If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)

Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,034 ✭✭✭✭ One eyed Jack

    I cant remember anytime the supreme court equivalents in the uk or ireland was ever accused of being biased or linked to the policies of one political party.

    Ahh there’s a few differences in the way the Judiciaries in each country works, but accusations of political bias aren’t unheard of. This, for example -

    which led to this -

    It stands to reason you’re unlikely to hear of them if they aren’t on your radar, like the decisions made by SCOTUS which most people aren’t or won’t be aware of, unless it’s something they care about, and then if the decision doesn’t go the way they’d hoped, accusations of bias are quick to follow -

    It doesn’t mean the Court is actually biased in the way the person making the accusation imagines it is. Gorsuch’s approach isn’t unusual or unreasonable in terms of a Conservative approach to interpreting law. He took what could be best described as a Conservative approach to arrive at an outcome that appeased Liberals, but it wasn’t done with the intent of keeping Liberals happy, it was done with the intent of interpreting the law as it was written. He rolled up the whole ideas of sex, gender and sexual orientation all into one under the idea that they are inseparable, and constitute sex discrimination. It reminded me of another infamous case in Civil Rights and Employment Law which was about sex discrimination -

    I dont think it really matters how the SC is biased or to which side , the problem is that that they are biased at all. Though i do note that study you referenced was performed when the sc was evenly split 5-4, a year ago. I just fear the SC will damage its reputation for neutrality by only supporting republican views on gun control, gay rights and contraception based on their biases.

    I know what you mean, but I think such fears are unfounded given that the Courts are only interested in interpreting law, as opposed to being influenced by any sort of bias; political, religious or otherwise. The reason Roe was always contentious is because again there were accusations of bias in the way the law was interpreted to infer that abortion was an issue of privacy, and was permissible on that basis. Effectively, that was the point at which the SCOTUS damaged their reputation for neutrality or judicial impartiality. Overturning Roe was seen as the SCOTUS restoring it’s impartiality… depending of course upon your point of view of the outcome of Dobbs. Personally, I can think of other decisions which raised an eyebrow besides Dobbs, though I understand the reasoning behind them -

    Justices views being representative or not of the views of US Catholics as a whole, or of the US population as a whole, has nothing to do with their appointment; it never has had. The point I’m making… feck it, since we’re being honest - I like you HD, no idea why but I do, it’s why I put up with your BS.

    The point I was making is that I expect you’re capable of being objective, that you can put aside your disdain for religion and critically examine whether or not there is any rational basis for accusing the Justices of religious bias, as opposed to the idea that they are capable of being impartial, that they are capable of being objective, and interpreting law according to the standards of their profession. Is it possible that they are influenced by their time in Harvard and Yale (apart from ACB - a Notre Dame alumnus), notably historically Protestant schools? Possibly. Could they be influenced by their political beliefs? Possibly. Their elevated status in American society? Possibly.

    To simply put it down to - “Ahh, Catholics, that explains it!”, is just laziness, frankly, and I don’t imagine you being intellectually lazy. It’s why I’ve always preferred to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not.

    If that belief is founded upon what you ascribe to hilariously delusional conceit, then I’m prepared to acknowledge I may have been wrong about you all this time.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,409 ✭✭✭ Sudden Valley

    I think it comes down to that the Republicans chose justices that they knew had a legal view that Roe vs Wade was wrong and those justices fudged or downright lied about their opinion on the judgement in their confirmation hearings. This certainly displays a lack of integrity by these Justices and damages the reputation of the SC. Trump openly declared he was putting prolife justices on the supreme court so he must have known their personal views which may have been influenced by their religious views. These Justices are only human so they could be influenced by a number of factors -I will guess we will see going forward how biased they are related to social issues linked to religious matters. Certainly I don't think they will go Right or Left on every issue as they were only certs to go Right on the abortion issue.

    Given that the original Roe vs Wade was actually decided by a majority Republican nominated SC I think it is more likely that they made a politically neutral decision back then rather than the one now that was made by a SC that that has been deliberately stacked with prolife justices.

    In future the Supreme Court may have appointees (although qualified) based solely on how they view only a small number of issues.

  • Registered Users Posts: 72,018 ✭✭✭✭ Overheal

    Speaking of Court integrity, has anyone heard if they still give a **** about "trying to find the leaker wink wink"

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,809 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Manic Moran

    I'm fairly sure they do. That doesn't mean there's any guarantee they'll find it, especially as no criminal actions were involved. I doubt anyone on the court was thrilled.

    What will be interesting will be the various processes and policies to be implemented in next year's court to prevent a recurrence, if they're made public.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,636 ✭✭✭ Christy42

    I am sure they care on idealogical lines.

    Republican talking heads seemed to go from feeling it was the most important point in all of this to never mentioning it again in an instant so guessing they got some idea of who it is and more importantly what their voting preference would be.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 29,814 ✭✭✭✭ Hotblack Desiato

    I put up with your BS.

    How magnanimous of you. 🙄

    To simply put it down to - “Ahh, Catholics, that explains it!”, is just laziness, frankly

    Which I did not say.

    These justices are firmly at the fundamentalist end of the Catholic spectrum. They were appointed precisely because they would interpret the law in a specific fashion, which just happens to align precisely with their religious views.

    Defund Alcohol Action Ireland

  • Registered Users Posts: 22,034 ✭✭✭✭ One eyed Jack

    ‘Tolerance’, and just about, is a more apt description.

    I was paraphrasing, as that’s the general sentiment expressed in your opinions, and again when you clarify that the Justices are firmly at the fundamentalist end of the Catholic spectrum. They’re not even remotely close to it. They are not your equal in opposite terms. One of the many reasons I admired Hitchens is that unlike the simpering sycophant that is Dawkins (there I go again), he never couched his disdain for religion in intellectualisms, he was at least honest about the fact. Perhaps that explains why I have as much time for you as I do, because at least you’re honest about it. Reminds me of Hitchens writing in Letters To A Young Contrarian -

    You seem to have guessed, from some remarks I have already made in passing, that I am not a religious believer. In order to be absolutely honest, I should not leave you with the impression that I am part of the generalized agnosticism of our culture. I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of religion I do not wish, as some sentimental agnostics affect to wish, that they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually the case.

    Justices are nominated in the belief that they will further their nominators political aims, and they are confirmed by the Senate. It’s an entirely political process in a secular, democratic society. Religion plays no part in that process. Justices approach to legal interpretation may well be informed by their political beliefs, which are in turn informed by their religious beliefs, but what Justices don’t do, is actually make laws. Religion too, has no influence in making laws. The creation of law in a secular democratic society is entirely the purview of politicians.

    To suggest that the Supreme Court is not representative of the US population, of whom the vast majority are religious to some degree, is right up there. It’s simply not true, and it will never be true, because of the fact that even politicians like Joe and Nancy signal their religious virtues at every opportunity in order to gain the public trust, in order to demonstrate an affinity with the ordinary people. It’s unsurprisingly effective, as it gives them the ability to exploit the publics trust while at the same time doing them dirty, knowing that the people will rationalise that because those people are religiously virtuous, they wouldn’t do it to their own, not like people who aren’t religious, who they see as screwing people over.

    People tend to be most forgiving of their own, that’s why there are no Justices on the bench who are antitheist who would represent your views - because people who don’t think like them, don’t trust them, and even if it’s not true, will believe that they are a threat to the nations welfare, even though they have no authority, no political power, and no means to do so. People see it as best not give them the opportunity, and that’s why there aren’t more public representatives who are honest about their antitheism - because it wouldn’t do their political careers any favours. Politics doesn’t just favour dishonesty, it positively selects for it (you can ask Dawkins how that works) -

    The Justices appointed by the Senate to the bench are expected to be above that sort of thing, and if you’re going to attempt to undermine them, you’d best have evidence more compelling than the idea that their decisions align with their religious beliefs, as if that’s a bad thing, the accusation coming from someone who is vehemently opposed to religion. That only demonstrates your own prejudices, it demonstrates nothing untoward of the people you’re attempting to undermine -

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,636 ✭✭✭ Christy42

    As you say they are picked to serve based on political beliefs. People's political beliefs is influenced by their religious beliefs so religion will influence these decisions.

    I mean if the political decisions are made for religious reasons then that is religion effecting the process. Noting a prominent republican politician recently described herself as a Christian Nationalist. How can you say that religion does not play a role when lawmakers outright state their religion plays a role in their decision making. Churches will openly campaign for specific politicians. Again this is influencing law making.

    Just because the justices are religious does not mean they represent all religious people. Stick 9 Hindus up there and they won't represent most American's beliefs. However you have made the cut at religious/not religious instead of the actual beliefs involved.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,409 ✭✭✭ Sudden Valley

    I think the biggest problem is that when the SC kicks down rights to be decided at state level it is,obvious that womens and gays will have their rights reduced in some republican states. This is the great failure of the federal system as it applies to the US that doesnt apply to other federal states like Germany. How the federal system survived the civil war and post civil war segregation era i dont know. I dont think i could live in a country where gay marriage would be allowed in Dublin but illegal in Limerick even if its illegality was popular with the general public in Limerick. I would want to destroy the structures in place that allows some of my fellow countrymen to be treated so badly.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,149 ✭✭✭✭ Igotadose

    Ehh. I'm not sure I'd hold up the German Government as an exemplar; from 1933 to 1945 it was the worst government to date in world history Then the country had the 'benefit' of being completely rebuilt from scratch more or less.

    Federal systems work pretty well as long as there are actual checks and balances. The ones in the US are creaky and coming apart, through decades of inattentions and avarice. Whether the US can repair them is the existential question for democracy in the US.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,409 ✭✭✭ Sudden Valley

    I guess Germany didnt have hitler creating his owm fiefdom within part of Germany and having the nazi able to treat Jews and other minorities terribly for over a hundred years protected by their federal system like the federal system in america allowed happen to Black people. It was a different sort of evil allowed to happen by a broken system.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,409 ✭✭✭ Sudden Valley

    I agree Chris Hitchens was much more pleasant to listen to than Dawkins has been or ever will be. Not sure what he would think of the current goings on in politics but I know he was pro- choice- he argued the best way to elevate women and society from poverty was to allow women to have complete control over their bodies.

    He also had a nose for sniffing out fundamental religious people - these are the people he had problems with. For example he was must harder on Mitt Romney (who lived his whole life based on Mormonism) than George W (who though deeply religious didn't dictate all his decisions on life and didnt wish to push his beliefs on others). The majority of Americans are religious but obviously not fundamentalists as have different views on abortion and gay rights compared to fundamentalist Christian churches. I don't think the SC justices represent the more moderate Christians that make up the majority of America.

  • Registered Users Posts: 72,018 ✭✭✭✭ Overheal

    This is not the first political speech Alito has given as he has reputation for being one of the more openly partisan justices on the bench. 

    I believe earlier someone was trying to argue SCOTUS was nonpartisan

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,149 ✭✭✭✭ Igotadose

    I think the speech was targeting Roberts; perhaps it was Alito who leaked the decision. I'd thought someone affiliated with Thomas but not now; Alito is just too happy taking direction from the Criminal Enterprise known as the RCC here.

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,781 ✭✭✭ growleaves

    Christopher Hitchens was not pro-choice. He made pro-life arguments in his books and in speeches he gave in public.

    See here where he talked about restricting abortion at the federal level:

  • Registered Users Posts: 72,018 ✭✭✭✭ Overheal

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,733 ✭✭✭✭ Loafing Oaf

    Hitchens seemed to be kind of all over the place on the issue

    "I don't think a woman should be forced to choose, or even can be." Hitchens does not recommend the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,636 ✭✭✭ Christy42

    Maybe changed his mind on the issue? His pro choice is 20 years after the pro life opinion listed above

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,409 ✭✭✭ Sudden Valley

    You may be right various google searches to contradict my memory on his position.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,781 ✭✭✭ growleaves

    It appears, as someone above pointed out, that Hitchens may have changed his views throughout his lifetime and held several different positions.

    I read one of his books where he discussed pro-life views and saw one or two Youtube videos to that effect so I thought he was solidly pro-life but now it seems perhaps not. Interesting.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,409 ✭✭✭ Sudden Valley

    I do listen to alot of his debates on youtube. He may have been talking about allowing women into the workplace could get them and societies out of poverty. Hitchens did veer more to the right as he got older, but still was very respectful to most of his opponents.

  • Registered Users Posts: 13,007 ✭✭✭✭ kowloon

    The guy could argue any angle and stand a good chance of coming out on top. He was also able to change his position if he thought he was wrong. The strongest example I remember was him agreeing to be waterboarded to test his position and flipping on it based on the experience.

  • Registered Users Posts: 72,018 ✭✭✭✭ Overheal

  • Registered Users Posts: 72,018 ✭✭✭✭ Overheal

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,733 ✭✭✭✭ Loafing Oaf

    Hitchens did veer more to the right as he got older,

    The more conventionally 'liberal' position on abortion that I quoted above was in an interview only a couple of years before his death...

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,714 ✭✭✭✭ Faugheen

    but but it's only pro-life clinics being targetted!

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,908 ✭✭✭ Cody montana

    Kansas voters resoundingly decided against removing the right to abortion from the State Constitution, a major victory for the abortion rights movement in one of America’s most reliably conservative states.

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,149 ✭✭✭✭ Igotadose

    Interesting - it was widely supported across party lines, no surprise. And though it's described as restrictive, the Kansas laws in place are less restrictive than Ireland's; up to 22 weeks and only a 24 hour waiting period. Kansas does require an ultrasound which Ireland doesn't.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 72,018 ✭✭✭✭ Overheal

    So was Kansas really a LOUD mandate against abortion or was it a misinformation campaign gone wrong

    The text messages arrived on Monday, the day before Kansans were set to vote on an amendment that would excise abortion protections from their state constitution.

    The text claimed that approving that measure, which could allow the Republican-controlled legislature to outlaw abortion, would safeguard “choice.” If the amendment fails, constitutional protections would remain in place, buttressing current law that allows abortion in the first 22 weeks of pregnancy.

    “Women in KS are losing their choice on reproductive rights,” the text warned. “Voting YES on the Amendment will give women a choice. Vote YES to protect women’s health.”

    The unsigned messages were described as deceptive by numerous recipients, including former Democratic governor Kathleen Sebelius, who also served as health and human services secretary in the Obama administration. She told The Washington Post that she was “stunned to receive the message, which made clear there was a very specific effort to use carefully crafted language to confuse folks before they would go vote.”

    This being the case, can't rule out the possibility they duped their own voters into voting against the amendment, especially if they never bothered to read or understand it. This was the prop wording: