Maybe this is the issue that causes a Convention of the States to finally happen.
You're not going to find any unity on this issue in a Convention of the States, either.
How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare
181–190 of 358 posts
Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Likewise in affirmative action. You just listed three things where the supposedly arch conservative Supreme Court is simply making our law the same as France. The reason abortion is not legal until 22 weeks in France is because the Netherlands allows it, and our left-and-center governments don't want to spend the political capital on it. Same stupid reason why Democrats haven't passed a bill since Roe vs Wade. That…
How do you figure this is bad for republicans? Most people are squishy on abortion. They support some level of abortion, but mostly in the first trimester or for life of mother or birth defects. All of which are consistent with the Mississippi law that the Supreme Court upheld. Roe guarantees elective abortions to the end of the second trimester with few restrictions, and is well to the left of what the public suppor…
Apologies, but you are completely detached from political reality. Right now, multiple states have passed legislation banning all abortion, period, no exceptions. Texas’s legislation that SCOTUS refused to halt has made it legally perilous to move out of state to get an abortion.
And do you thinkt he cons on the SCOTUS are satisfied with this? They’ll be glad to ban abortion nationwide completely. They’re not gonna leave it to the states.
Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Banning abortion is a death sentence or worse for so many people. Why? (And why is abortion itself not a death sentence for the aborted fetus?)
Do some reading on the subject? The arguments here are very well documented. If you don’t want to read non-fiction, try Harlan Ellison’s Neither Your Jenny Nor Mine.
> The arguments here are very well documented.
What arguments? The parent to my post didn't make an argument, they made a claim unsupported by argument. If the claim is so obvious, it should be simple to post a sentence or two of supporting argument instead of me having to guess what they're talking about.
Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
This post is gonna be too hot to make reasonable arguments, but I think they're talking about how Garland was never confirmed when Obama appointed him. At least one of these seats should've been someone else.
Beyond that, it's probably also that McConnell used the excuse of the upcoming election to delay that nomination, but not when RBG died. Which, while perhaps unethical to someone on the other side of the political debate, doesn't contravene any rules as far as I'm aware. Same here, so I think the leak is fine.
No post body was provided.
Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Banning abortion is a death sentence or worse for so many people. Why? (And why is abortion itself not a death sentence for the aborted fetus?)
Do some reading on the subject? The arguments here are very well documented. If you don’t want to read non-fiction, try Harlan Ellison’s Neither Your Jenny Nor Mine.
> try Harlan Ellison’s Neither Your Jenny Nor Mine
If you're referring to having to get an illegal abortion, the Mississippi law under review in this case does not make abortion illegal until after 15 weeks of pregnancy (and even then there are exceptions like the health of the mother). 15 weeks is more than enough time to get a legal abortion. (Note also that the abortion clinic that challenged the Mississippi law only provides abortions up to 16 weeks of pregnancy anyway, so we're only talking about a difference of one week in the time women have to get an abortion.)
Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is extremely unlikely. There's nothing to be gained by breaking the trust of the supreme court justices by leaking a draft of a decision you are in favor of. Now, the justices will be facing intense public discontent from those who want a different decision to be made before the draft is finalized (not that I suspect anything can realistically be changed at this point). If you favor the decision, then it also sp…
Releasing a draft stops many avenues of compromise among the decision makers. Regardless of the industry/institution. When members do not have a way to change their opinion and save face, they won't change their opinion. Politico should have been more thoughtful about its disclosure if they preferred to see changes because now the names on that opinion will never change and we could very well see the exact language b…
That’s incredibly unrealistic in this case. All the conservatives could die satisified the day after this decision is final. They’d have served their ultimate purpose to the cause to which they dedicated their entire lives. This is the one thing they were put on the court to do.
Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
US Supreme justices are appointed for life, the only "face" they have to lose realistically is their legacy reputation, how they are seen by future generations. They are not really vulnerable to populist attacks of hypocrisy or flip-flopping or whatever.
> They are not really vulnerable to populist attacks of hypocrisy or flip-flopping or whatever. They are humans that have to live in society just like the rest of us. No one is completely invulnerable to society. I imagine being the target of some of these radical abortion groups (anti or pro) would be scary, especially for officials that are normally not in the limelight.
Tell me more about these radical pro-abortion groups of which you speak. I’d really love to know if there’s an equivalent to the violent murderers on the right wing.
Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is that the current makeup of the court has been engineered for decades. It was a project that took so long because the exact right conditions needed to be in place: namely the death of a liberal justice while Republicans controlled the Senate and Presidency. In some ways the current court is a bit of a perfect storm. And what have they been saying they would do for the past 20 years? Get rid of Roe vs. Wad…
A few points: * It reads like an incredible conspiracy theory that the makeup of the court has been engineered. In addition, abortion has been hotly contested and debated, even from just looking at this site. Gay marriage is far less so, and I'm willing to bet that even the most conservative poster on this site would not be against gay marriage. There isn't simply a reason to be against it. * Even if it were true, sa…
> It reads like an incredible conspiracy theory that the makeup of the court has been engineered.
It's not a conspiracy theory or a theory at all. You just had to listen and watch what they were doing for the past 20 years. It's not a conspiracy to have a long term project that you telegraph to everyone by campaigning on it. That's called a political platform. It's not some shadowy thing they've done in private; they've done it in the open, slowly, but deliberately. I don't think this is even a question, so I'm surprised you're pushing back on that point unless you don't pay attention to politics. I'm not giving them credit for anything they haven't already taken credit for.
And although I say engineering, it wasn't something they could entirely control. But what they did do was exercise power in pretty craven ways to end up at this 6/3 split (I'm thinking precisely of McConnell holding a seat open with the argument that the people should decide through the upcoming election; and then filling the next vacancy at lightning speed despite being even closer to an election than the last opening).
> I'm willing to bet that even the most conservative poster on this site would not be against gay marriage.
Missing from this site are the fervently religious conservatives. The objection isn't grounded in reason. They're the ones who don't want gay marriage, and they're also actually in power right now in many places. This opinion is a testament to that.
> The law and rulings should be made without bias of public pressure
This presumes that the actors on the court are apolitical and the opinion is grounded firmly in law and logic. I'm still reading the full opinion but my feeling so far is... not positive on that front.
Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is that the current makeup of the court has been engineered for decades. It was a project that took so long because the exact right conditions needed to be in place: namely the death of a liberal justice while Republicans controlled the Senate and Presidency. In some ways the current court is a bit of a perfect storm. And what have they been saying they would do for the past 20 years? Get rid of Roe vs. Wad…
A few points: * It reads like an incredible conspiracy theory that the makeup of the court has been engineered. In addition, abortion has been hotly contested and debated, even from just looking at this site. Gay marriage is far less so, and I'm willing to bet that even the most conservative poster on this site would not be against gay marriage. There isn't simply a reason to be against it. * Even if it were true, sa…
> I'm willing to bet that even the most conservative poster on this site would not be against gay marriage.
There is an HN poster who is well known for losing his position as a CEO for failure to deal with the PR backlash over his opposition to gay marriage, and others have argued against it on either direct religious grounds or on grounds like the need for marriage to be associated with the production of children.
So, you’d lose that bet.
Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare
#190No post body was provided.