Author Topic: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet  (Read 7416 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4455
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #175 on: July 12, 2018, 12:17:09 PM »
I did not understand that to be your point, which perhaps somewhat explains the disconnect.  I did not make it explicit that my statements were a generalization because, although implicit, I thought it was obvious from the context.  But I get what you are saying.  Again, I am not really disagreeing with what I now understand to be your point about generalizations.  I think, to broadly characterize, we were just putting our emphasis in different places.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3342
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #176 on: July 12, 2018, 12:20:28 PM »
I did not understand that to be your point, which perhaps somewhat explains the disconnect.  I did not make it explicit that my statements were a generalization because, although implicit, I thought it was obvious from the context.  But I get what you are saying.  Again, I am not really disagreeing with what I now understand to be your point about generalizations.  I think, to broadly characterize, we were just putting our emphasis in different places.

 :tup
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20638
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #177 on: July 12, 2018, 12:50:18 PM »
You continue to focus on the fundamental rather than the practical. I agree with you that right to abortion will remain. I think it's naive to extrapolate that to mean that it will still be available to all, though. I think it's very reasonable to assume that the current court could  infer a compelling state interest in requiring women to obtain a notarized letter from two priests, two state senators, and Neil Armstrong before obtaining an abortion. I'm certain that several would love the opportunity to try.

Regarding the bolded part, I'm certain that *I* would love for some to take the opportunity to try.  But that said, even if you are correct that some would "love the opportunity," none will take it.  They can't.  Where the "practical" and the "fundamental" intersect here is that there is no practical way for what you hypothesize to actually occur. 
It's already happening. How many clinics have shut down because of nonsensical regulations? Regulations concerning the size of the hallways, for example. Rules that have no basis in science and are directly targeted at a specific business for the purpose of shutting them down. I would propose that Row has no meaning if your state makes it impossible for clinics to operate legally, and based on their dissents in Hellersted I think it's clear that such a practice won't be considered an undue burden by this conservative court.

And aside from regulating abortions into extinction, what about simply rendering Row moot? Alabama is looking to define personhood as starting sometime around the time the panties come off. The implications of that could easily be used to invalidate Row.

Like I said, if you care about these things there are absolutely valid reasons for concern.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18298
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #178 on: July 12, 2018, 01:11:01 PM »
Alabama is looking to define personhood as starting sometime around the time the panties come off.

lol "not every ejaculation deserves a name" I think you brought up George Carlin recently and it triggered me to want to watch one of his stand ups with my gf (which she LOVED since she pretty much agreed with him on everything) and the one we watched had his abortion routine.  So good. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13160
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #179 on: July 12, 2018, 01:17:48 PM »
Or.....
You could frame it like this:

The Majority of Republicans, the party that controls both houses of Congress, and the Executive branch, which has the ability to appoint now its second SC judge, does indeed want to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

That seems to be a fair reason to be concerned.

Respectfully, it is NOT a fair reason to be concerned.  And the reason is that the right to choose has been interpreted as a fundamental right.  That means it is not going away, no matter who is on the high court.  It just isn't.  So, really, even if we were looking at a nominee who openly declared his intent to wage war on Roe v. Wade, and a party with the power to put such nominee in place, there would still be little reason to be concerned.  We are far from that scenario.  It really is a complete non-issue.
You continue to focus on the fundamental rather than the practical. I agree with you that right to abortion will remain. I think it's naive to extrapolate that to mean that it will still be available to all, though. I think it's very reasonable to assume that the current court could  infer a compelling state interest in requiring women to obtain a notarized letter from two priests, two state senators, and Neil Armstrong before obtaining an abortion. I'm certain that several would love the opportunity to try.

For the record, Kavenaugh doesn't strike me as that sort. Still, there is a legitimate reason for concern.

But it's important to note that the "compelling state interest" restrictions do NOT take away the right.   I get it, it limits the right, but it is not unimportant to say that the right still exists.   As long as the right exists, then the laws we are talking about will be judged at a higher standard (strict scrutiny), and other states will be entitled to grant as unfettered access to those rights as their voting constituency will allow.   Those laws will undoubtedly be regularly tested to make sure the "compelling state interest" remains.   

We can debate the practical, but that one has to jump over two hoops instead of one is still NOT "stripping women of their reproductive rights", which is the fear-mongering talking point that some are choosing to use.  I'm not talking about "hallway widths" and neither are the activists that are hoping to create enough outrage to gain traction.    '

The complication here that no one is really talking about is that Roe doesn't JUST declare "abortion" to be a fundamental right.  It also takes the rather unorthodox steps of prescribing how that right can be exercised (the 'trimester' scheme).   To some degree, it has already be rejected as precedent - in Planned Parenthood v. Casey - and while four regulations on abortion were upheld, the one that wasn't - spousal notification - absolutely and unequivocally reinforce the notion that it is a WOMAN'S right to choose.  In fact, the court explicitly reaffirmed abortion as a fundamental right.  (The others, such as informed consent and parental consent in the case of a minor - would be entirely non-controversial if we were talking about any medical procedure that start with "abor" and rhyme with "contortion").     

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20638
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #180 on: July 12, 2018, 02:11:22 PM »
Or.....
You could frame it like this:

The Majority of Republicans, the party that controls both houses of Congress, and the Executive branch, which has the ability to appoint now its second SC judge, does indeed want to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

That seems to be a fair reason to be concerned.

Respectfully, it is NOT a fair reason to be concerned.  And the reason is that the right to choose has been interpreted as a fundamental right.  That means it is not going away, no matter who is on the high court.  It just isn't.  So, really, even if we were looking at a nominee who openly declared his intent to wage war on Roe v. Wade, and a party with the power to put such nominee in place, there would still be little reason to be concerned.  We are far from that scenario.  It really is a complete non-issue.
You continue to focus on the fundamental rather than the practical. I agree with you that right to abortion will remain. I think it's naive to extrapolate that to mean that it will still be available to all, though. I think it's very reasonable to assume that the current court could  infer a compelling state interest in requiring women to obtain a notarized letter from two priests, two state senators, and Neil Armstrong before obtaining an abortion. I'm certain that several would love the opportunity to try.

For the record, Kavenaugh doesn't strike me as that sort. Still, there is a legitimate reason for concern.

But it's important to note that the "compelling state interest" restrictions do NOT take away the right.   I get it, it limits the right, but it is not unimportant to say that the right still exists.   As long as the right exists, then the laws we are talking about will be judged at a higher standard (strict scrutiny), and other states will be entitled to grant as unfettered access to those rights as their voting constituency will allow.   Those laws will undoubtedly be regularly tested to make sure the "compelling state interest" remains.   


Quote
Stan:   It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg:    But you can't have babies.
Stan:   Don't you oppress me.
Reg:    I'm not oppressing you, Stan -- you haven't got a womb.  Where's the
        fetus going to gestate?  You going to keep it in a box?
(Stan starts crying.)
Judith:  Here!  I've got an idea.  Suppose you agree that he can't actually
         have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the
         Romans', but that he can have the *right* to have babies.
Francis: Good idea, Judith.  We shall fight the oppressors for your right to
         have babies, brother.  Sister, sorry.
Reg:     (pissed)  What's the *point*?
Francis:  What?
Reg:      What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he
          can't have babies?
Francis:  It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg:      It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.

Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6174
  • Gender: Male
  • My wife is a cabriolet
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #181 on: July 12, 2018, 04:04:43 PM »
 :lol

A personal favorite MP bit.

Offline axeman90210

  • Official Minister of Awesome, and Veronica knows my name!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11587
  • Gender: Male
  • Never go full Nick
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #182 on: July 17, 2018, 09:26:47 AM »
Interesting look at projecting Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-conservative-is-brett-kavanaugh/
Photobucket sucks.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4455
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #183 on: July 17, 2018, 09:40:59 AM »
Interesting look at projecting Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-conservative-is-brett-kavanaugh/

Not really a great article.  Really, it isn't all THAT difficult to figure out where judges fall on certain issues.  But the methodologies cited in the article are all fairly flawed.  You have to look at their decisions and not only figure out which way they voted, but WHY.  It is time consuming, because you have to take the time to read through all their opinions.  For a Circuit Court judge, there are limitations, as the article alludes to, because they are more constrained and because they will simply have written fewer published opinions.  But still, the opinions are out there and can be analyzed to come up with some fairly reliable predictions for anyone who wants to take the time to analyze them.  The two writers of that article don't seem to know much about how the federal court system works.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20638
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #184 on: July 17, 2018, 09:51:25 AM »
Yeah, I didn't see much I agreed with in the article.

I'm guessing he falls closer to Roberts than Clarence Alito. Neither side is wanting to mention it, but he's actually the biggest reason we still have ACA on the books. He was the one that came up with the tax argument that Roberts eventually cited. The downside about the guy is that he definitely cares more about the rights of business than he does yours or mine. From time to time this will work out in our favor, but not very often. Since abortion is paramount on the discussion list, it'll probably make him more friendly to pro-choice folk than the RTLers, assuming of course he cares about the law more than his own personal beliefs. From his own legal ideology he'd likely consider most of the targeted regulation aimed to shut down clinics as overreach. Moreover, he'd consider most of the "informed consent" bullshit to be a violation of the clinic's freedom of speech (the doctor would just be a bystander, I reckon). 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline axeman90210

  • Official Minister of Awesome, and Veronica knows my name!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11587
  • Gender: Male
  • Never go full Nick
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #185 on: July 17, 2018, 03:52:18 PM »
Appreciate the feedback. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about the law, but it seemed like there were potentially some interesting ways to look at a judge before he has a Supreme Court voting record.
Photobucket sucks.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4455
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #186 on: July 17, 2018, 04:32:06 PM »
Yeah, I get that.  If I didn't know and read that article, I might assume it provided a lot more insight that it actually does.

I have not independently verified this fact, but I have heard that a number of his clerks have gone on to clerk for Supreme Court Justices across the spectrum, and that both sides hold his former clerks in high regard and readily hire them.  If true, it suggests a lot about him that other Justices across the political spectrum hold his former clerks in such high regard.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13160
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #187 on: July 17, 2018, 05:50:16 PM »
Yeah, I get that.  If I didn't know and read that article, I might assume it provided a lot more insight that it actually does.

I have not independently verified this fact, but I have heard that a number of his clerks have gone on to clerk for Supreme Court Justices across the spectrum, and that both sides hold his former clerks in high regard and readily hire them.  If true, it suggests a lot about him that other Justices across the political spectrum hold his former clerks in such high regard.

For what it's worth, I've heard that tidbit too.   

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11839
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #188 on: July 30, 2018, 01:13:41 PM »
Ginsburg says she's gonna stay put for another (5) years. Honestly, and I'm not trying to be mean or brash....I'd be surprised if she lived another (5) years. She's 85.

Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20638
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #189 on: July 30, 2018, 01:52:29 PM »
Ginsburg says she's gonna stay put for another (5) years. Honestly, and I'm not trying to be mean or brash....I'd be surprised if she lived another (5) years. She's 85.
That woman will crack 100.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11839
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #190 on: July 30, 2018, 01:59:03 PM »
Ginsburg says she's gonna stay put for another (5) years. Honestly, and I'm not trying to be mean or brash....I'd be surprised if she lived another (5) years. She's 85.
That woman will crack 100.

More power to her if she does.....as long as she stays coherent and competent over the next (5) years then it's fine by me. I start to get concerned about mental health and wherewithal in people in their mid to late 80's. She has a pretty important job that is mentally demanding.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13160
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #191 on: July 30, 2018, 02:15:24 PM »
I'd laugh if Trump gets a second term, then Marco gets a two-term run and she's still humming along at 99 waiting for Hillary to win a national election.

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 899
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #192 on: August 01, 2018, 11:49:28 AM »
I'd laugh if Trump gets a second term, then Marco gets a two-term run and she's still humming along at 99 waiting for Hillary to win a national election.

Yeah, that'd truly be the peak of comedy.