That’s sort of okay, in principle: The law isn’t all that obvious, even (especially?) when it’s being done carefully. But it’s also a clear indication in this case that the court is very much out of step with what the majority wants / needs from their government and high court.
I hope, though, that they stay egregious enough to force Democrats to vote en masse.
They are taking away rights that have been allowed in our present day, out of compassion, mercy and justice because the rights weren’t allowed in the past dark ages. Changes for the good of people isn’t wrong. Removing the compassionate changes is cruel.
The Supreme Court judges are supposed to be picked for their wisdom and not to follow the whims of the public. Unfortunately, the current lot lacks wisdom and follows the direction of their master. A situation that could have been predicted given the wisdom of the nominator.
Public opinion at the time would have left slavery legal, kept segregation, and kept abortions illegal. The problem is the courts are no longer impartial interpreters of the law.
The far right Republicans seem to think that the repeal of Roe affects only women who voted for Joe Biden. The truth is that it affects all women, including southern women and suburban Republican women. The Republican Party may be in for a shock come November.
Rather than trying to read the minds of white slave owning men who have been dead for 2 centuries, maybe we should just do the right things for people who are alive today.
Public opinion shouldn’t be part of supreme court decisions. However, precedent and the law should. The current bunch has the judicial philosophy: “Whatever I say goes.” The “reasoning” in Dobbs and the others last week is clearly the product of “I think it ought to be this way. Now let me think if I can come up with a justification that sounds good.”
I would be in favor of the crowd-funding of an effort to have those mothers required to have an unwanted baby save up the dirty diapers and, weekly, FedEx them to a certain address in Mar-A-Lardo, as well as the homes of “those” Supreme Court Injustices.
And we can always say, “OUR God is on OUR side!”
(Sure, it’s bullshite, but they would have to prove it isn’t – in a court of law – and that will take time away from their other efforts to remove rights and privileges from American citizens).
Viagra is against God’s perfect design, its unnatural. I demand the government stop using tax dollars to provide Viagra to men who want to defy God’s will. Impotence is God’s way of saying, “You’re done.”
Ha. Justices want more and more protection as they make more out of step decisions. Perhaps we should give it to them. Just brick them in till they come to their senses. Either that or Biden needs to confirm 4 to 6 new justices. The number doesn’t have to stay at 9 and Mitch packed this court past recognition.
The US norms the supreme court targeted this term all came from the same era
This is an attack on the epic social, political and cultural transformations of that remarkable period in the 1960s and 1970s
A key thing to notice about that assault on American norms was how many of their targets were adopted in a few short years in the 1960s and 1970s.
Roe v Wade, of course, dates to 1973, the fruit of many year’s work by committed feminists. Thursday’s attack on the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gases guts the Clean Air Act, which in its strong form dates from 1970 – indeed, both that law and the EPA itself were the result of the first Earth Day protests in April of that year, which drew 20 million Americans (10% of the country’s population in those days) into the streets demanding action. Even firearms sanity, badly weakened once more in last week’s decision on concealed carry permits, reached its zenith in 1968 with the passage of the Gun Control Act in response to the assassinations of that turbulent year.
t’s pretty clear that some on the high court have other gains from that era in their sights: Justice Clarence Thomas singled out the 1960s protections for contraception, and the drive for equal rights for LGBTQ+ people that broke into the open at the Stonewall protests in 1969. And the court and conservative legislatures have worked steadily to undermine the protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, restricting the franchise that the civil rights movement had once worked so powerfully to extend.
This is an attack, in other words, on the epic social, political and cultural transformations of that remarkable period (a stretch of years that should remind us that with committed effort change really can come fast).
The principle of executive, judicial and legislative separation and balance of powers got railroaded after two of the three were elected and united to make the third, the judicial, a Republican superpower. Actually SuperVillianPower.
The court does not rule on public opinion but on the aspects of Constitutional law. In both cases of Roe v Wade and the 2nd amendment they ruled based on what the Constitution said. The Legislature became lazy and did not codify something they wanted as the thought the court will always support a bad decision (even RBG stated that).
“The Supreme Court follows the election returns” —Mr. Dooley
Well,…
In some ways, the history of civil rights in the US has been the overthrow by the federal government of the (presumptive) democratic will of state governments—by constitutional amendment (e.g., slavery, female suffrage), legislation (e.g., the Civil Rights Act), or court decision (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education). In most of these cases, “what is right” was made to take precedence over “public opinion” in the affected states (and FWIW I approve of those actions).
The idea that policies ought to be determined by some majority of a small number of ideologues trying to imagine what the authors of some several-centuries-old document might have meant is pretty ridiculous to me. On the other hand, I do believe that there are certain rights and principles and policies that transcend “public opinion.”
Part of the problem is American “democracy” itself, with its malapportionment, two-party system, gerrymandering, filibustering, and other faults, made much worse by the polarization that seems pretty much to be the intent of one of the parties. Who can doubt that the human rights actions above would fail if proposed by the Democrats and put to a vote in the current Senate?
I’m not an American citizen, but these contradictions apply to all democracies. I have no solutions besides trying to fight for sanity in the electorate and their representatives, a Sisyphean task. Unfortunately, things seem to be going the other way, all around the world.
Thank Mitch McConnell. It was his stated goal to stack the Supreme Court for years. Our Founding Fathers naively assumed that those appointed to the Supreme Court would put the Constitution and the Bill of Rights above personal prejudices, religious beliefs, and political agendas. They assumed the Congress would be honest in their attempts to find Justices who would be able to rule on things ‘justly’.
Concretionist almost 2 years ago
That’s sort of okay, in principle: The law isn’t all that obvious, even (especially?) when it’s being done carefully. But it’s also a clear indication in this case that the court is very much out of step with what the majority wants / needs from their government and high court.
I hope, though, that they stay egregious enough to force Democrats to vote en masse.
RAGs almost 2 years ago
“Public opinion” be darned.
Radish the wordsmith almost 2 years ago
The public has a low opinion of the court.
knutdl almost 2 years ago
House-divided.
monya_43 almost 2 years ago
They are taking away rights that have been allowed in our present day, out of compassion, mercy and justice because the rights weren’t allowed in the past dark ages. Changes for the good of people isn’t wrong. Removing the compassionate changes is cruel.
Display almost 2 years ago
It’s now mostly the Cult of the KKKourt
Alberta Oil Premium Member almost 2 years ago
The Supreme Court judges are supposed to be picked for their wisdom and not to follow the whims of the public. Unfortunately, the current lot lacks wisdom and follows the direction of their master. A situation that could have been predicted given the wisdom of the nominator.
thelordthygod666 almost 2 years ago
Public opinion at the time would have left slavery legal, kept segregation, and kept abortions illegal. The problem is the courts are no longer impartial interpreters of the law.
MuddyUSA Premium Member almost 2 years ago
The U.S. Constitution!
Newenglandah almost 2 years ago
The far right Republicans seem to think that the repeal of Roe affects only women who voted for Joe Biden. The truth is that it affects all women, including southern women and suburban Republican women. The Republican Party may be in for a shock come November.
rlaker22j almost 2 years ago
Dems had the power and fell asleep at the switch
Radish the wordsmith almost 2 years ago
Rather than trying to read the minds of white slave owning men who have been dead for 2 centuries, maybe we should just do the right things for people who are alive today.
Radish the wordsmith almost 2 years ago
Can women still have a bank account? I mean it’s not in the Constitution.
Radish the wordsmith almost 2 years ago
3 Christian judges lied, after swearing their oath on a bible.
That’s the most accurate “What is a Christian?” story ever told.
willie_mctell almost 2 years ago
Public opinion shouldn’t be part of supreme court decisions. However, precedent and the law should. The current bunch has the judicial philosophy: “Whatever I say goes.” The “reasoning” in Dobbs and the others last week is clearly the product of “I think it ought to be this way. Now let me think if I can come up with a justification that sounds good.”
Radish the wordsmith almost 2 years ago
Rapists get to choose the mother of their children now thanks to republiguns.
Walter Kocker Premium Member almost 2 years ago
I would be in favor of the crowd-funding of an effort to have those mothers required to have an unwanted baby save up the dirty diapers and, weekly, FedEx them to a certain address in Mar-A-Lardo, as well as the homes of “those” Supreme Court Injustices.
And we can always say, “OUR God is on OUR side!”
(Sure, it’s bullshite, but they would have to prove it isn’t – in a court of law – and that will take time away from their other efforts to remove rights and privileges from American citizens).
Radish the wordsmith almost 2 years ago
Viagra is against God’s perfect design, its unnatural. I demand the government stop using tax dollars to provide Viagra to men who want to defy God’s will. Impotence is God’s way of saying, “You’re done.”
Anon4242 almost 2 years ago
Ha. Justices want more and more protection as they make more out of step decisions. Perhaps we should give it to them. Just brick them in till they come to their senses. Either that or Biden needs to confirm 4 to 6 new justices. The number doesn’t have to stay at 9 and Mitch packed this court past recognition.
nyg16 almost 2 years ago
the court has an agenda and will force it down every citizens throat
Radish the wordsmith almost 2 years ago
10-year-old forced to travel for abortion after being denied in Ohio sparks widespread outrage
Bans in some states have no exceptions for rape or abuse
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ohio-abortion-kristi-noem-roe-b2114839.html
Republiguns should stop abusing children.
Radish the wordsmith almost 2 years ago
The US norms the supreme court targeted this term all came from the same era
This is an attack on the epic social, political and cultural transformations of that remarkable period in the 1960s and 1970s
A key thing to notice about that assault on American norms was how many of their targets were adopted in a few short years in the 1960s and 1970s.Roe v Wade, of course, dates to 1973, the fruit of many year’s work by committed feminists. Thursday’s attack on the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gases guts the Clean Air Act, which in its strong form dates from 1970 – indeed, both that law and the EPA itself were the result of the first Earth Day protests in April of that year, which drew 20 million Americans (10% of the country’s population in those days) into the streets demanding action. Even firearms sanity, badly weakened once more in last week’s decision on concealed carry permits, reached its zenith in 1968 with the passage of the Gun Control Act in response to the assassinations of that turbulent year.
t’s pretty clear that some on the high court have other gains from that era in their sights: Justice Clarence Thomas singled out the 1960s protections for contraception, and the drive for equal rights for LGBTQ+ people that broke into the open at the Stonewall protests in 1969. And the court and conservative legislatures have worked steadily to undermine the protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, restricting the franchise that the civil rights movement had once worked so powerfully to extend.
This is an attack, in other words, on the epic social, political and cultural transformations of that remarkable period (a stretch of years that should remind us that with committed effort change really can come fast).
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/03/us-supreme-court-term-roe-v-wade
The fascist republiguns are destroying USA progress on purpose.
syzygy47 almost 2 years ago
The principle of executive, judicial and legislative separation and balance of powers got railroaded after two of the three were elected and united to make the third, the judicial, a Republican superpower. Actually SuperVillianPower.
gigagrouch almost 2 years ago
Funny how the “party of small government” loves to interject itself into a woman’s personal & private choice as to whether carry a pregnancy to term.
olebear53 almost 2 years ago
The court does not rule on public opinion but on the aspects of Constitutional law. In both cases of Roe v Wade and the 2nd amendment they ruled based on what the Constitution said. The Legislature became lazy and did not codify something they wanted as the thought the court will always support a bad decision (even RBG stated that).
cherns Premium Member almost 2 years ago
“The Supreme Court follows the election returns” —Mr. Dooley
Well,…
In some ways, the history of civil rights in the US has been the overthrow by the federal government of the (presumptive) democratic will of state governments—by constitutional amendment (e.g., slavery, female suffrage), legislation (e.g., the Civil Rights Act), or court decision (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education). In most of these cases, “what is right” was made to take precedence over “public opinion” in the affected states (and FWIW I approve of those actions).
The idea that policies ought to be determined by some majority of a small number of ideologues trying to imagine what the authors of some several-centuries-old document might have meant is pretty ridiculous to me. On the other hand, I do believe that there are certain rights and principles and policies that transcend “public opinion.”
Part of the problem is American “democracy” itself, with its malapportionment, two-party system, gerrymandering, filibustering, and other faults, made much worse by the polarization that seems pretty much to be the intent of one of the parties. Who can doubt that the human rights actions above would fail if proposed by the Democrats and put to a vote in the current Senate?
I’m not an American citizen, but these contradictions apply to all democracies. I have no solutions besides trying to fight for sanity in the electorate and their representatives, a Sisyphean task. Unfortunately, things seem to be going the other way, all around the world.
MuddyUSA Premium Member almost 2 years ago
States right…vote in your state!
GreenT267 almost 2 years ago
Thank Mitch McConnell. It was his stated goal to stack the Supreme Court for years. Our Founding Fathers naively assumed that those appointed to the Supreme Court would put the Constitution and the Bill of Rights above personal prejudices, religious beliefs, and political agendas. They assumed the Congress would be honest in their attempts to find Justices who would be able to rule on things ‘justly’.