CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Kagen-themed "Assume I Disagree" and "Some Geniuses" apparel already for sale based on her comments/questioning from earlier today. https://strict-scrutiny-podcast-shop.myshopify.com/collections/kagan-capsule
Lack of ethics by Kagan and any other judge making opinion comments. They are suppose to evaluate if the law is constitutional or not according to the current law and previous decisions. Not express their personal opinions.Kagen-themed "Assume I Disagree" and "Some Geniuses" apparel already for sale based on her comments/questioning from earlier today. https://strict-scrutiny-podcast-shop.myshopify.com/collections/kagan-capsule
There's no ethical issue - her question/comments were the same as is heard from the bench at every argument.Lack of ethics by Kagan and any other judge making opinion comments. They are suppose to evaluate if the law is constitutional or not according to the current law and previous decisions. Not express their personal opinions.
As far as the apparel- no issue as long as people don't cancel/censor others, based on what people wear.
Thanks - good to hear the content. Anything out there for the "assume I disagree"?There's no ethical issue - her question/comments were the same as is heard from the bench at every argument.
Here's the clip of the "some geniuses" comment: https://twitter.com/i/status/1455192074362494984
Thanks - good to hear the content. Anything out there for the "assume I disagree"?
You think that's worse than one party blatantly ignoring the sole rule for confirming appointment ("whether the prospective justice is qualified") and indicating that they will carte blanche deny such a nomination?I would say that the worst flaw is that the current system allows justices to time their retirements when their preferred party is in power.
Holy #### that's fast. Did the lawyers sleep?The Court is hearing a combined oral argument Monday morning on an expedited basis in the Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson case and the US v Texas case. Arguments can be heard live here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx. The Court starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern and argument will probably get underway a short time later.
Both of these cases are completely unprecedented, and both have been fast-tracked. There is no court of appeals decision on appeal in either case, and the briefing was done at a rocket-docket pace (10 days since the cases were accepted, the shortest time from Cert to argument since Bush v Gore was heard on 3 days notice.) It appears Elizabeth Prelogar will argue for the US Govt - she was just confirmed as solicitor general for the Biden administration earlier this week.
I expect whatever the Court decides will be strictly limited to the Texas legislation, and not have a direct effect on Roe/Casey. The Court will likely save those larger issues for the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case (Mississippi) which is set for argument on December 1.
You think that's worse than one party blatantly ignoring the sole rule for confirming appointment ("whether the prospective justice is qualified") and indicating that they will carte blanche deny such a nomination?
Honestly, I agree with the concept of lifetime appointments for justices in theory - because a lifetime appointment doesn't cause a justice to consider a possible opinion or holding based on the threat of being denied re-appointment. I think the main/practical flaw in the system is that there's no check on the legislature as to whether they are actually following the rules of confirming appointees (and this is both sides as, while the Republican party has taken the blatant disregard for the rules to new heights, I found Obama's rejection of Chief Justice Roberts to be despicable).
If I were ruler of the country I would keep lifetime appointments but appoint a neutral board made up of federal judges to review legislative action. I would also instill regular physicals and aptitude tests (e.g. Montreal Cognitive Assessment).
I agree as to your identified problem.The problem I have with the confirmation process is that it has become so political that one party will vote no based solely on who made the nomination. I'm not sure how we go back to the way it was.
Zow said:I agree as to your identified problem.
Hence my proffer of a neutral board made up of sitting federal judges.
Or, as I indicated, making me supreme ruler of the United States.That would take a Constitutional Amendment. That's about as likely to happen as Congress voting for term limits for Congress.
I'm all for Roe/Casey being overturned, but the Texas case seems like a potentially really bad vehicle for that. I'd rather that the court just rule on a "clean" heartbeat bill instead. (I understand they're in a tough spot since they can't punt this case forever).The Court announced it will issue opinions on Monday by releasing them online, rather than the standard practice of reading them from the bench. Seems odd. Anyway, although its not certain, it seems likely the opinion in the Texas abortion law case will be among them.
I'm all for Roe/Casey being overturned, but the Texas case seems like a potentially really bad vehicle for that. I'd rather that the court just rule on a "clean" heartbeat bill instead. (I understand they're in a tough spot since they can't punt this case forever).
The Texas case needs to be addressed, though. This idea that you can end run any law you don't like by styling it as private enforcement rather than state action needs to be nipped in the bud.I agree the Texas case is not really a situation where new law should be made. Right now, its just before the court on the limited issue as to whether the providers' lawsuit in Texas can proceed or not. I guess the SCOTUS could go way further than that in its ruling if they want to, but I doubt that will happen.
The Mississippi case is pending now (Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health). I think that one is going to be argued on Monday. If they want to overturn Roe, that's probably the case they will use to do it. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1392.html
The Texas case needs to be addressed, though. This idea that you can end run any law you don't like by styling it as private enforcement rather than state action needs to be nipped in the bud.
This has made for strange bedfellows, since this approach could be used to circumvent issues of constitutionality in other areas, such as the second amendment. The Firearms Policy Coalition filed an amicus brief opposing the Texas law.
Our national reckoning over groundwater has finally arrived and is long overdue.CletiusMaximus said:Most court-watchers were surprised there was no ruling in the Texas case today. The Court released the first opinion of the term - a unanimous decision involving a groundwater dispute between Tennessee and Mississippi.
This has nothing to do with the case. Please stop derailing threads with your partisan hysterics.jon_mx said:As does the use of government contracts to impose laws by executive orders. And I am pretty sure there has been attempts to attack the second Amendment by making gun manufacturers liable for any shooting. These are all terrible and needs to stop. And in my opinion the censorship by big tech is also a quasi government end run around the Constitution. All these tricks to circumvent our protected Constitutional rights are terrible. But people are divided so much that these types of assaults will continue and pretty soon what were basic freedoms will no longer be.
This has nothing to do with the case. Please stop derailing threads with your partisan hysterics.
This has nothing to do with the case. Please stop derailing threads with your partisan hysterics.
Yeah, but these interstate groundwater disputes naturally get people wound up.Talk about legal stuff, not about other posters. TIA.
Honestly I’d love to give a take but I was waiting for yours so I can just repeat it.From what I'm seeing, if we just focus on Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barret (the only justices who matter in this), it seems most likely the focus will be on viability. We know 3 will uphold Roe/Casey and 3 seem very likely to overturn them. A good bet for the remaining 3 is some form of plurality decision in which 2 of these 3 uphold the ruling but determine the Roe viability / trimester cutoff is dicta, and allow a shorter period (15 weeks in the case of Mississippi) based on an undue burden standard or maybe less.
Would love to hear other takes on this.
I did not listen to the arguments but read a synopsis. Stewart seems to have recognized that they aren't going to overturn the undue burden standard, but argued that if they don't, they should untether it from viability. My guess is that's where they'll end up.From what I'm seeing, if we just focus on Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barret (the only justices who matter in this), it seems most likely the focus will be on viability. We know 3 will uphold Roe/Casey and 3 seem very likely to overturn them. A good bet for the remaining 3 is some form of plurality decision in which 2 of these 3 uphold the ruling but determine the Roe viability / trimester cutoff is dicta, and allow a shorter period (15 weeks in the case of Mississippi) based on an undue burden standard or maybe less.
Would love to hear other takes on this.
Honestly I’d love to give a take but I was waiting for yours so I can just repeat it.
But they sound good.CletiusMaximus said:Huge mistake imo. My pontifications are nearly worthless and most always wrong.
Neither of those is surprising from Barrett.From what I'm reading (again not having listened myself), Barrett made statements that:
- Now that all 50 states have "safe haven" laws, the burden of parenthood discussed in Roe and Casey are irrelevant and the decisions are obsolete.
- Roe and Casey don't talk much about adoption and it's only a passing reference to meaning adoption takes away the obligation of parenthood, apparently buying the MS argument that the availability of adoption obviates the need for abortion.
Do you want to do away with stare decisis?Interested to see how this Court goes on the Mississippi ban. I agree with Thomas, I think Roe should be overturned.
Agreed. I would strongly prefer a clean overturn to the incremental death-by-a-thousand-cuts that we're doing now. Not sure if that's the route this court will actually go or not.Interested to see how this Court goes on the Mississippi ban. I agree with Thomas, I think Roe should be overturned.
On what grounds would you overturn Roe/Casey?Agreed. I would strongly prefer a clean overturn to the incremental death-by-a-thousand-cuts that we're doing now. Not sure if that's the route this court will actually go or not.
I think they were both wrongly decided.On what grounds would you overturn Roe/Casey?
That's pretty vague. What about them was wrongly decided?I think they were both wrongly decided.
I think she wants to do away with viability as a standard by saying it was just dicta, and that the 15 week cutoff in Mississippi doesn't cause an undue burden. Then the court doesn't overturn anything, maintains stare decisis, and allows states to continue to chip away...next will be a heartbeat law instead of 15 weeks.Some analysts suggested this morning that Coney Barrett, based on her questions doesn’t want to overturn Roe.
You should probably add Gorsuch to your last sentence. Not sure about Kavanaugh.I think she wants to do away with viability as a standard by saying it was just dicta, and that the 15 week cutoff in Mississippi doesn't cause an undue burden. Then the court doesn't overturn anything, maintains stare decisis, and allows states to continue to chip away...next will be a heartbeat law instead of 15 weeks.
I think Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh want to throw out Roe/Casey entirely.
Do you want to do away with stare decisis?
Do you also want to do away with the right to obtain birth control or marry whomever you choose?
There’s an important political aspect to this even though the justices will never admit it (and perhaps they’re not even considering it.)Then the court doesn't overturn anything, maintains stare decisis, and allows states to continue to chip away...
Again, "they got it wrong" is too vague to understand as an argument. When you're overturning 50 years of precedent (really 70, since these cases include the whole line of implied right of privacy cases) you need to be specific about what they got wrong, and it better be spectacularly wrong.The Supreme Court has overturned over 300 cases. Not sure by overturning Roe we are doing away with stare decisis. The point is to get it right, I don't think the Court in Roe got it right. I agree with Thomas that there isn't any Constitutional support for the decision made in Roe. It's time to right the wrong.
It will just revert to states. Red states will get redder. Blue states will get bluer. Purple states will disappear. It will just hasten the divide that's been accelerating since 2008.There’s an important political aspect to this even though the justices will never admit it (and perhaps they’re not even considering it.)
But if the “chip away” happens as you describe, the public will not respond. The usual suspects on both sides will be loud and boisterous but I suspect most folks will just yawn. On the other hand, if Roe is actually, forcibly overturned, that will cause a political earthquake.