U.S. Supreme Court & judicial system

PRlady

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,191
This one is in @PRlady's bailiwick so maybe she can comment. As presented by this article, this is a potentially pretty scary case about to go before the court: The religious right wants states' tax dollars and the Supreme Court is like to agree (Vox) Its an extensive analysis but the upshot is the case could lead to requiring states to pay for tuition at religious schools.

Here’s our take on it in the Wash Post this morning: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/05/carson-v-makin-supreme-court-religious-education/
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,969
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.
Unfortunately the 11th Amendment has been interpreted to mean a person cannot sue a state for damages. You can sue municipalities and government actors (including state officials) working under color of law for violating your federal civil rights. That said watch out for sovereign immunity when trying the latter approach. It may get complicated after that.
 

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,898
@DORISPULASKI and @VGThuy ... As of right now, in all states is it impossible to voluntarily terminate parental rights. Abandonment laws are different. WI abandonment law is 6 months but the court in theory does not want to be financially responsive for the child. Also, unless their an adoption available, very rare or close to never will the parental rights be terminated voluntarily. The courts attempt to contact the other parent(father), which would prolong the court processing the case and therefore dragging out the situation.

So what are the legislative laws that are needed to be created to allow parental rights to terminated voluntarily? Can unwanted pregnancy be included? My gut tells me there is going to be a very strong push to not have the wording in the law especially from those who feel that women/females should have "consequences" for having sex.

I know it sound morbid and gross but there needs to be discussions:
  1. How the state is going to enforce women/girls to carry pregnancies to term.
  2. Who is going to be financially responsible for the care during the pregnancy.
  3. Parental rights - if the female originally wanted to terminate the pregnancy and is forced to carry it to term. Can this be used a reason to voluntarily terminate her parental rights? If the other party(male) wants the pregnancy carried to term, would he be financially responsive for the medical/living expenses.
  4. What about infant relinquishment aka safe haven law. Will it be extended past the 72 hours after birth or will be eliminated all together.
  5. What type of mental health or therapy will the female receive and from whom
  6. The current child welfare system is a MESS and will there will more monetary incentives for foster care/adoption. Will there be more incentives for religious organizations to have access to public funds to start adoptions services.

I'm sure myself and others have many questions on how these states are going to carry out their desire to have personhood start at conception. I say these things because I recall reading articles and information about how white evangelicals are using foster care and adoption as a means to improve their finances. It's a long standing blueprint for white evangelicals to continue their racist genocidal tactics of the past.

How a white evangelical family could dismantle adoption protections for Native children

Orphan Fever: The Evangelical Movement’s Adoption Obsession
In Tennessee, Sam and the four adoptees joined his wife, Serene—a willowy brunette who’d attempted a career in Christian music—and their four biological children. Together they moved into a log cabin in Primm Springs, a rural hamlet outside Nashville. Serene welcomed the children with familiar foods such as rice, stew, and sardines, and they were photographed smiling and laughing.

The cabin adjoined a family compound shared by Serene’s parents, Colin and Nancy Campbell, and the families of Serene’s two sisters. Colin is the pastor of a small church and Nancy a Christian leader with a large following among home-schoolers. Her 35-year-old magazine, Above Rubies, which focuses on Christian wifehood, has a circulation of 130,000 in more than 100 countries—mostly fundamentalist Christian women who eschew contraception and adhere to rigid gender roles.In October 2006, a year after their first Liberian adoptions, the Allisons adopted another pair of siblings: Kula, 13, and Alfred, 15. “In Africa we thought America was heaven,” recalled Kula, who is 19 now. “I thought there were money trees.” Primm Springs was a rude awakening: It was dirty, she recalled, and she had no toothbrush. The new house Sam was building—with the older kids working alongside him—often lacked electricity. There was only a woodstove for heat, and no air conditioning or running water yet. Toilets were flushed with buckets of water hauled from a creek behind the house. The children recalled being so hungry that they would, on occasion, cook a wild goose or turkey they caught on the land. “We went from Africa to Africa,” CeCe said.They didn’t attend school, either; home schooling mostly consisted of Serene reading to the younger children. When the older kids watched a school bus drive past on a country road and asked why they couldn’t go, they were met with various excuses. So Isaiah and Alfred worked with Sam in his house-painting business or labored in Nancy Campbell’s immense vegetable garden while CeCe, Kula, and Cherish cleaned, cooked, and tended to a growing brood of young ones. It was also the job of the “African kids,” as they called themselves, to keep a reservoir filled with water from the creek. CeCe hadn’t yet learned to read when Serene gave her a book on midwifery so she could learn to deliver their future babies. “They treated us pretty much like slaves,” she said. It’s a provocative accusation, but one that Kula and Isaiah—as well as two neighbors and a children’s welfare worker—all repeated.
 

Dobre

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,751
It seems ironic to me that the far right--which is so anti-immigration--is all good with compelling people to give birth to children who, you know, might very well belong to and/or therefore, grow up to belong to all those groups of people the far right is terrified might "take over" the country: Democrats, Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Gays, Lesbians, Muslims, feminists, urbanites, the educated elite, Welfare recipients, etc. And--gasp!--voters.

I mean, after all, maybe the end of abortion is really a covert liberal operation to take over red states like Texas.

(Float that theory on Facebook & let the Q-anoners, religious right, and white supremacists tear each other apart).
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,813

Here's the mess women may be heading for, if a significant part of the GOP has its way.

This is what Sen. Hawley and Rep. Cawthorne have directly advocated for.
 

once_upon

Vaccinated
Messages
20,610
Today my Facebook memory scroll reminded me of a painful life changing event of my friends of mine.

I had a long political post about the anti-abortion movement and how my friends, children caught in the foster care system, and poverty class on Facebook, but deleted it because the religious right wing anti abortion idiots wouldnt/couldn't understand it.

I hate fake religion and the people who are wanting the SC to force it on everyone.
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,813

Today's SCOTUS opinion which allows abortion providers to sue TX, but leaves the TX law in place, makes me believe they will overturn Roe with the Mississippi Case, but will also overturn TX law due to vigilante enforcement, which if allowed would allow IL to sue gun dealers over guns sales. Etc
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
59,643
Our lawyers are doing a post-argument analysis of the Carson op-ed I linked to above. It was bloodcurdlingly awful. We are going to get killed by this court.
Reading this column by Linda Greenhouse in the NY Times, I realize that Carson is a direct threat to LGBTQ rights in that the two schools that sued discriminate against LGBTQ people and presumably if the state is forced to subsidize them that includes not enforcing any anti-discrimination laws against them either?

The line Maine drew for its tuition program was based on the state’s concern that to channel public money to the coffers of parochial schools that provide religious instruction, even though it is a program that relies on parental choice, would violate the Establishment Clause. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the exclusion on the ground that the program’s purpose was to duplicate, for children lacking access to a local public high school, the religiously neutral education that a public high school offers. During the oral argument, the conservative justices seemed unable to grasp that simple proposition. They insisted to the state’s lawyer, Chief Deputy Attorney General Christopher Taub, that some kind of rank anti-religious discrimination was afoot.

Mr. Taub readily agreed with Justice Brett Kavanaugh that a state could not subsidize tuition at the schools of one faith while withholding the subsidy from schools of other religions; that would be discrimination, obviously. But Justice Kavanaugh wanted more. “Our case law suggests that discriminating against all religions, as compared to secular, is discriminatory just as it is discriminatory to say ‘exclude the Catholic and the Jewish and include the Protestant,’ ” he told Mr. Taub. While the court’s recent precedents may suggest such an equal-footing principle when it comes to public education, they aren’t quite there yet. They soon will be. The Establishment Clause, long understood as a barrier to taxpayer subsidy of religious education, was almost completely absent from the argument. Its absence will be more than rhetorical if the challenge to the Maine program succeeds.

 

NeilJLeonard

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,332
Reading this column by Linda Greenhouse in the NY Times, I realize that Carson is a direct threat to LGBTQ rights in that the two schools that sued discriminate against LGBTQ people and presumably if the state is forced to subsidize them that includes not enforcing any anti-discrimination laws against them either?



You expected the leopards to change their spots? They were nominated to be seated on the SCOTUS to do exactly what they are doing.

NJL
 

skipaway

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,073
Elizabeth Warren calls for Expansion of Supreme Court

For years, the Supreme Court's conservative majority — recently supercharged to 6-3 — has issued decision after decision that veers away from both basic principles of law and widely held public opinion. With each move, the court shows why it's important to restore America's faith in an independent judiciary committed to the rule of law. To do that, I believe it's time for Congress to yet again use its constitutional authority to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court. I don't come to this conclusion lightly or because I disagree with a particular decision; I come to this conclusion because I believe the current court threatens the democratic foundations of our nation.
 

MacMadame

Doing all the things
Messages
45,348
I think the SCOTUS should always have as many members as there are Circuits. (+1 if there are an even number of Circuits) The Circuits are based on population and number of court cases so if there are more circuits, there is more work to be done and so we need more SC Justices to handle it. Each one could be assigned a circuit to handle cases from in the Shadow Docket, for example.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
59,643
I don't think the court is the problem that people like Warren are trying to solve. I think our broken politics is the problem and changing the court will only make a different court subject to that broken politics.

Its looking in the wrong place, IMO.

It wasn't the court that refused to consider Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
 

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
24,914
I don't think the court is the problem that people like Warren are trying to solve. I think our broken politics is the problem and changing the court will only make a different court subject to that broken politics.

Its looking in the wrong place, IMO.

It wasn't the court that refused to consider Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
You are right. It is the political system which is tied to donations and who gives money to whom at the root cause.

What Warren is doing is chasing the horse after it has bolted. It is just a reactionary way to solve a problem.

The judicial system should never be tied to politics. Judges should not be appointed on their moral and political affiliations. We all know this. But the US doesn't operate that way.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,980
Posted in the vaccine thread that the SC blocked the OSHA vaccine mandate. Posting this here because it's more political.

One of the court's arguments was that YKW is something people encounter outside their workplace. https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/1481713616072151041

Talk about an out-of-touch court. What do they think teachers, bus drivers, cleaning staff, and staff at sporting events do if not work?
That aside, looks like the argument in general is a slippery slope. Aside from radiation poisoning, is there any danger we encounter at a work place that we don't encounter at home?
I'd also like to know how a single person who goes nowhere but to work and shops online encounters YKW outside their workplace and specifically at home.
 

Dobre

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,751
Basically, they have voted to prolong the ********* and allow who knows how many more people to die.

So here the one immediately available path with the potential to get us back to normal has been undermined by our own Supreme Court. I feel sick & angry & sad.

This will only result in more people dying, more schools closed off and on, and more people quitting their jobs. More employee shortages because not everyone can afford the luxury of working with people who don't care about the general welfare and health of their fellow citizens and coworkers.

As for this nonsense that people don't get the disease in the workplace, what kind of B.S. is that? My local tire place was shut down because everyone was sick. Schools are closing left & right because teachers & bus drivers are sick. Food plants, airlines, and Amazon & Walmart distribution centers have had hundreds of sick workers. Dairies, garbage sites, banks--you name it, it has had an outbreak.

Nine times out of ten, I get sick at work or via family.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information