SCOTUS In Doubt

[grip]

Of course, it is. Thanks to Trump and his enablers, SCOTUS has 5 conservative Catholics. Educate yourself about conservative Catholics. You'll be able to answer your own question.

See post #46

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Nope; overturning Roe v. Wade repaired SCOTUS damage.

What “damage” was repaired? Be specific.

 

[multivita-man]

-- Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday said the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has made her worried about the "integrity" of the Supreme Court.

"I think this is an activist court," Harris said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press." --

Does overturning a popular landmark decision mean we lose faith in this Constitutional body or do we accept that they may make decisions we don't agree with overall, and wait till the justices eventually lean the other way?

Kamala Harris says she's not confident about the 'integrity' of the Supreme Court: 'I think this is an activist court'

The vice president said women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies, but "this court took that constitutional right away."

news.yahoo.com

A few points:

* People of all stripe in a democracy are going to have opinions that question our institutions and that is not a bad thing.

* All opinions are welcome but some will have more validity than others.

* Vice President Harris has a law degree - her opinion on the Supreme Court has more validity than the average person, provided that she's not being a naked partisan - I don't think she is.

* The concern about the Dobbs case goes beyond just the mere fact that it effectively allowed states to restrict abortions -- previous cases had allowed states to restrict abortions, so that wasn't new territory. What was remarkable about the Dobbs decision was the degree to which the SCOTUS judges ignored prior court cases in reaching their own verdict. This is beyond a ruling we find wrong; it was clear that those who voted with the majority did so while blatantly violating court traditions.

* But the Court decisions are not the only reason people question the legitimacy of the Court; they question its legitimacy because Mitch McConnell abused his power in the Senate and blocked or stalled numerous nominations during the Obama years and then turned right around and confirmed conservative judges, contradicting his reasons for blocking the earlier nominations. It's clear that the current judiciary's composition is a product of partisan politics, and that is why I boldly claim, along with others, that the Court's legitimacy - not just SCOTUS but the entire judiciary - is damaged. It's a product of partisanship, and unlike previous years it's a product of procedural warfare.

Vice President Harris is correct. The Supreme Court is legitimate - the Constitution makes it so. But because of abuses of power, it is a lot less legitimate than it would be otherwise.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Does overturning a popular landmark decision mean we lose faith in this Constitutional body or do we accept that they may make decisions we don't agree with overall, and wait till the justices eventually lean the other way?

That would depend on how they argued the reversal and other context.

In this case, it was a horrible decision that violated Stare Decisis, possibly destroying this important principle of jurisprudence forever. In this case, a Senate majority leader and Sitting president quite unethically and explicitly stated they would appoint judges to overturn Roe V Wade. In this case, three judges (2 of whom were obviously unqualified and unfit for the bench) deceived the Congress and american public during their hearings in regards to this precise decision..

So it is understandable if faith has been lost in the current, corrupted court.

 

[AGENT J]

-- Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday said the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has made her worried about the "integrity" of the Supreme Court.

"I think this is an activist court," Harris said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press." --

Does overturning a popular landmark decision mean we lose faith in this Constitutional body or do we accept that they may make decisions we don't agree with overall, and wait till the justices eventually lean the other way?

Kamala Harris says she's not confident about the 'integrity' of the Supreme Court: 'I think this is an activist court'

The vice president said women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies, but "this court took that constitutional right away."

news.yahoo.com

Ugh, thats a tough call for me personally

BUT going by the words of the actual justices id have to see its absolutely lost major integrity
how many of them made certain statements about or were coy about RvW THEN turned around and did the opposite

that factual reality has to show integrity is damaged
right vs left doesnt matter and NEVER should when discussing SCOTUS but individuals judges saying/declaring one thing and then doing another is such a major fashion certainly does matter

 

[jaypatriot]

I think there can be no doubt that this has become an activist court. It's one thing to render predictable right wing decisions that come before you, but it is yet another to completely overlook decades of stare decisis, and overturn what has been the law of the land for nearly 50 years. If that isn't activist, I don't know what is.

The Court is not being 'activist'. It is returning the choice to abort a living being back to the states where it belongs.
The Federal Government never should have had to power to decree that murdering a living creature in the womb be a nationwide choice.

Is the Current Supreme Court an 'Activist Court'?​

By Rick Moran Sep 10, 2022 1:35 PM ET

"Harris is referring to the Dobbs decision that overturned the Roe vs. Wade decision. Of course, the court took nothing away. Abortion is still legal where the citizens of a state have determined it should be. Where citizens believe it shouldn’t be legal, it’s not. It’s a frighteningly simple concept that pro-abortion advocates refuse to acknowledge because they know they lose the “rights” argument every time.
But that doesn’t stop pro-abortion advocates like Harris from trying to portray women as “suffering” from not being able to kill their unborn children.
It’s interesting that Harris should mention the Warren Court — by far and away the most activist Supreme Court in modern history. The only difference for Harris is that the Warren court was handing down decisions that Harris and her leftist friends could agree with politically."

Is the Current Supreme Court an 'Activist Court'?

pjmedia.com

Harris, for all of her clumsy rhetoric, knows full well this is a wedge issue made for Democrats. She knows this abortion issue will motive millions of women to come out and vote for those politicians who will commit to championing a pro abortion law in a given state.

 

[Individual]

-- Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday said the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has made her worried about the "integrity" of the Supreme Court.

"I think this is an activist court," Harris said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press." --

Does overturning a popular landmark decision mean we lose faith in this Constitutional body or do we accept that they may make decisions we don't agree with overall, and wait till the justices eventually lean the other way?

Kamala Harris says she's not confident about the 'integrity' of the Supreme Court: 'I think this is an activist court'

The vice president said women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies, but "this court took that constitutional right away."

news.yahoo.com

The SC rulings are, and should be, based on nothing more than the Constitutionality as the basis of their decisions, and if a law is overturned which a majority disagree with solution is to amend our Constitution. Isn't that what our Representatives in Congress are supposed to do, represent their constituents? Rights unlike privileges, IMO, should be recognized as equal regardless of ones residence within our Nation.

Also, IMO, an amendment should recognize a Woman having sole right to make a choice at ANY point prior to birth, and shortly post birth a limited voice by government allowing the Woman and her Doctor to make a decision to record the birth, at which point the new born becomes recognized as a citizen with the same rights as ALL citizens.

 

[TearItAllDown]

We can easily eliminate the SC if we do the right thing and eliminate one of the parties. I say we eliminate the GOP, but if we have to put it up to a vote, I suggest we let the country's billionaires vote on which party they want to keep and which party to eliminate. That's pure democracy, american style! I'm sure they would choose today's democrats. Just think how easy governing the country would be without an opposing party and every politician was chosen by the billionaires and all on the same page? And there would be the benefit of not having any more FOX News, Tucker Carlson, Trump, DeSantis, no more guns, but we could have abortion clinics and trans bars on every corner. I bet within 5 years there would be 100% equality in the population. Utopia!

 

[MamboDervish]

The Court is not being 'activist'. It is returning the choice to abort a living being back to the states where it belongs.

The choice does not belong to the states. The choice belongs to the woman who is pregnant.

 

[jaypatriot]

The choice does not belong to the states. The choice belongs to the woman who is pregnant.

Then that woman should go to a state which has decided it is acceptable to kill babies still in the womb. That was the intention of the SCOTUS to overturn Roe.
And states that have unacceptable abortion restrictions should campaign to remove those restrictions through the political process.
That's how the system now works.
And GOP candidates running in races where abortion is banned or severely restricted better get savvy to trends to permit abortions with exceptions.

 

[MamboDervish]

Then that woman should go to a state which has decided it is acceptable to kill babies still in the womb.

No - she certainly shouldn't have to, and nobody is killing "babies still in the womb", because there are no babies until they are born.

That was the intention of the SCOTUS to overturn Roe.

No - their intention was to do away with abortion - period. Any other so-called "states rights" argument is bullshit.

And states that have unacceptable abortion restrictions should campaign to remove those restrictions through the political process.

As they are doing. Note Kansas. Note Michigan, which has just put it on the ballot.

That's how the system now works.

Indeed - how "the system .... works" for people with means, and works against the people without those resources. And in this, it is no different than back in the days before Roe - where the wealthy ALWAYS had access to safe abortions, and the poor suffered back-alley butchery, and home made clothes hanger abortions. Which is all, dare I say it, ****ing outrageous, and about as anti-American as can be imagined. No human being with a shred of decency should stand for it.

And GOP candidates running in races where abortion is banned or severely restricted better get savvy to trends to permit abortions with exceptions.

Or permit all abortions - period. Because anything less is nothing short of government imposing itself into the uterus of women, which should be anathema to any enlightened human being on the planet.

 

[jaypatriot]

No - she certainly shouldn't have to, and nobody is killing "babies still in the womb", because there are no babies until they are born.

No - their intention was to do away with abortion - period. Any other so-called "states rights" argument is bullshit.

As they are doing. Note Kansas. Note Michigan, which has just put it on the ballot.

Indeed - how "the system .... works" for people with means, and works against the people without those resources. And in this, it is no different than back in the days before Roe - where the wealthy ALWAYS had access to safe abortions, and the poor suffered back-alley butchery, and home made clothes hanger abortions. Which is all, dare I say it, ****ing outrageous, and about as anti-American as can be imagined. No human being with a shred of decency should stand for it.

Or permit all abortions - period. Because anything less is nothing short of government imposing itself into the uterus of women, which should be anathema to any enlightened human being on the planet.

Your strong points are noted. But SCOTUS has already decreed it is now up to each state to decide its position going forward on abortion.
To me, it is a states rights issue and not a federal issue.
I guess if you really are a resident of NY and a Progressive, your stated position makes sense.
And if you do not believe in the judgment of the Supreme Court the and wisdom of states rights, then you are going to have a lot of frustrating days ahead of you.

 

[Galactic Spin]

To me, it is a states rights issue and not a federal issue

Literally nobody is buying this con. It's just so obvious. This is just what people who support abortion bans say.

 

[jaypatriot]

We can easily eliminate the SC if we do the right thing and eliminate one of the parties. I say we eliminate the GOP, but if we have to put it up to a vote, I suggest we let the country's billionaires vote on which party they want to keep and which party to eliminate. That's pure democracy, american style! I'm sure they would choose today's democrats. Just think how easy governing the country would be without an opposing party and every politician was chosen by the billionaires and all on the same page? And there would be the benefit of not having any more FOX News, Tucker Carlson, Trump, DeSantis, no more guns, but we could have abortion clinics and trans bars on every corner. I bet within 5 years there would be 100% equality in the population. Utopia!

Have you ever thought about writing comedy sketches for Saturday Night Live?
You have quite an imagination when it comes to political change in this country.

 

[mrjurrs]

-- Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday said the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has made her worried about the "integrity" of the Supreme Court.

"I think this is an activist court," Harris said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press." --

Does overturning a popular landmark decision mean we lose faith in this Constitutional body or do we accept that they may make decisions we don't agree with overall, and wait till the justices eventually lean the other way?

Kamala Harris says she's not confident about the 'integrity' of the Supreme Court: 'I think this is an activist court'

The vice president said women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies, but "this court took that constitutional right away."

news.yahoo.com

Did you watch the confirmation hearings of any of the 6 justices that voted to overturn Roe? To be generous, they were all disingenuous in their answers regarding precedent.

 

[post]

-- Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday said the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has made her worried about the "integrity" of the Supreme Court.

"I think this is an activist court," Harris said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press." --

Does overturning a popular landmark decision mean we lose faith in this Constitutional body or do we accept that they may make decisions we don't agree with overall, and wait till the justices eventually lean the other way?

Kamala Harris says she's not confident about the 'integrity' of the Supreme Court: 'I think this is an activist court'

The vice president said women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies, but "this court took that constitutional right away."

news.yahoo.com

Why is this so difficult for RWE to consider and address similarly to if the tables were turned? The party behind this is 86 percent white in 2022!
IOW, it is a denial plagued, freak show.

Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"...The 11 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Republican majority refused to conduct the hearings necessary to advance the vote to the Senate at large, and Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress, 293 days after it had been submitted to the Senate.[10] This marked the first time since the Civil War that a nominee whose nomination had not been withdrawn had failed to receive consideration for an open seat on the Court.[11] Obama's successor, Donald Trump (a Republican), nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy on January 31, 2017, soon after taking office.[10]"

Bush and Trump, despite neither attracting the popular vote to enter the white house, nominated to SCOTUS seats 4 consecutive white male Roman Catholics, and then, a fifth, (after 2020 early voting was well under way) a white female Roman Catholic "handmaid" of a tiny religious cult requiring she submit to being "headed" by her husband, also raised in that cult of 1,700, and "headed" by the chairman of the cult's eleven, all male board of governors. The culted couple resided in their premarital period in the home of the cult's cofounder while both were attending law school.

Despite Obama winning the popular vote and being the first black POTUS in 220 years and blacks being underrepresented on the 179 seat, second highest US court, only 16 percent of Obama's nomination to that court were black but McConnell blocked votes on all Obama nominations.
Trump nominated 54 judges to that second highest court, none of them black, all the youngest he could find, the whitest slate of appellate court nominees since Nixon's! MAGA, don't you know?

Senate goes for 'nuclear option'

The changes get rid of filibusters on most judicial and executive branch nominees.

www.politico.com

"Speaking at the White House, Obama praised the Senate action, accusing Republicans of attempting to block his nominees based on politics alone, not on the merits of the nominee.

“This isn’t obstruction on substance, on qualifications. It’s just to gum up the works,” he said.
...The blockade of three consecutive nominees to a powerful appellate court was too much for Democrats to handle — and Reid felt compelled to pull the trigger, explaining that “this is the way it has to be.”

 

[mrjurrs]

Which they will also lose.

And has been the point from the start.

Overturning RvW is going to have little impact.

But it rectified a constitutional blunder by the SCOTUS.

Compare the decisions of that court to this court. It is clear which court made the mistake.

 

[jaypatriot]

Literally nobody is buying this con. It's just so obvious.

So I guess in your eyes it is time for Democrats to start rallying to pack the Supreme Court with more Liberal judges so that Roe v Wade can be reinstated.
How about if those purple and red states focus on developing a political force to make abortion acceptable in those states?
What does railing against SCOTUS do for anyone right now?
You think it makes them feel better about a judicial reality they cannot accept?

 

[BlueTex]

Your strong points are noted. But SCOTUS has already decreed it is now up to each state to decide its position going forward on abortion.
To me, it is a states rights issue and not a federal issue.
I guess if you really are a resident of NY and a Progressive, your stated position makes sense.
And if you do not believe in the judgment of the Supreme Court the and wisdom of states rights, then you are going to have a lot of frustrating days ahead of you.

Sure, sure... screw stare decisis... Rights should wax and wane with political fortunes...

 

[Galactic Spin]

So I guess in your eyes it is time for Democrats to start rallying to pack the Supreme Court with more Liberal judges so that Roe v Wade can be reinstated.

If they don't get rid of the filibuster and pass a law, then sure. Expand the court to 13, appoint 4 judges to overturn Dobbs. Sounds fine. It will also protect the next couple of generations from this corrupted court.

 

[jaypatriot]

Why is this so difficult for RWE to consider and address similarly to if the tables were turned? The party behind this is 86 percent white in 2022!
IOW, it is a denial plagued, freak show.

Bush and Trump, despite neither attracting the popular vote to enter the white house, nominated to SCOTUS seats 4 consecutive white male Roman Catholics, and then, a fifth, (after 2020 early voting was well under way) a white female Roman Catholic "handmaid" of a tiny religious cult requiring she submit to being "headed" by her husband, also raised in that cult of 1,700, and "headed" by the chairman of the cult's eleven, all male board of governors. The culted couple resided in their premarital period in the home of the cult's cofounder while both were attending law school.

Despite Obama winning the popular vote and being the first black POTUS in 220 years and blacks being underrepresented on the 179 seat, second highest US court, only 16 percent of Obama's nomination to that court were black but McConnell blocked votes on all Obama nominations.
Trump nominated 54 judges to that second highest court, none of them black, all the youngest he could find, the whitest slate of appellate court nominees since Nixon's! MAGA, don't you know?

What's your point? As Obama once said, "Elections have consequences".
Live with it.

 

[jaypatriot]

Sure, sure... screw stare decisis... Rights should wax and wane with political fortunes...

You must be from Austin or Houston.
I like Abbott and I hope he wins in a landslide.

 

[BlueTex]

You must be from Austin or Houston.
I like Abbott and I hope he wins in a landslide.

LOL... Words to big?

 

[jaypatriot]

If they don't get rid of the filibuster and pass a law, then sure. Expand the court to 13, appoint 4 judges to overturn Dobbs. Sounds fine. It will also protect the next couple of generations from this corrupted court.

I am fully prepared to accept the outcomes of the elections this November.
If, by some miracle, the Dems keep the House and the Senate, then they will be desperate to pass more legislation by ignoring the filibuster and relying on good old Hapless Harris to cast the deciding vote in the Senate.

 

[BlueTex]

I am fully prepared to accept the outcomes of the elections this November.
If, by some miracle, the Dems keep the House and the Senate, then they will be desperate to pass more legislation by ignoring the filibuster and relying on good old Hapless Harris to cast the deciding vote in the Senate.

Ignore the filibuster? Is the filibuster in the constitution somewhere?