Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120789098#Comment_120789098

Parody account gotcha

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120788935#Comment_120788935

James Ho the extremist Trump appointee.. How would his idea have worked for the guy who massacred his wife, children and grandchildren this week in Tenn. Who had been arrested for DV?

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120789151#Comment_120789151

I know right, they wouldnt take a study break! , the sentiment was the point, Asians were being discriminated against in the US before the ruling for working hard, not doing drugs etc.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120789189#Comment_120789189

Do you believe that? Because it's b.s.

ceadaoin.

Many Asian Americans believe they were discriminated against in their college applications due to affirmative action. Even on Reddit, the majority in the comments on the thread I read yesterday agreed with the decision

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120789216#Comment_120789216

its true, look for medical school admission by race for the US, their grades count for less against other races

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120789180#Comment_120789180

Apparently at least as well as the prohibition on firearms which he was subject to. And at least as well as the 'no contact' order which was also still in effect at the time.

ceadaoin.

For example

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/15/harvard-discrimination-case-personal-rating-system

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120789224#Comment_120789224

Cannot speak for Harvard or Yale but Clemson University has a very diverse cast of students and faculty incl. from Asia.

Maybe this will be the dog caught the car moment for conservatives now with this decision: alot of them seem to think this will result in a whiter, more caucasian college campus (they think whites have been treated as 2nd class citizens in college admissions), in actual fact within a few years the colleges could look much more Asian, more Indian and Chinese, and other foreigners or minority students with superior test scores to home-schooled christian nationalists.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120789237#Comment_120789237

So, Ho's suggestion is guaranteed to fail in this case as his firearms were never confiscated, as his right to keep them now is proven to trump his wife's right to live?

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120789239#Comment_120789239

SFFA is a right wing front group who are focused on reducing minority rights. Asian-Americans liked AA. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/politics/2023/6/29/23778734/asian-americans-affirmative-action-supreme-court-ruling

Manic Moran

If he were incarcerated as Ho suggests, then he likely would not have had access to the firearms. Or the family.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120789273#Comment_120789273

I got my Tennessee family killers confused. Chad Doerman was the one accused of lining up his 3 sons and killing them. He had been arrested for DV in 2010 but not convicted. If he had, he'd have no legal way to own firearms.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120789373#Comment_120789373

That's fair enough.

It's also got nothing to do with the fifth circuit case that SCOTUS just agreed to review. The one is a Lautenberg Amendment issue. The other refers to restraining orders against people who have not been convicted.

AbusesToilets

The details of the case surrounding the website design are ludicrous. The plaintiff made up the entire thing. She's never designed a website and stole the information of the "customer". Utterly absurd that this made it to the Supreme Court.

francois

I've read that it is theoretically possible for Biden to pack SCOTUS with liberal judges, and if this is the case why hasn't he done it?

Manic Moran

a) It will further destroy any national confidence in the court.

b) As soon as a Republican president/Senate comes in, they will pack it even more. Give it three decades, we'll have a 23-strong Supreme court.

It was last threatened seriously by FDR in the 1930s after he got an outcome he didn't like from the Supreme Court. To his surprise, it did not go over well and was defeated after strong political and public opposition.

https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packing-supreme-court

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-fdr-lost-his-brief-war-on-the-supreme-court-2

In the end, FDR did pack the court, but he did it the uncontroversial way. He kept winning elections and appointing judges he liked whenever the old judges retired out. He ended up appointing eight. This technique is still valid today.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120791710#Comment_120791710

The Republicans will pack it unless they have a majority and they may pack it even further if it benefits them. Do you honestly think they would pause even for a split second to expand the court if it benefited them?

They have shattered any sort of decency with regards to that court years ago.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120787066#Comment_120787066

To get the thread somewhat back on-topic, this appeared to have been overlooked in the last few days with everything going on in the SC. It’s true that polling does not determine SCOTUS rulings, but they do gauge the temperature of the nation in relation to various social, political and economic issues which influence policies, or not.

This is a rather scathing commentary on Biden’s hiding behind “I’m Catholic” to explain his lack of action in relation to the issue of abortion -

Lest this seem like an ungenerous reading of a well-intended gaffe, it should be noted that an unwillingness to advocate for abortion rights has been a recurring theme of his career. Abortion is a test that Joe Biden has failed every single time that history has called him to it. His paeans to his Catholic faith as cover for his unwillingness to champion abortion also ring false: most American Catholics support abortion rights. And as Jamie Manson, the president of Catholics for Choice, pointed out, the church also fiercely opposes marriage equality, which the president has long championed. It is not Catholicism that makes Joe Biden unwilling to issue a full-throated support of abortion rights. It is sexism.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/29/biden-abortion-rights-dobbs-roe-v-wade

I wouldn’t agree that it’s sexism though, it’s just a politically toxic subject.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120793355#Comment_120793355

So your position is that Democrats should definitely destroy the last vestiges of public trust in the institution because you believe the Republicans will, even though they haven't yet.

AbusesToilets

That's utter nonsense. There should be an equal number of Justices as there are circuits of the federal court. That's not destroying the credibility of the institution. Roberts and his fellow conservatives are accomplishing that every session.

You an unelected institution, functionally answerable to no one, that is deciding cases along nakedly partisan lines. They just heard and ruled on a case that was entirely made up.

Manic Moran

"There should be an equal number of Justices as there are circuits of the federal court"

Why?

The days of the Supreme Court justices actually being dispatched to do the circuits are long gone. There is no longer a practical reason for an equivalency. The number has been less than the number of circuits for over 150 years, and the court seems to have generally been quite acceptable for the vast majority of that time.

The only response I seem to get for that question is along the lines of "because if we happen to expand it right now, with a Democrat in the White House, we can add judges with our preferred judicial philosophy"*. That's not good enough.

You want to put more judges in? Win more elections, the same way it's been done for a century and a half.

Or better yet, figure out a way of holding Congress accountable for doing its damned job, so that people aren't induced towards policy enactment through the judicial system, which is a role it's not supposed to be doing in the first place.

*Actually, only a few people seem to go that far, as it tends to require some rational thought. Mostly it seems to come down to "I want policy results I approve of, and I don't care about the fine details of how it's done". Which seems to be a common flaw on both sides of the political spectrum.

Manic Moran

Of interest, the lads over at EmpiricalScotus have done some number crunching. The ideological 6-3 split came out five times out of 57 cases this year. The two most “conservative” judges “won” the least percentage of times.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120793970#Comment_120793970

Honestly what needs to be done is figuring out a new less partisan way of deciding judges. The fact that a judge's politics is currently far more important than their ability is ridiculous. And I dislike your habit of going to the majority of rulings, judges were placed to vote certain ways on key issues.

Why would that reduce the level of trust any further? If someone still has faith after all the "gifts", after screwing around with nomination to ensure that judges they dislike don't get a shot at it. If someone has faith after all that would they really care if there were a few more judges?

Republicans get a stern looking at when they shatter the norms but obviously if a democrat were to do so it would be the end of it all.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120786792#Comment_120786792

Basing minority rights on the opinion of the majority would be pretty damn stupid.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120793994#Comment_120793994

A bit difficult to win with the disenfranchisment being supported by this SCOTUS with their voting rights act gutting. The recent decision about the legal theory nonsense about state legislatures is really just noise.

Packing the court is a bad idea, I agree, and winning more elections is the answer, but that's more and more difficult with the ideological bent of this court. The shenanigans the Senate gets up to is beyond absurd, everything done on 'convention' and 'precendence,' until it isn't. Coney-Barrett being appointed when there were votes cast in a POTUS election should be the new standard; if a vacancy is open, the Senate immediately meets to vet and vote. Or, if there's an election in a year, the position is held vacant and the nominees put on a ballot along with the POTUS.

Rjd2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120794339#Comment_120794339

Term limits an obvious way to go and probably would have bipartisan support. With the current scenario depending on the balance of power you will have people very old dying on the job just so the other side does not get a pick.

Manic Moran

Honestly what needs to be done is figuring out a new less partisan way of deciding judges. The fact that a judge's politics is currently far more important than their ability is ridiculous. And I dislike your habit of going to the majority of rulings, judges were placed to vote certain ways on key issues.

I can get with the first sentence.

I dislike the habit of judges being (a) rated, and (b) placed on key issues. It was expected that they will rule with a certain philosophy when they are appointed. It's been that way since the beginning of the system, but only after Bork did the Senators start worrying about results-based positions as opposed to qualifications. Why? Because the politicians started being unable to work with themselves and the courts became the place for advocates to enact national policy they couldn't get through Congress. Thus the result is that instead of voters holding the politicians accountable to do their jobs and fixing the one branch of government which is actually broken (or alternatively a subset of voters accepting that they lost), the proposed solution is often simply to further break a second branch of government which is already stretched by doing things the first branch is expected to be doing*. That the vast majority of rulings are undramatic legal issues which almost nobody cares about indicates that these minority cases are generally outliers and distractions, and the fact that most of them were unanimous is evidence that despite differing philosophies, the same answer is achieved more often than not, much as the different theories of ethics will result in the same answer more often than not.

*I will give Congress one bit of mitigation here. Though we expect Congress to do this job today, it's not the way it was set up to function either. The idea of Congress doing so much which affects the daily lives of citizens was not a thing a hundred years ago. It was only after West Coast Hotel, and the "switch in time which saved nine" that Congress suddenly found itself able to enact all sorts of national policy issues. Ironically, the switch was caused by a threat by politicians to interfere with the operation and makeup of the court with the unintended consequence of the court becoming the policy battleground it now is.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120795902#Comment_120795902

I disagree with the minority of cases being outliers and distractions. A single ruling can have a massive impact on lives or a single ruling can have only minor effects depending on the ruling in question. I don't think you can compare, especially as the packing of the court largely had Roe vs Wade in mind in the first place.

I agree that in the majority of cases the correct answer being found by unanimous decision shows that the court is operating as intended in those cases. It is when the court goes into the battleground issues that it causes problems and those cases can have outsized effects as that is why they are battleground issues, because they have larger effects on the lives of people.

And yes it is being used as a proxy for congress which has massive issues as it is trying to pass things which is an issue in of itself.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120791710#Comment_120791710

Well, that's the problem. There's no term limit and judges just aren't dying enough. IIRC some of Trump's appointees weren't even 50? They'll be stinking the court out for decades.