Just curious, but what exactly makes them rogue judges, aside from the fact that you 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?
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.
So you consider the current makeup of the Supreme Court the result of democracy?
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.
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.
No - Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ketanji Brown.
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.
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 there's another example. (Though I personally haven't read about this one yet).
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.
Reason.com is such an obnoxious name for a publication.
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.
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?
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.
There is nothing obvious about it, IMO
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.
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:
www.cnn.com
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.
It's more like court balancing. But the court is actually too small right now for its workload and really should be expanded.
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:
Scrapping Roe v. Wade makes the US an outlier in the West
Tens of millions of people in America the United States are set to lose abortion access after the Supreme Court decided to overturn Roe v. Wade on Friday, a drastic decision that overturns decades of law and sets the US apart from its key allies on women's reproductive health.
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.
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.
