Author Topic: Supreme Court Cases Thread  (Read 3128 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 12586
    • View Profile
Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #25 on: December 02, 2021, 08:37:25 AM »
“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.)
First of all, the 5 star recruit totally dodged my Dred Scott standing comparo. Is your learned position that that decision was correct until later constitutional amendments?

Second, I was really just indulging your tangent about standing with my comment about Roe. My QUESTION (which you didn’t answer) was whether the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception existed before Roe, or whether it was created in order to decide that case? It’s certainly not in the constitution in either event.

The point being that standing seems to be another one of those things that can have political undertones as well.

Offline LickNeckey

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5305
  • #fakeposts
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #26 on: December 02, 2021, 11:23:24 AM »
mostly civil

position focused

informative


the pit needs more of this!!!

Online Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 34609
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #27 on: December 02, 2021, 11:26:35 AM »
I'm worried that spracne might get brutalized if the court shows themselves to be partisan hacks who overturn Roe v Wade after all.

Offline Cire

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 17503
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #28 on: December 02, 2021, 11:41:19 AM »
I'm worried that spracne might get brutalized if the court shows themselves to be partisan hacks who overturn Roe v Wade after all.

There will be pointing and laughing at that rube for sure.

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 58815
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #29 on: December 02, 2021, 12:04:13 PM »
Trust me, it's going to get fun when those two take a 420seriouscat69 approach and start getting personal.
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 15401
  • Distinguished Scholar/Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #30 on: December 02, 2021, 03:50:53 PM »
“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.)
First of all, the 5 star recruit totally dodged my Dred Scott standing comparo. Is your learned position that that decision was correct until later constitutional amendments?

Second, I was really just indulging your tangent about standing with my comment about Roe. My QUESTION (which you didn’t answer) was whether the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception existed before Roe, or whether it was created in order to decide that case? It’s certainly not in the constitution in either event.

The point being that standing seems to be another one of those things that can have political undertones as well.

I don't think making Dred Scott comparisons is useful, considering that slavery was legal at the time. I attempted to address your argument by inferring and then addressing the "capable of repetition yet evading review" test, which was NOT developed specifically for Roe. It also applied to situations in which a government, governmental subunit, agency, etc. would initiate proceedings and then dismiss them (to avoid an unfavorable decision) only to reinitiate proceedings later. Rinse, repeat, because it takes a long time for cases to reach final judgment, as you know.

I'm just endeavoring to inform regarding the current state of constitutional jurisprudence on the matter, and then make an informed prediction about what I think the Court will do. However, I have been dilatory in performing the most important aspect, which is looking closely at the Mississippi law. Is it just that abortions cannot be had after 15 weeks unless medically necessary? That is *roughly* in line with existing precedent, which states that prior to the point of viability, states may not restrict a woman's access to abortion. But after the point of viability, states may reasonably regulate abortion access, except that they cannot restrict abortions that are medically necessary for the health of the mother. If that's all true, then the question becomes: "has medical science advanced to the point that 15 weeks is a reasonable approximation of the point of viability?" That's kind of a tough question for a court to answer. I'm predicting a splintered plurality opinion that won't mean much but will give everyone something to bitch about while not understanding what it all means.

If my very surface-level understanding of the Mississippi law is correct, then the court need not revisit Roe/Casey/etc. in order to uphold the Mississippi law. However, it also seems absurd for the Supreme Court of the United States to declare that 15 weeks is the point of viability. But that would seem to be the gambit happening, here.

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 80693
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #31 on: December 02, 2021, 05:05:50 PM »
Supremes : Downgrade City

Online catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 12586
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #32 on: December 02, 2021, 05:35:27 PM »
SCOTUS doesn’t need to determine the age of viability do they? Can’t it look like an enhanced scrutiny type test to determine whether the state has put forth enough evidence to show it has a compelling interest in regulating abortion after X weeks of gestation?

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 80693
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #33 on: December 02, 2021, 06:44:39 PM »
Pay me $5,000

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 15401
  • Distinguished Scholar/Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #34 on: December 02, 2021, 09:39:19 PM »
SCOTUS doesn’t need to determine the age of viability do they? Can’t it look like an enhanced scrutiny type test to determine whether the state has put forth enough evidence to show it has a compelling interest in regulating abortion after X weeks of gestation?

As I recall (too busy to look it up now), the Court left open the possibility that future medical advancements might reduce the time it takes for a fetus to reach viability. But viability vs. non-viability is the governing standard for determining the standard of review. After viability, states have a "compelling interest" in protecting the unborn, such that laws *might* be narrowly tailored enough to overcome a woman's substantive due process rights as articulated in Roe and Casey (and its progeny). They could rejigger Casey without throwing it out, but as I said, I think a splintered plurality that says nothing but pisses off everyone is where this is headed.

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 80693
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #35 on: March 25, 2022, 07:43:55 AM »

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44118
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #36 on: March 25, 2022, 01:41:09 PM »
 :lol: :lol: :lol:
It's a great day to be a Wildcat and it's a great day to say no to the Pit.

Offline Cire

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 17503
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #37 on: March 25, 2022, 02:11:37 PM »
"Activist Judges" :runaway:

Offline CHONGS

  • Master of the Atom
  • Administrator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 17697
    • View Profile
    • goEMAW.com
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #38 on: May 02, 2022, 08:45:19 PM »
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.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

I guess some might find this surprising.

Offline Cire

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 17503
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #39 on: May 02, 2022, 08:48:28 PM »
Win for Dems


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline CHONGS

  • Master of the Atom
  • Administrator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 17697
    • View Profile
    • goEMAW.com
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #40 on: May 02, 2022, 08:48:32 PM »
Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges are next.

Offline CHONGS

  • Master of the Atom
  • Administrator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 17697
    • View Profile
    • goEMAW.com
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #41 on: May 02, 2022, 08:50:14 PM »
Win for Dems


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think it is.

Online catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 12586
    • View Profile
Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #42 on: May 02, 2022, 09:09:20 PM »
Win for Dems


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think it is.
Dems running for state legislature seats maybe.

Also I’m no Supreme Court nut, but I’ve never heard of an opinion leaking. If it’s true, someone clerking for a liberal justice risked their career for a Hail Mary publicity bomb.

Offline SkinnyBenny

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 16310
  • good time rock-n-roll plastic banana FM type
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #43 on: May 02, 2022, 09:20:22 PM »
Win for Dems


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think it is.
Dems running for state legislature seats maybe.

Also I’m no Supreme Court nut, but I’ve never heard of an opinion leaking. If it’s true, someone clerking for a liberal justice risked their career for a Hail Mary publicity bomb.

Good. Glad they did.
"walking around mhk and crying in the rain because of love lost is the absolute purest and best thing in the world.  i hope i fall in love during the next few weeks and get my heart broken and it starts raining just to experience it one last time."   --Dlew12

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 15401
  • Distinguished Scholar/Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #44 on: May 02, 2022, 10:03:30 PM »
Wow. If this turns out to be correct, I will have a lot of egg on my face. I've obviously been pretty outspoken that I did not think the Court would actually throw out Roe/Casey and their progeny. This would cause me to completely change my thinking. Two quick thoughts:

1.) This is HIGHLY unusual in that these draft opinions never see the light of day, and leaks from the Supreme Court before an opinion comes down don't happen. This had to have come from one of the Justices' law clerks (in particular, either from the liberal wing or John Roberts).
2.) I am holding out hope that this will not come to fruition because the Politico article gets some things not quite correct when it comes to SCOTUS procedures. It gets a lot of things correct, but it is not the case that a draft of a "majority" opinion means that a decision has been reached. Particularly in the case of deadlocks, it has happened in the past that one justice will circulate a draft "majority" opinion to try to sway votes to his/her side. Let us hope that is the case here.

Online chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20679
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #45 on: May 02, 2022, 10:26:35 PM »
On one hand, many experts said the new justices would not reverse Roe. On the other, that's EXACTLY what they were put there to do.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44118
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #46 on: May 02, 2022, 11:06:25 PM »
So much for the old OPSEC at our nations highest court.

It's a great day to be a Wildcat and it's a great day to say no to the Pit.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44118
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #47 on: May 02, 2022, 11:41:27 PM »
While I don't disagree that this really bad, the declaration by some that this is an "illegitimate court" is just, well, fantastic.   #blueanon talking points are fantastic.   Just lovable. 

I particularly enjoyed today's singular ruling that City of Boston violated 1st amendment rights, a unanimous decision BTW . . . as certain new outlets chose to focus on alleged "conservative" judges, again, SCOTUS was unanimous in their decision.

?s=20&t=cyVVyk-g8wqMdUSzeIoaug





It's a great day to be a Wildcat and it's a great day to say no to the Pit.

Online chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20679
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #48 on: May 03, 2022, 06:20:27 AM »
Interesting.


Offline Justwin

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 540
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court Cases Thread
« Reply #49 on: May 03, 2022, 10:23:54 AM »
Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges are next.

I just don't see Lawrence v Texas being overturned. I definitely can see Obergefell v Hodges being overturned.

I'm not going to celebrate a Dobbs v Jackson decision until it is official. I don't trust John Roberts in the least and Kavanaugh makes me nervous.