U.S. Supreme Court & judicial system

AxelAnnie

Like a small boat on the ocean...
Messages
13,981

Artistic Skaters

Drawing Figures
Messages
8,062
Because of Anita sounds like an interesting new podcast because it includes discussion by both Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford regarding their participation in the hearings and the differences between then and now.
 

Dobre

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,751
"The Senate confirmed Myrna Pérez to serve on the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. An exceptional voting rights attorney who is intimately familiar with election law, Judge Pérez becomes the only Latina sitting on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court."

 

Dobre

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,751
Elizabeth Prelogar has been confirmed as the Solicitor General.


This Idaho native and Boise High graduate was just confirmed as U.S. solicitor general

"Elizabeth Prelogar, a longtime attorney born and raised in the Boise area, was confirmed Thursday in a U.S. Senate vote as President Joe Biden’s pick for solicitor general, meaning she will represent the federal government in cases before the nation’s highest court. Prelogar is just the second woman ever to achieve the position tasked with making the government’s arguments in front of the U.S. Supreme Court."

"Following law school, Prelogar became a law clerk for current U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland while he was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. After that, she clerked for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and future Justice Elena Kagan, who in 2009 became the first woman to fill the role of solicitor general."
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,512
It is quite sad reading about the case going on today at the Supreme Court challenging Roe v. Wade.

There is so much stupid noise and nonsense that goes on around our politics that we lose sight of what matters. This matters. All the arguments about how Biden hasn't done enough for the economy or didn't manage the Afghanistan withdrawal properly are kind of nothing when you think about the fact that American women, 50+ percent of our population, are about to lose a pretty fundamental right that has made our lives safer for the past 50 years.

And as Jennifer Rubin points out in this article, this case has bigger implications than "just" abortion. The precedent-overturning arguments being used to justify this could also be used to argue against other rights we take for granted, such as gay marriage and family rights, maybe even the right to use contraception. :mad: It's all quite sickening.


For those saying that we no longer need abortion due to progress in women's rights, professional achievement, the supposed elimination of rape (Greg Abbott), etc., I would refer them to the following piece by a woman who had an abortion at 12 due to incest (a procedure that would be denied under current law in TX):


If only we could rewrite reality to make it so that all intercourse is consensual and all pregnancies welcome. Alas, this will never be the case.

Either a woman has autonomy over her body or she doesn't. :angryfire
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
59,643
The Guardian reported on an ABC-Washington Post Poll this morning of Americans:

60% wanted the supreme court to uphold Roe v Wade, 58% opposed state legislation that made it harder for clinics to operate and 75% believe that the decision of whether a woman can have an abortion should be left to the woman and her doctor.

Now what I wonder is what reaction there will be if the Supreme Court either overturns Roe, or sidesteps the overturning and simply greatly restricts abortion access.

If there's not much reaction, it doesn't change our politics, it tells us what our future is. I fear this will be the case.
 

PRlady

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,191
The Guardian reported on an ABC-Washington Post Poll this morning of Americans:



Now what I wonder is what reaction there will be if the Supreme Court either overturns Roe, or sidesteps the overturning and simply greatly restricts abortion access.

If there's not much reaction, it doesn't change our politics, it tells us what our future is. I fear this will be the case.
I think it might not impact short-term but long-term you're going to see a permanent movement of suburban women (and to a lesser extent men) away from the GOP no matter how many aw-shucks Youngkin types they run. The GOP is like the dog who caught the car on this issue, it only works as a rallying cry, not as a change in law that is so obviously a gift to the religious (not libertarian) right.

Our lawyers are joining a townhall tomorrow night to analyze the arguments and impacts. If anyone wants to attend (online, obviously) PM me.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
59,643
I think it might not impact short-term but long-term you're going to see a permanent movement of suburban women (and to a lesser extent men) away from the GOP no matter how many aw-shucks Youngkin types they run. The GOP is like the dog who caught the car on this issue, it only works as a rallying cry, not as a change in law that is so obviously a gift to the religious (not libertarian) right.

Our lawyers are joining a townhall tomorrow night to analyze the arguments and impacts. If anyone wants to attend (online, obviously) PM me.
Well I hope you are right, but I don't know, and if people don't mobilize short-term, as in over the next 2-4 years, there may not be the same chance after that.
 

PRlady

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,191
Well I hope you are right, but I don't know, and if people don't mobilize short-term, as in over the next 2-4 years, there may not be the same chance after that.
Yes. If they change the rules to maintain minority rule as they are trying and somewhat succeeding in doing, we could be living in Gilead for a long time.

But I’ve seen focus group results on what happened in Virginia. It’s not all GOP voter suppression, the Dems are message-deficient. Not for this thread….
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
59,643
Yes. If they change the rules to maintain minority rule as they are trying and somewhat succeeding in doing, we could be living in Gilead for a long time.

But I’ve seen focus group results on what happened in Virginia. It’s not all GOP voter suppression, the Dems are message-deficient. Not for this thread….
Virginia had many factors in an aberrant off year election. Democrats better have more to go on than focus groups from that. Like maybe looking at how just that kind of rote professional campaign stuff is actually a part of their problem not the solution.

Do you really think we are where we are in this country because Dems just haven't been able to craft a message that will work? And that coming up with some right words is going to fix things? I think the very fact that Dems go back to this over and over while Republicans pull off unbelievable and undemocratic shit left and right (like the stolen supreme court seat that gave them this court) is part of the problem not the solution.

I'm sorry if that offends your profession. Of course we need messaging and people to do a good job of it, but its not going to get us out of where we are now to come up with something well said.
 

PRlady

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,191
Virginia had many factors in an aberrant off year election. Democrats better have more to go on than focus groups from that. Like maybe looking at how just that kind of rote professional campaign stuff is actually a part of their problem not the solution.

Do you really think we are where we are in this country because Dems just haven't been able to craft a message that will work? And that coming up with some right words is going to fix things? I think the very fact that Dems go back to this over and over while Republicans pull off unbelievable and undemocratic shit left and right (like the stolen supreme court seat that gave them this court) is part of the problem not the solution.

I'm sorry if that offends your profession. Of course we need messaging and people to do a good job of it, but its not going to get us out of where we are now to come up with something well said.
It’s not just “well-said.” If you can’t communicate to people the good you are doing for them and give them a positive reason to come out for you, you’re sunk. All the political manoeuvring is important (although I don’t think we can sink to the other side’s methods in some ways) but so is people’s gut feelings about their choices.

Anyway, not Supreme Court.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
59,643
It’s not just “well-said.” If you can’t communicate to people the good you are doing for them and give them a positive reason to come out for you, you’re sunk. All the political manoeuvring is important (although I don’t think we can sink to the other side’s methods in some ways) but so is people’s gut feelings about their choices.

Anyway, not Supreme Court.

Yes Supreme Court because we have this court because Dems haven't stopped Republicans. And its not because they just can't craft a message. No one knows how to stop this rightwing juggernaut that's been building for so many years.

In any case if people aren't listening, it doesn't matter what your message is. It will just blow away in the wind.
 

Louis

Private citizen
Messages
16,499
I think it might not impact short-term but long-term you're going to see a permanent movement of suburban women (and to a lesser extent men) away from the GOP no matter how many aw-shucks Youngkin types they run. The GOP is like the dog who caught the car on this issue, it only works as a rallying cry, not as a change in law that is so obviously a gift to the religious (not libertarian) right.

As a member of the libertarian center (if such a thing exists), I strongly favor abortion rights, but also strongly favor strict, originalist interpretation of the Constitution and the law in general. It is not the court's job to infer the kinds of rights that they have, nor to create legislation. No matter how much I agree with the rights that the Supreme Court has created, it has created those rights without authority and without consent of the legislature or the people. Whether it's overturning Roe v. Wade, overturning Obergefell, Windsor, or anything else, my answer remains the same: take it up with the legislative branch, which is where it belongs and always belonged.
 

olympic

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,322
As a member of the libertarian center (if such a thing exists), I strongly favor abortion rights, but also strongly favor strict, originalist interpretation of the Constitution and the law in general. It is not the court's job to infer the kinds of rights that they have, nor to create legislation. No matter how much I agree with the rights that the Supreme Court has created, it has created those rights without authority and without consent of the legislature or the people. Whether it's overturning Roe v. Wade, overturning Obergefell, Windsor, or anything else, my answer remains the same: take it up with the legislative branch, which is where it belongs and always belonged.
The problem is that the legislative branch has become horribly dysfunctional. I think on some level that the courts have stepped up and filled in so to speak because of that.
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,512
With increasingly gerrymandered districting in some states, the state legislatures do not really represent the people’s will in many cases. And there are many problems now with the federal govt being co-opted toward minority rule due to structural issues, so to argue that it accurately represents the people’s will is questionable as well. Only a direct national referendum vote on issues (a la Brexit) might really represent the “people’s will,” although even that has problems due to voter suppression.

We can’t have “rights” coming and going in this country every 10 years based on current political winds. Society can’t run like that. At least, not any kind of society we would want.
 

olympic

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,322
Yes Supreme Court because we have this court because Dems haven't stopped Republicans. And its not because they just can't craft a message. No one knows how to stop this rightwing juggernaut that's been building for so many years.

In any case if people aren't listening, it doesn't matter what your message is. It will just blow away in the wind.
It’s not just “well-said.” If you can’t communicate to people the good you are doing for them and give them a positive reason to come out for you, you’re sunk. All the political manoeuvring is important (although I don’t think we can sink to the other side’s methods in some ways) but so is people’s gut feelings about their choices.

Anyway, not Supreme Court.

NO SCOTUS, and I promise I won't post anymore after this.

Rs are so good at getting their voters out with a terrible record and policies that don't offer much to the average Joe.

While Ds cannot replicate that. Why?

It is messaging. It's obviously not policy-based. Rs drive voters to the polls based on fear: America is going to look like Venezuela, its citizens will look like Ilhan Omar, and add the topic of the day to their message - Biden will lock down America because of the flu (YKW issue - that message is going out right now. My husband talked to an ignorant neighbor yesterday who recited this), your children are going to read graphic, sexual material in school, gas prices are skyrocketing (not necessarily true anymore), so are the costs of essentials and it's the D's fault. You need us to stop the Ds. It is very simple to follow and that finds itself into the hearts of the many, many ignorant Americans who do vote, like it or not. Meanwhile, Ds recite job numbers and policy issues. They Talk about all the right things, but voters don't see action because of the Rs. To what do you think an average voter who doesn't read too much is going to react more strongly? Rs get frightened or angry and that drives them to vote. Ds rationalize and get depressed or bored, then don't vote
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
59,643
The Supreme Court is not supposed to represent the people's will. Its not a legislature. Its role is very different.

With abortion, the way the US system should work would mean that if there is right that the Court for many decades has upheld as constitutional in order to strike down legislation passed by democratically elected bodies, then the path is to pass a constitutional amendment to change the constitution to remove the right.

That is how the will of the people would be shown.
 

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
24,914
I was listening to a discussion about messages from political parties. The GOP and particularly Trump just use catchphrases as simple concepts. They don't require a lot of thinking and don't even talk about policy. They just have to appeal to base instincts and a lack of critical thinking. And depend on a lot of people who think they are victims and blame everyone else for their problems.

And unfortunately the nutters you now see in Congress are these people on steroids.

Any bet if you asked a GOP supporter what a Republican policy is that will make their lives better they couldn't tell you. In fact they are their own worst enemy. A Trumper who has diabetes? Why would you object to legislation that will make it cheaper to get your monthly insulin? But they do.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,969
It's always been the Courts' job to protect rights that were never meant or should never be up for debate or discussion. They are just fundamental. The rights the Courts' "created" were rights that were always there. Many things the Courts strikes down are laws/policies that undermine such rights or people's access to such rights. The Founders (there were a heterogenuous group) always feard majority-mob rule and made sure to have protections against the possibility of the majority voting their rights away. Some rights are ok, and other rights are not.

It's all good to strict to an originalist or even textualist approach, but you'd find even the most staunch originalist/textualist justice deviate and use the tools the Court has been given by tradition of common law practice to reach the result that they want. Look at how those originalists/textualist have treated The Affordable Care Act despite the fact that it was a LAW passed by the legislature who were voted in by the people.

Speaking of the legislature being dysfunctional, right now, we have a legislative body at a stand-still, who thanks to gerrymandering, and outdated representational numbers, don't actually represent the will of the majority of the people. We should solve that issue if you want more people given to the people.
 

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,898
I think it might not impact short-term but long-term you're going to see a permanent movement of suburban women (and to a lesser extent men) away from the GOP no matter how many aw-shucks Youngkin types they run. The GOP is like the dog who caught the car on this issue, it only works as a rallying cry, not as a change in law that is so obviously a gift to the religious (not libertarian) right.

Our lawyers are joining a townhall tomorrow night to analyze the arguments and impacts. If anyone wants to attend (online, obviously) PM me.

Take Ohio as an example: Abortion in Ohio is legal until a fetal heartbeat is detectable, except in the cities of Lebanon, Ohio, and Mason, Ohio. Lebanon and Mason's city councilmembers have passed a law stating they're "sanctuary cities for the unborn". It is illegal and crimination will happen . I have travelled to Mason OH a few times because it hosts a tennis tournament " the Western & Southern Open". May the WTA or several of the top players(men and women) can boycott the tourney hence forth to get the message out Mason's city council recently enacted law. P&G has major research in Mason. Let P&G know how this reflects on THEM.

Ohio and Texas anti choice bills will and are being used as a type this to turn cites/towns into "sanctuary cities" and you best believe criminalization will be pushed. We're already seeing it with criminal charges and prosecution of pregnant women and women who miscarry.
With increasingly gerrymandered districting in some states, the state legislatures do not really represent the people’s will in many cases. And there are many problems now with the federal govt being co-opted toward minority rule due to structural issues, so to argue that it accurately represents the people’s will is questionable as well. Only a direct national referendum vote on issues (a la Brexit) might really represent the “people’s will,” although even that has problems due to voter suppression.

We can’t have “rights” coming and going in this country every 10 years based on current political winds. Society can’t run like that. At least, not any kind of society we would want.

It's always been the Courts' job to protect rights that were never meant or should never be up for debate or discussion. They are just fundamental. The rights the Courts' "created" were rights that were always there. Many things the Courts strikes down are laws/policies that undermine such rights or people's access to such rights. The Founders (there were a heterogeneous group) always feared majority-mob rule and made sure to have protections against the possibility of the majority voting their rights away. Some rights are ok, and other rights are not.


Speaking of the legislature being dysfunctional, right now, we have a legislative body at a stand-still, who thanks to gerrymandering, and outdated representational numbers, don't actually represent the will of the majority of the people. We should solve that issue if you want more people given to the people.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
59,643

Spikefan

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,873
Source / links? This is outrageous if true.


Charges dropped in this one but the woman still had to go through this:

 

once_upon

Vaccinated
Messages
20,610
There are many, many reasons that overturning Roe v Wade is wrong. The anti- abortionists really don't think this through very well.

The first and foremost is that you cannot regulate an end to abortion no matter how many laws you past.

Second: it's not someone else's body/life . Pregnancy, wanted or unwanted, changes your physical body forever. Not just in the obvious visual changes. I'm sure you can hear many stories, if only you would ask and be willing to hear very explicit details.

Three: it is a slippery slope of endless specific situations. What about the rape of a 10 yr old or a 12 yr old or incest? I hear - well that might be ok. What about the mother who is having a life-threatening experience? Well that might be ok. What about the mother whose husband kicked her in the stomach and has a partial placental tear? Well that might be ok...or so many other situations. You can't write into anti abortion laws each and every scenario that "might be an exception.

There are many ways to assist in preventing abortions other than legislation.

The religious right got what they wanted, ultra conservative SC.
 

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,898
Source / links? This is outrageous if true.
For example, Louisiana law defines an “accomplice” to a crime as anyone involved in its commission, even tangentially, whether “present or absent” if they aid, abet or even counsel someone. Experts say this could be deployed against a wide range of friends, loved ones or counselors, such as clergy or abortion fund networks which help shepherd people to clinics.
A 172-year-old state law that makes providing an abortion a felony in Wisconsin could go back into effect if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

Did you not think with conservative Republicans and Evangelicals preparing for decades to overturn R vs W that they wouldn't want to criminalize it? They'll use homicide, 2nd degree murder, assault and feticide as means to prosecute.
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,813
Would it be possible to bring a class action suit against the state for every raped child who is forced to stay pregnant?

In Texas, the age of consent is 17

In Mississippi, the age of consent is 16

All sex with kids younger than that age is rape, so this is not a tiny class of people, and all you have to prove is the child's age at the time of the rape

I figure the state has forced the child to do work for about 9 months, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. That is roughly $100k, even before taking into account emotional distress, physical damages, and mental suffering, and payment of medical bills incurred in the course of doing the state's work.

Plus some of this sort of violated child labor laws and slavery laws.

Heck a suit might pay, if doable, on a case by case basis, even just for the collection of the unpaid bill for work done for the state before we get to damages.

While other stuff about suing the state may be impossible, if I knew a pregnant child, I might submit a weekly bill for her work to the state just to have a paper trail.

Then sue the state for child support


Probably wouldn't work...but I wish it would.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information