent" energy

[CHONGS]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

But this world certainly be a much much bigger deal.

[Spracne]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

But this world certainly be a much much bigger deal.

Not remotely the same, as there was a dearth of Second Amendment precedent at that time. Fourteenth Amendment precedent relating to abortion rights is firmly entrenched.

[CHONGS]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

[Spracne]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

I'm familiar with both cases. Worth noting that Lawrence extended the reasoning of Roe to apply to private sexual activity. I don't think knocking out Bowers is remotely the same as what's being discussed here. Lawrence only came about because some Houston sheriff and D.A. were dumb enough to actually charge under the sodomy laws. Those laws had been on the books in Texas and other states but were never enforced. And I'm setting aside the fact that Lawrence itself was a total setup, but that's for another day.

[catastrophe]

Other than Brown overturning Plessy, can you think of a single high-profile case since where something remotely similar has happened? I can't, and I'm both a scholar and a gentleman. Overturning Roe and its progeny would be at that level. It is not to be taken lightly.

I agree few things rise to the same level, but it’s easy to make the equivalence here if you are of the belief that the unborn have constitutional rights.

[Spracne]

Other than Brown overturning Plessy, can you think of a single high-profile case since where something remotely similar has happened? I can't, and I'm both a scholar and a gentleman. Overturning Roe and its progeny would be at that level. It is not to be taken lightly.

I agree few things rise to the same level, but it’s easy to make the equivalence here if you are of the belief that the unborn have constitutional rights.

Well, no court has ever held that. In fact, the Fourteenth describes being "born" as the requirement for citizenship.

[Kat Kid]

Abortion access in this country is already pretty difficult for huge swathes of the country. I get that roe is still a big deal but the biggest effects will be felt in states like Wisconsin or Michigan where republicans may really go overboard and find out that there is a big backlash to trying to go all Mississippi and dems win some statehouses.  Could be wrong and we end up living in hand maids tale but I don’t think so.

[Spracne]

Abortion access in this country is already pretty difficult for huge swathes of the country. I get that roe is still a big deal but the biggest effects will be felt in states like Wisconsin or Michigan where republicans may really go overboard and find out that there is a big backlash to trying to go all Mississippi and dems win some statehouses.  Could be wrong and we end up living in hand maids tale but I don’t think so.

As always, it would be the poor people who suffer. I can afford to send my harem out of state on first-class tickets to get safe, legal abortions. Not everyone is in that position.

[catastrophe]

Other than Brown overturning Plessy, can you think of a single high-profile case since where something remotely similar has happened? I can't, and I'm both a scholar and a gentleman. Overturning Roe and its progeny would be at that level. It is not to be taken lightly.

I agree few things rise to the same level, but it’s easy to make the equivalence here if you are of the belief that the unborn have constitutional rights.

Well, no court has ever held that. In fact, the Fourteenth describes being "born" as the requirement for citizenship.

Non-citizens are able to be extended constitutional protections are they not?

[Spracne]

Other than Brown overturning Plessy, can you think of a single high-profile case since where something remotely similar has happened? I can't, and I'm both a scholar and a gentleman. Overturning Roe and its progeny would be at that level. It is not to be taken lightly.

I agree few things rise to the same level, but it’s easy to make the equivalence here if you are of the belief that the unborn have constitutional rights.

Well, no court has ever held that. In fact, the Fourteenth describes being "born" as the requirement for citizenship.

Non-citizens are able to be extended constitutional protections are they not?

Unless I missed it, I don't think the government (any government, state or federal) is requiring abortions. Am I wrong? I'm not quite sure what constitutional right you think is implicated.

[catastrophe]

The argument is federal and state legislators are currently prohibited from passing legislation to protect life younger than 20 weeks in utero (or whatever it is).

[catastrophe]

And the question is whether that prohibition is constitutionally mandated or not.

[Spracne]

And the question is whether that prohibition is constitutionally mandated or not.

Well, that's some Marbury v. Madison level building-blocks type stuff. Of course it is "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department [federal courts] to say what the [federal] law is." You are aware that the Bill of Rights protects individuals from government action, correct? Your prior response indicated that the injured parties would be state legislators who wished to buck constitutional jurisprudence, despite the fact that the Constitution, as interpreted through the decisions of the Supreme Court, trumps any competing state laws. It has been that way for more than 200 years. I'm not sure why you brought up the constitutional rights of unborn (who lack standing) and then pivoted to the rights of legislators to pass laws that are repugnant to the Constitution, but you're going to have to give me a real argument to work with, here.

[catastrophe]

“who lack standing” - So we’re going all the way to Dred Scott now? Didn’t Roe basically create a workaround specifically to avoid the obvious standing problem in that case? Or was that already a thing?

My argument has always been simple: SCOTUS is an inherently political institution. Its power to check the legislative and executive branches is extremely important, but the pearl clutching about overturning longstanding precedent amounts to pearl crutch-ing for those who like what the precedent was.

I think there are plenty of practical reasons not to overturn Roe, but fretting over a fear of appearing “political” when the other side of the debate argues they favor the legislature’s right to protect defenseless lives is the worst of the bunch.

[steve dave]

There are shitloads of things that need overturned and rewritten

[Spracne]

“who lack standing” - So we’re going all the way to Dred Scott now? Didn’t Roe basically create a workaround specifically to avoid the obvious standing problem in that case? Or was that already a thing?

My argument has always been simple: SCOTUS is an inherently political institution. Its power to check the legislative and executive branches is extremely important, but the pearl clutching about overturning longstanding precedent amounts to pearl crutch-ing for those who like what the precedent was.

I think there are plenty of practical reasons not to overturn Roe, but fretting over a fear of appearing “political” when the other side of the debate argues they favor the legislature’s right to protect defenseless lives is the worst of the bunch.

Listen here, sparky, you're insulting all of my hobbies and informed professional interests, and I won't stand for it. And not only that, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about. "Capable of repetition yet evading review" as a standing substitute (what I assume you were referring to) is entirely different than a fetus being a proper party to a lawsuit. Understand? No, you probably don't. You simply oppose abortion in your heart. You could have just stated that.

If understanding the history and evolution of the Fourteenth Amendment were a college sport, I would be a 5-star recruit. I will be vindicated in the final analysis. You'll see. You'll all see. (That goes for you too, Chings.)

[Cire]

We need a bet

If they throw out roe spracs has to _____________


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steve dave]

Pay me $5,000