The Court is a counterbalance against the tyranny of the majority. It's specifically, intentionally undemocratic.

“Tyranny of the minority” is even worse and that’s what we are seeing now. This Court isn’t upholding minority rights against the State, it’s doing the reverse, taking away rights from minorities (poor women without easy access to travel to another state if necessary).

We have six jurists with an extremist legal view called “originalism” which is “let’s imagine I’m a white male in 1800, what would I think about X”. The first Supreme Court decision to mention originalism was in 1994, when Scalia dissented because he thought juveniles should be executed.

There are people who would dispute whether there's a helpless minority whose rights are being protected by this Court's decision. You can disagree on the resolution, but don't handwave away the almost unique conflict of rights abortion presents between the bodily autonomy of the mother and the right to life of the child. You'll convince nobody by proceeding so dishonestly.

I'm not about to dignify such an obvious bad-faith argument as is represented by your parody of originalism.

So what you are saying is that there is a huge gray area between a clump of cells and a child being born? Maybe even that pregnancy starts out nearly 100% a bodily autonomy issue and culminates in the life of a child?

Sounds like a good argument against allowing late term abortions, and a good argument against banning them outright.

That's a possible view, though not my own. I personally think it is going to remain contentious until, technologically, we can remove the conflict of rights by allowing the child to come to term outside the mother's body. It would be hard to support a right to kill the child when it could mature with no additional inconvenience to the mother.

My wife had a successful, “uncomplicated” pregnancy and has permanent lifelong physical and mental damage from it. Not that this is anyone’s business, but apparently I have to share this private information because of all the extreme ignorance out there.

It’s hard to believe there is such ignorance out there that pregnancy isn’t even considered an inconvenience by some men, let alone a life threatening event. If I can object to my corpse being used for organ donation to save lives, a woman should be able to object to her organs being used to support the extreme demands of a growing fetus. But now we are in the odd situation of corpses having more bodily autonomy rights than women.

I think I have not made my explanation clear to you, because what you have written, and should not have felt compelled to write, supports what I'm saying. I'm saying that abortion will cease to be an issue when we can, technologically, end the pregnancy without terminating the unborn life, avoiding exactly the situation you describe. I'm very sorry that your wife had to experience what she did.

You see a woman as an incubator of a "child" that has a right to life. This is biologically wrong and the fact that so many people share this view is an indictment of America's failed education system.

Even serious pro-choice scholars concede that a fetus is biologically a human life e.g., Peter Singer. If your argument is that a child is definitional not unborn then that is a semantic argument of no moral relevance.

> The Court is a counterbalance against the tyranny of the majority.

This is like an 8th grade textbook understanding of US government. It doesn't actually work that way.

Whether right or wrong, they have definitely provided a counterbalance against democracy. The Court has stood for what it believes are the rights of people who are unable to participate in democracy because they have not yet been born. They are, in the eyes of democracy, a minority of zero, though they number almost a million per year. Whether or not you or I agree with them, they have acted as a check on democracy.

A “monitory of zero” clearly has no need to be protected by a legal system.

Just like we don’t legislate that you can’t kill plants for the sake of the plant, a fetus spends up to 18 weeks in a non-sentient state where it has no subjective experience. It doesn’t need protection since a non-sentient being can’t suffer.

Edit: it’s also worth mentioning that many abortions happen at the zygote or embryo stage, before there is even a fetus.

Tyranny of a religious minority it is then!

I’ve taken to defining nihilism as being so dedicated to an ephemera and philosophy, harm to real people is ignored.

This decision gives states to impact interstate business. It controls what doctors and patients can discuss. So it goes a good long way to squashing other rights in deference to pudding brains traditions. They chose not with logic but delusion.

Figurative identity preferences are being leveraged to directly control human agency.

I don’t owe coddling anyone else’s sensibilities. There is no greater good. And I hope this society collapses around us and reminds the majority how meaningless their personal self image is to others.

That worked well before it became just another body of partisan zealots. Now we have the tyranny of whichever partisan zealots have a run a good dumb luck.

Now we have tyranny of the political minority. So much better.

If I understand correctly, it now devolves to the states where elected people make the laws that apply.

So the issue is really what the hell is wrong with the states where the people elected feel empowered to take rights away from half their populace.

> So the issue is really what the hell is wrong with the states where the people elected feel empowered to take rights away from half their populace.

As I just said in my chosen Mastodon instance:

“Ever since today’s Supreme Court decision was leaked, some have said that this oddly might hurt the Republicans in future elections — i.e., they’ll no longer have Roe v. Wade to use against the Democrats. However, this ignores what made today possible: the power of the Christian Right, particularly those whose votes won’t be erased by some currently running for office on promising to make it harder for anti-Rightists to vote (or have their votes count).”

Those of you who don’t have a lot of exposure to that culture, and the way it has completely taken over a good chunk of American politics — not to mention one of the two major U.S. political parties — in the last forty-plus years, will find today a shock. And wait ’til you see what else they have in mind.

It's pretty clear that the country is in for near-total Republican control of the federal government for a long time now, maybe indefinitely.

some papers claim that 24% of American voters are Catholics-or-similar at this time

Won't pro-lifers still vote for Republicans in order, to, you know, legislate pro-life laws? All this decision does is place the issue back in the hands of the legislative branch, where it should always have been. Now, it's up to you to vote for what you want.

Of the following two forces, the Christian right and the atheist Marxist left, I promise you the latter is far more shocking, dangerous, and self-destructive to America.

Remind me which side recently had a coup?

Remind me which side calls for violent overthrow of existing institutions as a foundational belief? Hint: it's not the Christian right.

Remind me which side is threatening supreme court justices right now? That looks an awful lot like insurrection: https://news.yahoo.com/protesters-descend-amy-coney-barrett-...

Remind me which side is planning to engage in acts of domestic terrorism this very weekend? https://aleteia.org/2022/06/24/department-of-homeland-securi...

And if you say something like, "these people don't represent us," You can probably guess I'll respond: the small number of men who rioted at the capitol without any actual realistic plan to perform a coup don't represent us either.

Leftist activists, unfortunately, are much smarter about what it takes to really overthrow a government, and they've been in it for the long haul for almost a century now.

Oh I’m sorry did the protestors at Amy Barret’s house break in and smear feces on the walls? No, they just peacefully assembled? Yeah that isn’t an insurrection by any means.

People loudly protest all the time, that isn’t the same thing as “domestic terrorism” even if some property gets damaged or relatively few people get hurt. By that definition the civil rights movement would have been domestic terrorism. You know what is domestic terrorism? Firebombing abortion clinics and murdering doctors like some “Christian” right members have done.

Frankly the people who stormed the Capital are a sideshow. The real coup was directed from the highest seats of government to prevent the peaceful transition of power, and the mob was merely a minor part of the plan. The real action was in getting Pence out and selecting alternate electors illegally sent.

Are you actually serious?

The protestors were breaking the law: https://www.aei.org/op-eds/protesting-at-justices-homes-is-i...

"it is unlawful to protest near a “residence occupied or used by [a] judge, juror, witness, or court officer” with the intent of influencing “the discharge of his duty,”"

What they were doing clearly amounts to intimidating the justices, including by putting them in harm's way by announcing their home addresses on the Internet.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/insurrection-politics

"Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

What they are doing is illegally engaging in rebellion against authority. It is insurrection.

I also can't believe you are calling this "protesting loudly":

"The DHS agent reportedly told the diocese that “large groups with cells nationwide have already been discovered ‘casing’ parishes, including here in California.”"

What they are planning to do, is, in fact domestic terrorism. Your condemnation of the right while supporting the terrorism of the left is very revealing. At least people on the right are willing to condemn both. We at least have principles.

I read through the DOJ notice and it warns of multiple targets including abortion clinics. After the leaked draft, they say arson attacks occurred to pregnancy resource centers. Another area of concern is violence being directed against “First Amendment protected events” e.g. protests. Then finally some vandalism at “religious facilities perceived as being opposed to abortion.”

So unfortunately they seem to say violence is more likely from all sides as the result of this. Even with that, arson attacks are more serious then vandalism. So to date both sides aren’t equally indulging in violence.

Principles such as refusing to condemn the former President’s coup apparently. Or even watch evidence about it.

I have condemned terrorism on the left, for example eco-terrorism (which seems to have thankfully died off). I didn’t read the DOJ notice, but it is important to note their job is to take the worst case scenario and plan for it. I haven’t seen widespread attacks on parishes and don’t honestly believe they will occur. Some insane portion of people on both sides issue a lot of dumb threats but only rarely are those threats executed on. If they do I will of course condemn them. But I will always place more emphasis on events which have actually happened, not just hypotheticals. For example the recent troubling incident in Idaho where a few dozen men with guns were headed to attack a parade. Multiple studies have shown that 90+% of domestic terrorism is linked to the right wing.

I do not support harassing judges, but I hardly think that rises to any level of insurrection. They weren’t attacking the authority of the government or even of the justice in question. I doubt most of them even intended or expected her to change her mind. Even if you are right and they were attempting to unduly influence her, that wouldn’t be undermining her authority but relying upon it.

It reflects the current reality - justices have become partisan so people believe they are entitled to treat them as any other partisan politicians, who as elected officials are required to be accountable to the people. We should prevent that. Justices not acting as naked partisans would help, as would both parties compromising and writing laws again so fewer things of import are decided by unelected justices. Controversial decisions should allow both parties share some of the blame, because any good society requires controversial decisions to be effective.

By the way, if protesting outside a justices home is insurrection, then the right is guilty again - they protested outside numerous state election officials homes to attempt to pressure them to violate their oaths to keep Trump in power. They also issued numerous death threats, which thankfully didn’t happen. And published home addresses.

We need to step down from this level of rancor and return to democracy in action. The broad public is in agreement on most things and supports reasonable compromises, but our governmental structure has stopped making them viable.

Have you even been watching the January 6th hearings? Some randos posting fliers on telephone poles is hardly equivalent to POTUS leveraging the DOJ, DOD, state legislatures, the Republican Congress, Republican Senate, and extremist militias to mount a violent coup.

Am I watching one of the biggest shams of a partisan witch hunt in history? Of course not. Call me when they file charges against the former president or any other current or former government officials for insurrection.

Okay well maybe you should keep your opinions about insurrection to yourself if they are uninformed. As far as your claim about the committee being partisan though, the hearing yesterday was almost entirely conducted by Republicans, with exclusively Republican witnesses who were appointed by and served under Trump. How can you claim the investigation is a sham if you haven’t seen any evidence? How can you say it is partisan when the committee composition is bipartisan and witnesses have mostly been staunch Republicans drawn from the Trump admin?

I “promise” it’s the opposite so I guess everything cancels out.

Republicans have always been against abortion, yet people vote for them, isnt that how democracy works? Major chunk of the US population dont support abortion and keep voting for politicians who support those beliefs.

That is extrapolating too far. Many (perhaps most?) voters are single issue voters. Saying that all Republicans support banning abortion is not accurate; some people are Republicans for the tax breaks, etc.

I wonder how many voted republican in spite of abortion because of Roe vs. Wade. Given what happened today this could hurt republican support because it makes abortion a more direct election issue. I wouldn't necessarily just assume all republicans are pro-life.

Catholics and Evangelicals ... have always been against abortion

FTFY

The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing equal protection was supposed to end the patchwork system of having to live in the right state to be recognized as a full citizen.

As I understand it, at any point where the Democrats held the majority of the legislature (including now) they could have passed federal abortion legislation and this would be moot.

The Senate is split 50/50 with two Dems blocking significant portions of the platform. Saying they have control is misrepresenting the current situation.

And yet, the Senate just passed firearm legislation with support of some Republicans. But you're right, why try?

It took the murder of almost a dozen children to get Republican Senators to the negotiating table on that bill, and what they passed was a pittance.

The Democrats don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Any such legislation could be immediately undone if Republicans take things back.

SCOTUS could strike it down, too.

The federal government cannot pass a law that restricts the state and local governments from passing anti-abortion legislation. The only remedy is a constitutional amendment, and there have never been the votes for that.

I think they would have to kill the filibuster to do that.

Roe v. Wade wasn't the will of the people. If the will of the people is to make abortion legal, they would vote for politicians that make abortion legal. In Mississippi, they clearly voted for the opposite.

More than 60% of the country wants roe levels of abortion rights. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/08/29/u-s-public-c...

It can't happen because 30% of republican primary voters are evangelicals, so every republican will vote against abortion protection, even if most of their constituents want it.

So wouldn’t a granular authority be better than a nation wide ruling?

It would serve people better.

It's certainly a tricky question. How granular should we get? People's actions in other states still affect everyone in the country. I don't want unwanted children to exist in this country, they require government handouts and become a drag at a much higher rate. Plus kids are smart, they realize they're unwanted and that sucks. Since those people use tax dollars that I pay should I not have a say?

You’re specifying your opinion (which is reasonable), but that’s orthogonal to the rights of the people that live in that state and vote according to the rights they wish to exercise.

If state A wants to ban abortion based on what their constituency wants, isn’t that exactly how democracy works?

If country A wants to ban banning abortion based on what their constituency wants, isn't that exactly how democracy works? Why should local vs federal constituency matter more?

Because the country was explicitly founded in a way that local matters more. If you want abortions, go to an abortion state. Is it so intolerable that Mississippians as a whole want different things than you and your state residents do?

Then wanting to do things differently is fine of course. The problem I have is that Mississippi receives $7,000 more from the federal government than they pay per capita every year. Bringing unwanted children into the state will make that worse. Why should they get to collect my tax dollars and then make decisions that cause the rest of the country harm?

If we only want profitable people represented, we can skip the extra steps and just have a voting fee, or even just a landowning requirement! Then the poors won't be able to screw up the country at all

Virtually nothing any branch of the federal government does is "the will of the people"[1]. But even if our government were a functioning representative republic with strong democratic traditions as it purports to be, the purpose of the courts will still be to act as a check on the will of the people, not just a cheerleader for mob rule.

[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

No, the will of the people should be expressed as amendments to the constitution.

It is a serious flaw is the US system that issues that carry supper majority support in the public for decades have no chance of making it into the constitution.

The last amendment was passed 30 years ago, and the one before was 50 years ago. Maybe most of the politicians in charge only pay lip service to an issue, and don't have the will to die on a hill for anything, or leave anything for those who come after them.

I think it's a combination of it being too hard, and politicians "saving" issues, keeping them live, to motivate voters. Many times in the past 30 years the dems could have passed a federal law protecting abortion rights.

They literally just overturned gun regulations that some states lawfully enacted. You’re cherry picking your views as much as the court is cherry picking their reading of the constitution.

They overturned "may issue" laws where you could meet all the training and qualifications to legally carry but a state official could make an arbitrary judgement call based on if you had a "good reason" to carry.

All states with "shall issue" are still in effect because its a straight here are the requirements, if you meet them and are not a prohibited person, you get your permit.

Also, the right to bear arms is explicitly enumerated in the constitution, so taking that right away isn't up to the states. The right to an abortion is not. So it goes to each state to decide.

It’s not explicitly enumerated more than anything else we’re talking about. It’s always up to interpretation. Does the constitution say where to draw line between me bearing a knife and a nuke? Nope, ‘arms’ is defined conveniently in the eyes of whoever’s in power when this is decided. That’s how all of this works!

> When liberal justices are in charge, they unconstitutionally force their will onto the people. When conservative justices are in charge, they just undo the damage of the liberal justices and place the power back in the hands of the people.

I'm sorry, who forced you to have an abortion?

> The government also forces me...

You have the alternative of dropping from the world and stop using all things paid with your taxes.

> The left have grown militant, and increasingly want to force their world view on everyone else.

I'm curious to know exactly _what_ harms you about gay marriage or abortions, other than your feelings.

On one side, we have people gaining rights, whereas on the other, there are people who don't agree with it. And I'm having a hard time understanding why your feelings are supposed to have more weight in a society, than their rights.

You frame this in a way so it is about tax money, but frankly, there is no possible tax system where people only pay for what they want.

> public schools... sell abortions to children

And I thought hallucinogens was a left-wing shtick!

> The left have grown militant

So let me get this straight, the year is 2022, when the Soviet union is gone, the Chinese Communist Party is practicing free market, the percentage of unionised workforce is the lowest it's been since 1917 and the effective corporate tax rate is the lowest it's been in 70 years - this, here, is the time of left-wing world order and militarism?

Do you believe that miscarriage is manslaughter? If a woman smokes while pregnant, should that be a crime?

> When liberal justices are in charge, they unconstitutionally force their will onto the people.

One person having a right to do something is not forcing it on anyone else.

> place the power back in the hands of the people.

A majority of "the people" do not agree with this decision. In fact, they were appointed by someone who did not have majority support, by a party that represents a minority of the actual population.

> The problem was activist judges making the Roe decision in the first place.

You just got a handful of judges making decisions based on their regligious beliefs. Please explain to me how you see that as different than an original decision?

The judges forced their morality on everyone by saying the constitution gave a right to an abortion. The constitution does no such thing, meaning the judges were acting as activists, legislating from the bench, rather than doing their jobs correctly. If you are honest, you should be able to say both that you are pro-abortion and that Roe v. wade was possibly the worst supreme court decision of the 20th century.

The secular argument against abortion is so incredibly simple: the unborn child has the right to life just as the mother does. Government is about managing the rights of everyone and balancing them when they come in conflict.

And, finally, abortion is forced on our society in the sense that our tax dollars fund it, our tax dollars fund public schools that promote it, and, if the left have their way, insurance companies will be forced to cover it, possibly free of charge: https://noqreport.com/2021/02/09/california-bill-would-force...

You are aware that Roe v. Wade was originally decided by a conservative court, right?

> The secular argument against abortion is so incredibly simple: the unborn child has the right to life just as the mother does. Government is about managing the rights of everyone and balancing them when they come in conflict.

That’s exactly what Roe managed to do for 50 years. Now there will be about half the country where these competing rights are not balanced, but tilt entirely in the favor of the fetus to the detriment of the woman.

> When liberal justices are in charge, they unconstitutionally force their will onto the people.

Gay marriage, which I enjoy, is not being "forced" on anyone.

A ban will affect green cards, force deportations and family breakups, and ruin the happiness of millions of Americans.

My country, which I love, is kicking me in the gut because some people are "uncomfortable".

> >Gay marriage, which I enjoy, is not being "forced" on anyone. Tell that to bakers.

> Tell that to bakers.

One of the most fundamental aspects of my life is being threatened, and you're worried about other people being offended.

Does my life offend you and are you using this proxy issue to more safely voice your opinion?

First, this isn't you. None of the people in this story are you.

Second, the gravity of my entire life being disrupted is far more serious.

Third, if we really want to be particular, marriage is a separate issue from commerce.

I think you are reading into my comment more than you should and as a result are taking it as a personal slight.

I am strictly saying it is being forced onto people in certain professions. This may or may not be justified, but it is happening.

> Acceptance of gay marriage is being forced on everyone

Don't act like the victim because you're no longer allowed to victimize others.

Let me try this sentence with some slight adjustments and see where we end up:

- Acceptence of Black people is being forced on everyone

- Acceptence of women working outside of the home is being forced on everyone

- Acceptence of women being allowed to vote is being forced on everyone

IF you think you are a victim for having to accept other people there is no helping you.

Blacks gaining rights was done primarily via constitutional amendment and later civil rights acts, all passed by the legislative branch. Some believe the courts did in fact go too far during 60s.

Women I believe were always allowed to work, so I'm not sure what this example has to do with anything?

Women being allowed to vote was done via constitutional amendment, again, by the legislative branch.

If you think marriage should be redefined and repurposed so it is not primarily about rearing one's own children, then, by all means, get it redefined, but, do it via legislation, not judicial activism.

> Acceptance of gay marriage is being forced on everyone...

You could say this about almost every single civil right that hasn't been voted on in the past 60 years. Abolition of slavery, for instance.

Then does the fact that the constitution allows different religions in the U.S. "force" the Catholic church to not provide communion to non-believers?

> Acceptance of gay marriage is being forced on everyone

Let's follow this line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion.

What if someone decides that acceptance of your religion, race and ethnicity is also being forcen on everyone? What if they get some funny ideas about Lebensraum?

> Like, are you serious?

> Acceptance of gay marriage is being forced on everyone

Wow. I'm sorry that my marriage to my loving wife is such a problem for you.

Imagine saying that again but replacing gay with Black or interracial.

Like, are you serious? Judicial fiat literally overruled the will of the people and forced concealed carry to be legal.

New York decided over 100 years ago that people shouldn't be allowed to conceal carry without a good reason and now a bunch of activist judges have forced concealed carry on everyone.

this reads like satire

SCOTUS in 73 were not full of “activist judges”.