and this is really not taking into account all those ideologically mixed decisions that have come out this term. If anything this court is much more flexible and non-partisan than your take on this single decision implies
Trust in SCOTUS sinking, its even lower than trust in the President. Everyone knows by now they aren't calling 'balls and strikes' they are just working their way to the decision they want and we know if suddenly the liberal judges had a 6-3 advantage they'd do the same. The SCOTUS is ruined and the people know it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlie...dence-in-supreme-court-sinks-to-25-poll-says/ Public Confidence In Supreme Court Sinks To 25%, Poll Says
I know but the ruling was a pretty telling perception of how they fundamentally view policing. With this ruling, it does lay the groundwork for it to be questioned on your rights before arrest. It's "just" the Miranda rights which now the police don't have to read to you if they don't want to NOW... but with the basis of their ruling like alot of things on the Dobbs decision (see Ginny Thomas' whipping boy's writing) it lays the groundwork for States to challenge same sex marriage, contraception, etc. I often get accused, sometimes rightfully so, of being an alarmist, but how often have I also been right?? Far too much for me to be comfortable with. I said it over and over again that Trump would try to stay in power by using the 12th amendment and forcing a state by state vote in the House, and unfortunately that's exactly what he tried to do... in even worse and more brazen fashion than even I imagined. Time after time again I've been unfortunately right about where things are going. I frankly hate it and wish I was just being an alarmist, but the Miranda rights ruling IMO seems like a pretty good indication that the Supreme Court is laying the groundwork for the US to become an autocratic strongman country.
I'm not sure I am following you here. Ok so let's say we all agree the state has an interest in the unborn, but we also can say that women have a right to privacy - so those can be in conflict here and so the court defined the first tri-mester as being completely for women to decide, and the last for the state. I don't see how that is a problem here. Who says? I'd say the constitution. Judges aren't supposed to use their religion beliefs to make decisions. To me, that's the establishment of a religion and thus in itself unconstitutional. When you have 6 Catholics on the Supreme Court - most of them anti-abortionists, then they are imposing their religious beliefs onto us. Given the religious bias in the court and in this case - the whole reason for opposing abortion is the BELIEF that life begins at conception as outlined by the Church - they should have all recused themselves from this case.
Yeah I disagree with you - I just think they want to impose their religious and political ideology unto the court with total disregard to precedent and how it impacts people's lives.
If the liberals had a 6-3 majority I refuse to see what they would actually rule on that would affect anyone negatively though. What would the rulings be???... that Citizens United was wrongfully decided????... That oil and gas companies should be able to be allowed to be sued for environmental damages??? That would be about as far as they could go to align with ideology. I think we should refrain from whataboutisming this, but I do think there are certainly warnings that still ring true that the Right needs to fully understand what they are normalizing. A good example is the fact that the Republican Party in the House and beyond has sanctioned Vice President Kamala Harris suspending the certification of a Donald Trump 2024 victory. The GOP being so drunk on their power is blinding them to the power they COULD be giving Democrats in the future. I don't believe Democrats would ever act as dictatorial tyrants, but I damn well am sure than Republicans think that they could do that which is why it scares me that they just don't seem to care that they are sanctioning such dangerous breaking of norms and rights to get what they want now like spoiled drunk brats.
I agree with that alarmist bit...I mean its been years some of us have warned that the SCOTUS would do this. Despite them saying they wouldn't, despite them telling the people "Roe is precedent, decided and affirmed," they still did it. We knew they would. It sucks to be right... But here we are again, they are moving to take away more rights, they've hinted at it, now they are just looking for the cover to do so and people will give them the cover to do so with time. Then we have people saying "Well, that's democracy, just vote!" Agree, but what do we do when one party starts to fight against democracy? Texas GOP came out OPENLY against the Voting Rights Act. To actually repeal it. The party saying this is returning to the states in respect to democracy is losing the desire to even have a democracy in the first place.
I was trying to paraphrase Roe's, Casey's, and now Dobbs's distinction that the "right" to abortion is sui generis among unenumerated privacy rights, for example here: The opinion repeats the point at several places throughout
So you don't think that the Republican party wants to reshape the government in the mold of an autocratic government ala Orban's Hungary??? You don't think that strategists for years in the GOP have seen the demographic changes coming and have been planning on a major shift in governing to be able to hold power un-democratically??? I guess I just have to disagree with you there. I'd love to be wrong, and for you to put me at ease that this isn't the case though so please be my guest to make a case against that.
Oh, I agree with that, that a liberal court would not actually look to harm anyone negatively except for a few mega rich people and super powerful corporations. I just meant if this was a 6-3 liberal court looking to reverse Dobbs they'd just find a way to do so. I'm not saying that a liberal court would be equally bad, at least not where the left is at right now...the problem is the right have gone further and further to the right to where they see theocracy as an option so yeah, whataboutism is bad here. I'm not against conservative ideology, I think its very necessary. I just think that we need to realize SCOTUS judges are people too and they have their biases too. People want to reform the court, add more justices, I don't think that fixes this. We should lock in that there are 4 liberal justices and 4 conservative justices or that the justices should represent the parties that are in power (so if there are 3 parties, they each put up their three justices) We should stop pretending that they are incapable of putting aside their biases and being neutral. They aren't. They are people too.
About the only thing I was happy to be right about was the Magic actually taking Banchero. With nearly everything else it sucks.
Yeah honestly that opinion there doesn't make any sense to me, probably why I call it gobbledygook but maybe that's my legal understanding limitations. I think the problem is that the whole idea of "potential life" is a religious idea, not a scientific one. I can say carbon atoms are a "potential life" because they could potentially form a living being some day. The idea of a "potential life" is complete nonsense. And I think that's where the original ruling came into play around viability as the standard for life - if a fetus can survive on its own outside a womb that it has crossed over into being life. There you can create a scientific standard at the very least. Otherwise it's just a religious belief of when life begins. The very fact that they are using the words "potential life" is indication they are applying religious beliefs in their ruling which violates the separation of church and state.
It stands to reason. All 6 of the votes were given by people who testified they would not overturn Roe. And 3 of them were appointed by Trump, who is the least legitimate President in the history of the country. The mythos that the court is not a partisan institution died a long time ago, but now it's even worse because most of its members are getting appointed by a loud, overrepresented minority.
well, I think that's mistaken. the denial that it's a scientific/empirical/factual issue, that is. It's also a political issue. That's why we're here and why abortion has been contentious all along. DISAGREE 100%. It is perhaps most importantly a philosophical issue in addition to being all of the above. your scientific background may be betraying you here.
the illogic of this position is revealed if you just consider for a moment that IF it were true, you would have absolutely NO BASIS whatsoever to argue for climate policies (really, any policies) that have an impact on "future" people. After all, those future people are merely "potential life."
Alright, let's explore it then. How can the idea of when life starts be empirical and not based on personal beliefs? What defines life? Is an fertilized egg the same as a 7 month fetus in regards to this debate?
I agree but something... even if something small.... needs to happen. Not just to preserve the unbias of the court but to protect the court itself. The fact is there is waaaaayyyyy too much interest in a SCOTUS judge dying. Look at how the right was all giddy about RGB being on her death bed. Look at how they are freaking out about protecting Kavanaugh. THAT IS BAD. The Constitution states that it's the president who nominates a SCOTUS judge and the President is a elected politician. So yes these are people with ideologies, but the Constitution only gives them to power to interpret laws. It's pretty clear on that, and what SCOTUS did today violates that clear mandate from the Constitution IMO. A law has already been ruled on so you stepping in now to rewrite a Constitutional right is forcing yourself into a partisan game, and... because of the rules about lifetime appointments, you've just put yourself in danger the same as Biden's life would be much more in danger if he was elected President for life. The threat isn't as bad because he can be replaced politically in a few years. In the past that threat is probably a damn good reason why the Supreme Court has interpreted their role as much more limited. Because perception is everything and a big threat to their lives relies on that perception, and the notion that one side or the other doesn't really benefit enough to even consider assassinations. So on that note does there then need to be changes from Congress to protect the Supreme Court from itself now that they have put their lives in much greater danger??? That's the big question here, and my opinion is that yes... as much as you don't like it, if you are a Senator who cares about peace and stability, I would be seeing a huge need to act on legislation that would protect the court from itself.
No. Because the climate debate isn't tied to the state of human gestation. I appreciate the effort though.
here again (as regards this specific question of yours) we run into a sorites paradox: the inherent ambiguity of drawing a line between "life" and "not life." Sorites is the Greek term for heap: the paradox is the ambiguity of the line between a "heap of sand" and "not a heap of sand." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
ahh, but in fact it is. Again we run into the "non-identity" problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonidentity_problem
