Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[McTraveller]

While I'm no fan of abortion, the way the current political tides are going is not how I'd address the problem. I'd rather set up and promote alternatives.  That is, just make it an unattractive option, not an illegal option.

And definitely don't go so far as these laws that reward people for turning others in for any "illegal behavior."  That sort of incentive is the worst sort of thing you can have in a society.

[MaxTheFox]

While I'm no fan of abortion, the way the current political tides are going is not how I'd address the problem. I'd rather set up and promote alternatives.  That is, just make it an unattractive option, not an illegal option.

And definitely don't go so far as these laws that reward people for turning others in for any "illegal behavior."  That sort of incentive is the worst sort of thing you can have in a society.

This.

As for the latter, I'd turn a burglar, a mugger, a murderer in in a heartbeat without any rewards needed. All actual rewards (for anything other than the worst and most high-profile of crimes) do is encourage framing people for crimes.

[da_nang]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

Looks like Roe vs Wade is dead

Well that would certainly be one way of solving the bounty hunter debate. "Abortion Bounty Hunters, A-OK; 2A Bounty Hunters, Not OK."

I still believe there exists a constitutional right to (government-)assisted abortion of life-threatening pregnancies under the due process clause, regardless of other unenumerated rights.

Even if unenumerated rights enjoy the same protection enumerated rights enjoy, they certainly do not enjoy the benefit of an enumerated definition. As such, SCOTUS could rule that a right to bodily autonomy does not extend past your own body and thus you have no constitutional right to an assisted abortion (but you can perform one on yourself). Similarly, the right to privacy can be ruled to be merely a restriction on the government's investigatory power. They can't barge into your house, or start searching your reproductive organs, but they can probably still have undercover agents inside abortion clinics, or run sting operations against or inside abortion clinics.

[MaxTheFox]

Apparently the two homosexuality-related bills were not properly legislated in the first place and that is why they are getting overturned.

Which is still an issue because unless a replacement bill is made immediately after, states could still attack LGBT people. But I at least understand the Justice's point now. I doubt Roberts would like to see his political reputation destroyed.

[Lord Shonus]

This decision would only affect Roe, and would not affect any other case, even if those are mentioned.


Equalky important, even if we assume this is genuine it is a documemt that is already two months old.


The way this generally works is that the Justices take a preliminary vote after arguments are over. Thismvote is little more than "which side do we favor,

After this is done, the most senior member of the "winning" side is assigned to write the majority opinion. They determine the wording, exact precedents cited, etc. This is the dpcument that has been leaked.

This is then circulated among the other 8 Justices. If enough of them sign on with it, it becomes the majority opinion, and the writing of dissents can begin. Otherwise, a round of wrangling and rewrites proceeds until a majority consensus is reached, and then the final decision is circulated and writing of dissents can begin. It is very common for this final decision to bear little similarity to the initial draft.

[nenjin]

Except 5 of 9 justices are already wildly in support of it, because they're hacks. Roberts is the only sway vote.

The language may be less stupid in the final decision, but I'm not holding out that anything is going to be different. Conservatives have demonstrated they're immune to things like public opinion, fairness, decency or fair play.

[MaxTheFox]

If there is enough public backlash, one of them probably will reconsider. And given what I have heard, and the general popularity of abortion rights in America...

[Sirus]

Why would they? They don't get elected by the public. Their positions are for life, or until they step down. And the ones in favor of canning the old decision are the types that would cheerfully vote their own way even if 99% of the population disagreed with them.

Anyway, which civil right do you all bet will be targeted next? My personal guess is gay marriage, considering some of the cases referenced in the majority opinion.

[Starver]

That only matters if the personal judicial opinion is not oblivious to the merit of the public opinion on abortion-rights[1] and too tightly focussed on what is more "good for the people, even if they don't know it" in their own opinion (or of those they feel indebted to promote policy for).

How much is actual quid-pro-quo, or even personally biased, in kind of way kind of way, I don't know. Charitably, there's perhaps a big chunk of heartfelt internal philosophy piped through the legal experience to at least look for a broadly neutral foundation to avoid trivially-blatant irrationalness in making judgement. But whichever side 'loses' is always going to suspect motives, thinking that everyone involved is either nobbled or directly in the pocket of their ideological opponents.



[1] And, of course, there's a lot of very vocal crowd of public opinion on abortion-wrongs doing its best to shape legislation (or lack of it, where it would make it prescribable rather than entirely proscribable).

[hector13]

Yeah there is no political pressure because I’m pretty sure to remove a Justice without them being dead or resigning you need a senate supermajority, of which you are vanishingly unlikely to ever see.

[da_nang]

Anyway, which civil right do you all bet will be targeted next? My personal guess is gay marriage, considering some of the cases referenced in the majority opinion.

Overturning Obergefell v. Hodges seems likely, yeah. Many of the current sitting judges criticized it for creating rights out of thin air. That's the problem Lochner v. New York created with the substantive due process doctrine. It leads to rulings that do not follow from the axioms of the Constitution.

[lemon10]

Political pressure could get them to back off, but it would need to be massive political pressure from the republican side including like 20 senators. Which uh... doesn't have the slightest chance in hell of happening.

[Vector]

A lot of Republicans have signaled a willingness to help LGB people if they unite in throwing trans people under the bus, so there's that, I suppose.

[nenjin]

Progress, aaaaaayyyyyyy?

[voliol]

A lot of Republicans have signaled a willingness to help LGB people if they unite in throwing trans people under the bus, so there's that, I suppose.

Oh the fool to trust a republican