If the gop win the midterms

[Pete F.]

Modern constitutional law as we have known it ended today.

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, it repudiated the very idea that America’s highest court exists to protect people’s fundamental liberties from legislative majorities that would infringe on them.
What the dissent aptly called a “catastrophic” decision is not only a catastrophe for women, who now can be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. It is a catastrophe for all Americans — and for people all over the world who have built their own modern constitutional courts on the US model. The tyranny of the majority won the day.

The right to an abortion was based on the principle of a living Constitution that evolves to expand liberty and equality. That same master principle of modern constitutional law provided the grounding for Brown v. Board of Education, ending segregation. It was the basis for Obergefell v. Hodges, finding a right to same-sex marriage. It is the same principle that undergirds dozens of other decisions establishing rights we today consider fundamental, from sexual freedom to stop and seizure, that were not considered similarly basic in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified or in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was.

In place of the living Constitution that protects liberty and equality from the tyranny of the majority, the court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization announced a Constitution that only protects rights that already existed in the distant past. The majority considered it irrelevant that the people who ratified the original constitutional provisions did not include women, whose rights are at issue in Dobbs and whose equality is derogated by the decision. According to the majority, the dead hand of the past rules our constitutional future.
It is no exaggeration to say that the Dobbs decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by four other conservatives, is an act of institutional suicide for the Supreme Court. The legitimacy of the modern court depends on its capacity to protect the vulnerable by limiting how the majority can infringe on basic rights to liberty and equality.

The Dobbs majority not only takes the court out of that business. It holds that the court should never have expanded the protection of liberty and equality in the first place.

The most basic argument of the Dobbs decision is that, in 1868, states did not consider abortion a fundamental right. That is accurate, as the magisterial dissent, co-authored by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, acknowledges.
But in 1868, there was also no clearly established right to contraception. There were no Miranda rights to protect arrestees. There was no right to choose your own sexual partner, let alone to marry the person you love. And there is no definitive historical evidence that the people who ratified the 14th Amendment thought that doing so prohibited segregation. If you take Dobbs’s logic seriously, all the landmark decisions establishing these rights are wrong.

Will the court now undertake a major effort to revisit these core rights?

Alito’s majority opinion, which is not significantly different from his leaked draft, tries to suggest the court will not do that. Its only basis for that suggestion is to say that abortion is “unique” because it involves life. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate concurrence, called openly for revisiting rights to sexual freedom and gay marriage. The dissenters argued cogently that it is now open season on those and similar basic rights.

It is hard for me to imagine that the rest of the conservative justices actually plan to roll back many of our most fundamental rights. Unfortunately, that hardly matters. State legislatures can and will now pass laws that violate or eliminate those rights. The lower courts will have to adjudicate them. Ultimately the Supreme Court will have to weigh in again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Modern constitutional law as we have known it ended today.

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, it repudiated the very idea that America’s highest court exists to protect people’s fundamental liberties from legislative majorities that would infringe on them.
What the dissent aptly called a “catastrophic” decision is not only a catastrophe for women, who now can be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. It is a catastrophe for all Americans — and for people all over the world who have built their own modern constitutional courts on the US model. The tyranny of the majority won the day.

The right to an abortion was based on the principle of a living Constitution that evolves to expand liberty and equality. That same master principle of modern constitutional law provided the grounding for Brown v. Board of Education, ending segregation. It was the basis for Obergefell v. Hodges, finding a right to same-sex marriage. It is the same principle that undergirds dozens of other decisions establishing rights we today consider fundamental, from sexual freedom to stop and seizure, that were not considered similarly basic in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified or in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was.

In place of the living Constitution that protects liberty and equality from the tyranny of the majority, the court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization announced a Constitution that only protects rights that already existed in the distant past. The majority considered it irrelevant that the people who ratified the original constitutional provisions did not include women, whose rights are at issue in Dobbs and whose equality is derogated by the decision. According to the majority, the dead hand of the past rules our constitutional future.
It is no exaggeration to say that the Dobbs decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by four other conservatives, is an act of institutional suicide for the Supreme Court. The legitimacy of the modern court depends on its capacity to protect the vulnerable by limiting how the majority can infringe on basic rights to liberty and equality.

The Dobbs majority not only takes the court out of that business. It holds that the court should never have expanded the protection of liberty and equality in the first place.

The most basic argument of the Dobbs decision is that, in 1868, states did not consider abortion a fundamental right. That is accurate, as the magisterial dissent, co-authored by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, acknowledges.
But in 1868, there was also no clearly established right to contraception. There were no Miranda rights to protect arrestees. There was no right to choose your own sexual partner, let alone to marry the person you love. And there is no definitive historical evidence that the people who ratified the 14th Amendment thought that doing so prohibited segregation. If you take Dobbs’s logic seriously, all the landmark decisions establishing these rights are wrong.

Will the court now undertake a major effort to revisit these core rights?

Alito’s majority opinion, which is not significantly different from his leaked draft, tries to suggest the court will not do that. Its only basis for that suggestion is to say that abortion is “unique” because it involves life. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate concurrence, called openly for revisiting rights to sexual freedom and gay marriage. The dissenters argued cogently that it is now open season on those and similar basic rights.

It is hard for me to imagine that the rest of the conservative justices actually plan to roll back many of our most fundamental rights. Unfortunately, that hardly matters. State legislatures can and will now pass laws that violate or eliminate those rights. The lower courts will have to adjudicate them. Ultimately the Supreme Court will have to weigh in again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the “living constitution” theory doesn’t safeguard against tyranny, because obviously it allows whoever is in charge, to decide what the constitution means. you can’t be bound by the constitution and be a tyrant.

all of a sudden you’re worried about “the tyranny of the majority”, yet you hate the electoral college, which was specifically designed to safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. As was the filibuster. which your side also currently hates.

do you have ANY principles?

do you think scotus should
decide cases based on avoiding catastrophes for women? i keep forgetting about the famous “women shall endure no catastrophes” clause in the constitution. do you have ANY idea why the statue of Lady Justice on every courthouse is wearing a blindfold?

any judge that ruled to uphold Roe because they want to help
women, those are the tyrants. SCOTUS isn’t the national organization for women. The constitution is what matters, not sympathy for women.

has abortion been a catastrophe for the 50 million babies killed?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the “living constitution” theory doesn’t safeguard against tyranny, because obviously it slows whoever is in charge, to decide what the constitution means.

all of a sudden you’re worried about “the tyranny of the majority”, yet you hate the electoral
college, which was specifically designed to safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. As was the fillibuster.

do you have ANY principles?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Once again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of American history.
The electoral college was a compromise instituted to bring the slave holding states into the Union.

The popu#^&la#^&tions in the North and South were approx#^&im#^&ately equal, but roughly one-third of those living in the South were held in bond#^&age. Because of its consid#^&er#^&able, nonvot#^&ing slave popu#^&la#^&tion, that region would have less clout under a popu#^&lar-vote system. The ulti#^&mate solu#^&tion was an indir#^&ect method of choos#^&ing the pres#^&id#^&ent, one that could lever#^&age the three-fifths comprom#^&ise, the Faus#^&tian bargain they’d already made to determ#^&ine how congres#^&sional seats would be appor#^&tioned. With about 93 percent of the coun#^&try’s slaves toil#^&ing in just five south#^&ern states, that region was the undoubted bene#^&fi#^&ciary of the comprom#^&ise, increas#^&ing the size of the South’s congres#^&sional deleg#^&a#^&tion by 42 percent. When the time came to agree on a system for choos#^&ing the pres#^&id#^&ent, it was all too easy for the deleg#^&ates to resort to the three-fifths comprom#^&ise as the found#^&a#^&tion. The pecu#^&liar system that emerged was the Elect#^&oral College.

Should blacks votes only count as 3/5?
Just what principles do you choose from the ones that were held in the late 1700s or even the 1950s, should Alabama still be able to say: No niggers, no Jews, no dogs?
Your aggrieved white manhood is the same as every right wing cult in American history.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device