Abortion discussions - latest court cases

Prancer

Aun Aprendo
Staff member
Messages
52,828
I’m aware of the court composition, and I’m not afraid to blast rogue judges of any party.
Just curious, but what exactly makes them rogue judges, aside from the fact that you don't agree with them?

I ask because there are differing philosophies about how the Constitution should be interpreted, each supported by evidence and logic, and I am not sure why one school of thought is somehow "rogue" and another is not.

So I don't accept that in the US the states can make their own laws that a dominated by one particular group who think they have the right to impose their views on others who don't agree with them.
So your argument is that an an Australian, you don't accept that the US can have laws imposed upon it by people who don't agree with their views, based on Australian culture?

Which contains nothing re: abortion.
As others have said, it contains nothing about a lot of things that the Court has decided over the years. Why does abortion have to be specified when opioids, as a recent example, are not? Where does the Constitution say that corporations are people--or even mention corporations at all? Yet the Court has ruled.

At least it’s exposing the left’s true colors with calls of court-packing and other attempts to directly undermine democracy.
So you consider the current makeup of the Supreme Court the result of democracy?
 

overedge

Mayor of Carrot City
Messages
33,157
It's not any different from Clarence Thomas basically telling people they have to shut up and deal with laws they don't like. And who wouldn't want to listen to Justice Thomas, who is totally not a hypocrite for being married to a woman who tried to pressure the Attorney General and state legislatures into throwing an election.

And, curiously, omitted one very famous case from his list of past decisions that he thought the SC should review. The case affirming the right to inter-racial marriage.
 

Louis

Private citizen
Messages
17,426
So you consider the current makeup of the Supreme Court the result of democracy?

Not exactly. The best I can say is that it's the result of mutually agreed custom, but even that has changed with the new custom of the Senate not granting confirmation hearings to nominess of an opposite party's President. The problem of the heavily politicized court has been getting worse, and it's a symptom of a sick democracy that judges have clear "sides," and that each party doesn't trust the other's judges, at all. The summary of the Collins - Kavanaugh conversations on private assurances is wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin. There is also the problem of picking as young of a judge as possible to maximize tenure on the court, and a separate but related problem of judges hanging onto power until their deathbed for good or bad reasons.

I believe the Supreme Court needs significant reform, but I'm disheartened by the "reforms" people want, which are obvious attempts to steal the court with "clever" but weak rationale.

I don't know whether the court can be de-politicized or whether we should accept it and try to balance it, e.g., 6 Republican justices, 6 Democrat justices, 10 or 12 year term limits, a majority of two (7-5) needed to overturn the lower court. At the risk of sounding like Ottavio Cinquanta, we could also do a random (balanced or non-balanced) draw from a larger pool, to ensure that no judge has "unlimited" power. That's not going to win votes from either side, but that's something I could get behind.
 

Amy L

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,509
And, curiously, omitted one very famous case from his list of past decisions that he thought the SC should review. The case affirming the right to inter-racial marriage.

The rest of Team Fascism in the GOP has been drooling over the end of Loving. I would not be surprised if Thomas made a deal with them that they could reverse Loving with a grandfather clause (ie, existing marriages can't be dissolved, but states can make it illegal going forward). He's clearly the king of the hypocrites on the American right, he doesn't care about the future of interracial marriages, he just wants to keep his own.
 

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,502
It's been over 30 years since a SCOTUS judge was selected by someone who won the majority vote of the people of the United States. 30 years. We haven't had a democracy in a long time. It truly is time for a significant change.
Do you mean it's been that long since a Republican who won the popular vote nominated someone? But that's not accurate either, since Roberts and Alito were nominated during Bush's second term.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,306
It's been over 30 years since a SCOTUS judge was selected by someone who won the majority vote of the people of the United States. 30 years. We haven't had a democracy in a long time. It truly is time for a significant change.
I'm just wondering where that figure came from or if I'm missing something because Obama nominated two during his first term (2009-12) and he won the majority of the popular vote then, and Biden just nominated someone and he won the popular vote as well.

George W. Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2000, but he did win (barely with 50.7%) the majority of the popular vote in 2004 and nominated Roberts and Alito then.

For both of his terms, Clinton did not win the majority of the popular vote, and he did appoint two in his first term. However, he did win the popular vote at least in a plurality unlike our past two Republican Presidents, though Bush managed to get over the 50% hump in his second term.
 

Allskate

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,496
I don't agree with Thomas at all, but those three specific precedents he mentioned are based on the same "bad law" in the view of strict constructionists.
Loving v. Virginia found the laws banning interracial marriage to be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause on very similar grounds. It's the same "bad law." And, more broadly, if they're going to determine constitutionality based on explicit text, there is no explicit mention of marriage or interracial marriage in the Constitution. In some ways, the support for Loving is weaker than the support for Roe if you go by the reasoning concerning historical legal practices that Alito is pretending to apply. As we discussed in this thread when Alito's opinion first leaked, it is a myth that American women were not having legal abortions when the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment first were adopted, and Alito misrepresents a lot of state law. I don't think legal interracial marriage was nearly as common. So, if someone genuinely thinks that American Constitutional law should be changed - and it is a very major change - to be based on very explicit and specific text and the practices established by some rich white men a long time ago, Loving would be on the list.

But, let's be clear. These opinions by Alito and Thomas are based on their religious and moral views. It's not based on law. It's not based on fact. We're not going to see this approach taken in areas where extreme right wing judges don't want it to go. We're not going to see it with the Second Amendment and well regulated militia. That's clear just from the gun decision from a few days ago. Nixon appointee Justice Warren Burger said that the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment was one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American people by special interest groups that he had seen in his lifetime. He also said that the real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies, the militia, would be maintained for the defense of the state and that the very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to guns.
 
Last edited:

Dobre

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,411
We have just heard the highest court in the land say we are not going to protect you.
They've said this multiple times and not just for women. No federally required vaccine/test requirements for workplaces with over 100 workers. Overturning New York's gun restrictions. And now overturning Roe v. Wade.
And now The Supreme Court has made it next to impossible to convict physicians who deliberately over-prescribe opioids!
And there's another example. (Though I personally haven't read about this one yet).
 

PRlady

Well-Known Member
Messages
39,877
The rest of Team Fascism in the GOP has been drooling over the end of Loving. I would not be surprised if Thomas made a deal with them that they could reverse Loving with a grandfather clause (ie, existing marriages can't be dissolved, but states can make it illegal going forward). He's clearly the king of the hypocrites on the American right, he doesn't care about the future of interracial marriages, he just wants to keep his own.
I would think this was overly dramatic, but I went down a Twitter rathole recently where ordinary and educated people were complaining about all the TV ads with interracial couples. Of course not the ones with East Asians but the Black/white and brown/white marriages. I shouldn’t have been dumbfounded but I was.
 

Prancer

Aun Aprendo
Staff member
Messages
52,828
I would think this was overly dramatic, but I went down a Twitter rathole recently where ordinary and educated people were complaining about all the TV ads with interracial couples. Of course not the ones with East Asians but the Black/white and brown/white marriages. I shouldn’t have been dumbfounded but I was.
I've heard people complaining about this for years--"Why do they all have to be mixed race or gay couples?"
 

Amy L

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,509
I've heard people complaining about this for years--"Why do they all have to be mixed race or gay couples?"
My aunt should trademark this statement, it's basically her motto because she says it every time she watches TV.
 

Sparks

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,478
My grandmother born in 1897 once said she didn't like to watch basketball because there were too many Black players (except she didn't use the term Black)
 

Prancer

Aun Aprendo
Staff member
Messages
52,828
My aunt should trademark this statement, it's basically her motto because she says it every time she watches TV.
If I know the person saying it well enough, I will say "Why do they all have to be straight white couples?" and I will be informed that they don't, but how often to do you even see straight white couples on TV any more?

Um, all the time?

It's funny what people notice.
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,549

Amy L

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,509
If I know the person saying it well enough, I will say "Why do they all have to be straight white couples?" and I will be informed that they don't, but how often to do you even see straight white couples on TV any more?

Um, all the time?

It's funny what people notice.
My aunt's excuse is that white people are still the majority (for now, she definitely believes in Replacement Theory) and gays are like 4% of the population but take up most of the commercials. Then she'd go on to explain that if you throw this stuff in peoples' faces, they'll start to think it is okay. I mean, yeah. But I think it's a good thing and she definitely does not. I've had a lot of these conversations with my family and inlaws because most of them are racist homophobes but I know they won't change their minds. I only keep pressing them in case their grandkids are ever listening in. Just from the law of numbers, a least one of them is hiding being LGBTQ+ and I want them to know that the gene pool isn't entirely disgusting.
 

MacMadame

Doing all the things
Messages
49,523
I think life obviously begins before birth.
There is nothing obvious about it, IMO

In which case it is a woman's right to commit murder until a certain point in her pregnancy.
Self-defense. People accept that as a reason to kill a person. Heck, some states even let you kills someone if you just feel threatened.

I continue to call spew bullshit.
Speaking of bullshit, I keep seeing a certain poster claim that our abortion laws are now more in line with Europe's and before they were extreme and outliers. Except the data doesn't support that POV:


Excerpt:
Until Friday, the US was one of 56 countries where abortion was legal at a woman's request, with no requirement for justification, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

It was generally in the company of other Western nations, since few developed countries ban or heavily restrict access to abortions. Of the 36 countries the United Nations' Department of Economic and Social Affairs defines as developed economies, all but two -- Poland and Malta -- allow abortions on request or on broad health and socio-economic grounds, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), which campaigns for improved access to abortion and monitors laws worldwide.
The article also says that the SCOTUS decision goes against the tide as more and more countries open up access to abortion and make it legal.

I’m not personally an advocate of court-packing (
It's more like court balancing. But the court is actually too small right now for its workload and really should be expanded.
 

Allskate

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,496
And now The Supreme Court has made it next to impossible to convict physicians who deliberately over-prescribe opioids! This country is turning upside down. I really aam starting to think that the 6 majority judges are evil!

I just read the opinion and I don't think your assessment of it is accurate. The whole point of the opinion is that they the government has the burden of proving knowledge or intent. If a doctor deliberately overprescribes opioids then they definitely can be convicted. If the doctor is merely negligent, then they probably will have violated civil law, but not the federal criminal statue at issue. Given the language of the law and applicable regulation and prior precedent, the decision is not very surprising. Most federal criminal laws require some form of intent or knowledge.

The Supreme Court also went out of its way to say that circumstantial evidence can be used and even pointed out that the more unreasonable the doctor's conduct the more permissible it is to find that a doctor acted knowingly or intentionally. The Supreme Court did not reverse the convictions and left it to the lower court to determine whether the jury instructions complied with the correct law and, if they didn't, whether such errors were harmless in light of the evidence introduced at trial (which would mean that the guilty verdicts would stand).

This opinion is not a green light for doctors to deliberately overprescribe opioids.
 

Trillian

Well-Known Member
Messages
564
It's more like court balancing. But the court is actually too small right now for its workload and really should be expanded.

True, but my fear is that it’s one of those things that snowballs. Democrats add three justices now, next Republican prez adds three more, etc. And done the wrong way, it also validates treating the court as a partisan institution. I know it’s functioning that way right now anyway, but part of the premise of our government is an independent judiciary, and I think if we don’t try to find ways to depoliticize the courts, we might as well give up.

I’m a fan of term limits, personally. It’s non-partisan and would remove some of the political maneuvering from the appointment process. No more trying to stall the process (a prez gets a routine appointment when it’s “time” for a new justice) and no more appointing Beery McBeerPong because he’s young enough to potentially sit on the court for 40 years.
 

Louis

Private citizen
Messages
17,426
Speaking of bullshit, I keep seeing a certain poster claim that our abortion laws are now more in line with Europe's and before they were extreme and outliers. Except the data doesn't support that POV:


You're reaching "agalisgv" levels of posting summaries that say something completely different than what your link says.

From your link:
Most European Union nations -- including those in the G7 -- allow abortion with gestation limits, the most common being 12 weeks, according to monitoring charities including CRR. Exceptions after that period are usually permitted on certain grounds, such as if the pregnancy or birth poses a risk to the mother's health.

Is this acceptable to the liberal left in the US?

in Germany for instance, abortion is permitted up to 12 weeks of pregnancy, but people seeking the procedure are required to attend a compulsory counseling session, which is followed by a mandatory three-day waiting period. Doctors there have also been prosecuted for sharing details about the abortion services they offer because any "advertising" of abortions is outlawed.

What about this?

Among the most notable in this regard is Poland, where a ban on abortions due to fetal defects took effect last year -- essentially ending almost all abortions in the country. Abortion is now only allowed in Poland in cases of rape or incest or when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother.

Or this?

Slovakia tried to follow Poland's lead, but the country's parliament has rejected several bills proposing restrictions on reproductive rights in the past two years.
And other European countries like Italy have seen extensive use of the "conscience clause" or "conscientious objections," which allow providers to opt out of offering terminations because of moral objections, according to watchdogs including Human Rights Watch (HRW).

Or this?

Please tell me what European country's policy on abortion you would be happy to have. There is not a single one that had anything close to what the US policy was under Roe v. Wade. But, if you think there's a European country with a good abortion policy, I'd love to know, as that would give me a clue as to where compromise could come on this issue.
 

MacMadame

Doing all the things
Messages
49,523
True, but my fear is that it’s one of those things that snowballs. Democrats add three justices now, next Republican prez adds three more, etc. And done the wrong way, it also validates treating the court as a partisan institution.
That could be avoided by passing a law that the number of judges must always equal the number of circuits (+ 1 if the number is even). It wouldn't be political at all then and it would be a way to tie the court to the workload.
 

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,945
There are some decent reddit threads I've been viewing for awhile on pro choice and abortion. One particular reddit thread has a google spreadsheet with reliable names of GYN doctors who would be willing to perform sterilization procedures on women over the age of 18 years old. Doctors in just about every state. EVERY STATE.

This a very active thread full of young Gen Xer, Milennials and Gen Z women.

I don't necessily think there will be a large percentage of them getting tubal ligations, but I do think we'll see an increase in voluntary sterlization. If 2 to 5% of Milennial and Gen Z women get sterlized, I don't think anti choice folks, white supremacists and those looking to increase the US population with white women will see this as a "victory".
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,489
At least it’s exposing the left’s true colors with calls of court-packing and other attempts to directly undermine democracy.
The Constitution only provides for one supreme court. The rest was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789. That includes determining that there be six supreme court justices.
The law was later amended.
How would amending the law again in Congress - which is a legitimate and constitutional process - undermine democracy? And how can you argue that abortion needs to be legislated while claiming that amending a law (which is also legislating) is undermining democracy? Either legislating is a legitimate discourse or not.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information