Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

I think you are being very generous in your opinion of the current supreme court. Roe vs wade survived 50 years of different make ups of supreme courts without it being repealed and as soon as religous motivated justices are appointed suddenly is appealed. That is a fact and heavily implied their judgement was based on non legal reasons but their own religious beliefs, otherwise the suggestion would be the supreme court justics for 50 years didnt know the law.

The social views changed over segregation as the population became more enlightened so the supreme court decision reflected that. Unlike the segregation decisuon , since the roe vs wade decision the social views against abortion has actually decreased, so i dont think the two decisions can be compared. I think it just shows that the supreme court is not blind and not unbiased to different politicial climates. Will you concede that the justices are biased on religious grounds if they repeal the same sex marriage act?

One of the justices did state in the repeal of roe v wade decision that same sex marriage should be next to be repealed but funnily enough not the Loving judgement which would effect him and is not against his religion, but yes he sounds unbiased. I think his other conservative colleagues may agree with him if it came to the supreme court. Also didnt some of these justices lie about not going after roe vs wade when they were challenged about it before they were appointed. Yet still you give them the benefit of the doubt of being unbiased. I guess at least you acknowledged that those politicians supporting their nomination did so in the expectstion they would strike Roe down.

Are you arguing that most of the conservative catholic justices are prochoice because most catholics are? Why would the republicans nominate pro choice justices when they have explicitly called out their objective to repeal Roe since before George W was in power. I guess its a happy coincidence that those justices nomimated by pro life politicians voted the way those politicians wanted them to vote. Sounds like they were neutral and unbiased.

Ah so you admit the supreme court is now biased, which the court should not be. I think that like the democrats should feel shame for their role in supporting segregation through the dixiecrats and starting the vietnam war the republicans should feel shame for destroying the neutrality of the supreme court and causing people to lose faith in the voting system to their spreading of the big steal lie.

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. 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.

If a decision is made on the basis of equal protection why would gay marriage be under threat? I feel that the conservative justices have an outcome they wish to achieve and then are retrospectively trying to find a legal reason to support it. My only hope is that the primary motivation stated by republicans to pack the court with friendly justices and block the democrats from appointing theres was to kill Roe vs Wade. The other issues gay marriage and contraceptives are only now getting any momentum behind them from republicans to get them before the supreme court.

No but neither does it make it inconceivable that the conservative Catholic judges on the court embraced the 'judicial philosophies' that enabled them to impose their religious beliefs on the country as a whole and to maintain 'plausible deniability' about what they were up to. Ever hear of

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 -

https://www.thejournal.ie/judges-council-of-europe-5270647-Nov2020/?amp=1

which led to this -

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2022/42/

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 -

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/politics/gorsuch-supreme-court-gay-transgender-rights.html

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 -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_Waterhouse_v._Hopkins

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 -

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/gorsuch-sides-with-liberals-in-supervised-release-dispute

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.

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

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.

‘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.

https://web.archive.org/web/20090915172725/http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/01/01-12hitchens-excerpt.html

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) -

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/03/athiesm-us-politics-2020-election-religious-beliefs

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 -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomination_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

"Despite the impassioned plea from Gardner and other abortions rights supporters in and outside the chamber, the House overwhelmingly passed the bill by a vote of 69 to 23."

I don't think the GOP yet realizes the size and motivation of the shitstorm it has unleashed with the nations youth.

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.

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.

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.

Matt Gaetz' misogyny has been a real champion for abortions

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

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.

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.

Arson incident at Planned Parenthood Michigan

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.