Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
    and here I thought, several posts back, you were saying liberals eventually always win as justices become more liberal as they age....
    Said no such thing. Read it again.
    **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

    Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
    Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

    Comment


    • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

      Originally posted by burd View Post
      Kep, I don't believe the decision was founded upon a right of privacy between doctor and patient. It was founded upon a zone of privacy each person has against government intrusion. That is a simplistic description but a fair one, I think.
      Nope.

      The Court added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest – not women's rights in general
      I think you are thinking of the "penumbra" language that makes "Originalists" have a sad. There is certainly a backdrop right of privacy which underpins all other rights, and Roe does allude to that. But one of the weaknesses of the decision is they went for the Due Process clause instead of the Equal Protection clause. The former lends itself to the kind of dirty tricks the Jesusland states have been using to screw women. The latter would still have been under attack by the nutbars, but it wouldn't have been as vulnerable.
      Last edited by Kepler; 02-01-2017, 04:01 PM.
      Cornell University
      National Champion 1967, 1970
      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

      Comment


      • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

        Originally posted by burd View Post
        Kep, I don't believe the decision was founded upon a right of privacy between doctor and patient. It was founded upon a zone of privacy each person has against government intrusion. That is a simplistic description but a fair one, I think.
        Even that kind of reasoning is problematic: is an infant still in the womb a "person" or not? does s/he have a right not to have their brains sucked out by a vacuum cleaner inserted at the base of the skull, even if s/he is technically still inside the womb?

        The problem here is that there are two different parties who each have a right: the woman has a right to control over her own body, and the unborn infant has a right to life ("equal protection under the law"). That's why the general consensus seems to be that the former right ends when the latter right begins, whenever the fetus transitions from "it" to a person. Right now that standard is the third trimester.

        When two different parties each have a conflicting right, then generally (not always) the problem becomes political, not judicial.

        As Gorsuch said, "any judge who is happy with every decision he's ever made isn't doing a very good job." There are conflicts all the time that need to be decided on the law, even if the law should eventually be revised. We have procedures in place to revise laws which people don't like any longer. Those procedures generally do not include having judges re-write them on the fly.


        Prohibition was an absolute disaster from which we are still suffering grievously today: it took a Constitutional amendment to impose it and another to relieve us from the worst of it.
        "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

        "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

        "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

        "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

        Comment


        • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

          Originally posted by Kepler View Post
          Nope.



          I think you are thinking of the "penumbra" language that makes "Originalists" have a sad. There is certainly a backdrop right of privacy which underpins all other rights, and Roe does allude to that. But one of the weaknesses of the decision is they went for the Due Process clause instead of the Equal Protection clause. The former lends itself to the kind of dirty tricks the Jesusland states have been using to screw women. The latter would still have been under attack by the nutbars, but it wouldn't have been as vulnerable.
          I stand corrected. Have to read the decision tonight.

          Comment


          • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

            Originally posted by burd View Post
            I stand corrected. Have to read the decision tonight.
            If I'm substantively wrong unofan will tear me a new brief.

            But hey, 6 weeks in law school gives me supremacy over 99% of the board.
            Cornell University
            National Champion 1967, 1970
            ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
            Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

            Comment


            • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

              Originally posted by Kepler View Post
              If I'm substantively wrong unofan will tear me a new brief.

              But hey, 6 weeks in law school gives me supremacy over 99% of the board.
              I took a few minutes to read but not study the opinion. I still tend to think the fundamental right of privacy which brings the balancing test of competing interests into play is the woman's right to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. It looks as if Wikipedia drew from the Court's Summary in section VI, which does acknowledge the important role of the treating physician and supports your view:

              XI

              To summarize and to repeat:

              1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

              (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

              (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.


              As I said, a quick read. And as you said, unofan will set us (me) straight. Flaggy will cite infowars for his position that the decision was the result of a conspiracy headed by Mayo, and Fish will . . . who knows?

              Good stuff, at any rate. The deliberations must have been interesting on this one.

              Unofan is really Lawrence Tribe, btw
              Last edited by burd; 02-01-2017, 05:57 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                I read somewhere the other day that, technically, Roe v Wade has been completely superseded by Casey v Planned Parenthood anyway. Forget the details right now.
                "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                Comment


                • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                  At this point as a Dem, maybe you have to bite your tongue and take Gorsuch. Every day (and tweet) is crazier than the next.
                  Go Gophers!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                    Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
                    At this point as a Dem, maybe you have to bite your tongue and take Gorsuch.
                    I recommended this from the start. Gorsuch is Scalia II but elections have consequences and the GOP has every right to put him on the Court. They are going to get away with the stolen seat, and they've set a terrible precedent, but that isn't on Gorsuch and, more to the point, there's nothing we can do to stop them.

                    It means our next Dem nominee will have to be significantly farther left and more activist to counter him, of course.

                    The GOP has weaponized the Supreme Court. It only remains to see how that will play out. It's entirely possible they will rue the day they pis-sed on Obama's olive branch.
                    Cornell University
                    National Champion 1967, 1970
                    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                    Comment


                    • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                      At least Gorsuch is qualified for the job, even if you don't care for his interpretations of the law. Trump could've gone completely off the map.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                        Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
                        At least Gorsuch is qualified for the job, even if you don't care for his interpretations of the law. Trump could've gone completely off the map.
                        It could have been Bannon. I mean, unless David Duke was available.
                        Cornell University
                        National Champion 1967, 1970
                        ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                        Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                        Comment


                        • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                          Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                          It could have been Bannon. I mean, unless David Duke was available.
                          Or the the legal lackey processing all of his foreclosures and evictions. He wouldn't be able to recite the language of the First Amendment, but he would know "This is an attempt to collect a debt . . . . "
                          Last edited by burd; 02-09-2017, 10:33 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                            Originally posted by burd View Post
                            Or the the legal lackey processing all of his foreclosures and evictions.
                            I'm surprised his "doctor" isn't Surgeon General.

                            Um, he isn't, is he?
                            Cornell University
                            National Champion 1967, 1970
                            ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                            Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                            Comment


                            • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                              Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
                              At least Gorsuch is qualified for the job, even if you don't care for his interpretations of the law. Trump could've gone completely off the map.
                              That's the point. IMO getting Roberts out a Bush nomination is a marginal victory.
                              Go Gophers!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                                Still blocking it, Chuckles?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X