SCOTUS - Women must give birth - Government has no say in pollution.

[scombrid]

The Supreme Court is wrong on both accounts.

Really? What errors did they make in their legal reasoning?

There was no case to be judged on!

The Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the D.C. Circuit’s ruling. Roberts’ 31-page opinion began by considering whether the Republican-led states and coal companies challenging the D.C. Circuit’s decision had a right to seek review in the Supreme Court now. Because the Biden administration plans to issue a new rule on carbon emissions from power plants, rather than reinstating the CPP, the administration had argued that the case did not present a live controversy for the justices to decide. But a decision by the government to stop the conduct at the center of a case does not end the case, Roberts emphasized, “unless it is ‘absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.’” And in this case, Roberts stressed, because the Biden administration “vigorously defends” the approach that the Obama EPA took with the CPP, the Supreme Court can weigh in.

There was no actual dispute. Obama's plan was ax'd, Trump's plan was vacated, Biden didn't have a plan, but was going to work on one. The 'going to work on one' was what Roberts used as the reason that made it legitimate for SCOTUS to butt their head into a dispute that didn't exist. It is critical that you understand the fact that this maneuver is extraordinarily unusual.

This SCOTUS is coloring well outside the lines. Judging on disputes that don't even exist and expanding rulings well beyond the dispute, such as Dobbs which Mississippi argued for allowing a shorter limit on time to ban abortion... and they just tossed Roe in the shredder. This decision here lays the groundwork for tearing apart our federalist form of government. I mean, while the Dems are in charge. It amazes me the limits of power the Executive Branch people like Unitary Exectuive Alito think exists, while Democrats are in charge.

If abortion is such an important function, the Pelosi Democrat controlled congress should make an amendment to the constitution to allow it in all states. As libertarian type of guy, I actually would kind of prefer the government stay completely out of this. IMO the federal government should neither pay for abortions nor pass any laws against them.

That being said, the correct way should be through congress and NOT the courts. Roe vs Wade should never have been needed to be relevant in the first place nor its reversal.

The federal government should neither pay for abortions nor pass any laws against them. Okay, but neither should the states either then. So yeah, Roe V Wade should never have been needed because states shouldn't have been restricting marriage between races, shouldn't have been restricting who can have sex and how, etc... but states were restricting such individual liberties and the Supreme Court awhile back found in fact that it was not Constitutional for Virginia to make it illegal for Clarence and Ginny to be married.

 

[Toni]

Bullshit. I asked Loren why he believes the 'Court of Gilead' has no legal reasoning, not you.

Because it's about looking for "reasons" to do what they have already decided to do.

Then it's been the Court of Gilead since at least 1973, and probably since its creation.

Nope.

Ah yes. Judges didn't have political leanings in 1973. They were in a political void, and were robots.*

* I am not claiming they were literal robots. The statement is rhetorical.

The Supreme Court is NOT supposed to be political. Yes, justices are nominated and confirmed (or not) by POTUS/Senate and are so nominated and confirmed not just based upon their qualifications and experience but upon how they might interpret the Constitution.

This is the makeup of the US Supreme Court in 1973:

The vote on Roe vs. Wade was 7-2.
The following judges, along with the POTUS who nominated them, who voted in favor of Roe vs Wade:

• Harry Blackmun (Nixon, R)
• Warren Burger (Nixon, R)
• William Douglas (FDR, D)
• William Brennan (Eisenhower, R)
• Potter Stewart (Eisenhower, R)
• Thurgood Marshall (LBJ, D)
• Lewis Powell (Nixon, R)

The only 2 dissenting on Roe vs. Wade

• Byron White (Kennedy, D)
• William Rehnquist (Nixon, R; chief justice under Reagan, R)

In the past when the Supreme Court has overturned precedence, it has been to increase freedoms and rights, not to suppress them.

 

[Toni]

The Supreme Court is wrong on both accounts.

Really? What errors did they make in their legal reasoning?

There was no case to be judged on!

The Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the D.C. Circuit’s ruling. Roberts’ 31-page opinion began by considering whether the Republican-led states and coal companies challenging the D.C. Circuit’s decision had a right to seek review in the Supreme Court now. Because the Biden administration plans to issue a new rule on carbon emissions from power plants, rather than reinstating the CPP, the administration had argued that the case did not present a live controversy for the justices to decide. But a decision by the government to stop the conduct at the center of a case does not end the case, Roberts emphasized, “unless it is ‘absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.’” And in this case, Roberts stressed, because the Biden administration “vigorously defends” the approach that the Obama EPA took with the CPP, the Supreme Court can weigh in.

There was no actual dispute. Obama's plan was ax'd, Trump's plan was vacated, Biden didn't have a plan, but was going to work on one. The 'going to work on one' was what Roberts used as the reason that made it legitimate for SCOTUS to butt their head into a dispute that didn't exist. It is critical that you understand the fact that this maneuver is extraordinarily unusual.

This SCOTUS is coloring well outside the lines. Judging on disputes that don't even exist and expanding rulings well beyond the dispute, such as Dobbs which Mississippi argued for allowing a shorter limit on time to ban abortion... and they just tossed Roe in the shredder. This decision here lays the groundwork for tearing apart our federalist form of government. I mean, while the Dems are in charge. It amazes me the limits of power the Executive Branch people like Unitary Exectuive Alito think exists, while Democrats are in charge.

If abortion is such an important function, the Pelosi Democrat controlled congress should make an amendment to the constitution to allow it in all states. As libertarian type of guy, I actually would kind of prefer the government stay completely out of this. IMO the federal government should neither pay for abortions nor pass any laws against them.

That being said, the correct way should be through congress and NOT the courts. Roe vs Wade should never have been needed to be relevant in the first place nor its reversal.

The federal government should neither pay for abortions nor pass any laws against them. Okay, but neither should the states either then. So yeah, Roe V Wade should never have been needed because states shouldn't have been restricting marriage between races, shouldn't have been restricting who can have sex and how, etc... but states were restricting such individual liberties and the Supreme Court awhile back found in fact that it was not Constitutional for Virginia to make it illegal for Clarence and Ginny to be married.

Federal govt. does not pay for abortions. In many states, neither does the state.

Maybe this is Clarence's strategy: to invalidate his marriage to Ginny.

 

[Toni]

The Supreme Court is wrong on both accounts.

Really? What errors did they make in their legal reasoning?

There was no case to be judged on!

The Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the D.C. Circuit’s ruling. Roberts’ 31-page opinion began by considering whether the Republican-led states and coal companies challenging the D.C. Circuit’s decision had a right to seek review in the Supreme Court now. Because the Biden administration plans to issue a new rule on carbon emissions from power plants, rather than reinstating the CPP, the administration had argued that the case did not present a live controversy for the justices to decide. But a decision by the government to stop the conduct at the center of a case does not end the case, Roberts emphasized, “unless it is ‘absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.’” And in this case, Roberts stressed, because the Biden administration “vigorously defends” the approach that the Obama EPA took with the CPP, the Supreme Court can weigh in.

There was no actual dispute. Obama's plan was ax'd, Trump's plan was vacated, Biden didn't have a plan, but was going to work on one. The 'going to work on one' was what Roberts used as the reason that made it legitimate for SCOTUS to butt their head into a dispute that didn't exist. It is critical that you understand the fact that this maneuver is extraordinarily unusual.

This SCOTUS is coloring well outside the lines. Judging on disputes that don't even exist and expanding rulings well beyond the dispute, such as Dobbs which Mississippi argued for allowing a shorter limit on time to ban abortion... and they just tossed Roe in the shredder. This decision here lays the groundwork for tearing apart our federalist form of government. I mean, while the Dems are in charge. It amazes me the limits of power the Executive Branch people like Unitary Exectuive Alito think exists, while Democrats are in charge.

If abortion is such an important function, the Pelosi Democrat controlled congress should make an amendment to the constitution to allow it in all states. As libertarian type of guy, I actually would kind of prefer the government stay completely out of this. IMO the federal government should neither pay for abortions nor pass any laws against them.

That being said, the correct way should be through congress and NOT the courts. Roe vs Wade should never have been needed to be relevant in the first place nor its reversal.

The federal government should neither pay for abortions nor pass any laws against them. Okay, but neither should the states either then. So yeah, Roe V Wade should never have been needed because states shouldn't have been restricting marriage between races, shouldn't have been restricting who can have sex and how, etc... but states were restricting such individual liberties and the Supreme Court awhile back found in fact that it was not Constitutional for Virginia to make it illegal for Clarence and Ginny to be married.

Surely basic human rights such as right to choose one's medical treatment and who to marry should be universal, and not decided on a state to state basis. The US Constitution originally was founded on the very unjust principal that some people could own other people and that this was a matter to be decided by individual states. We fought an entire war about it. The slavery states lost. Thank god. Women were given the right to vote, which should NOT depend upon which state one resides. Native Americans, who, btw, also lost tremendously in the most recent US Supreme Court rulings, were given the right to vote, which should NOT be restricted or granted state by state. None of these should ever have been a question, but they were.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Thread title: "SCOTUS -- women must give birth ....etc..."

It turns out that girls, not merely adult females, also must give birth.

There is a news story going around about a 10 year old girl in Ohio who was raped and is now 6 weeks pregnant. She had to go to another state to get an abortion, not sure if that happened, but it's unnecessary to discuss whether it did or not.

There is an extreme difficulty for underage girls to get abortions as underage people have less power over themselves and as churches and other conservative institutions are fighting a war on abortion, situations like this are casualties.

Conservatives won't stop there either.

 

[Toni]

Thread title: "SCOTUS -- women must give birth ....etc..."

It turns out that girls, not merely adult females, also must give birth.

There is a news story going around about a 10 year old girl in Ohio who was raped and is now 6 weeks pregnant. She had to go to another state to get an abortion, not sure if that happened, but it's unnecessary to discuss whether it did or not.

There is an extreme difficulty for underage girls to get abortions as underage people have less power over themselves and as churches and other conservative institutions are fighting a war on abortion, situations like this are casualties.

Conservatives won't stop there either.

It's not a 'situation' that is a casualty. It's the lives of young girl children who are rape victims, usually at the hands of a close family member who, btw, gets to make their medical decisions.

 

[laughing dog]

Bullshit. I asked Loren why he believes the 'Court of Gilead' has no legal reasoning, not you.

Because it's about looking for "reasons" to do what they have already decided to do.

Then it's been the Court of Gilead since at least 1973, and probably since its creation.

Nope.

Ah yes. Judges didn't have political leanings in 1973. They were in a political void, and were robots.*

Do you have an actual point or is that another example of pointless, vapid sarcasm?

 

[Toni]

Bullshit. I asked Loren why he believes the 'Court of Gilead' has no legal reasoning, not you.

Because it's about looking for "reasons" to do what they have already decided to do.

Then it's been the Court of Gilead since at least 1973, and probably since its creation.

Nope.

Ah yes. Judges didn't have political leanings in 1973. They were in a political void, and were robots.*

Do you have an actual point or is that another example of pointless, vapid sarcasm?

My take is that Metaphor isn't terribly well informed about US history/politics and relies on some pretty biased sites for his information. So, anything that contradicts his take he sees as political and leftist.

I don't mean to criticize Metaphor for not having a deep understanding of US politics and history. A lot of Americans do not have one either. And I confess that a) history is not my favorite subject and b) I know next to nothing about Australia's history or politics. I'd sound extremely ignorant and ill informed if I attempted to comment about Australia.

 

[Metaphor]

Bullshit. I asked Loren why he believes the 'Court of Gilead' has no legal reasoning, not you.

Because it's about looking for "reasons" to do what they have already decided to do.

Then it's been the Court of Gilead since at least 1973, and probably since its creation.

Nope.

Ah yes. Judges didn't have political leanings in 1973. They were in a political void, and were robots.*

Do you have an actual point or is that another example of pointless, vapid sarcasm?

The point is that the people decrying this decision appear to believe that this court used no legal reasoning and was completely influenced by their personal politics, but the 1973 court used exceptional legal reasoning and none of them were influenced bu their personal politics.

 

[Toni]

Bullshit. I asked Loren why he believes the 'Court of Gilead' has no legal reasoning, not you.

Because it's about looking for "reasons" to do what they have already decided to do.

Then it's been the Court of Gilead since at least 1973, and probably since its creation.

Nope.

Ah yes. Judges didn't have political leanings in 1973. They were in a political void, and were robots.*

Do you have an actual point or is that another example of pointless, vapid sarcasm?

The point is that the people decrying this decision appear to believe that this court used no legal reasoning and was completely influenced by their personal politics, but the 1973 court used exceptional legal reasoning and none of them were influenced bu their personal politics.

I'm so sorry you are having a difficult time understanding when multiple people explained to you that Roe v Wade, like many other landmark decisions, was the culmination of multiple earlier decisions and not simply a flip the switch kind of thing.

I'm sorry that you refuse to consider that the justices who ruled in favor of Roe were appointed primarily by Republicans, and conservative Republicans at that. As were the justices who have upheld Roe in the years until this new decision.

You may form your opinions about legal matters based upon your little fee fees but some of actually have spent time dealing with the decisions, legal precedent, ramifications, etc. of Roe and many other decisions.

 

[laughing dog]

Bullshit. I asked Loren why he believes the 'Court of Gilead' has no legal reasoning, not you.

Because it's about looking for "reasons" to do what they have already decided to do.

Then it's been the Court of Gilead since at least 1973, and probably since its creation.

Nope.

Ah yes. Judges didn't have political leanings in 1973. They were in a political void, and were robots.*

Do you have an actual point or is that another example of pointless, vapid sarcasm?

The point is that the people decrying this decision appear to believe that this court used no legal reasoning and was completely influenced by their personal politics, but the 1973 court used exceptional legal reasoning and none of them were influenced bu their personal politics.

In other words, you were rebutting a straw man via hypocrisy.

The SCOTUS operates in the context of their times. No one denies that. The justices cannot help but reflect the thinking and values of their era. It helps inform them in making their decisions.

This SCOTUS used the very type of reasoning it decried in Roe v Wade which makes their decision not only hypocritical but appear purely ideologically driven: they literally search for the rationales after they made up their minds. Hell, most of what Alito wrote about the history of abortion in the decision is false.

As a result, their decision takes away an established consitutional right which puts fertile women in the states with legislatures dominated by theocrats and misogynists at risk. Furthermore, by denying that there is a right to privacy, it allows the theocrats, misogynists and assholes to go after access to contraceptives and to eliminate gay marriage.

That decision is a major attack of current liberal (not woke) values. One can only hope it motivates all of the "silent majority" to go to the poll in November and do something about it.

 

[Metaphor]

Bullshit. I asked Loren why he believes the 'Court of Gilead' has no legal reasoning, not you.

Because it's about looking for "reasons" to do what they have already decided to do.

Then it's been the Court of Gilead since at least 1973, and probably since its creation.

Nope.

Ah yes. Judges didn't have political leanings in 1973. They were in a political void, and were robots.*

Do you have an actual point or is that another example of pointless, vapid sarcasm?

The point is that the people decrying this decision appear to believe that this court used no legal reasoning and was completely influenced by their personal politics, but the 1973 court used exceptional legal reasoning and none of them were influenced bu their personal politics.

In other words, you were rebutting a straw man via hypocrisy.

The SCOTUS operates in the context of their times. No one denies that. The justices cannot help but reflect the thinking and values of their era. It helps inform them in making their decisions.

This SCOTUS used the very type of reasoning it decried in Roe v Wade which makes their decision not only hypocritical but appear purely ideologically driven: they literally search for the rationales after they made up their minds.

If you believe both are ideologically driven, then what makes one of the decisions better (legally speaking) than another?

Hell, most of what Alito wrote about the history of abortion in the decision is false.

As a result, their decision takes away an established consitutional right which puts fertile women in the states with legislatures dominated by theocrats and misogynists at risk. Furthermore, by denying that there is a right to privacy, it allows the theocrats, misogynists and assholes to go after access to contraceptives and to eliminate gay marriage.

Australia has no Constitutional right to contraception or gay marriage. Do you think we lack them? Alternatively, do you think the Justices should have written a decision they did not believe in to preserve the Constitutional right?

That decision is a major attack of current liberal (not woke) values. One can only hope it motivates all of the "silent majority" to go to the poll in November and do something about it.

 

[ZiprHead]

S.C. Bill Would Apparently Outlaw News Sites' Writing About Legal Abortion Clinics in Neighboring States

The South Carolina state Senate is considering a bill that would basically ban abortions, with no exception other than for...

reason.com

The arguments for and against the prohibition on abortion are obvious, so I won't focus on them. (I oppose such prohibitions, but I have little useful to add about them.) Instead, I thought I'd flag something that's more within my area of expertise, and that others might miss: The law's ban on "knowingly or intentionally aid[ing or] abet[ting]" an abortion "includes, but is not limited to knowingly and intentionally,"

(1) providing information to a pregnant woman, or someone seeking information on behalf of a pregnant woman, by telephone, internet, or any other mode of communication regarding self-administered abortions or the means to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used, for an abortion; [or]
(2) hosting or maintaining an internet website, providing access to an internet website, or providing an internet service purposefully directed to a pregnant woman who is a resident of this State that provides information on how to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used for an abortion.

Republicans really don't much give a damn about civil rights.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is that the people decrying this decision appear to believe that this court used no legal reasoning and was completely influenced by their personal politics, but the 1973 court used exceptional legal reasoning and none of them were influenced bu their personal politics.

1973 was because all the existing laws didn't pass constitutional muster. And now we have pretty much the same thing that prompted 1973--a bunch of anti-abortion laws that are about punishment, not about the fetus.

 

[laughing dog]

Bullshit. I asked Loren why he believes the 'Court of Gilead' has no legal reasoning, not you.

Because it's about looking for "reasons" to do what they have already decided to do.

Then it's been the Court of Gilead since at least 1973, and probably since its creation.

Nope.

Ah yes. Judges didn't have political leanings in 1973. They were in a political void, and were robots.*

Do you have an actual point or is that another example of pointless, vapid sarcasm?

The point is that the people decrying this decision appear to believe that this court used no legal reasoning and was completely influenced by their personal politics, but the 1973 court used exceptional legal reasoning and none of them were influenced bu their personal politics.

In other words, you were rebutting a straw man via hypocrisy.

The SCOTUS operates in the context of their times. No one denies that. The justices cannot help but reflect the thinking and values of their era. It helps inform them in making their decisions.

This SCOTUS used the very type of reasoning it decried in Roe v Wade which makes their decision not only hypocritical but appear purely ideologically driven: they literally search for the rationales after they made up their minds.

If you believe both are ideologically driven, then what makes one of the decisions better (legally speaking) than another?

I didn't say both were ideologically driven.

Hell, most of what Alito wrote about the history of abortion in the decision is false.

As a result, their decision takes away an established consitutional right which puts fertile women in the states with legislatures dominated by theocrats and misogynists at risk. Furthermore, by denying that there is a right to privacy, it allows the theocrats, misogynists and assholes to go after access to contraceptives and to eliminate gay marriage.

Australia has no Constitutional right to contraception or gay marriage. Do you think we lack them?

I don't think about Australia - its their country not mine.

Alternatively, do you think the Justices should have written a decision they did not believe in to preserve the Constitutional right?

I think the Justices should think about the meaning of stare decis, and what it ought to take to overturn a 50 year old decision that will have a major effect on the lives of millions of people, and they should not use hypocritical thinking or outright lies to defend their views.

 

[Metaphor]

Bullshit. I asked Loren why he believes the 'Court of Gilead' has no legal reasoning, not you.

Because it's about looking for "reasons" to do what they have already decided to do.

Then it's been the Court of Gilead since at least 1973, and probably since its creation.

Nope.

Ah yes. Judges didn't have political leanings in 1973. They were in a political void, and were robots.*

Do you have an actual point or is that another example of pointless, vapid sarcasm?

The point is that the people decrying this decision appear to believe that this court used no legal reasoning and was completely influenced by their personal politics, but the 1973 court used exceptional legal reasoning and none of them were influenced bu their personal politics.

In other words, you were rebutting a straw man via hypocrisy.

The SCOTUS operates in the context of their times. No one denies that. The justices cannot help but reflect the thinking and values of their era. It helps inform them in making their decisions.

This SCOTUS used the very type of reasoning it decried in Roe v Wade which makes their decision not only hypocritical but appear purely ideologically driven: they literally search for the rationales after they made up their minds.

If you believe both are ideologically driven, then what makes one of the decisions better (legally speaking) than another?

I didn't say both were ideologically driven.

So, do you believe the 1973 was ideologically driven?

Hell, most of what Alito wrote about the history of abortion in the decision is false.

As a result, their decision takes away an established consitutional right which puts fertile women in the states with legislatures dominated by theocrats and misogynists at risk. Furthermore, by denying that there is a right to privacy, it allows the theocrats, misogynists and assholes to go after access to contraceptives and to eliminate gay marriage.

Australia has no Constitutional right to contraception or gay marriage. Do you think we lack them?

I don't think about Australia - its their country not mine.

It's an example of a country with no specific Constitutional rights. There are more ways to have rights than to have them spelled out in a Constitution.

Alternatively, do you think the Justices should have written a decision they did not believe in to preserve the Constitutional right?

I think the Justices should think about the meaning of stare decis, and what it ought to take to overturn a 50 year old decision that will have a major effect on the lives of millions of people, and they should not use hypocritical thinking or outright lies to defend their views.

 

[laughing dog]

So, do you believe the 1973 was ideologically driven?

No. Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision. Four justices in the majority were appointed by Republican Presidents and 3 by Democratic Presidents. Among the dissenting justices, one was appointed by a Democratic President and one by a Republican President.

Contrast that with the current travesty with all justices in the majority appointed by Republican presidents and all of the dissenters appointed by Democrats.

It's an example of a country with no specific Constitutional rights. There are more ways to have rights than to have them spelled out in a Constitution.

And that is relevant to the US because........?

 

[Metaphor]

So, do you believe the 1973 was ideologically driven?

No

Okay. That explains some of your beliefs.

It's an example of a country with no specific Constitutional rights. There are more ways to have rights than to have them spelled out in a Constitution.

And that is relevant to the US because........?

I really did not think I would have to explain it this much. Just because you don't have a Constitutionally enumerated right does not mean your countrymen and women can't have the right.

 

[laughing dog]

I really did not think I would have to explain it this much. Just because you don't have a Constitutionally enumerated right does not mean your countrymen and women can't have the right.

Please stop with these context-free theoretical claims. They are truly irrelevant in a discussion about reality. In the USA, as long as there are a sufficient number of theocrats and misogynists and their dupes, it will take a Constitutional ruling.

 

[Metaphor]

I really did not think I would have to explain it this much. Just because you don't have a Constitutionally enumerated right does not mean your countrymen and women can't have the right.

Please stop with these context-free theoretical claims.

There's nothing theoretical about the dozens of other countries where people enjoy rights not guaranteed in their Constitution, or who don't even have a Constitution.

In the USA, as long as there are a sufficient number of theocrats and misogynists and their dupes, it will take a Constitutional ruling.

Either the right is in the Constitution already, or it is not. The Court has decided it is not. So, you'll either have to get a Constitutional amendment to pass, secure it state-by-state, or choose revolution.