I guess it wasn’t “settled law” after all

[fastupslowdown]

Roe.

Big surprise; is there no mechanism by which a sitting SCOTUS judge may be removed for lying, deception (aka lying), obfuscation (aka lying under the circs framing the confirmation process)?

And as a bonus, more firearms in the streets!

A wet dream for those who think they're the Marlboro Man or mourn that they missed the Dodge City daze of Marshal Dillon.

It's called extreme coaching. I paid extra attention during the confirmation of Amy Comey Barrett where I started hearing a term I had not before "Super Precedent" . There's no way to know how a Supreme Court justice will decide for sure in most cases, but this was different. The Federalist Society vetted first and foremost on this one issue. Those put on the court know why they are there. Even if it was never discussed, it didn't need to be.

I'm surprised at the extreme position. The decision makes no room for abortion to protect the mother's life which would be consistent with the Orthodox Jewish view. And even though Orthdox Judaism doesn't support abortion in other cases, the fetus is not considered a full human being until after born -Mike G

[fastupslowdown]

From the Dissent: "When overruling constitutional precedent, the Court has almost always pointed to major legal or factual changes undermining a decision’s original basis."

That didn't happen here. This was about conservative justices not liking a decision, plain and simple. And this is just my personal view point but the majority opinion wasn't even well crafted. It was an insult to the court and I can understand why public trust in the institution is down. This was a very partisan decision out of lockstep with public opinion and not well reasoned -Mike G

[COVRTDESIGN]

It's called extreme coaching. I paid extra attention during the confirmation of Amy Comey Barrett where I started hearing a term I had not before "Super Precedent" . There's no way to know how a Supreme Court justice will decide for sure in most cases, but this was different. The Federalist Society vetted first and foremost on this one issue. Those put on the court know why they are there. Even if it was never discussed, it didn't need to be.

I'm surprised at the extreme position. The decision makes no room for abortion to protect the mother's life which would be consistent with the Orthodox Jewish view. And even though Orthdox Judaism doesn't support abortion in other cases, the fetus is not considered a full human being until after born -Mike G

Isn't there a high profile rabbi that is suing for this exact reason? I'll try to find the article and post here with further thoughts.

[fastupslowdown]

Isn't there a high profile rabbi that is suing for this exact reason? I'll try to find the article and post here with further thoughts.

Congregation L’Dor Va-Dor of Boynton Beach, hardly orthodox . I found a 1965 article from an orthodox source. When the life of the mother is at risk there is no debate among rabbis. After that I suspect Orthodox Jews would agree. I'm just gobsmacked that the fetus is now more important than the mother. This is both radical and extreme. Where I further add hypocrisy is when those same forces that deny abortion are unwilling to fund child day care, school lunches, head start programs and the like. Seems once you are born the right loses interest, that is until you are of age to pick up an AR-15

[Scott G.]

Here comes the evangelical theocracy.

Story written in 1940, I remember reading when I was kid, put you on your guard looking for a potential Nehemiah Scudder.
Heinlein was off 1 election cycle, he predicted 2012 with no more elections after 2016.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22If_...On%E2%80%94%22

[robin3mj]

The UK is imploding, and I don't think we've seen the worst yet. Therefore, I think you'll have to narrow down your alternative options to just Eire, unless, of course, the island is consumed by secular violence, which isn't entirely inconceivable, thanks to what BoJo's crew seems to be contemplating. Hopefully, you won't have to seriously consider exiting the US.

Yes, I’m under no belief that there is some Valhalla out there without flaws, but basic human rights and a right to not be surrounded by unlimited guns is not outside the bounds of expectation. For me, anyway.

My wife is from England but my preference and coincidentally tax advantages for her company lie in Ireland.

[BBB]

What a cluster*ck. But, hardly surprising.

The Supreme Court overrules a law restricting the carrying of guns outside the home...weeks after yet another gun massacre.

The Supreme Court overrules 50 years of precedent regarding abortions...putting the US out there with Iran and Nth Korea.

Still, in Texas the Republican Party adopts a platform that has homosexuality as an abnormal life choice and not accepting the results of the 2020 election. Maybe overturning 50 years of precedent is not all that out there after all.

[COVRTDESIGN]

Congregation L’Dor Va-Dor of Boynton Beach, hardly orthodox . I found a 1965 article from an orthodox source. When the life of the mother is at risk there is no debate among rabbis. After that I suspect Orthodox Jews would agree. I'm just gobsmacked that the fetus is now more important than the mother. This is both radical and extreme. Where I further add hypocrisy is when those same forces that deny abortion are unwilling to fund child day care, school lunches, head start programs and the like. Seems once you are born the right loses interest, that is until you are of age to pick up an AR-15

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/u...w-judaism.html Looks like it was only against the state, bbut obviously it would be a supreme court case in the future.

[fastupslowdown]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/u...w-judaism.html Looks like it was only against the state, bbut obviously it would be a supreme court case in the future.

This Supreme Court? I suspect they'd refuse to take the case

[fastupslowdown]

There's a pattern going on.

Illinois Representative Mary Miller at a rally with Trump:

"President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday," Miller said.


This is the same Member of Congress who praised Hitler. Now she’s standing right next to Trump, praising the Supreme Court for protecting “white life.”

"If we win a few elections, we’re still going to be losing unless we win the hearts and minds of our children. This is the battle," Miller is heard saying in the footage. "Hitler was right on one thing. He said, ‘Whoever has the youth has the future.’”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...hite-life-trum

[jclay]

Anybody (like but not limited to Manchin and Collins), who believed that two male, Federalist Society vetted and recommended SCOTUS candidates (or Barrett) wouldn't, at their first opportunity, overturn Roe v Wade, is a moron...or a liar.

I'm thinking liars, who thought they could cover their asses with "well, they assured us that it was settled law", and a bit more time before the shit hit the fan.

[thollandpe]

Jamelle Bouie, as usual, nails it.

“The Supreme Court does not exist above the constitutional system.

It can shape the constitutional order, it can say what the Constitution means, but it cannot shield itself from the power of the other branches. The Supreme Court can be checked and the Supreme Court can be balanced.”

How to Discipline a Rogue Supreme Court

[Tim Porter]

Todd, the Bouie editorial is all well and good, but would you really rather see Congress focus its attention of "checking and balancing" the Court rather than pass a federal right to abortion law? Query whether that passes Constitutional muster, because the ball is now in the states' court, but focusing on the court seems like closing the barn door after the livestock escaped. I personally think Bouie's proposed solutions are unrealistic and wastes a lot of political energy that could be put into doing what the court purports to do in the opinion (which we've all read, along with the concurrence and the dissent, right?).

[thollandpe]

Todd, the Bouie editorial is all well and good, but would you really rather see Congress focus its attention of "checking and balancing" the Court rather than pass a federal right to abortion law? Query whether that passes Constitutional muster, because the ball is now in the states' court, but focusing on the court seems like closing the barn door after the livestock escaped. I personally think Bouie's proposed solutions are unrealistic and wastes a lot of political energy that could be put into doing what the court purports to do in the opinion (which we've all read, along with the concurrence and the dissent, right?).

I think both must be done, because there are a lot more horses in the barn. With Clarence Thomas mentioning Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell in his concurring opinion — it’s a warning that they’re just getting started.

[j44ke]

I think this should pretty much kill any impulse among Democrats to switch parties in Montana to protect Cheney’s seat in Congress.

As well as cease all the compliments paid to Pence for merely doing his fcking job on Jan. 6. Pence is now advocating a national law against abortion, if you had any doubts about the real agenda. States schmates.

[fastupslowdown]

I think this should pretty much kill any impulse among Democrats to switch parties in Montana to protect Cheney’s seat in Congress.

As well as cease all the compliments paid to Pence for merely doing his fcking job on Jan. 6. Pence is now advocating a national law against abortion, if you had any doubts about the real agenda. States schmates.

I agree, but they should. Unlike many Republicans today, she says what she means and she means what she says. She's always been right to life but she's also been rule of law. Anyone who Trump promotes will be about Fuhrerprinzip

[j44ke]

I agree, but they should. Unlike many Republicans today, she says what she means and she means what she says. She's always been right to life but she's also been rule of law. Anyone who Trump promotes will be about Fuhrerprinzip

Then they should negotiate terms. No free lunch. Stakes are too high.

[fastupslowdown]

Then they should negotiate terms. No free lunch. Stakes are too high.

So here's the question, Will a Democrat win the state? If so you support the candidate that gets you most of what you want. And this is just for the primaries. They can vote differently in the general. Maybe that's too Machiavellian for you. I'm thinking back to Democrats who didn't like Hillary and didn't play this game, and wound up with an overturn of Roe v Wade.

[j44ke]

So here's the question, Will a Democrat win the state? If so you support the candidate that gets you most of what you want. And this is just for the primaries. They can vote differently in the general. Maybe that's too Machiavellian for you. I'm thinking back to Democrats who didn't like Hillary and didn't play this game, and wound up with an overturn of Roe v Wade.

I think that at the legislative (state or fed) level, you have to vote the party. Otherwise you simply strengthen the Republicans and weaken the Democrats. Look at how the Republicans have overtaken the Democrats at every level up to the President. Democrats believe in in the executive branch and the judicial branch, and both have been very good to them over the last 50 years. But their attention span is far to short on races in all levels of legislature. If they have the national majority - as they prove in the popular vote in Presidential elections - they should have far more representation at the state level and at each and every level of legislature. But the Democrats have not paid close enough attention, and they've made budgetary decisions based on winnability that the Republicans would never make. Grass roots efforts in the Democratic Party often have to beat both the National Democratic Party and the Republican opposition. WTF? And I cannot fully blame gerrymandering either - that's a symptom that became a cause. Always run a candidate in every race, always work with localized platforms, always beware of long-term incumbencies, and stop putting the party in a place where constituencies are voting for the known devil rather than the unknown devil. Or lesser of two evils.

The only time Republicans cross over to vote for a Democrat in the primaries is to decrease the likelihood that the Democrat will win in the general. Democrats should never view a Republican primary as a place to do anything other than weakening the opposition.

I don't think the anti-Hillary vote theory has stood up against later analysis. The difference was the number of Obama voters who switched to Trump - mostly white working class, Latinx and African-Americans. So overall turnout wasn't down, it was just redistributed in several blind spots for the Democrats.

[j44ke]

Here's what I would do vis a vis the current Supreme Court. I would start working Roberts for retirement. Promise to replace him as Chief Justice with a moderate with a history of distinguished soundly reasoned decisions with full awareness of history, tradition and precedent, who will lead the court towards a more moderate tone and work to rebuild its reputation for the entire country (not just the Neo-Puritan Falangists.) Republicans will still have a 5 - 4 majority for quite a while, but obviously he's no longer in charge, and obviously no one is listening to what he has to say. Biden will even give him a going away party and hang some sort of medal around his neck. Plus waive all his late fees at the Library of Congress.