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
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
******Official SCOTUS Thread****** (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter squistion
- Start date
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
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.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
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
Sand
Footballguy
Thanks - good to hear the content. Anything out there for the "assume I disagree"?
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
I don't see an audio clip with just that section. It wasn't anything out of the ordinary for me at the time, but the media seized on it. It was when the Texas solicitor general was addressing questions as to whether SB8 "deputizes" private citizens to act as enforcers of the state law.
Zow
Footballguy
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).
Zow
Footballguy
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
I agree as to your identified problem.
Hence my proffer of a neutral board made up of sitting federal judges.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
Zow said:
That would take a Constitutional Amendment. That's about as likely to happen as Congress voting for term limits for Congress.
Zow
Footballguy
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
[icon]
Insoxicated
Looking like a potential win for gun rights in NYSRPA v Bruen 
Fingers Crossed.
A strong ruling on top of Heller should put opposition to bed for the foreseeable future.
For those not paying attention: this is the first 2A case the court has heard in over a decade.
Heller protected Americans' right to possess a firearm in their home to protect their family.
Bruen is looking like it will protect Americans' rights to carry a firearm outside their home for self defense... essentially neutering any state-levied bans or red tape in the states that currently severely restrict nearly 1/4 of Americans from the right to defend themselves outside their home.
This is a BIG case
Fingers Crossed.
A strong ruling on top of Heller should put opposition to bed for the foreseeable future.
For those not paying attention: this is the first 2A case the court has heard in over a decade.
Heller protected Americans' right to possess a firearm in their home to protect their family.
Bruen is looking like it will protect Americans' rights to carry a firearm outside their home for self defense... essentially neutering any state-levied bans or red tape in the states that currently severely restrict nearly 1/4 of Americans from the right to defend themselves outside their home.
This is a BIG case
Last edited by a moderator:
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
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.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
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).
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
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
-fish-
Footballguy
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
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.
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.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Our national reckoning over groundwater has finally arrived and is long overdue.CletiusMaximus said:
Attacks on constutional rights are not part of a discussion in a thread about the Supreme Court? Good lord, we all know who is being the partisan hack here and it ain't me.
-fish-
Footballguy
The only reason I can think of to fast track the Texas case and then not issue a ruling is that they're going to tie it to the Mississippi case that's calendared for 12/1, but that seems odd because of the unique approach of the Texas legislature in making their law privately enforced.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
OMG. Look at this guy. You serious, Parker?
You actually post that with a straight face? Unbelievable. How about cleaning up your own act before pointing fingers?
Last edited by a moderator:
Talk about legal stuff, not about other posters. TIA.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Yeah, but these interstate groundwater disputes naturally get people wound up.
squistion
Footballguy
https://twitter.com/adamliptak/status/1465729187667447810
Breyer and Kagan start asking questions at the same time. Breyer proceeds.
Breyer: "We're probably going to ask the same question."
Kagan: "I doubt it."
-fish-
Footballguy
Also today prosecutors are asking SC to review the ruling that led to Bill Cosby's conviction being thrown out. They are saying that there is no evidence of any actual agreement granting him immunity for sitting for the depositions in 2005 and 2006 that ultimately led to his conviction. They argue that the only evidence to date of any such agreement is an ambiguous press release from the DA.
Last edited by a moderator:
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
The argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health starts this morning at 10:00 eastern. I have a busy morning so am going to have to catch up later. Should be interesting to hear what the newer justices focus on in their questioning, but as always I try to not read too much into argument day.
Listen live here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
Listen live here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
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.
Would love to hear other takes on this.
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993
Footballguy
Honestly I’d love to give a take but I was waiting for yours so I can just repeat it.
-fish-
Footballguy
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.
The one issue that most of the justices seemed concerned about is stare decisis and the legitimacy of precedent.
A few quotes:
Sotomeyer: "Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception -- that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I don’t see how it is possible."
Amy Coney Barrett, another key vote, asks Stewart whether a ruling in favor of Mississippi would endanger other constitutional rulings on issues like the right to use birth control and the right to same-sex marriage. Stewart says no, abortion is different.
Sotomayor responds that Stewart's answer doesn't make sense. She notes that other cases on birth control, same-sex marriage, and other constitutional rights "all rely on substantive due process," just like Roe and Casey. "They’re all wrong, according to your theater.”
As an aside, Clarence Thomas asked the first question.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
krista4
Footballguy
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.
- 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.
-fish-
Footballguy
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
Interested to see how this Court goes on the Mississippi ban. I agree with Thomas, I think Roe should be overturned.
-fish-
Footballguy
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?
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
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.
-fish-
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
-fish-
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Some analysts suggested this morning that Coney Barrett, based on her questions doesn’t want to overturn Roe.
-fish-
Footballguy
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.
timschochet
Footballguy
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
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.
timschochet
Footballguy
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.
-fish-
Footballguy
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.
Thomas in recent years has essentially expressed the opinion that the court should completely revamp how it deals with precedent, which would create the danger of upending the nation's laws every time the makeup of the court shifted. I have yet to see a convincing argument from Thomas that there isn't any constitutional support for Roe...unless you ignore every privacy case from Griswold forward. If that's what you want to do, you're ready to ban same sex marriage, right to contraception, interracial marriage, and every other private decision in people's lives.
-fish-
Footballguy
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.
