They shall go down in our childrens history as villains.
Most of the decisions reduce the power of the executive and the court itself and give power to the congress and states.
I might agree with you if they made abortion illegal nationally. But they didn’t - they said it’s up to the voters and their representatives.
The Obama era Clean Power Act is not law!
This court went out of their way to steal authority thst congress specifically placed in the EPA and based their judgement of overreach on a non-law proposed bill from over a decade ago.
I allege that they are corruptly serving the Federalist Society agenda and deliberately dismantling environmental regulatory bodies for clear goals the Federalist Society maintains
United States of America is currently legislatively oppressed.
Edited for clarity.
But, conservative justices clearly had a bone to pick there, despite obvious conflict with the words of the constitution. For some reason.
There's a long and storied history of things being in conflict with the constitution and justices simply not caring. Slavery and Dred Scott come to mind, and although I'm sure there's plenty examples peppered in from other parts of the grand political spectrum, it's never been a well kept secret that the conservative M.O. is noticeably bolder and shameless in almost all regards, its major strength actually being in its willingness to use every tool at its disposal with minimal concern for blowback or legitimacy.
The recent state law strike down coming across as highly ironic (but probably not to conservatives since it achieves the actual goal not of ethics or consistency, but of simple victory) because so much of what conservatives got away with for decades directly defying the constitutional rights was based heavily on the concept of state's rights. Like informal slavery/servitude after the war, or keeping your elections nice and extremely predictable until that awful civil rights movement.
"Textbook" has nothing to do with this, or any of the wild departure of rulings being made in recent times. It's all very, VERY simple strategy: use what you have; dismantle what you can; build defenses where you can; you're in this for the Party.
> Well it's always seemed pretty cut and dry that the whole "abortion" controversy is largely a religious crusade and that anyone pretending to favor the constitution would call it mixing church and state.
This is not at all true. Yes, there are lots of Christians that don't support abortion. Yet, there are many Jews that do and specifically cite their religion.
While religion may influence worldview, the fundamental abortion question comes down to the fact that the Constitution does not define when a person becomes a Person. I think the recent legal ruling was proper because of the specific omission of abortion in the enumeration of federal powers.
This EPA decision, however, I think is wrong, because the major question doctrine cannot be consistently applied and is constitutionally baseless so far as I can tell.
Edit: forgot to write:
> There's a long and storied history of things being in conflict with the constitution and justices simply not caring.
I imagine everyone thinks this about some things. I agree with your assessments of bad precedents above, but conservatives aren't the only ones that do this. FDR threatened to pack the court to get his way with the New Deal and the Wager Act, which included things I believe are unconstitutional such as Social Security, Minimum Wage, Medicare, etc.
This is not an interesting observation but a disingenuously naive hot take straight from right wing reactionaries that conveniently or ignorantly ignores reality and the history of radical theological propaganda that’s being crafted by conservative think tanks and disseminated by their media orgs in a campaign to manufacture consent and shift public opinion. This particular tactic is called projection.
>>projection:
>>Psychological projection is the process of misinterpreting what is "inside" as coming from "outside". It forms the basis of empathy by the projection of personal experiences to understand someone else's subjective world.
>I think the recent legal ruling was proper because of the specific omission of abortion in the enumeration of federal powers.
Then abortion is plainly protected by the ninth, tenth, thirteenth and fourteenth amendments. One must use their ideological or theological beliefs as renegade dogma in order to reject the protection afforded by these amendments.
How many Jews are currently Supreme Court justices?
That’s pretty extreme.
You cannot realistically expect 21st century America to agree with you.
If the constitution DID oppose a minimum wage, and it doesn’t, I would say ditch the constitution. Common sense.
Thing is, all this legalese mumbo-jumbo is a racket and a scam. The constitution is written in plain English in a rather common vernacular.
So-called “conservatives” have hijacked a silly notion of knowing the original intentions of the founding fathers and delivering an unbiased truthful channeling of that into a winning strategy. To the rest of us it’s rather obviously a scam.
These same justices will toss contradictory evidence whenever it is at odds with their goals.
I'm not sure why you would say that. The late Justice Ginsberg was a frequent critic of Roe as case law (despite being an ardent advocate of abortion) and thought the fundamental reasoning used in Roe was defective. [0] Roe was roundly criticized from jurists from both the left and the right on a number of fronts. It was bad law that ruled broadly on a highly divisive topic. Some folks strongly agreed with the outcome, so it became a third rail. Overturning precedents like Roe, while controversial, is healthy and gives us the opportunity to replace it with something on more firm legal footing.
[0] = https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader...
Your disagreement doesn't have any effect on reality.
Care to back up your claims with actual evidence?
> stricken down a fifty year precedent
Is it somehow bad to strike down old precedents, regardless of content?
> told a state that they can’t enact their own concealed carry act
Is it somehow bad to tell US states that they can't do things that would violate the US constitution, which is explicitly meant to apply to all states?
> obtuse society-wrecking
Translation: "these rulings don't agree with my political positions" (so I'm going to use language that conceals my preference to suggest that they're bad).
> They shall go down in our childrens history as villains.
Not a constructive addition to the conversation, smells of emotional manipulation.
They upheld Obamacare again just last year.
> They are only rolling back these excesses because it fits their ideology.
This is just liberal projection. Liberal justices almost always vote as a unified bloc on major cases based on the results. It's always the conservative justices that go wobbly: Thomas voting against federal marijuana prohibition, Roberts repeatedly voting to uphold Obamacare, Roberts opposing overtrning Roe, Kennedy finding that the Constitution protects same-sex marriage, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh finding that the Civil Rights Act protects sexual orientation, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United...
That is not exactly accurate. What Justice Thomas wrote was that cases setting precedence in the area of due process may need to be reconsidered due to the same shaky legal underpinning that Roe v. Wade sat on.
It is the result of that revaluation that could impact Obergefel. Certainly, he could very well hold a negative opinion personally about gay marriage, but his suggestion could create issues for his own marriage legality as well. I am sure he is intelligent enough to realize this—which begs the question why would he suggest it if it could negatively impact him?
I suspect that the answer may be that perhaps he feels it’s important to correct a legal error, so that subsequent judgements are stronger. He likely feels that congress should be creating the laws, as opposed to us relying on legal fiats. I know I agree with that. Congress has a duty to us set forth in Article 1…it’s time they started taking that seriously. If they did their jobs and wrote good laws, what we have seen in the last week is less likely to occur.
It would be better if these were clearly codified in laws vs being on shaky ground forever. E.g Roe v Wade
They also wrote Dredd Scott, Ferguson, Citizens United, and Korematsu.
At what point do you constrain the power of the supreme court to make law as opposed to interpret it?
The Supreme Court has done far more damage then help, historically.
A) women we're suffering from the lack of the right at the time.
B) that churches and GOP actually drove the polarization, they chose to use it as a device to divide.
It would be like saying abolition of slavery was too soon because it caused the civil war... Who cares the law shouldn't have to wait for cave men to move forward.
a) no. States were in the process of legalizing it - with restrictions far more in line with the rest of the democratic world.
b) no. In fact, most churches (the SBC for example) polarized _after_ roe v. wade. In fact, most evangelicals were left-leaning prior to this ruling. (Some partisan hacks will insist that it was desegregation that led to this, but Brown versus Board was 1954, and the SBC was still solidly liberal in 1972). Roe v. Wade lit everything on fire. (See RBG's comments on Roe V. Wade), precisely because it was a un-elected court making a change that no law could challenge.
It's telling that simply saying "this is not a matter for the supreme court but the people's representatives" is so incredibly controversial.
My hope on all of this is that this ends the imperial court - and abortion stops being the mother of all wedge issues, and allows some elements that moved to the right because of the undemocratic change to move back to the left now that the democratic norms are re-established.
There are of course two followup questions here:
1. Would the current supreme court allow a federal abortion law that codifies roe? The SC opinion explicitly notes that their ruling returns this to the states, but federal representatives are representatives too.
2. Does it really make sense for rights to be up to the whims of the legislature? If it takes 60 votes to pass a national abortion legalization, and 50 senate votes to repeal it, will we end up with lasting legislation, or just a de-facto ban because abortion is repealed every 2-4 years?
Will it be hard? Extremely. Is it likely to fail before it’s done? Absolutely. But when it’s finally done, at whatever compromise, those rights will be enumerated and well established and it will take millions of people to take them away…instead of six people.
In the meantime we have states democratically choose their path.
now they do.
Divided we fall.
_in your opinion_, you mean?
Thomas wants to revisit a lot of rulings like the one that gave gay people to right to get married. But I bet he won’t revisit “Loving vs Virginia”.
https://www.al.com/entertainment/2014/10/how_do_christians_f...
Anecdotally, I am Black and live in in a predominantly White county that was a famous “sun down town” (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WErjPmFulQ0) in the 80s.
The people in that video still exist in the county. They just have been overrun by professionals moving in as builders took advantage of abundant land and built houses over the last ten years.
It’s just not as acceptable to espouse those views in modern society. I’m sure some of the family members of the White girls my (step)son dates (the county is still only 3.8% Black) would not approve of their relative dating my son. Don’t get me wrong, by “relatives”, I mean grandparents, older relatives, etc. I’ve never sensed any hostility from parents. But that could be because they think we “are one of the good ones”
It's about what policies the judges personally prefer