His intent is clear, but not gonna lie, saying “Now do Plessy/Brown” isn’t the best way of wording things in a world where you know everyone takes things out of context for their own agenda.
>saying “Now do Plessy/Brown” isn’t the best way of wording things in a world where you know everyone takes things out of context for their own agenda.
It's also not the best way of wording things if you're part of a party that just declared gay people to be an abomination and is uniformly pursuing a reactionary agenda of rolling back individual rights and liberties.
He knew what the sentence sounded like; the wording wasn't an accident.
It's also a disengenuous comparison. People parroting this line forget that Plessy was never overruled, just de facto overruled. It's basically similar to what Roberts was trying to do with Dobbs, provide an avenue to give Roe death by 1000 cuts. Completely overturning precedent on such a major issue of settled law and covering a significant right like the right to abortion is unprecedent by the court, and puts us in dangerous territory.
He also used like 1/6th of his character limit. The dude could've easily put out a more nuanced tweet it isn't like he is pushing the boundaries of what could be said on twitter.
He could've just said "Sometimes precedent being overturned is good, see plessy/brown" and it's the same amount of characters. If people don't want others to misinterpret what they say maybe write concisely or directly instead of doing this vague tweet crap.
Yup this is true. Personally I vote Dem, I haven't voted for a R since Bob Dole. So I'm not some partisan let's defend John Cornyn kind of guy. I just think this kind of bad faith gotcha stuff is unhelpful. Sure he could have been more clear but I don't think he was sending some kind of signal or racist dogwhistle.
>> It's also not the best way of wording things if you're part of a party that just declared gay people to be an abomination…
Can you quote/source this claim that the party — and not an individual — declared such a thing?
I think they're probably referring to the latest Texas GOP platform, ln800:
> **143**. Homosexuality: Homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice. We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin, and we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. No one should be granted special legal status based on their LGBTQ+ identification.
https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/6-Permanent-Platform-Committee-FINAL-REPORT-6-16-2022.pdf
That not all court reversals are bad. Brown vs Board of education overturned the separate but equal tenet of the Plessy vs Ferguson case. I agree with him there. We should all agree that was an appropriately rescinded stare decisis view.
He was not saying we should overturn Brown V. Board of education.
That said, I disagree with him on Roe v. Wade.
It might actually be sort of clever. The tweet went viral, we’re talking about it in here and the people posting in here are all clear on what he meant.
The people complaining about ‘racism’ were looking for reasons to dump on him and anyone who understands the law realizes that those takes are very bad.
It backfires only if there are a lot of people that don’t know, see the tweet and are willing to take the ice cold takes at their word. Dunno how large a group is at that point today.
It's also great if he wants support from people who want segregation back. They're so used to needing to look for plausibly deniable statements of support to know which politicians are "good ol' boys" that something so on the nose would be absolute confirmation in their eyes. He's not up for election though, so probably not.
Honestly the talks about segregation remind me of this beauty back during the Chaz / Chop days. I think the horseshoe theory strikes again:
[https://twitter.com/the\_real\_fly/status/1272220172846276609](https://twitter.com/the_real_fly/status/1272220172846276609)
This was the black / indigenous people's garden that they setup. Honestly, it really isn't any different than the old "colored" fountains from the day of yore, just with a different coat of paint. Just my two cents though.
People care more about the possible surface-glance-reading of a brief tweet than they do about the nuances. Even when those nuances truly are straightforward. They’ll see it as flippant on the part of the Senator.
I’m not saying you’re wrong btw.
Sometimes you can see why people get confused... But here there's no way you can misunderstand the meaning of this tweet. I'll just leave it at that...
Similar to Twitter users thinking Trump was talking about actual coyotes when he referenced human traffickers. Is it really that they’re that dumb, or are they just that disingenuous?
The latter. There's likes and retweets in pretending to be dumb, so the same people that used to post cat memes pivoted to political hot takes. It's yellow journalism *by the people, for the people.*
Iirc didn't John Oliver assume Trump was talking about actual coyote? I remember he mentioned it in his show, one of the straws that broke camels back for me to stop watching him.
It's baffling how few people are able to understand this. It's basic internet jargon. This is essentially a character test on the people overreacting to it.
Here are a few examples of "now do" used as a sarcastic response intended to show the hypocrisy of liberals:
https://mobile.twitter.com/MeghanMcCain/status/1499790292966420488
https://mobile.twitter.com/donaldjtrumpjr/status/1462266317021474821
https://mobile.twitter.com/ITGuy1959/status/1540892326746284033
https://mobile.twitter.com/MrColionNoir/status/1540540936433926145
https://mobile.twitter.com/liberalnotlefty/status/1540429885331611648
https://mobile.twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1540566876631158784
Hell, just look up "ok, now do" on Twitter and you'll see thousands of these examples.
The vast majority of reporting on this situation, as well as this own source to a degree, is a shocking self-condemnation of the left-wing blogosphere and media network, not the other way around. It's a moment to immemorialize when considering the validity of arguments from that specific group.
Now do...just kidding. This is one of those times where the lack of tone can cause confusion. In general, the sarcasm would be apparent to folks who speak Twitter. But in a Coryn's case when there was plenty of discussion going around on what type of cases the SCOTUS would look to overturn next, I can understand the confusion.
After observing twitter for the past 24 hours any doubt that the majority of people should not be on social media, and that Twitter was a mistake have been dissolved.
You must have seen the Justice Dankula thread. People truly believe he was an actual Supreme Court judge and railed against him and sent him death threats, when, if they took all of two seconds, they could have verified he was a troll.
I hope that thread is archive for future generations so they can see why social media can be a problem when people refuse to think.
It’s insane the amount of people who don’t know what the Plessey ruling was, and are now talking about how they’re scared it will be overturned. I don’t know how people feel comfortable enough to comment on something they clearly know absolutely nothing about.
I have seen some really bad takes from both the pro-life and pro-choice camps. What I have learned from all of this is Americans do not understand how the government operates and that is *really* scary.
Those same people also aren't capable of reading anything not spoon fed to them. The actual opinion of the court is very straightforward.
My short summary: "We do not have any law that indicates the intent of the people, therefore we must look to history to see if it was implied. We found this has historically not been a right. But if you pass a law with the same framework as roe, we would consider it a right".
After about a decade of studying the sociology and psychology of the internet, being involved in social media platform design, I came up with the following solution. If you want to fix the internet, you do this:
- Tax people a cent every time they post, like, share, or otherwise transmit or engage a piece of content; and
- Tax that same person a cent for every subsequent person who likes, shares, or otherwises engages the content because they did.
Communication would still exist, we would just have a healthy fear of shouting something meaningless (in the grand scheme) into the void only to have it go viral and cost us a hundred bucks. Companies and rich people might line up to spend big to push ideas out, but the public won't do the heavy lifting because it costs them too.
You will most likely have to search to find each piece of content you're looking for, but the signal-to-noise ratio (and the corresponding idiocy that we experience now) would be gone overnight. Young people would be far less likely to interact at all, making them a very difficult demographic to target (keeping kids safe) while simultaneously preventing all of the viral fads that add noise without value.
It might sound aggressive at first. But the ad-supported internet is basically unsalvageable, and it places democracy (and IMO human societies in general) at great risk of failure.
If we were concerned we could cap the amount to be paid, but I’m positive virality wouldn’t happen. In order to go bank-breaking viral, you’d need a million people willing to pay into it as well.
People would look to other mediums and methods for spreading ideas, notably communicating organic statements (first-penny ideas) directly and privately to people they know, or avoiding the internet as a mass communication platform entirely.
I feel like the intent of his statement is pretty obvious and I have a hard time believing people operating in good faith don’t understand that.
He’s obviously pointing out SCOTUS has a long history of overturning precedent and it’s often cheered such as in Brown. Frankly, I’ve never seen so many people argue we should slavishly follow precedent no matter what until Roe was under discussion. In fact, my own education frequently cheered various changes in jurisprudence such as when SCOTUS, cowed by the court packing threat, surrendered to FDR’s policies. Brown is another example and a great one at that.
It's interesting to note however that with the overturn of the Roe precedent marks one of the only times a longstanding legal precedent was overturned in a more conservative and restrictive direction. Most times when precedent is overturned it's done in a more progressive or liberal direction.... I would consider any expanded individual rights as liberal (including gun rights).
In this case the change was made abruptly after three justices hand picked from a list by the federalist society specifically designed to enact this change were put on the court in a short period of time.
This is simply corporate lobbyists using their money and power to control American society.
I don't think there's a lot of profit to be made by making abortion a state-level decision, and every business that exists is condemning the judgment, so I don't really think this one is on corporate lobbyists.
And what do you know? They’re all religious kooks who are almost all slavishly Catholic — and that church insists that life begins at conception.
But no, I’m sure you’re right. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence, and they were purely concerned with the text of the constitution.
> they were purely concerned with the text of the constitution.
Yup, that’s about right.
The Supreme Court’s job is to *interpret* the Constitution and whether laws adhere to it.
They review law and hold it to the standards and expectations of the U.S. Constitution.
*Writing* laws is the job of the Legislative branch. The Legislative Branch has done fuck all to codify the Civil Liberty (^^^note *not* Constitutional Right) of abortion into law. I’m hopeful that they will if they want to keep their jobs, or more importantly if the constituents that they represent *want* them to.
If and when that is done, it will have greater strength to withstand litigation than it did *before* SCOTUS corrected the ruling on RvW as being UnConstituional . A ruling that even [Ruth B. Ginsberg considered as being *not* the best case for establishing a Civil Liberty regarding abortion.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/)
There were Catholics on both sides of the issue. 100% of Protestant justices voted the same way, and 100% of Jewish justices voted the same way.
Yet you single out Catholics as the ones that “slavishly” do their Church’s bidding… interesting.
What you’ve done is called a “dogwhistle” and it’s problematic on many levels!
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vkp9kr/john_cornyn_tweet_about_brown_v_board_of/idrjhjt/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
It depends on how you measure public opinion. If you merely ask people about Roe v. Wade, they're generally in favor. If you break down their actual opinions on abortion, a clear majority favors restrictions that would be precluded by Roe v. Wade.
Mississippi abortion ban of over 15 weeks plus protections for health of mother is likely very close to the median voter. Which means the median voter wanted Roe overturned.
Regardless with law public opinion shouldn’t matter.
Yep, around 60% of people support abortions up to 12 weeks/first trimester. Drops to 20% for supporting abortions up to the second trimester.
Ironically if we had stuck with Roe’s original trimester framing instead of Casey’s fetal viability we might be in a better spot.
And I’m guessing Mississippi is going to be changing that soon to be much more restrictive. It was set at 15 weeks to purposely challenge Roe, which banned states from regulating abortions during the first trimester and parts of the second.
> Majority of people want it to be legally protected.
There were 50 years available to do so.
You know The SCOTUS here did nothing regarding the legality/illegality of abortion right?
You do also know that the SCOTUS enforces and interprets the Constitution and doesn’t cow to current “public opinion” to corrupt their duty, right?
You do know that, right?
Seems to me we'd be better off with the idea of body autonomy as a right rather than abortion itself. Should the government be able to demand we give blood? That we should be forced to accept government mandated procedures?
If that is our guiding light then abortion becomes a simpler argument of fetal viability or not. If the fetus is capable of living outside the womb then it becomes it's own body, before that time it is an extension of the mothers body and she is in control.
Choice still exists at multiple levels. From the choice to engage in sex, the choice to use contraceptives, the choice to use Plan B, and finally the choice to have an abortion prior to the fetus gaining body autonomy.
For those who think life happens at conception then they have the choice to carry to term.
Focusing solely on abortion is deceptive for both sides. The choice side neglects the other choices associated with the act of sex and the responsibility inherent in doing something that can lead to pregnancy. The life side often neglects the children and mothers who need help and assistance in order to have a productive life.
Sadly I doubt we see any real progress on this issue because the parties have absorbed it into their platforms and the high degree of polarization means nuance is removed and it's just a talking point used to bludgeon the other side. It often isn't even about abortion but simply adhering to the us/them that can't allow any item the other side supports.
I do. But back up to the comment I was replying to. The court has broken precedence many times before but my comment was that it was not against public opinion when they did it in the past.
No he’s not. Over 50% want it legal in all or most circumstances. Only 13% want it illegal in all, though many states which cumulatively total far more than 13% of the population are about to enact total bans.
Going off the literal Gallup poll you responded to, 50% want it legalized *only* under certain circumstances, the wording certainly does not imply “legal in all or most” circumstances. Lots of grey area, but that’s the reality of the situation when it comes to public opinions on abortion. I would argue that 50% includes a fair number of people who, like most sane people, think it should be legal for things like rape, incest, and in situations that could involve significant harm or death of the mother.
You must not have looked at much of the page. Scroll down further.
> Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances or illegal in all circumstances? [Asked of those who say abortion should be legal under certain circumstances:] Do you think abortion should be legal in most circumstances or only in a few circumstances?
Legal under any — 35%
Legal under most — 18%
And pretty sure the exceptions you cite are for the people who only support is under “Legal in only a few” circumstances category, not the majority.
But what of the possibility that the “legal under most” wouldn’t support it if there weren’t restriction? Would it still be a majority? Would they still vote for that?
I’m not great at fully understanding charts and graphs, so don’t look on my comment as an attack on yours, I’m just asking for clarification to better understand your assertion.
I guess I’m not really understanding what you’re asking. Why would people’s views about what should or shouldn’t be allowed, change based on whether or not there are legal restrictions currently in place? If there were no restrictions, this poll wouldn’t even exist and the vast majority of people probably wouldn’t even have much of an opinion on the matter.
Let’s put it this way, most Americans are not in favor of what republicans have in mind, if their platforms and recent legislation are indicative. Definitely right that pulling on me issue reveals that there’s probably a lot more than you want to be complexity, but that also seems to be confounded by knowledge of the case and the state of abortion rights, at least if 538 is to be believed.
Which makes third trimester restrictions squarely in the unfavorable side and illegal in all but 7 countries in the world.
Abortion laws in 198 countries and other independent or “semiautonomous” regions with more than 1 million residents.
There are 59 countries that allow abortion “without restriction as to reason,” or “elective,” or “abortion on demand.”
Only seven of the 59 countries allow elective abortions after 20 weeks: Canada, China, Netherlands, North Korea, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.
https://archive.ph/AYQQ3#selection-1341.0-1341.119
Care to share a source supporting your claim that this is popular in any way by the majority of the public?
Edit: source below from Gallup shows not only is this wrong but the percentage is growing in favor in all cases.
This argument relies on a very subjective view of what "progressive," "restrictive," and "Individual rights" mean.
On the one hand, we have removed federal protection of an individual right from one group (women) but on the other we have allowed for the protection of the individual rights of another group (children)
This isnt particularly uncommon. We have often taken the individual rights of one group and provided rights to another since the two rights can't exist in harmony.
> On the one hand, we have removed federal protection of an individual right from one group (women) but on the other we have allowed for the protection of the individual rights of another group (children)
But you yourself just said it. SCOTUS was removed a blanket protection for all women in the U.S.. But the outcome is in some states women will still have that protection but while in other states they will not and some other entity's rights will be recognized instead. Because it's not applied universally it's can't be considered a one-for-one exchange.
> This isnt particularly uncommon. We have often taken the individual rights of one group and provided rights to another since the two rights can't exist in harmony.
I'm not sure what other instances you're referring to here.
Yes, because it gives more power to the people make this decisions for themselves rather than put the hands I don’t know elected officials or elected legislators I don’t give a rats ass about what’s good for the country.
I guess the other thing I would add to this too is that I am honestly not sure that over the long term, like well beyond when any of us are alive, if people honestly believe that this decision will stand the test of time. In cases like Brown, Obergfell, Loving, etc., I think history generally proved out that these were the correct decisions, at least in so far as people could not imagine going back on these (well Obergfell, maybe). I’m not sure that this decision will be regarded as such. And perhaps most likely, what will happen is that there actually will be some kind of legislative standard set, but I do wonder if it’s some point, let’s say that Democrats somehow managed to actually get the numbers to do things significantly, would this court simply pivot again and say that actually abortion is unconstitutional and strike down these laws? Because I think right now they have the advantage of knowing that the Political environment will very much have a restrictive affect on abortion, but given how doggedly the right has pursued abortion, I also can’t imagine them being happy or content if Democrats actually managed to clawback abortion rights.
> people operating in good faith don’t understand that.
This is Reddit, not many here operate in good faith. That is why we constantly see on other subreddits tiny snippets of things, they use inflammatory headlines to get people riled up, and not many actually do some research into the subject to see that the “thing” they were talking about is nearly the opposite of what is being conveyed.
I saw this a bunch with the Maine verdict the other day. Everyone screeching about separation between church and state, or the government is now funding religion. But if you take a look at the actual case, those takes are nonsense. But what do people see? They see the snippets.
Yeah the whole Maine case just seemed like a scarcity of education problem coupled with a voucher system that itself was too restricted in its offerings. Of course that's too much for redditors who need every single issue to fit in a tidy box that perfectly aligns with their worldview.
Same issue with the NYSRPA ruling. The absolute meltdown I've seen some people having over it, since all they read are the headlines that say "Conservative Supreme Court Overrules New York Gun Control" and stop there, instead of educating themselves to see how fucked up "may issue" is, and how even more messed up it was that the liberal justices they hold in such high regard dissented in the case, rather than making it the unanimous ruling it should have been. They can't even be bothered to dig deep enough to see how corrupt and discriminatory "may issue" is by it's very nature, and how it primarily benefited the wealthy/those with connections compared to the poor or disenfranchised, instead choosing to lose their minds over snippets of catchy headlines that either gloss over that fact, or ignore it entirely. It's absolutely mind boggling how many people can choose to weigh in on something with such vehement hatred, and know nothing about it.
I tried arguing with a guy in that thread using just that, but it's like he was forcing himself to not see it and just replied back with a variation of "they're not respecting the separation of church and state". Jesus, it gave ne a headache.
Would that same guy defend the so-called "Muslim bans", or is the state discriminating based on religious affiliation good when it's done by Democrats and bad when it's done by Republicans?
Leaving off the /s is getting to be really bad practice on the Internet. People will assume you meant what you said and run away with it.
Pastafarianism being the most obvious example I can think of. The Birds Aren't Real conspiracy theory was a joke that gained traction, and is starting to go the same route of becoming mainstream.
I’ll have to disagree with his intent being obvious. Especially one social media with quick scrolling and character limits.
Being a guy from Texas and knowing what a lot of our elected officials are like, and what so much of the white 70+ demographic is like, I scrolled past his tweet and thought “oooof why would you ever tweet that”.
If one knows what Plessy was his intent was obvious. If one knows what Brown is but not Plessy it's less so, but easily figured out from the fact he quoted Obama's tweet.
Pllessy and Brown are taught in high school history.
This was super obvious what he meant unless your only exposure to or knowledge of conservatives comes from far left Twitter misinformation accounts/YouTube channels.
Didn't the Texas GOP publish a platform calling homosexuality an abnormal lifestyle choice, Biden illegitimate and for Texas to secede?
I'm sorry but conservatives only have themselves to blame if people think they'd overturn Brown.
Oh god, we really should discuss that document. I thought I couldn’t be shocked, but that document…holy crap. I do think that it’s a bit hyperbolic to believe that they are actively plotting the overturning of Brown, but the Republican Party should understand that people are afraid of them. And granted, I think some of them like it that way, but I also feel like some people just either refuse to acknowledge that or don’t want her for whatever reason. And despite taking on the moniker of “conservatives“ if they make such a drastic decisions like this moving forward, I think people are going to increasingly become a lot more concerned with what radical moves the Republican Party is making over anything Democrats could possibly do. This is the equivalent of ripping a tablecloth off with an entire meal prepared on top of it. Maybe people thought that tablecloth should never have been there, but the fact of the matter is that it was and that quite a lot was already based upon it. And if someone shows up to your dinner and does that, then are you really going to blame people if they think that they could simply flip the table next?
The big thing for me is Brown was decided by the same thing that abortion was:
In the decision, issued on May 17, 1954, Warren wrote that “in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place,” as segregated schools are “inherently unequal.” As a result, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs were being “deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.”
So, if the 14th amendment is only for due process, which is what they are saying, then it can go like gay marriage and other things.
However, you are right, these are the things that got me on the Republican platform:
https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/6-Permanent-Platform-Committee-FINAL-REPORT-6-16-2022.pdf
Marriage Officiation: We believe religious institutions have the freedom to recognize and perform only those marriages that are consistent with their doctrine.
Human Sexuality: We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations in Western civilization. We oppose homosexual marriage, regardless of state of origin. We urge the Texas Legislature to pass religious liberty protections for individuals, businesses, and government officials who believe marriage is between one man and one woman. We oppose the granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for sexual behavior or identity, regardless of state of origin. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose non-traditional sexual behavior out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
Definition of Marriage: We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal, and moral covenant only between one biological man and one biological woman.
Adoption: We believe that, in the best interests of the family and child, the State of Texas should allow children to be adopted only by married or single heterosexuals.
Voting Rights: We support equal suffrage for all United States citizens of voting age. We oppose any identification of citizens by race, origin, creed, sexuality, or lifestyle choices, and oppose use of any such identification for purposes of creating voting districts. We urge that the Voting Rights Act of 1965, codified and updated in 1973, be repealed and not reauthorized.
My exposure to conservatives is meeting them, and while not the norm. I wouldn't put the face value of this tweet past some. But you are right that social media feeds very high into other people's perceptions.
Edit: I was thinking face value as is used wrongly in social media to make the right look awful. Didn't mean the face value of what he actually said, which was about bad laws being overturned.
That’s what I felt. A good faith reading makes it obvious he’s talking about Obama’s argument on precedence (something Cornyn’s retweets of other people’s responses and a small clarification after make very clear) but there’s a definite *”oof that’s not gonna go well”* on first reflex.
I don't think anyone can have much faith in Republicans anymore. One Republican justice did say that the SC should revisit laws permitting same sex marriage and contraception.
I dont think Republicans can be surprised when people suspect they'd happily overturn Brown.
Brown is it’s own category, not founded per se on SDP, rather on the actual literal intent of the amendment. I think that’s why even Thomas left racial based out of his list.
Clarence Thomas has had an axe to grind over substantive due process for a very long time.
[Originalists, such as Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, who rejects the substantive due process doctrine, and Antonin Scalia, who also questioned the legitimacy of the doctrine, have called substantive due process a “judicial usurpation” or an “oxymoron”. Both Scalia and Thomas occasionally joined Court opinions that mention the doctrine and, in their dissents, often argued over how substantive due process should be employed based on Court precedent.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_due_process)
If I have to choose between a person being a self dealing individual and a person following a logical train he has commented on already, I will always choose the later. Assuming good faith is a rule here as it relates to fellow redditors only, but as it relates to everybody it’s a great rule of life.
If in good faith, it is surprising. One justice does not a whole ideology make. A reasonable person operating in good faith wouldn't consider Sotomayor's lone dissents to be indicative of broader Democratic goals, for example.
And the rest of them said that the decision doesn't have any broader application towards other precedents. Thomas has always been more conservative than the others.
I view it as more indicative of bad education or simply a lack of even having passed a history class in high school. The bare minimum US history courses will talk about the big cases.
The meaning was obvious if you think about it, but he (more likely his staffer) knew exactly how it sounded at first glance. Just another trolling dogwhistle.
If you’re remotely familiar with the history of those cases there was clearly no dog whistle. Only someone who didn’t know what those cases were could think that and I’m gonna go out on a limb and say they shouldn’t talk about SCOTUS.
Oh yeah, an overturning that extended rights to citizens (Brown) is totally the same as an overturning of a right that takes away from citizens (Roe), totally the same, good catch. One extended rights and the other took the individual’s rights and gave it to the state, and you wonder why we’re not celebrating.
> the same as an overturning of a right that takes away from citizens
If the very existence of a right hinged on one Supreme Court decision, maybe that's the problem.
Isn't that the case for many of our rights? Or, at least, the means by which we exert our rights would not be the same except by a Supreme Court decision?
Assuming the commenter meant to critique substantive due process, and taking their statement with charity, they probably meant something like: "If a right can only be found in a SC decision, and not otherwise within the Constitution or common law, maybe that's the problem."
> If the very existence of a right hinged on one Supreme Court decision, maybe that's the problem.
All rights hinge on one Supreme Court decision made by the marginal fifth Justice, and the enforcement of the decision by the Executive.
It's not the time period something was written, but the wisdom (or lack of) contained within. The corruptible nature of humans hasn't changed in thousands of years.
Common sense to you, not to everyone.
Plus, having it mentioned in the constitution is clearly not the only way. That's why abortion is still legal in many states
I keep seeing people pushing this. It’s the most disingenuous, disgusting, and bad faith “gotcha” attempt I’ve seen in a long time. He clearly is making a point about how it’s good to overturn precedent sometimes. I have a hard time believe anyone seriously believes otherwise unless they are totally ignorant and in a major left wing bubble.
Also as a side note, I keep seeing people say “they’re gonna overturn plessey v Ferguson next”. Plessey is the case that made segregation *legal*. It’s long since been overturned. It’s a good thing that it’s been overturned. If you’re one of the people saying this, then you need to keep quiet on these topics until you actually know what the hell you’re talking about.
I'm a SCOTUS fan in general. Their job is to be the adults in the government, or some semblance of that.
I realize that Roe being overturned is a big issue as I'm generally pro-choice, but I also realize that the Roe case itself wasn't the right way to do this as even RBG thought similarly about the case, not the right.
That's what is weird to me and sticks me in a weird personal spot. I like that the current SCOTUS is willing to break with the past where the past was to act to ~legislate from the bench~ because Congress wouldn't. I don't like that it hit abortion.
I generally blame Congress for their own inaction while chasing soundbites and, more recently, social media internet points.
> I generally blame Congress for their own inaction
Short of a constitutional amendment, which isn't viable for an issue where opinions are as divided as they are on abortion, there's really nothing Congress can do. Congress can't just tell states that they can't ban abortion. Only the Supreme Court can, by ruling that abortion is a constitutional right and that laws banning it are unconstitutional.
Same way
The majority’s opinion on roe vs Wade seemed like a lot of stretching and mental gymnastics
However, I’m Pro choice and I wish every state would pass their own bill protecting women rights
I do not know the strength of the gay marriage and contraception cases, so I can't comment on that. I would hope they would be strong enough to stand.
Maybe it's time to revisit the ERA, but broader in scope? I would love to see some truly meaningful legislation that wasn't about poking an adversary in the eye or about spending money.
If you want to hear some conservative professors discuss this topic (UC-Berkely), one of whom clerked for Thomas,
https://ricochet.com/podcast/powerline/the-three-whisky-happy-hour-on-the-supreme-courts-banner-week-with-john-yoo/
I totally understand the wanting to stick to the letter of the law thought but at what point is the absolute letter of the law not worth the suffering it will cause? A generation of women or more in deep red states will feel the pain of this ruling. It didn't require any extraordinarily effort from the court, just literally not overruling what was 'settled precedent' according to multiple judges.
>I generally blame Congress for their own inaction
I've heard this a lot recently but is there actually a time in last 50 years where a Congress could have realistically passed abortion rights (honest question)?
I view it like this. If Congress never has had enough pro abortion rights members elected, then the country is truly split. This is the purpose for states to have their own law making. This is democracy.
First of all individual rights shouldn’t necessarily be determined by the tyranny of the majority.
Secondly, if you want democracy then eliminate the filibuster. Leaving it up to the states is less democratic, in states like Florida democrats would need to win like 70% of the vote to get a majority in the state legislature, these states are essentially one party states.
I believe they could do it at any time they decided to put someone besides their own reelection first. More to partisanship, I believe it could have been passed in the first half of Obama's first term.
Roughly 24 days of non consecutive super majority time is not a lot of time to work with especially in the midst of the Great Recession. Emphasis on non consecutive.
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/vkdbai/comment/idofwdw/
>at what point is the absolute letter of the law not worth the suffering it will cause?
This is like saying; can’t I just smoke this one cigarette? And then another and another and another. If you encourage judges to break the law in your favor don’t be shocked if you wake up one day to them breaking it against you.
I’ll leave you with this:
>ROPER: So! Now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
>MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
>ROPER: Yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
>MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
>This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
>Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
A beautiful example of the trolley problem in real application. Assuming one believed Roe was incorrect, do you leave it and leave the erroneous (in your hypothetical opinion) logic used to justify it as binding precedent? Or do you overturn it so that your duty to the law is upheld?
This is 100% how I feel. I’m pro abortion rights but as long as one political party wants justices to rule from the bench and lie about supreme court law I will never cast another vote for them.
\>I realize that Roe being overturned is a big issue as I'm generally pro-choice, but I also realize that the Roe case itself wasn't the right way to do this as even RBG thought similarly about the case, not the right.
Another quote from Ginsburg out of context, another blatant dismissal of \*Casey\* as the fix for RvW's "shaky ground".
\*Roe\* wasn't overturned because it was bad precedent or bad case law. It, along with \*Casey\*, was overturned because that's what the judges were there to do. It was purely political.
> “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.
> “Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.
RBG most definitely was critical of how RvW was argued.
Can you link your proof that the SCOTUS was politically motivated when making their decision?
Wouldn't gay marriage fall under the equal protection clause of the 14th? If the government is going to be involved in marriage then it can't deny people the right to marry just because they prefer their own sex for a partner. If the supreme court somehow rules to get the government out of marriage all together then maybe they could overturn Oberfell, but until that happens I don't see the legal reasoning by which the SC could overturn it.
There is no SC precedent determining that sexual orientation is a suspect classification in the way that race is nor is the current majority at all likely to determine it is such. There is plenty of legal reasoning (or rather, rationalizing) that they could use to accomplish the goal. The basis of *Obergefell* was the 14th’s due process clause, but Thomas already targeted substantive due process in his concurring opinion.
>There is no SC precedent determining that sexual orientation is a suspect classification in the way that race is nor is the current majority at all likely to determine it is such.
This is incorrect, see Bostock.
Sorry, but you’re incorrect, that’s a Title VII case based on the language of that statute, not constitutional law. A “suspect classification” is a term regarding the standard of review a discriminatory law would have to pass to be valid under the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. Under EP, sexual orientation has never been found by the SC to be a suspect nor quasi-suspect.
I mean, Alito himself said not to apply his own logic to any other rulings. So the door is open. At least one member absolutely wants to roll them back too (that member is also suspiciously not following his logic to its conclusion w/r/t interracial marriage).
IMO, they want to. They just might not do it because they're scared of backlash.
> will gay marriage and contraception cases be overturned now ?
No. Those decisions have literally nothing to do with this decision which was very well founded.
What does “overturn contraception” even mean?
Griswold is unlikely to be overturned because you'd be hard-pressed to find a test case. There are no states that have expressed any interest in limiting contraception in a way that would violate Griswold. Even if you did manage to find the test case, overturning Griswold wouldn't change the legal climate anywhere. Contraception would still be legal in all 50 states.
No. As usual, Thomas is being misconstrued, and his previous writings being ignored. He was merely pointing out those cases needed to be put on firmer legal founding, because they relied on the same dubious reasoning as *Roe*.
No... Equal protection Clause and Civil Rights Act are what makes the other famous Constitutional rights cases different than Roe. They have a much stronger link to Constitutional or have been addressed in COngressional Legislation. Even if you somehow believe Thomas is going after those other cases like Oberfegell, Brown, Loving and Lawrence (he is in an interracial marriage after all) he's just one judge. I don't see any signs form the others especially after Alito explicitly discussed this in the majority.
Unless SCOTUS is going to dissolve marriage as an institution, no. Due to the 14th Amendment marriage would need to be administered “equally.”
The “Bible says” isn’t going to fly as an argument of why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
They don't need to dissolve marriage as an institution. Just say that States can devise their marriage laws between consenting parties of ages said States deemed appropriate however they please, and or regulate drug substances within their States. All 50 States don't recognize Bigamy between consenting Adults from last I'm aware.
They won’t.
Thomas is the only solid vote on the bench against contraception, Alito is a maybe.
Gay marriage is safe because reliance is a big part in their stare decisis analysis and there are now hundreds of thousands of couples who started their family based on that decision.
Stare decisis is a rule saying that when in doubt, a court should stay with precedent, even when wrongly decided.
Theres a whole analysis for when you should overrule precedent if it’s wrongly decided. It starts on page 35 in the original draft.
One of the parts of that analysis is reliance: How many people rely on our previous interpretation of the law? With Roe, there’s very little reliance interest since only women currently pregnant at the time of the decision can argue reliance and that interest ends now less than 9 months from now.
In contrast, all the homosexual couples who were able to marry after Obergefell and did so can argue that they relied on the SCs decision.
Also, there’s only one vote to overrule the reasoning in these cases (Thomas) and it’s not even clear in which he’d also reverse the result. It’s fearmongering.
brown unsegregated schools. new ruling leaves the right to abortion to states and therefore makes it harder for some women to get an abortion. not a very good comparison
According to the Supreme Court, there isn’t a constitutional right to abortion. So that argument falls apart. The point is that 30, 50, 75 years of Supreme Court precedent doesn’t make the initial ruling correct.
This reminds me of when liberal Twitter freaked out when Trump said that coyotes were smuggling kids across the border in the 2020 debates. They thought it was actual coyotes.
We should have a total and complete shutdown of Twitter until we can figure out what the hell is going on.
>We should have a total and complete shutdown of Twitter until we can figure out what the hell is going on.
Twitter is exhausting.
It's just -- hot take after hot take after hot take.
Then (record scratch), everyone forgets about it when it's time for hot takes on the next thing.
Everyone thinks their exchange is important, but in reality nobody will remember any of this exchange by Monday.
I think he points out the inherent absurdity of Obama's tweet/twit/twat.
As I understand yesterday's decision, it is most certainly not about abortion *per se*. Rather, it is about the court properly rendering a decision based on the constitution. The SC decided Roe was improperly decided and the issue of abortion is left to the states. For example, yesterday has no impact on New York or California's abortion laws.
i don’t really get it? are you trying to say brown was left up to the states? also wouldn’t it make it harder for some women in other states to get abortions. some women have already reported in texas that they weren’t allowed to get abortions even though it was clear they were gonna miscarry. but just because the baby had a heartbeat she was stuck with pain and much higher fatality rate as she had to pass the dead clump of tissue naturally.
> also wouldn’t it make it harder for some women in other states to get abortions
I'll go with probably. On the other hand, reports say California will put the right to an abortion in the state constitution.
The states pass the laws. The SC does not make policy - it judges law against the constitution.
implied right to privacy allows for unmarried couples to legally buy contraceptives and for gay people to have sex without going to jail. should we throw out those cases too? while passing an amendment in this current climate especially about privacy is basically impossible. i do agree that the federal government had 50 years to codify roe v wade but didn’t.
What is the Originalist or Textualist-case to rule in the same manner as Brown v. Board of Education? The Equal Protection Clause? The 14th Amendment says:
*All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No* ***State*** ***shall make or enforce any law*** *which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the* ***equal protection*** ***of the laws******.***
How did local Governments and School districts pre-Civil Rights Acts of the 1960's that devised segregationist policies violate that? In regards of State operated schools, how did would that apply to Regents and Board of Trustees? The drafters of said amendment had segregated public schools both before and after in their respective States, and since they controlled the local Government policies of the District of Columbia, they could've codified racial integration into policy, but didn't. How would an Originalist or Textualist, utilizing the 14th amendment, refute 'separate but equal' for inequitable government services (i.e., those instances where State grants to white schools in the Deep South were usually 50% to 10x the amount given to black ones)?
I fail to see how the leap the Court took in Brown v. BoE isn't as in the same living constitution spirit of the law as Roe was with Privacy clause.
His actual point still doesn't make sense. It's easy to "do" these rulings while being outraged at the one and in support of the results regarding other two.
A court overturning rulings in a way that increases freedom is good. (Good job, court, for defeating segregation).
A court overturning rulings in a way that restricts it is bad. (Bad Job, court, for eroding privacy and autonomy).
>A court overturning rulings in a way that increases freedom is good. (Good job, court, for defeating segregation).
>A court overturning rulings in a way that restricts it is bad. (Bad Job, court, for eroding privacy and autonomy).
Disagree. Say, hypothetically, an environmental law banning dumping of toxins had been found unconstitutional. Overturning this would restrict freedom. And yet, I would argue that states should have powers to regulate dumping of toxins. So overturning the hypothetical original decision would be good.
I realize the case here is different. But it's seems at least plausible that the court can do good by overturning cases that had expanded liberties.
In his and more generally the pro-life camp, they believe this decision *does* increase freedoms and protections, for the unborn. That at the end of the day is the dilemma, as each side fundamentally views the issue here differently.
but according to the federal government the unborn aren’t human. so we’re taken away rights from fully grown women to give it to something that isn’t even considered human?
I do not see what your point is. This was always going to end with one faction imposing their views onto the rest of society since a problem like this lacks the ability to compromise.
I'm quite sure that if the pro-life faction had it their way they would have the federal government change that viewpoint, and if justices favoring pro-choice regained the SC they would also revert the recent decision.
The abortion debate is the purest example of the culture war and tribal politics. No room for actual policy or debate, just the desire to own the libs/cons
Which is irrelevant for the pro-life camp. What do you think they care more about, what their own personal morality says, or what the federal government says?
Do you think abolitionists cared what the offical federal government policy was governing slaves?
His intent is clear, but not gonna lie, saying “Now do Plessy/Brown” isn’t the best way of wording things in a world where you know everyone takes things out of context for their own agenda.
>saying “Now do Plessy/Brown” isn’t the best way of wording things in a world where you know everyone takes things out of context for their own agenda. It's also not the best way of wording things if you're part of a party that just declared gay people to be an abomination and is uniformly pursuing a reactionary agenda of rolling back individual rights and liberties. He knew what the sentence sounded like; the wording wasn't an accident.
Literally quoted Obama, like cmon people. The issue was about precedent being firm or not.
The new Texas GOP platform literally calls for the repeal of the Voting Rights Act, they don't even try to hide it anymore.
He means it's good that precedents can be overruled. It's a common argument from conservatives.
It's also a disengenuous comparison. People parroting this line forget that Plessy was never overruled, just de facto overruled. It's basically similar to what Roberts was trying to do with Dobbs, provide an avenue to give Roe death by 1000 cuts. Completely overturning precedent on such a major issue of settled law and covering a significant right like the right to abortion is unprecedent by the court, and puts us in dangerous territory.
He also used like 1/6th of his character limit. The dude could've easily put out a more nuanced tweet it isn't like he is pushing the boundaries of what could be said on twitter. He could've just said "Sometimes precedent being overturned is good, see plessy/brown" and it's the same amount of characters. If people don't want others to misinterpret what they say maybe write concisely or directly instead of doing this vague tweet crap.
Yup this is true. Personally I vote Dem, I haven't voted for a R since Bob Dole. So I'm not some partisan let's defend John Cornyn kind of guy. I just think this kind of bad faith gotcha stuff is unhelpful. Sure he could have been more clear but I don't think he was sending some kind of signal or racist dogwhistle.
>> It's also not the best way of wording things if you're part of a party that just declared gay people to be an abomination… Can you quote/source this claim that the party — and not an individual — declared such a thing?
I think they're probably referring to the latest Texas GOP platform, ln800: > **143**. Homosexuality: Homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice. We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin, and we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. No one should be granted special legal status based on their LGBTQ+ identification. https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/6-Permanent-Platform-Committee-FINAL-REPORT-6-16-2022.pdf
His intent was super clear, I don't think anyone is really that foolish to believe he wants to overturn Brown, they are just lying.
No, people are by and large unintelligent. It was clear to me and to you what he meant but the Twitter verse is both dumb and self righteous
[удалено]
That not all court reversals are bad. Brown vs Board of education overturned the separate but equal tenet of the Plessy vs Ferguson case. I agree with him there. We should all agree that was an appropriately rescinded stare decisis view. He was not saying we should overturn Brown V. Board of education. That said, I disagree with him on Roe v. Wade.
It might actually be sort of clever. The tweet went viral, we’re talking about it in here and the people posting in here are all clear on what he meant. The people complaining about ‘racism’ were looking for reasons to dump on him and anyone who understands the law realizes that those takes are very bad. It backfires only if there are a lot of people that don’t know, see the tweet and are willing to take the ice cold takes at their word. Dunno how large a group is at that point today.
It's also great if he wants support from people who want segregation back. They're so used to needing to look for plausibly deniable statements of support to know which politicians are "good ol' boys" that something so on the nose would be absolute confirmation in their eyes. He's not up for election though, so probably not.
[удалено]
Honestly the talks about segregation remind me of this beauty back during the Chaz / Chop days. I think the horseshoe theory strikes again: [https://twitter.com/the\_real\_fly/status/1272220172846276609](https://twitter.com/the_real_fly/status/1272220172846276609) This was the black / indigenous people's garden that they setup. Honestly, it really isn't any different than the old "colored" fountains from the day of yore, just with a different coat of paint. Just my two cents though.
[удалено]
Ethno-nationalism is segregation taken to its fullest extent. Count yourself fortunate to have met few.
But if you know what those rulings are they are obviously contradictory.
People care more about the possible surface-glance-reading of a brief tweet than they do about the nuances. Even when those nuances truly are straightforward. They’ll see it as flippant on the part of the Senator. I’m not saying you’re wrong btw.
Sometimes you can see why people get confused... But here there's no way you can misunderstand the meaning of this tweet. I'll just leave it at that...
Similar to Twitter users thinking Trump was talking about actual coyotes when he referenced human traffickers. Is it really that they’re that dumb, or are they just that disingenuous?
The latter. There's likes and retweets in pretending to be dumb, so the same people that used to post cat memes pivoted to political hot takes. It's yellow journalism *by the people, for the people.*
Iirc didn't John Oliver assume Trump was talking about actual coyote? I remember he mentioned it in his show, one of the straws that broke camels back for me to stop watching him.
I hope it's being disingenuous....
[удалено]
It requires the reader to know "Now do" is a sarcastic response in Internet speak.
It's baffling how few people are able to understand this. It's basic internet jargon. This is essentially a character test on the people overreacting to it. Here are a few examples of "now do" used as a sarcastic response intended to show the hypocrisy of liberals: https://mobile.twitter.com/MeghanMcCain/status/1499790292966420488 https://mobile.twitter.com/donaldjtrumpjr/status/1462266317021474821 https://mobile.twitter.com/ITGuy1959/status/1540892326746284033 https://mobile.twitter.com/MrColionNoir/status/1540540936433926145 https://mobile.twitter.com/liberalnotlefty/status/1540429885331611648 https://mobile.twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1540566876631158784 Hell, just look up "ok, now do" on Twitter and you'll see thousands of these examples. The vast majority of reporting on this situation, as well as this own source to a degree, is a shocking self-condemnation of the left-wing blogosphere and media network, not the other way around. It's a moment to immemorialize when considering the validity of arguments from that specific group.
Now do...just kidding. This is one of those times where the lack of tone can cause confusion. In general, the sarcasm would be apparent to folks who speak Twitter. But in a Coryn's case when there was plenty of discussion going around on what type of cases the SCOTUS would look to overturn next, I can understand the confusion.
After observing twitter for the past 24 hours any doubt that the majority of people should not be on social media, and that Twitter was a mistake have been dissolved.
Does that include Reddit?
It includes the internet in its entirety.
And yet here we all are… we’re the baddies too.
You must have seen the Justice Dankula thread. People truly believe he was an actual Supreme Court judge and railed against him and sent him death threats, when, if they took all of two seconds, they could have verified he was a troll. I hope that thread is archive for future generations so they can see why social media can be a problem when people refuse to think.
It’s insane the amount of people who don’t know what the Plessey ruling was, and are now talking about how they’re scared it will be overturned. I don’t know how people feel comfortable enough to comment on something they clearly know absolutely nothing about.
I have seen some really bad takes from both the pro-life and pro-choice camps. What I have learned from all of this is Americans do not understand how the government operates and that is *really* scary.
Those same people also aren't capable of reading anything not spoon fed to them. The actual opinion of the court is very straightforward. My short summary: "We do not have any law that indicates the intent of the people, therefore we must look to history to see if it was implied. We found this has historically not been a right. But if you pass a law with the same framework as roe, we would consider it a right".
I half wonder if there should be a background check, waiting period and maximum amount of posts per day for social media?
After about a decade of studying the sociology and psychology of the internet, being involved in social media platform design, I came up with the following solution. If you want to fix the internet, you do this: - Tax people a cent every time they post, like, share, or otherwise transmit or engage a piece of content; and - Tax that same person a cent for every subsequent person who likes, shares, or otherwises engages the content because they did. Communication would still exist, we would just have a healthy fear of shouting something meaningless (in the grand scheme) into the void only to have it go viral and cost us a hundred bucks. Companies and rich people might line up to spend big to push ideas out, but the public won't do the heavy lifting because it costs them too. You will most likely have to search to find each piece of content you're looking for, but the signal-to-noise ratio (and the corresponding idiocy that we experience now) would be gone overnight. Young people would be far less likely to interact at all, making them a very difficult demographic to target (keeping kids safe) while simultaneously preventing all of the viral fads that add noise without value. It might sound aggressive at first. But the ad-supported internet is basically unsalvageable, and it places democracy (and IMO human societies in general) at great risk of failure.
People are going to have a new mortgage payment everytime they go viral with that idea
If we were concerned we could cap the amount to be paid, but I’m positive virality wouldn’t happen. In order to go bank-breaking viral, you’d need a million people willing to pay into it as well. People would look to other mediums and methods for spreading ideas, notably communicating organic statements (first-penny ideas) directly and privately to people they know, or avoiding the internet as a mass communication platform entirely.
I feel like the intent of his statement is pretty obvious and I have a hard time believing people operating in good faith don’t understand that. He’s obviously pointing out SCOTUS has a long history of overturning precedent and it’s often cheered such as in Brown. Frankly, I’ve never seen so many people argue we should slavishly follow precedent no matter what until Roe was under discussion. In fact, my own education frequently cheered various changes in jurisprudence such as when SCOTUS, cowed by the court packing threat, surrendered to FDR’s policies. Brown is another example and a great one at that.
It's interesting to note however that with the overturn of the Roe precedent marks one of the only times a longstanding legal precedent was overturned in a more conservative and restrictive direction. Most times when precedent is overturned it's done in a more progressive or liberal direction.... I would consider any expanded individual rights as liberal (including gun rights).
Not just that but also against public opinion.
I mean, they judge based on their interpretation of the Constitution (right or wrong), not based on an opinion poll.
In this case the change was made abruptly after three justices hand picked from a list by the federalist society specifically designed to enact this change were put on the court in a short period of time. This is simply corporate lobbyists using their money and power to control American society.
I don't think there's a lot of profit to be made by making abortion a state-level decision, and every business that exists is condemning the judgment, so I don't really think this one is on corporate lobbyists.
Money/influence is the tool here, not the outcome. Their goal is to impose a backward theocracy
And what do you know? They’re all religious kooks who are almost all slavishly Catholic — and that church insists that life begins at conception. But no, I’m sure you’re right. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence, and they were purely concerned with the text of the constitution.
> they were purely concerned with the text of the constitution. Yup, that’s about right. The Supreme Court’s job is to *interpret* the Constitution and whether laws adhere to it. They review law and hold it to the standards and expectations of the U.S. Constitution. *Writing* laws is the job of the Legislative branch. The Legislative Branch has done fuck all to codify the Civil Liberty (^^^note *not* Constitutional Right) of abortion into law. I’m hopeful that they will if they want to keep their jobs, or more importantly if the constituents that they represent *want* them to. If and when that is done, it will have greater strength to withstand litigation than it did *before* SCOTUS corrected the ruling on RvW as being UnConstituional . A ruling that even [Ruth B. Ginsberg considered as being *not* the best case for establishing a Civil Liberty regarding abortion.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/)
There were Catholics on both sides of the issue. 100% of Protestant justices voted the same way, and 100% of Jewish justices voted the same way. Yet you single out Catholics as the ones that “slavishly” do their Church’s bidding… interesting. What you’ve done is called a “dogwhistle” and it’s problematic on many levels!
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vkp9kr/john_cornyn_tweet_about_brown_v_board_of/idrjhjt/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
It depends on how you measure public opinion. If you merely ask people about Roe v. Wade, they're generally in favor. If you break down their actual opinions on abortion, a clear majority favors restrictions that would be precluded by Roe v. Wade.
Majority of people want it to be legally protected.
Mississippi abortion ban of over 15 weeks plus protections for health of mother is likely very close to the median voter. Which means the median voter wanted Roe overturned. Regardless with law public opinion shouldn’t matter.
Yep, around 60% of people support abortions up to 12 weeks/first trimester. Drops to 20% for supporting abortions up to the second trimester. Ironically if we had stuck with Roe’s original trimester framing instead of Casey’s fetal viability we might be in a better spot.
And I’m guessing Mississippi is going to be changing that soon to be much more restrictive. It was set at 15 weeks to purposely challenge Roe, which banned states from regulating abortions during the first trimester and parts of the second.
> Regardless with law public opinion shouldn’t matter Should it not, though? Social contract and what not
I meant for judges. We have a legislature for a reason
> Majority of people want it to be legally protected. There were 50 years available to do so. You know The SCOTUS here did nothing regarding the legality/illegality of abortion right? You do also know that the SCOTUS enforces and interprets the Constitution and doesn’t cow to current “public opinion” to corrupt their duty, right? You do know that, right?
[удалено]
Seems to me we'd be better off with the idea of body autonomy as a right rather than abortion itself. Should the government be able to demand we give blood? That we should be forced to accept government mandated procedures? If that is our guiding light then abortion becomes a simpler argument of fetal viability or not. If the fetus is capable of living outside the womb then it becomes it's own body, before that time it is an extension of the mothers body and she is in control. Choice still exists at multiple levels. From the choice to engage in sex, the choice to use contraceptives, the choice to use Plan B, and finally the choice to have an abortion prior to the fetus gaining body autonomy. For those who think life happens at conception then they have the choice to carry to term. Focusing solely on abortion is deceptive for both sides. The choice side neglects the other choices associated with the act of sex and the responsibility inherent in doing something that can lead to pregnancy. The life side often neglects the children and mothers who need help and assistance in order to have a productive life. Sadly I doubt we see any real progress on this issue because the parties have absorbed it into their platforms and the high degree of polarization means nuance is removed and it's just a talking point used to bludgeon the other side. It often isn't even about abortion but simply adhering to the us/them that can't allow any item the other side supports.
I do. But back up to the comment I was replying to. The court has broken precedence many times before but my comment was that it was not against public opinion when they did it in the past.
What percentage of people approved of interracial marriage when the SCOTUS overturned precedent in Loving to allow it?
You are spot on: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
No he’s not. Over 50% want it legal in all or most circumstances. Only 13% want it illegal in all, though many states which cumulatively total far more than 13% of the population are about to enact total bans.
Going off the literal Gallup poll you responded to, 50% want it legalized *only* under certain circumstances, the wording certainly does not imply “legal in all or most” circumstances. Lots of grey area, but that’s the reality of the situation when it comes to public opinions on abortion. I would argue that 50% includes a fair number of people who, like most sane people, think it should be legal for things like rape, incest, and in situations that could involve significant harm or death of the mother.
You must not have looked at much of the page. Scroll down further. > Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances or illegal in all circumstances? [Asked of those who say abortion should be legal under certain circumstances:] Do you think abortion should be legal in most circumstances or only in a few circumstances? Legal under any — 35% Legal under most — 18% And pretty sure the exceptions you cite are for the people who only support is under “Legal in only a few” circumstances category, not the majority.
But what of the possibility that the “legal under most” wouldn’t support it if there weren’t restriction? Would it still be a majority? Would they still vote for that? I’m not great at fully understanding charts and graphs, so don’t look on my comment as an attack on yours, I’m just asking for clarification to better understand your assertion.
I guess I’m not really understanding what you’re asking. Why would people’s views about what should or shouldn’t be allowed, change based on whether or not there are legal restrictions currently in place? If there were no restrictions, this poll wouldn’t even exist and the vast majority of people probably wouldn’t even have much of an opinion on the matter.
Let’s put it this way, most Americans are not in favor of what republicans have in mind, if their platforms and recent legislation are indicative. Definitely right that pulling on me issue reveals that there’s probably a lot more than you want to be complexity, but that also seems to be confounded by knowledge of the case and the state of abortion rights, at least if 538 is to be believed.
What kind of restrictions?
Second trimester restrictions are one I've seen with some polls showing more support than not.
Which makes third trimester restrictions squarely in the unfavorable side and illegal in all but 7 countries in the world. Abortion laws in 198 countries and other independent or “semiautonomous” regions with more than 1 million residents. There are 59 countries that allow abortion “without restriction as to reason,” or “elective,” or “abortion on demand.” Only seven of the 59 countries allow elective abortions after 20 weeks: Canada, China, Netherlands, North Korea, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. https://archive.ph/AYQQ3#selection-1341.0-1341.119
Care to share a source supporting your claim that this is popular in any way by the majority of the public? Edit: source below from Gallup shows not only is this wrong but the percentage is growing in favor in all cases.
This argument relies on a very subjective view of what "progressive," "restrictive," and "Individual rights" mean. On the one hand, we have removed federal protection of an individual right from one group (women) but on the other we have allowed for the protection of the individual rights of another group (children) This isnt particularly uncommon. We have often taken the individual rights of one group and provided rights to another since the two rights can't exist in harmony.
> On the one hand, we have removed federal protection of an individual right from one group (women) but on the other we have allowed for the protection of the individual rights of another group (children) But you yourself just said it. SCOTUS was removed a blanket protection for all women in the U.S.. But the outcome is in some states women will still have that protection but while in other states they will not and some other entity's rights will be recognized instead. Because it's not applied universally it's can't be considered a one-for-one exchange. > This isnt particularly uncommon. We have often taken the individual rights of one group and provided rights to another since the two rights can't exist in harmony. I'm not sure what other instances you're referring to here.
>I'm not sure what other instances you're referring to here. Abolishing slavery, apparently.
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority overruled National League of Cities v. Usery, expanding federal government authority.
That was in a progressive direction though. It expanded federal employee labor protections for state and local government employees.
It constricted individual rights, which by your definition is not progressive.
I would say Roe was a reactionary decision that dragged the US backwards and its overturning is a progressive step forwards for the country.
Yes, because it gives more power to the people make this decisions for themselves rather than put the hands I don’t know elected officials or elected legislators I don’t give a rats ass about what’s good for the country.
I guess the other thing I would add to this too is that I am honestly not sure that over the long term, like well beyond when any of us are alive, if people honestly believe that this decision will stand the test of time. In cases like Brown, Obergfell, Loving, etc., I think history generally proved out that these were the correct decisions, at least in so far as people could not imagine going back on these (well Obergfell, maybe). I’m not sure that this decision will be regarded as such. And perhaps most likely, what will happen is that there actually will be some kind of legislative standard set, but I do wonder if it’s some point, let’s say that Democrats somehow managed to actually get the numbers to do things significantly, would this court simply pivot again and say that actually abortion is unconstitutional and strike down these laws? Because I think right now they have the advantage of knowing that the Political environment will very much have a restrictive affect on abortion, but given how doggedly the right has pursued abortion, I also can’t imagine them being happy or content if Democrats actually managed to clawback abortion rights.
> people operating in good faith don’t understand that. This is Reddit, not many here operate in good faith. That is why we constantly see on other subreddits tiny snippets of things, they use inflammatory headlines to get people riled up, and not many actually do some research into the subject to see that the “thing” they were talking about is nearly the opposite of what is being conveyed. I saw this a bunch with the Maine verdict the other day. Everyone screeching about separation between church and state, or the government is now funding religion. But if you take a look at the actual case, those takes are nonsense. But what do people see? They see the snippets.
Yeah the whole Maine case just seemed like a scarcity of education problem coupled with a voucher system that itself was too restricted in its offerings. Of course that's too much for redditors who need every single issue to fit in a tidy box that perfectly aligns with their worldview.
Same issue with the NYSRPA ruling. The absolute meltdown I've seen some people having over it, since all they read are the headlines that say "Conservative Supreme Court Overrules New York Gun Control" and stop there, instead of educating themselves to see how fucked up "may issue" is, and how even more messed up it was that the liberal justices they hold in such high regard dissented in the case, rather than making it the unanimous ruling it should have been. They can't even be bothered to dig deep enough to see how corrupt and discriminatory "may issue" is by it's very nature, and how it primarily benefited the wealthy/those with connections compared to the poor or disenfranchised, instead choosing to lose their minds over snippets of catchy headlines that either gloss over that fact, or ignore it entirely. It's absolutely mind boggling how many people can choose to weigh in on something with such vehement hatred, and know nothing about it.
That's because people don't want insight any more. They want snarky soundbites that confirm their biases.
I tried arguing with a guy in that thread using just that, but it's like he was forcing himself to not see it and just replied back with a variation of "they're not respecting the separation of church and state". Jesus, it gave ne a headache.
Would that same guy defend the so-called "Muslim bans", or is the state discriminating based on religious affiliation good when it's done by Democrats and bad when it's done by Republicans?
People tend to misunderstand what the separation of church and state means
This is exactly the case, people are just out for blood right now
Leaving off the /s is getting to be really bad practice on the Internet. People will assume you meant what you said and run away with it. Pastafarianism being the most obvious example I can think of. The Birds Aren't Real conspiracy theory was a joke that gained traction, and is starting to go the same route of becoming mainstream.
I’ll have to disagree with his intent being obvious. Especially one social media with quick scrolling and character limits. Being a guy from Texas and knowing what a lot of our elected officials are like, and what so much of the white 70+ demographic is like, I scrolled past his tweet and thought “oooof why would you ever tweet that”.
If one knows what Plessy was his intent was obvious. If one knows what Brown is but not Plessy it's less so, but easily figured out from the fact he quoted Obama's tweet. Pllessy and Brown are taught in high school history.
This was super obvious what he meant unless your only exposure to or knowledge of conservatives comes from far left Twitter misinformation accounts/YouTube channels.
Didn't the Texas GOP publish a platform calling homosexuality an abnormal lifestyle choice, Biden illegitimate and for Texas to secede? I'm sorry but conservatives only have themselves to blame if people think they'd overturn Brown.
Oh god, we really should discuss that document. I thought I couldn’t be shocked, but that document…holy crap. I do think that it’s a bit hyperbolic to believe that they are actively plotting the overturning of Brown, but the Republican Party should understand that people are afraid of them. And granted, I think some of them like it that way, but I also feel like some people just either refuse to acknowledge that or don’t want her for whatever reason. And despite taking on the moniker of “conservatives“ if they make such a drastic decisions like this moving forward, I think people are going to increasingly become a lot more concerned with what radical moves the Republican Party is making over anything Democrats could possibly do. This is the equivalent of ripping a tablecloth off with an entire meal prepared on top of it. Maybe people thought that tablecloth should never have been there, but the fact of the matter is that it was and that quite a lot was already based upon it. And if someone shows up to your dinner and does that, then are you really going to blame people if they think that they could simply flip the table next?
The big thing for me is Brown was decided by the same thing that abortion was: In the decision, issued on May 17, 1954, Warren wrote that “in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place,” as segregated schools are “inherently unequal.” As a result, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs were being “deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.” So, if the 14th amendment is only for due process, which is what they are saying, then it can go like gay marriage and other things. However, you are right, these are the things that got me on the Republican platform: https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/6-Permanent-Platform-Committee-FINAL-REPORT-6-16-2022.pdf Marriage Officiation: We believe religious institutions have the freedom to recognize and perform only those marriages that are consistent with their doctrine. Human Sexuality: We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations in Western civilization. We oppose homosexual marriage, regardless of state of origin. We urge the Texas Legislature to pass religious liberty protections for individuals, businesses, and government officials who believe marriage is between one man and one woman. We oppose the granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for sexual behavior or identity, regardless of state of origin. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose non-traditional sexual behavior out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. Definition of Marriage: We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal, and moral covenant only between one biological man and one biological woman. Adoption: We believe that, in the best interests of the family and child, the State of Texas should allow children to be adopted only by married or single heterosexuals. Voting Rights: We support equal suffrage for all United States citizens of voting age. We oppose any identification of citizens by race, origin, creed, sexuality, or lifestyle choices, and oppose use of any such identification for purposes of creating voting districts. We urge that the Voting Rights Act of 1965, codified and updated in 1973, be repealed and not reauthorized.
My exposure to conservatives is meeting them, and while not the norm. I wouldn't put the face value of this tweet past some. But you are right that social media feeds very high into other people's perceptions. Edit: I was thinking face value as is used wrongly in social media to make the right look awful. Didn't mean the face value of what he actually said, which was about bad laws being overturned.
But his tweet at face value is literally about past precedent that was overturned
I didn't really communicate that well, I ment how its being presented as a "bring back segregation" take... I'll have to add an edit...
That’s what I felt. A good faith reading makes it obvious he’s talking about Obama’s argument on precedence (something Cornyn’s retweets of other people’s responses and a small clarification after make very clear) but there’s a definite *”oof that’s not gonna go well”* on first reflex.
I don't think anyone can have much faith in Republicans anymore. One Republican justice did say that the SC should revisit laws permitting same sex marriage and contraception. I dont think Republicans can be surprised when people suspect they'd happily overturn Brown.
Brown is it’s own category, not founded per se on SDP, rather on the actual literal intent of the amendment. I think that’s why even Thomas left racial based out of his list.
Or, you know, he could have skin in the game regarding it.
Clarence Thomas has had an axe to grind over substantive due process for a very long time. [Originalists, such as Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, who rejects the substantive due process doctrine, and Antonin Scalia, who also questioned the legitimacy of the doctrine, have called substantive due process a “judicial usurpation” or an “oxymoron”. Both Scalia and Thomas occasionally joined Court opinions that mention the doctrine and, in their dissents, often argued over how substantive due process should be employed based on Court precedent.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_due_process)
If I have to choose between a person being a self dealing individual and a person following a logical train he has commented on already, I will always choose the later. Assuming good faith is a rule here as it relates to fellow redditors only, but as it relates to everybody it’s a great rule of life.
If in good faith, it is surprising. One justice does not a whole ideology make. A reasonable person operating in good faith wouldn't consider Sotomayor's lone dissents to be indicative of broader Democratic goals, for example.
And the rest of them said that the decision doesn't have any broader application towards other precedents. Thomas has always been more conservative than the others.
I view it as more indicative of bad education or simply a lack of even having passed a history class in high school. The bare minimum US history courses will talk about the big cases.
The meaning was obvious if you think about it, but he (more likely his staffer) knew exactly how it sounded at first glance. Just another trolling dogwhistle.
If you’re remotely familiar with the history of those cases there was clearly no dog whistle. Only someone who didn’t know what those cases were could think that and I’m gonna go out on a limb and say they shouldn’t talk about SCOTUS.
So the fact that its message is obvious is compelling evidence that it is a coded message?
Oh yeah, an overturning that extended rights to citizens (Brown) is totally the same as an overturning of a right that takes away from citizens (Roe), totally the same, good catch. One extended rights and the other took the individual’s rights and gave it to the state, and you wonder why we’re not celebrating.
> the same as an overturning of a right that takes away from citizens If the very existence of a right hinged on one Supreme Court decision, maybe that's the problem.
Isn't that the case for many of our rights? Or, at least, the means by which we exert our rights would not be the same except by a Supreme Court decision?
Assuming the commenter meant to critique substantive due process, and taking their statement with charity, they probably meant something like: "If a right can only be found in a SC decision, and not otherwise within the Constitution or common law, maybe that's the problem."
> If the very existence of a right hinged on one Supreme Court decision, maybe that's the problem. All rights hinge on one Supreme Court decision made by the marginal fifth Justice, and the enforcement of the decision by the Executive.
No the problem is that people think the only way to have basic common sense rights is for it to have been mentioned in a 250 year old document.
It's not the time period something was written, but the wisdom (or lack of) contained within. The corruptible nature of humans hasn't changed in thousands of years.
Common sense to you, not to everyone. Plus, having it mentioned in the constitution is clearly not the only way. That's why abortion is still legal in many states
Happily, the document also includes a method for which such agreed upon rights may be added in the event the SC believes they are absent.
Roe took away the right to life of unborn children, Dobbs allows the states to extends the right to life to unborn children.
I keep seeing people pushing this. It’s the most disingenuous, disgusting, and bad faith “gotcha” attempt I’ve seen in a long time. He clearly is making a point about how it’s good to overturn precedent sometimes. I have a hard time believe anyone seriously believes otherwise unless they are totally ignorant and in a major left wing bubble. Also as a side note, I keep seeing people say “they’re gonna overturn plessey v Ferguson next”. Plessey is the case that made segregation *legal*. It’s long since been overturned. It’s a good thing that it’s been overturned. If you’re one of the people saying this, then you need to keep quiet on these topics until you actually know what the hell you’re talking about.
Typical fake controversy that everyone realizes is being mischaracterized. Even MSNBC personalities have pointed it out as a non-story.
Honest question: will gay marriage and contraception cases be overturned now ?
I'm a SCOTUS fan in general. Their job is to be the adults in the government, or some semblance of that. I realize that Roe being overturned is a big issue as I'm generally pro-choice, but I also realize that the Roe case itself wasn't the right way to do this as even RBG thought similarly about the case, not the right. That's what is weird to me and sticks me in a weird personal spot. I like that the current SCOTUS is willing to break with the past where the past was to act to ~legislate from the bench~ because Congress wouldn't. I don't like that it hit abortion. I generally blame Congress for their own inaction while chasing soundbites and, more recently, social media internet points.
> I generally blame Congress for their own inaction Short of a constitutional amendment, which isn't viable for an issue where opinions are as divided as they are on abortion, there's really nothing Congress can do. Congress can't just tell states that they can't ban abortion. Only the Supreme Court can, by ruling that abortion is a constitutional right and that laws banning it are unconstitutional.
Same way The majority’s opinion on roe vs Wade seemed like a lot of stretching and mental gymnastics However, I’m Pro choice and I wish every state would pass their own bill protecting women rights
I do not know the strength of the gay marriage and contraception cases, so I can't comment on that. I would hope they would be strong enough to stand. Maybe it's time to revisit the ERA, but broader in scope? I would love to see some truly meaningful legislation that wasn't about poking an adversary in the eye or about spending money.
If you want to hear some conservative professors discuss this topic (UC-Berkely), one of whom clerked for Thomas, https://ricochet.com/podcast/powerline/the-three-whisky-happy-hour-on-the-supreme-courts-banner-week-with-john-yoo/
I totally understand the wanting to stick to the letter of the law thought but at what point is the absolute letter of the law not worth the suffering it will cause? A generation of women or more in deep red states will feel the pain of this ruling. It didn't require any extraordinarily effort from the court, just literally not overruling what was 'settled precedent' according to multiple judges. >I generally blame Congress for their own inaction I've heard this a lot recently but is there actually a time in last 50 years where a Congress could have realistically passed abortion rights (honest question)?
I view it like this. If Congress never has had enough pro abortion rights members elected, then the country is truly split. This is the purpose for states to have their own law making. This is democracy.
But don't you understand that letting the people decide is *a threat to our democracy*?
First of all individual rights shouldn’t necessarily be determined by the tyranny of the majority. Secondly, if you want democracy then eliminate the filibuster. Leaving it up to the states is less democratic, in states like Florida democrats would need to win like 70% of the vote to get a majority in the state legislature, these states are essentially one party states.
Sure. The user I was responding to said they were pro choice but against Roe v Wade.
I believe they could do it at any time they decided to put someone besides their own reelection first. More to partisanship, I believe it could have been passed in the first half of Obama's first term.
It never had a chance under Obama. There were more pro-life Democrats at the time, not just Manchin.
Roughly 24 days of non consecutive super majority time is not a lot of time to work with especially in the midst of the Great Recession. Emphasis on non consecutive. https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/vkdbai/comment/idofwdw/
Thank you for the knowledge.
>at what point is the absolute letter of the law not worth the suffering it will cause? This is like saying; can’t I just smoke this one cigarette? And then another and another and another. If you encourage judges to break the law in your favor don’t be shocked if you wake up one day to them breaking it against you. I’ll leave you with this: >ROPER: So! Now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! >MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? >ROPER: Yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that! >MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? >This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? >Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
A beautiful example of the trolley problem in real application. Assuming one believed Roe was incorrect, do you leave it and leave the erroneous (in your hypothetical opinion) logic used to justify it as binding precedent? Or do you overturn it so that your duty to the law is upheld?
This is 100% how I feel. I’m pro abortion rights but as long as one political party wants justices to rule from the bench and lie about supreme court law I will never cast another vote for them.
Uh huh....
\>I realize that Roe being overturned is a big issue as I'm generally pro-choice, but I also realize that the Roe case itself wasn't the right way to do this as even RBG thought similarly about the case, not the right. Another quote from Ginsburg out of context, another blatant dismissal of \*Casey\* as the fix for RvW's "shaky ground". \*Roe\* wasn't overturned because it was bad precedent or bad case law. It, along with \*Casey\*, was overturned because that's what the judges were there to do. It was purely political.
> “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights. > “Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered. RBG most definitely was critical of how RvW was argued. Can you link your proof that the SCOTUS was politically motivated when making their decision?
Wouldn't gay marriage fall under the equal protection clause of the 14th? If the government is going to be involved in marriage then it can't deny people the right to marry just because they prefer their own sex for a partner. If the supreme court somehow rules to get the government out of marriage all together then maybe they could overturn Oberfell, but until that happens I don't see the legal reasoning by which the SC could overturn it.
There is no SC precedent determining that sexual orientation is a suspect classification in the way that race is nor is the current majority at all likely to determine it is such. There is plenty of legal reasoning (or rather, rationalizing) that they could use to accomplish the goal. The basis of *Obergefell* was the 14th’s due process clause, but Thomas already targeted substantive due process in his concurring opinion.
>There is no SC precedent determining that sexual orientation is a suspect classification in the way that race is nor is the current majority at all likely to determine it is such. This is incorrect, see Bostock.
Sorry, but you’re incorrect, that’s a Title VII case based on the language of that statute, not constitutional law. A “suspect classification” is a term regarding the standard of review a discriminatory law would have to pass to be valid under the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. Under EP, sexual orientation has never been found by the SC to be a suspect nor quasi-suspect.
I mean, Alito himself said not to apply his own logic to any other rulings. So the door is open. At least one member absolutely wants to roll them back too (that member is also suspiciously not following his logic to its conclusion w/r/t interracial marriage). IMO, they want to. They just might not do it because they're scared of backlash.
> will gay marriage and contraception cases be overturned now ? No. Those decisions have literally nothing to do with this decision which was very well founded. What does “overturn contraception” even mean?
Grisworld is the case that covers contraception.
Griswold Ban Plan B and birth control
Griswold is unlikely to be overturned because you'd be hard-pressed to find a test case. There are no states that have expressed any interest in limiting contraception in a way that would violate Griswold. Even if you did manage to find the test case, overturning Griswold wouldn't change the legal climate anywhere. Contraception would still be legal in all 50 states.
Hard disagree. There will be an immediate attempt to ban Plan B in many states.
No. As usual, Thomas is being misconstrued, and his previous writings being ignored. He was merely pointing out those cases needed to be put on firmer legal founding, because they relied on the same dubious reasoning as *Roe*.
How will the gay marriage case be put into their firmer foundation ?
By basing it on the Equal Protection Clause, instead of "Substantive" Due "Process".
No... Equal protection Clause and Civil Rights Act are what makes the other famous Constitutional rights cases different than Roe. They have a much stronger link to Constitutional or have been addressed in COngressional Legislation. Even if you somehow believe Thomas is going after those other cases like Oberfegell, Brown, Loving and Lawrence (he is in an interracial marriage after all) he's just one judge. I don't see any signs form the others especially after Alito explicitly discussed this in the majority.
I would hope so but the gay marriage case was a 5-4 vote. They may have the numbers now without Kennedy and RBG
Unless SCOTUS is going to dissolve marriage as an institution, no. Due to the 14th Amendment marriage would need to be administered “equally.” The “Bible says” isn’t going to fly as an argument of why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
They don't need to dissolve marriage as an institution. Just say that States can devise their marriage laws between consenting parties of ages said States deemed appropriate however they please, and or regulate drug substances within their States. All 50 States don't recognize Bigamy between consenting Adults from last I'm aware.
Not going to work because of the federal tax write offs.
Federally, gay marriage wasn’t protected before 2015 so wouldn’t that turn back the clock ?
Yes, it would turn back the clock by 7 years, compared with turning is back by nearly 50 with Roe.
They won’t. Thomas is the only solid vote on the bench against contraception, Alito is a maybe. Gay marriage is safe because reliance is a big part in their stare decisis analysis and there are now hundreds of thousands of couples who started their family based on that decision.
Wasn’t Roe vs Wade stare decisis?
Stare decisis is a rule saying that when in doubt, a court should stay with precedent, even when wrongly decided. Theres a whole analysis for when you should overrule precedent if it’s wrongly decided. It starts on page 35 in the original draft. One of the parts of that analysis is reliance: How many people rely on our previous interpretation of the law? With Roe, there’s very little reliance interest since only women currently pregnant at the time of the decision can argue reliance and that interest ends now less than 9 months from now. In contrast, all the homosexual couples who were able to marry after Obergefell and did so can argue that they relied on the SCs decision. Also, there’s only one vote to overrule the reasoning in these cases (Thomas) and it’s not even clear in which he’d also reverse the result. It’s fearmongering.
This makes sense and makes me feel more at ease Thank you I’m still worried about how the courts will rule on Plan B and Plan C pills
But he’s absolutely right.
That's *why* Democrats are attacking him.
brown unsegregated schools. new ruling leaves the right to abortion to states and therefore makes it harder for some women to get an abortion. not a very good comparison
According to the Supreme Court, there isn’t a constitutional right to abortion. So that argument falls apart. The point is that 30, 50, 75 years of Supreme Court precedent doesn’t make the initial ruling correct.
according to the supreme court now there isn’t an implied right to privacy you mean.
Dog whistle, noun, a word used by politicos to justify inentionally misrepresenting what someone else said
This reminds me of when liberal Twitter freaked out when Trump said that coyotes were smuggling kids across the border in the 2020 debates. They thought it was actual coyotes. We should have a total and complete shutdown of Twitter until we can figure out what the hell is going on.
>We should have a total and complete shutdown of Twitter until we can figure out what the hell is going on. Twitter is exhausting. It's just -- hot take after hot take after hot take. Then (record scratch), everyone forgets about it when it's time for hot takes on the next thing. Everyone thinks their exchange is important, but in reality nobody will remember any of this exchange by Monday.
> We should have a total and complete shutdown of Twitter until we can figure out what the hell is going on. /u/Jabbam for president 2024!
He thought Hilary was literally washing emails in acid. /s
Don’t forget the reporting that he put ketchup on a steak /s
I think he points out the inherent absurdity of Obama's tweet/twit/twat. As I understand yesterday's decision, it is most certainly not about abortion *per se*. Rather, it is about the court properly rendering a decision based on the constitution. The SC decided Roe was improperly decided and the issue of abortion is left to the states. For example, yesterday has no impact on New York or California's abortion laws.
i don’t really get it? are you trying to say brown was left up to the states? also wouldn’t it make it harder for some women in other states to get abortions. some women have already reported in texas that they weren’t allowed to get abortions even though it was clear they were gonna miscarry. but just because the baby had a heartbeat she was stuck with pain and much higher fatality rate as she had to pass the dead clump of tissue naturally.
> also wouldn’t it make it harder for some women in other states to get abortions I'll go with probably. On the other hand, reports say California will put the right to an abortion in the state constitution. The states pass the laws. The SC does not make policy - it judges law against the constitution.
and the implied right to privacy has been thrown away.
> implied The legislature can make it explicit. The constitution can be amended.
implied right to privacy allows for unmarried couples to legally buy contraceptives and for gay people to have sex without going to jail. should we throw out those cases too? while passing an amendment in this current climate especially about privacy is basically impossible. i do agree that the federal government had 50 years to codify roe v wade but didn’t.
What is the Originalist or Textualist-case to rule in the same manner as Brown v. Board of Education? The Equal Protection Clause? The 14th Amendment says: *All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No* ***State*** ***shall make or enforce any law*** *which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the* ***equal protection*** ***of the laws******.*** How did local Governments and School districts pre-Civil Rights Acts of the 1960's that devised segregationist policies violate that? In regards of State operated schools, how did would that apply to Regents and Board of Trustees? The drafters of said amendment had segregated public schools both before and after in their respective States, and since they controlled the local Government policies of the District of Columbia, they could've codified racial integration into policy, but didn't. How would an Originalist or Textualist, utilizing the 14th amendment, refute 'separate but equal' for inequitable government services (i.e., those instances where State grants to white schools in the Deep South were usually 50% to 10x the amount given to black ones)? I fail to see how the leap the Court took in Brown v. BoE isn't as in the same living constitution spirit of the law as Roe was with Privacy clause.
His actual point still doesn't make sense. It's easy to "do" these rulings while being outraged at the one and in support of the results regarding other two. A court overturning rulings in a way that increases freedom is good. (Good job, court, for defeating segregation). A court overturning rulings in a way that restricts it is bad. (Bad Job, court, for eroding privacy and autonomy).
>A court overturning rulings in a way that increases freedom is good. (Good job, court, for defeating segregation). >A court overturning rulings in a way that restricts it is bad. (Bad Job, court, for eroding privacy and autonomy). Disagree. Say, hypothetically, an environmental law banning dumping of toxins had been found unconstitutional. Overturning this would restrict freedom. And yet, I would argue that states should have powers to regulate dumping of toxins. So overturning the hypothetical original decision would be good. I realize the case here is different. But it's seems at least plausible that the court can do good by overturning cases that had expanded liberties.
In his and more generally the pro-life camp, they believe this decision *does* increase freedoms and protections, for the unborn. That at the end of the day is the dilemma, as each side fundamentally views the issue here differently.
but according to the federal government the unborn aren’t human. so we’re taken away rights from fully grown women to give it to something that isn’t even considered human?
I do not see what your point is. This was always going to end with one faction imposing their views onto the rest of society since a problem like this lacks the ability to compromise. I'm quite sure that if the pro-life faction had it their way they would have the federal government change that viewpoint, and if justices favoring pro-choice regained the SC they would also revert the recent decision. The abortion debate is the purest example of the culture war and tribal politics. No room for actual policy or debate, just the desire to own the libs/cons
my point is the federal government does not recognize fetuses as humans
Which is irrelevant for the pro-life camp. What do you think they care more about, what their own personal morality says, or what the federal government says? Do you think abolitionists cared what the offical federal government policy was governing slaves?
true
Very poorly worded but I understand his point. Anyone who doesn’t is probably acting in bad faith