Supreme Court Cases Thread

[Spracne]

Completely share this sentiment.

The leaker — whoever it is and whatever their motivations — has done a public service...by damaging the Court’s mystical aura of legitimacy at precisely the moment when it deserves to be damaged. If the Court is going to function as a partisan institution, then the public should know at least as much about how it works as we know about any other branch of government.

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1521600441322246147

Me too, brah. I've been out here for so long arguing that the institution of the highest court in the land was still largely independent, and I'm wrong if this turns out to be right.

[chum1]

Your guy Vladeck says the same.

Yes, the leak was unprecedented. But so, too, is what the Supreme Court is doing. Power means that rules and norms and conventions of trust within the court have become immaterial, just as the lives and health of more than half the population have been rendered immaterial. The Emperor of Law has had no clothing on for a good, long time. With the leak, this reality is increasingly apparent to us all.

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1521597619771953152

[catastrophe]

I consider myself pro life but I don’t believe in completely banning abortion.

If I were the philosopher king I’d probably make abortion legal up to a few weeks before viability. Then ban it starting around 20 weeks or so, allowing exceptions where the fetus is not viable or where the mother’s health is at serious risk by continuing the pregnancy. I’d probably make an exception to that last exception in cases where the baby is far enough along it could reasonably be “birthed” just as much as it could be terminated.

Thank you for giving an honest, direct answer and not a dax answer.

I largely would be fine with that compromise, and it's not that different than the current status of the law developed in Roe and its progeny (in fact, it's pretty close to the current state of the law!). I disagree with your last point, if I understand you to mean that the baby's health should take priority over the mother's health.

The idea behind the last point is that I find it very hard to believe killing a viable fetus would be less harmful to the compromised mother than birthing it via c-section. But as a benevolent ruler I would of course take into account everything science has to say about it.

[Spracne]

Your guy Vladeck says the same.

Yes, the leak was unprecedented. But so, too, is what the Supreme Court is doing. Power means that rules and norms and conventions of trust within the court have become immaterial, just as the lives and health of more than half the population have been rendered immaterial. The Emperor of Law has had no clothing on for a good, long time. With the leak, this reality is increasingly apparent to us all.

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1521597619771953152

I guess it's nice to know I'm not alone? And yeah, I do know Vladeck.

[Spracne]

I consider myself pro life but I don’t believe in completely banning abortion.

If I were the philosopher king I’d probably make abortion legal up to a few weeks before viability. Then ban it starting around 20 weeks or so, allowing exceptions where the fetus is not viable or where the mother’s health is at serious risk by continuing the pregnancy. I’d probably make an exception to that last exception in cases where the baby is far enough along it could reasonably be “birthed” just as much as it could be terminated.

Thank you for giving an honest, direct answer and not a dax answer.

I largely would be fine with that compromise, and it's not that different than the current status of the law developed in Roe and its progeny (in fact, it's pretty close to the current state of the law!). I disagree with your last point, if I understand you to mean that the baby's health should take priority over the mother's health.

The idea behind the last point is that I find it very hard to believe killing a viable fetus would be less harmful to the compromised mother than birthing it via c-section. But as a benevolent ruler I would of course take into account everything science has to say about it.

Right, and the current status of the law is that, regardless of trimester or point of viability (Roe; Casey), that decision is a private medical decision between a patient and her doctor. As a benevolent ruler, I'm sure you'd agree.

[catastrophe]

In the late third trimester especially, the child’s interest would be more represented in my system than it currently is in many places, I think.

[CHONGS]

They'd love to take down Brown too, but that'll take a few decades.

[chum1]

They'd love to take down Brown too, but that'll take a few decades.

Will it, though?

[CHONGS]

They'd love to take down Brown too, but that'll take a few decades.

Will it, though?

Yes, the Overton window isn't there just yet.  But they'll give it a shove that direction after abortion, contraception, and gay rights are finished.

[star seed 7]

So what is the constitutional argument for forcing someone to take a pregnancy to term?

[Rage Against the McKee]

In the late third trimester especially, the child’s interest would be more represented in my system than it currently is in many places, I think.

Viable babies don't get aborted in the late third trimester, so not really.

[Spracne]

So what is the constitutional argument for forcing someone to take a pregnancy to term?

Great question. It's not very good.

[star seed 7]

So what is the constitutional argument for forcing someone to take a pregnancy to term?

Great question. It's not very good.

Like, I get that it's going to be up to the states now, but I can't wrap my head around how a state forcing birth is constitutional. Doesn't banning abortion just happen again after the enviable state Supreme Court cases uphold abortion bans?

And if forcing birth is constitutional, wouldn't something like forced contraception be constitutional?

[Spracne]

So what is the constitutional argument for forcing someone to take a pregnancy to term?

Great question. It's not very good.

Like, I get that it's going to be up to the states now, but I can't wrap my head around how a state forcing birth is constitutional. Doesn't banning abortion just happen again after the enviable state Supreme Court cases uphold abortion bans?

And if forcing birth is constitutional, wouldn't something like forced contraception be constitutional?

I guess that would all be up to the "free market," as catastrophe says. The only thing the Constitution says about the inception of rights as it relates to life is contained in Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment. There, birth is the earliest delineator.

[catastrophe]

So what is the constitutional argument for forcing someone to take a pregnancy to term?

Great question. It's not very good.

Like, I get that it's going to be up to the states now, but I can't wrap my head around how a state forcing birth is constitutional. Doesn't banning abortion just happen again after the enviable state Supreme Court cases uphold abortion bans?

And if forcing birth is constitutional, wouldn't something like forced contraception be constitutional?

Whether you’re intentionally forcing that perspective for rhetorical purposes or not, that is not how pro-lifers view the issue.

First of all, those advocating for abortion restrictions would not say the law is forcing anything. The pregnancy is the status quo (unlike, for example, forced contraception where fertility is the status quo). The law only limits what can be done during that pregnancy. And before we draw any false equivalents, let’s keep in mind that abortion touches on what I think is a truly unique issue turning on the question of when a developing baby obtains its own rights, most of all the right to life.

Second, even under the current law, it is constitutional in most states to “force” women to carry pregnancy to term after 20 weeks or so (with some exceptions built in).

[catastrophe]

In the late third trimester especially, the child’s interest would be more represented in my system than it currently is in many places, I think.

Viable babies don't get aborted in the late third trimester, so not really.

That comment was directly responding to Spracne saying the current system would leave that decision entirely in the hands of a mother and doctor where the mother’s health is at risk.

[star seed 7]

So what is the constitutional argument for forcing someone to take a pregnancy to term?

Great question. It's not very good.

Like, I get that it's going to be up to the states now, but I can't wrap my head around how a state forcing birth is constitutional. Doesn't banning abortion just happen again after the enviable state Supreme Court cases uphold abortion bans?

And if forcing birth is constitutional, wouldn't something like forced contraception be constitutional?

Whether you’re intentionally forcing that perspective for rhetorical purposes or not, that is not how pro-lifers view the issue.

First of all, those advocating for abortion restrictions would not say the law is forcing anything. The pregnancy is the status quo (unlike, for example, forced contraception where fertility is the status quo). The law only limits what can be done during that pregnancy. And before we draw any false equivalents, let’s keep in mind that abortion touches on what I think is a truly unique issue turning on the question of when a developing baby obtains its own rights, most of all the right to life.

Second, even under the current law, it is constitutional in most states to “force” women to carry pregnancy to term after 20 weeks or so (with some exceptions built in).

I disagree, it's about the rights of the mother and at what point she loses the autonomy of her body.

[cfbandyman]

I consider myself pro life but I don’t believe in completely banning abortion.

If I were the philosopher king I’d probably make abortion legal up to a few weeks before viability. Then ban it starting around 20 weeks or so, allowing exceptions where the fetus is not viable or where the mother’s health is at serious risk by continuing the pregnancy. I’d probably make an exception to that last exception in cases where the baby is far enough along it could reasonably be “birthed” just as much as it could be terminated.

All of this stuff about abortion IMO always dances around to me the real issue I have with abortion, and really more people who advocate "prolife". I get all what I'm about to say (and by the way not really directed at you, just the idea of let's philosopher king thing makes me just want to say what I think is best and what we should really work towards) is going to be a lil long, and bit straw man and ad hoc to make it work, but I'll keep it as brief as I can.

IMO my biggest beef with anti-abortion/prolife people is they never either follow through on their philosophy or provide viable alternatives to the issue at hand that basically make the idea of abortion the solution, even if it's perceived as morally heinous. Those people tend to shut down any avenue of reprieve that makes you either want to have the kid, or because having the kid will put you in the poor house, you want to prevent it.

Comprehensive sex education? Not in my school. Free/reduced contraception and education on it? It'll turn kids into fornicators. Then shame them for when they're out of wedlock and have a kid in high school or whatever. The only solution to them is sex in marriage, and abstinence outside, and anything less you're an awful person (can you tell I went to a Catholic Church growing up at this point).

Then what about actually getting the child born. Maternity/Paternity leave? Nope, get back to work, provide for that child. Childcare? Nope, should've thought of that and make enough money! Education, ugh, this little crap is causing my property taxes to rise, let's gut the education system especially since it's going to turn that kid liberal. Healthcare? Better work! Ain't nothing for free!. On and on, there is no "prolife" from many of them, it's pro birth and take care of it on your own you heathen, don't bother me with it the second the poor kid is ushered into a world that celebrates it's completion of pregnancy and curses the burden it now apparently puts on society. The only real alternative is adoption, which is good, but often leaves that kid in foster care or in a very uncertain situation, and hardly the answer for an additional 600k births/year.

If pro-lifers really were pro-life, they should do everything they can to care of the kid after it's born, and teach their sons and daughters the importance and responsibility of being a parent, and give them every tool out there to keep it from happening until the mom was ready to actually have the kid, and when she did know that by having the kid she could get some goddamn paid time off, some childcare, and an education system that will help them thrive, and some damn healthcare to care for them when they're sick regardless of their employment status. We become a better society when we secure our basic needs, not make it crush us under the weight of indifference.

That's what I'd do as the philosopher king, abortion would be legal, but I'd do everything I could to make it be the last resort, and not the resort from narrow hallways and giant hoops to jump through, but because you are armed with the things to prevent it, and even if you do want it you'll have the means to do it. Pie in the sky? Of course, but ugh it bothers me so goddamn much. I guess in summary if there was a perfect solution it'd be to somehow codify the right for a woman to get pregnant when she wants to is all I'm really looking for, with the out she can still abort even if I think that's not the answer I want.

Which is also one last thing, I do feel so many pro-birthers think pro-choice people get off somehow on having abortions, which is such a misread of the situation, but it's also only how it's presented to them.

[catastrophe]

So what is the constitutional argument for forcing someone to take a pregnancy to term?

Great question. It's not very good.

Like, I get that it's going to be up to the states now, but I can't wrap my head around how a state forcing birth is constitutional. Doesn't banning abortion just happen again after the enviable state Supreme Court cases uphold abortion bans?

And if forcing birth is constitutional, wouldn't something like forced contraception be constitutional?

Whether you’re intentionally forcing that perspective for rhetorical purposes or not, that is not how pro-lifers view the issue.

First of all, those advocating for abortion restrictions would not say the law is forcing anything. The pregnancy is the status quo (unlike, for example, forced contraception where fertility is the status quo). The law only limits what can be done during that pregnancy. And before we draw any false equivalents, let’s keep in mind that abortion touches on what I think is a truly unique issue turning on the question of when a developing baby obtains its own rights, most of all the right to life.

Second, even under the current law, it is constitutional in most states to “force” women to carry pregnancy to term after 20 weeks or so (with some exceptions built in).

I disagree, it's about the rights of the mother and at what point she loses the autonomy of her body.

I know. That’s exactly why most pro-lifers and pro-choicers are never going to find common ground on the issue. They view abortion from two entirely different perspectives (minus the handful of fringe weirdos who literally do want to control women’s bodies).

I mean, we currently legislate how people can use their own bodies in several ways. Selling of organs and prostitution come to mind. I think the biggest difference is that most people agree on the purpose those laws serve.

[catastrophe]

I consider myself pro life but I don’t believe in completely banning abortion.

If I were the philosopher king I’d probably make abortion legal up to a few weeks before viability. Then ban it starting around 20 weeks or so, allowing exceptions where the fetus is not viable or where the mother’s health is at serious risk by continuing the pregnancy. I’d probably make an exception to that last exception in cases where the baby is far enough along it could reasonably be “birthed” just as much as it could be terminated.

All of this stuff about abortion IMO always dances around to me the real issue I have with abortion, and really more people who advocate "prolife". I get all what I'm about to say (and by the way not really directed at you, just the idea of let's philosopher king thing makes me just want to say what I think is best and what we should really work towards) is going to be a lil long, and bit straw man and ad hoc to make it work, but I'll keep it as brief as I can.

IMO my biggest beef with anti-abortion/prolife people is they never either follow through on their philosophy or provide viable alternatives to the issue at hand that basically make the idea of abortion the solution, even if it's perceived as morally heinous. Those people tend to shut down any avenue of reprieve that makes you either want to have the kid, or because having the kid will put you in the poor house, you want to prevent it.

Comprehensive sex education? Not in my school. Free/reduced contraception and education on it? It'll turn kids into fornicators. Then shame them for when they're out of wedlock and have a kid in high school or whatever. The only solution to them is sex in marriage, and abstinence outside, and anything less you're an awful person (can you tell I went to a Catholic Church growing up at this point).

Then what about actually getting the child born. Maternity/Paternity leave? Nope, get back to work, provide for that child. Childcare? Nope, should've thought of that and make enough money! Education, ugh, this little crap is causing my property taxes to rise, let's gut the education system especially since it's going to turn that kid liberal. Healthcare? Better work! Ain't nothing for free!. On and on, there is no "prolife" from many of them, it's pro birth and take care of it on your own you heathen, don't bother me with it the second the poor kid is ushered into a world that celebrates it's completion of pregnancy and curses the burden it now apparently puts on society. The only real alternative is adoption, which is good, but often leaves that kid in foster care or in a very uncertain situation, and hardly the answer for an additional 600k births/year.

If pro-lifers really were pro-life, they should do everything they can to care of the kid after it's born, and teach their sons and daughters the importance and responsibility of being a parent, and give them every tool out there to keep it from happening until the mom was ready to actually have the kid, and when she did know that by having the kid she could get some goddamn paid time off, some childcare, and an education system that will help them thrive, and some damn healthcare to care for them when they're sick regardless of their employment status. We become a better society when we secure our basic needs, not make it crush us under the weight of indifference.

That's what I'd do as the philosopher king, abortion would be legal, but I'd do everything I could to make it be the last resort, and not the resort from narrow hallways and giant hoops to jump through, but because you are armed with the things to prevent it, and even if you do want it you'll have the means to do it. Pie in the sky? Of course, but ugh it bothers me so goddamn much. I guess in summary if there was a perfect solution it'd be to somehow codify the right for a woman to get pregnant when she wants to is all I'm really looking for, with the out she can still abort even if I think that's not the answer I want.

Which is also one last thing, I do feel so many pro-birthers think pro-choice people get off somehow on having abortions, which is such a misread of the situation, but it's also only how it's presented to them.

I agree with just about all of this, and I’m equally perplexed by it. Too many conservatives treat abortion as a purely social issue when the fallout has massive economic impact.

I was actually just talking with the wife about it yesterday that Catholics are a good example. Many treat abortion like Satan’s greatest accomplishment on the earth, but they essentially fuel the very same fire by coming down so hard on contraception.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

I consider myself pro life but I don’t believe in completely banning abortion.

If I were the philosopher king I’d probably make abortion legal up to a few weeks before viability. Then ban it starting around 20 weeks or so, allowing exceptions where the fetus is not viable or where the mother’s health is at serious risk by continuing the pregnancy. I’d probably make an exception to that last exception in cases where the baby is far enough along it could reasonably be “birthed” just as much as it could be terminated.

All of this stuff about abortion IMO always dances around to me the real issue I have with abortion, and really more people who advocate "prolife". I get all what I'm about to say (and by the way not really directed at you, just the idea of let's philosopher king thing makes me just want to say what I think is best and what we should really work towards) is going to be a lil long, and bit straw man and ad hoc to make it work, but I'll keep it as brief as I can.

IMO my biggest beef with anti-abortion/prolife people is they never either follow through on their philosophy or provide viable alternatives to the issue at hand that basically make the idea of abortion the solution, even if it's perceived as morally heinous. Those people tend to shut down any avenue of reprieve that makes you either want to have the kid, or because having the kid will put you in the poor house, you want to prevent it.

Comprehensive sex education? Not in my school. Free/reduced contraception and education on it? It'll turn kids into fornicators. Then shame them for when they're out of wedlock and have a kid in high school or whatever. The only solution to them is sex in marriage, and abstinence outside, and anything less you're an awful person (can you tell I went to a Catholic Church growing up at this point).

Then what about actually getting the child born. Maternity/Paternity leave? Nope, get back to work, provide for that child. Childcare? Nope, should've thought of that and make enough money! Education, ugh, this little crap is causing my property taxes to rise, let's gut the education system especially since it's going to turn that kid liberal. Healthcare? Better work! Ain't nothing for free!. On and on, there is no "prolife" from many of them, it's pro birth and take care of it on your own you heathen, don't bother me with it the second the poor kid is ushered into a world that celebrates it's completion of pregnancy and curses the burden it now apparently puts on society. The only real alternative is adoption, which is good, but often leaves that kid in foster care or in a very uncertain situation, and hardly the answer for an additional 600k births/year.

If pro-lifers really were pro-life, they should do everything they can to care of the kid after it's born, and teach their sons and daughters the importance and responsibility of being a parent, and give them every tool out there to keep it from happening until the mom was ready to actually have the kid, and when she did know that by having the kid she could get some goddamn paid time off, some childcare, and an education system that will help them thrive, and some damn healthcare to care for them when they're sick regardless of their employment status. We become a better society when we secure our basic needs, not make it crush us under the weight of indifference.

That's what I'd do as the philosopher king, abortion would be legal, but I'd do everything I could to make it be the last resort, and not the resort from narrow hallways and giant hoops to jump through, but because you are armed with the things to prevent it, and even if you do want it you'll have the means to do it. Pie in the sky? Of course, but ugh it bothers me so goddamn much. I guess in summary if there was a perfect solution it'd be to somehow codify the right for a woman to get pregnant when she wants to is all I'm really looking for, with the out she can still abort even if I think that's not the answer I want.

Which is also one last thing, I do feel so many pro-birthers think pro-choice people get off somehow on having abortions, which is such a misread of the situation, but it's also only how it's presented to them.

I think you meant ad hominem, my hominid

[Trim]

Would it help if we told american anti-abortion’rs that they’re aligning with these countries?

Countries in which abortion is completely illegal/prohibited:

Abortion is completely illegal in the following countries: Andorra, Aruba (territory), Republic of the Congo, Curaçao (territory), Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Jamaica, Laos, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Palau, Philippines, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Tonga, and West Bank & Gaza Strip (Palestinian territories). Note: This is a list of countries in which abortion has been completely prohibited. For a more complete and detailed list of countries and their various legal stances on abortion, see the table further down the page.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-where-abortion-is-illegal

[MakeItRain]

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.

Real being real, of all the big hot button culture war issues this is the one I care about the least, like by far. I think that ultimately these states will roll back some of the most extreme abortion restrictions while still heavily restricting abortions.

What pisses me off about this is that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both said in their confirmation hearings that Roe vs. Wade was settled precedent. That idiot Susan Collins voted yes for both of them and said she did so because they wouldn't overturn Roe vs. Wade. People are going hard with the performative outrage about the leak, as if it means anything substantiative, but have nothing to say about these dudes lying their asses off.

[MakeItRain]

Completely share this sentiment.

The leaker — whoever it is and whatever their motivations — has done a public service...by damaging the Court’s mystical aura of legitimacy at precisely the moment when it deserves to be damaged. If the Court is going to function as a partisan institution, then the public should know at least as much about how it works as we know about any other branch of government.

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1521600441322246147

Me too, brah. I've been out here for so long arguing that the institution of the highest court in the land was still largely independent, and I'm wrong if this turns out to be right.

I was at this point when the voting rights act was overturned.

[Rage Against the McKee]

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.

Real being real, of all the big hot button culture war issues this is the one I care about the least, like by far. I think that ultimately these states will roll back some of the most extreme abortion restrictions while still heavily restricting abortions.

What pisses me off about this is that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both said in their confirmation hearings that Roe vs. Wade was settled precedent. That idiot Susan Collins voted yes for both of them and said she did so because they wouldn't overturn Roe vs. Wade. People are going hard with the performative outrage about the leak, as if it means anything substantiative, but have nothing to say about these dudes lying their asses off.

Kavanaugh testified under oath that a devil's triangle is a drinking game, like quarters.