AunBear89 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Great job, Republicans! Love the fetus, hate the child worked for you! I look forward to the next Republican controlled Congress eliminating WIC, CHIP, Head Start, and other social programs for poor families and their children.






Flaming hypocrites - every last one of you.

---

Hey - at least they can carry as many guns around as they want. Hungry, poor, no prospects, free and easy gun access - what could possibly go wrong?

---

It's become the party of Alternative Facts and Fake News for the ignorant and uneducated.

For example, in a 1955 memo, Jack Basil, the NRA's constitutional authority, wrote, "From all the direct and indirect evidence, the Second Amendment appears to apply to a collective, not an individual, right to bear arms."

Then, in the late 20th century the members voted in new militant leadership and the NRA erased from memory its prior finds to reinvent the Second Amendment and distort its meaning to claim a virtually unlimited right to keep and bear private arms.

DiabloWags said:

---

okaydo said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I disagree.
American confidence in SCOTUS is at a record low.
That's the topic that I raised.

---

It doesnt matter if American confidence is at a record low. (Okay, it may matter to Roberts.) they aren't answerable to anybody and they don't seem to care about public opinion.

---

I would strongly suggest that SCOTUS isnt the only Federal institution that is not answerable to anybody.
The Federal Reserve is the same.

---

I don't want to derail this thread but I believe the Fed is de facto answerable to the banks

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

I am familiar with the 9th Amendment. I suspect you are too, in which case you know that it was basically not invoked by SCOTUS for @170 years, that it is called the "enigma," etc, etc, etc. I haven't read Roe in a long while but my recollection is it was not a core basis for the decision; likewise (IIRC) Casey said abortion rights were based on 14th Am Due Process Rights, not 9th Amendment.

The 9th Amendment does not mean every unenumerated right is protected or the degree to which it is protected. The Court has a framework for dealing with unenumerated rights. I'm reading the current opinion - it addresses this head on in depth. Reasonable people can disagree about the courts reasoning here.

I understand that a more expansive reading of the 9th Am is easy when it is your/our own right at stake and it is easier to read it more restrictively when it is someone else's right at stake.

---

Can you show me where in the Constitution it says unenumerated rates are best left to the political process?

---

As you know there are a million areas of established law and related practices / rules / structures / tests that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. If you mean your question literally...come on. If you mean to ask if that standard is an establish part of the court's practices / rules / structures / tests... I do not literally know the answer but my best guess is the answer is intertwined with the court's history:
* We have entered a period of strict construction / originalism. We are learning how the court will treat unenumerated rights (I don't think we can make sweeping conclusions because Griswold et al are apparently not subject to the same test as Casey/Roe)
* The preceding @50 years starting with Warren...clearly Judicial Activism is more consistent with a broader effort to protect unenumerated individual rights.
* The preceding @170 years... I don't know, I am not a Court historian. But I observe that part of what made the Warren Court + era "activist" is that it was different. So it is possible/probable that the concept that unenumerated rights are subject the political process was alive and well during this portion of the court's history.

AunBear89 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Maybe you can use your brain once and realize the rules are governed by the states now.

---

Unless they involve gun control. Then the Court will strike those down.

States rights for me, not for thee.

---

Bingo.
Minot State Beav sure walked right into "that" one.
Shocker.

---

The unintended irony of Minnow telling others to "use your brain" is off the charts.

---

YOU JUST CANT MAKE THIS STUFF UP.

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

I am familiar with the 9th Amendment. I suspect you are too, in which case you know that it was basically not invoked by SCOTUS for @170 years, that it is called the "enigma," etc, etc, etc. I haven't read Roe in a long while but my recollection is it was not a core basis for the decision; likewise (IIRC) Casey said abortion rights were based on 14th Am Due Process Rights, not 9th Amendment.

The 9th Amendment does not mean every unenumerated right is protected or the degree to which it is protected. The Court has a framework for dealing with unenumerated rights. I'm reading the current opinion - it addresses this head on in depth. Reasonable people can disagree about the courts reasoning here.

I understand that a more expansive reading of the 9th Am is easy when it is your/our own right at stake and it is easier to read it more restrictively when it is someone else's right at stake.

---

Can you show me where in the Constitution it says unenumerated rates are best left to the political process?

---

As you know there are a million areas of established law and related practices / rules / structures / tests that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. If you mean your question literally...come on. If you mean to ask if that standard is an establish part of the court's practices / rules / structures / tests... I do not literally know the answer but my best guess is the answer is intertwined with the court's history:
* We have entered a period of strict construction / originalism. We are learning how the court will treat unenumerated rights (I don't think we can make sweeping conclusions because Griswold et al are apparently not subject to the same test as Casey/Roe)
* The preceding @50 years starting with Warren...clearly Judicial Activism is more consistent with a broader effort to protect unenumerated individual rights.
* The preceding @170 years... I don't know, I am not a Court historian. But I observe that part of what made the Warren Court + era "activist" is that it was different. So it is possible/probable that the concept that unenumerated rights are subject the political process was alive and well during this portion of the court's history.

---

Shorter tequila4kapp:

"I could not find the support for my claim"

---

More accurate: I do not have the time or inclination to look.

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

I am familiar with the 9th Amendment. I suspect you are too, in which case you know that it was basically not invoked by SCOTUS for @170 years, that it is called the "enigma," etc, etc, etc. I haven't read Roe in a long while but my recollection is it was not a core basis for the decision; likewise (IIRC) Casey said abortion rights were based on 14th Am Due Process Rights, not 9th Amendment.

The 9th Amendment does not mean every unenumerated right is protected or the degree to which it is protected. The Court has a framework for dealing with unenumerated rights. I'm reading the current opinion - it addresses this head on in depth. Reasonable people can disagree about the courts reasoning here.

I understand that a more expansive reading of the 9th Am is easy when it is your/our own right at stake and it is easier to read it more restrictively when it is someone else's right at stake.

---

Can you show me where in the Constitution it says unenumerated rates are best left to the political process?

---

As you know there are a million areas of established law and related practices / rules / structures / tests that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. If you mean your question literally...come on. If you mean to ask if that standard is an establish part of the court's practices / rules / structures / tests... I do not literally know the answer but my best guess is the answer is intertwined with the court's history:
* We have entered a period of strict construction / originalism. We are learning how the court will treat unenumerated rights (I don't think we can make sweeping conclusions because Griswold et al are apparently not subject to the same test as Casey/Roe)
* The preceding @50 years starting with Warren...clearly Judicial Activism is more consistent with a broader effort to protect unenumerated individual rights.
* The preceding @170 years... I don't know, I am not a Court historian. But I observe that part of what made the Warren Court + era "activist" is that it was different. So it is possible/probable that the concept that unenumerated rights are subject the political process was alive and well during this portion of the court's history.

---

Shorter tequila4kapp:

"I could not find the support for my claim"

---

I am reading the opinion. The Court's answer is that the standard for assessing laws related to non-fundamental Constitutional rights (i.e., unenumerated rights that are not part of our nation's history or fundamental to ordered liberty) is Rational Basis review. Since that standard is so low it is tantamount to returning such issues to the legislative branch. Rational Basis review has existed some 90-125 years.

bearister said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

* We have entered a period of strict construction / originalism. We are learning how the court will treat unenumerated rights (I don't think we can make sweeping conclusions because Griswold et al are apparently not subject to the same test as Casey/Roe)
* The preceding @50 years starting with Warren...clearly Judicial Activism is more consistent with a broader effort to protect unenumerated individual rights.
* The preceding @170 years... I don't know, I am not a Court historian. But I observe that part of what made the Warren Court + era "activist" is that it was different. So it is possible/probable that the concept that unenumerated rights are subject the political process was alive and well during this portion of the court's history.

---

What I learned in my 36 years as a trial lawyer (who also handled a few appeals), and from my Dad, who was an appellate specialist:

Courts are quite adept at twisting established law into a balloon animal to come out with the result they want….and courts with a political agenda could teach a masters course on the subject.

---

This is a very interesting take given by an expert on the subject. Thank you. As a lay person, I always tend to give the benefit of my doubt to experts and to our institutions. As I get older I find myself on my own island using my own views of common sense. I don't know if that is dangerous (especially if most are doing this) or if it is the natural progression of most sane people in an ever changing world.
Again, thank you.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/07/04/we-are-not-going-back-to-the-time-before-roe-we-are-going-somewhere-worse

Health experts are worried that states now eager to ban abortion entirely are not ready for the health/economic consequences. Studies predict a spike in maternal mortality and reliance on public assistance, among other repercussions. https://t.co/JsMkuH0JHf

— Alice Miranda Ollstein (@AliceOllstein) June 24, 2022

okaydo said:

---

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/07/04/we-are-not-going-back-to-the-time-before-roe-we-are-going-somewhere-worse

---

It will be very "interesting" to see what happens politically in these states. I suspect most people are not going to like it when they find out that these things are going on.

I pray for the day the bishops advocate for Catholic doctrine on poverty, income inequality and climate change with the fervor given to abortion.

— Luke Russert (@LukeRussert) June 24, 2022

okaydo said:

---

Health experts are worried that states now eager to ban abortion entirely are not ready for the health/economic consequences. Studies predict a spike in maternal mortality and reliance on public assistance, among other repercussions. https://t.co/JsMkuH0JHf

— Alice Miranda Ollstein (@AliceOllstein) June 24, 2022

---

As I posted earlier . . .

The United States already has the highest maternal mortality rate when compared to 49 other countries in the developed world. - - - More than 2 women die during childbirth every day.

Not surprisingly, states with heavy concentrations of poor and black Americans have the highest rate of maternal deaths in the U.S. per 100,000 live births (2011-2015)

Georgia: 46.2

Louisiana: 44.8

Indiana: 41.4

These States Have the Highest Maternal Mortality Rates | Best States | US News

Juries do the same thing. You can provide them with all the jury instructions in the world but they are going to govern their decision by what they think is right and wrong.

Most of the time they get it right…and sometimes they have an agenda and they reach a verdict that does not comply with what justice dictates.

dimitrig said:

---

Can you imagine if Hillary had won the election? We'd still have faith in government, elections, and the courts. Instead, we have a deeply divided nation pitting neighbor against neighbor.

What a sad day.

---

You can blame all of those elite progressives and Bernie supporters who stupidly failed their Party and didnt get off the couch on voting day for Hillary not winning in 2016. And for what it's worth, 1 in 10 Bernie supporters voted for Trump.

1 In 10 Bernie Sanders Supporters Ended Up Voting For Trump : NPR

sycasey said:

---

Personally, I blame the Republicans.

---

Hillary shares a lot of the blame herself for largely ignoring the Rust Belt.
States that had been part of the traditional "blue wall".

Even her own husband, one of the greatest political strategists of all-time, was highly critical of her and her campaign managers who largely ignored and paid little attention to Michigan and Wisconsin.

To me, she was totally out of touch with the very real angst and frustration by blue collar workers in those States who had been passed by during the recovery from the Great Recession.

The Rustbelt States Hillary Clinton Neglected Led to Her Defeat - The Atlantic

A clear example of the confusion now reigning in many states:

In Wisconsin, the state's 173-year-old abortion ban is again the law of the land.

The Democratic state AG said he wouldn't enforce the law.

But local law enforcement could choose to do so.https://t.co/HjZTqLoU1w

— Ben Swasey (@benswasey) June 24, 2022

sycasey said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Personally, I blame the Republicans.

---

Hillary shares a lot of the blame herself for largely ignoring the Rust Belt.
States that had been part of the traditional "blue wall".

Even her own husband, one of the greatest political strategists of all-time, was highly critical of her and her campaign managers who largely ignored and paid little attention to Michigan and Wisconsin.

---

Once again: Republicans did this. Republicans are at fault.

Democrats and others on the left could have done better? Sure. But they are much further down the blame list. Republicans did this.

---

I strongly disagree.

For the simple fact that states like Wisconsin and Michigan were blue collar Democratic Party strongholds.
Same for Pennsylvania. Those 3 states totaled 46 electoral college votes and swung the ENTIRE 2016 ELECTION.
These were all states that Obama had won handily in 2012.
But Hillary only gave PA the time of day.

Wisconsin: Obama 52.8% to 46.1%
Michigan: Obama 54.3% to 44.8%
Pennsylvania: Obama 52.0% to 46.8%

These were states that were ALREADY Democrat.
They werent Republican strongholds.

chazzed said:

---

okaydo said:

---

In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage. pic.twitter.com/zcQNko6NVR

— Matt Ford (@fordm) June 24, 2022

---

This radical, activist Supreme Court is terrifying.

---

This is an incomplete and incorrect summary. He said that Substantive Due Process is a legal fallacy that should be eliminated. Yes, that would implicate the cases cited.

…but those upper middle class White girls are now Evangelicals and like Jimmy Swaggart, they cried "10,000 tears," so now they're good.

I cant think of a more crushing legal ruling for the poor and black communities.

Alabama had 7500 abortions in 2020, the majority of which were black mother's who already had at least one child.
Where are these women supposed to go now? What are they supposed to do?

Think the maternal mortality rate is not gonna rise because of this ruling?
Think again.