For what it's worth, you should ignore all the folks talking about how badly Roe v. Wade was written. I've read plenty of commentary on this, and even liberal scholars mostly agree that Blackmun did a lousy job.
But it doesn't matter. The opinion could have been written by John Marshall himself and no one would care. Liberals wanted it to stay and conservatives wanted it to go. End of story.
Also, no matter badly it was written I can guarantee you 100% that Alito's reversal will be worse. There won't be an honest - much less intellectually rigorous - paragraph in the entire thing. Not one. Guaranteed.
Scalia was evil but he could write. And think. Alito is just a talentless hack who will produce arguments that sound like they were written by a 1995 internet troll.
Sandra Day O'Conner reportedly dislike Alito and excoriated his appeal court opinions when they came before the Supreme Court. She retired to take care of her invalid husband and what did W. Bush do but give her seat to her nemesis.
Do you have any evidence at all for your claim?
I dunno if he does or not. But I'd tell him to get you to commit to what sort of evidence would satisfy you _before_ he goes digging.
It's in the biography of O'Conner, "First" or whatever it was called. Other reports too.
Sandra Day O'Conner reportedly disliked Alito and excoriated his appeal court opinions when they came before the Supreme Court. She retired to take care of her invalid husband and W. Bush gave her seat to her nemesis.
Excuse the double post.
🙂👍
And the basic point is that women, after their 100 years of progress since getting to vote see the question this way: do the founding ideas of the country support the idea that women have control over their own lives? And rightly so. How well the opinion was written matters not
For that matter, since it was considered absurd for women to vote in the 1800s, maybe that's on the docket for repeal, too.
Women can only vote if their husband's provide the ballot markings.
Didn't women put Jefferson over the top in one state thats to a loophole that let them vote
The silliest observation in Alito's document is that Roe "didn't end the national debate". As if that's either a common or the intended result of Supreme Court decisions.
It does, however, give the lie to all his originalist nonsense. Clearly he understands the Court is making policy.
It was making policy.
With the reversal of Roe the Court has stepped away from it.
Now the political branch can decide. They can make abortion legal or illegal as they choose either nationwide (if they can shoehorn it into the Commerce Clause, but SCOTUS has shoehorned everything into the Commerce Clause and I doubt the left would be willing to give that up even to save abortion) or state by state.
No you don't get to decide what to do with my body. There will be massive civil disobedience if they try to close the door nationwide.
Um, no. Just no, you silly, silly troll.
👍👍👍👍👍
No country in the world does judicial appointments quite like the United States. Where else do individual high court judges so often become household names, or the subject of breaking news, or grist for the political mill?
The selection process for the U.S. Supreme Court appears unusually political compared to other democracies
Your Supreme Court was supposed to be the “apolitical” branch of the government. The framers of the Constitution intended the Court to be insulated from the chaotic process politics was at the time and still is .
They totally misjudged it … on this also.
Today is your Supreme Court manned by politicians dressed up in black robes impersonating judges
The U.S. Supreme Court justices hold more power than all of their foreign counterparts . It is the justices who now decide the controversial issues of our time. Issues like abortion and same-sex marriage , gun control, campaign finance voting rights
That much power in the hands of single persons is an abomination in a democracy of the 21th century but that’s how your archaic Constitution is drafted
An inconvenient truth from a Swede
Agreed. And don't forget, at the state and local levels, judges and justices are elected in partisan elections. Another abomination. But, due to built-in minority control, the US hasn't been able to deal with this ... yet.
Originalism is nonsense anyway. Ignoring the fact they don't really apply true originalism, there is nothing except their own preference that says that's how the Constitution must be interpreted. Nothing! They just use the concept to justify applying their own warped moral ideas to the law.
I think it is totally reasonably originalism to read the Constitution, say "It says nothing about abortion.", and hand the issue back to elected politicians.
No Michael you don't get any say in taking away the civil rights outside your white male patriarchy.
I'm sure you believe what you're saying is true (or am I?) Now tell me how and why your belief effects my -- or anyone else's -- considered opinion?
It says nothing about computers either. Ot stock markets. Or automobiles. Or assault rifles. Or nuclear weapons.
Any interpretation theory that doesn't acknowledge that it was meant as a broad set of principles - a framework - rather than as a detailed checklist is not only stupid - it is intentionally dishonest.
Also it's worth noting that the same document SAYS NOTHING about the Supreme Court getting to make these kinds of decisions AT ALL. That came a decade and a half later. Reasonable people realize it's a power that must exist but any **true originalist* would start from the principle that they DO NOT HAVE THAT POWER. 'Originalism' is a self-negating concept if used honestly rather than as a partisan tool.
And finally, it's a massive joke to imagine "hand[ing] the issue back to elected politicians" from the same court doing everything in their power term after term after term to make sure there can never be fair elections or representative legislatures in most states.
That alone gives away the entire game.
Oh, he knows that. He's just trolling is all.
+10 for pointing out the non-Constitutionality of judicial review, asserted by the Court itself in Marbury v. Madison.
It also does not say how many justices should sit on the Supreme Court.
Originalism is supported by evil minds or stupid ones.
Here's a dissenting conservative opinion, just for you, Mr. Friedman:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/03/opinion/abortion-supreme-court-conservative.html
Doesn't anyone remember what this decision was about? Politics. Compromise. Of course the odds of it also being closely reasoned were not good! The deal that was evetually hammered out was the 'three trimesters' standard we use (and will soon lose) had something for 'liberals' as well as something for 'conservatives'. Neither side was happy, i. e. neither side got all of what they wanted, but it was something both sides could live with.
IOW: 'Conervatives' want to go back on the deal they already ageed to umpty-odd years ago. _Never_ forget that, and _never_ forget that this is yet example indicating that their word is worthless.
One wonders how many of TFG's girlfriends had abortions over the years.
Here’s my tinny tiny sliver of light about this mess; I believe this never should have been left to the courts. People on both sides have been hiding behind Roe rather than taking a stand for decades. So maybe now is the time to force everyone to take a stand. If we really are that terrible a nation, and I think there is a possibility that we are, it would be good to find out now. The basic humanity of women is not a debate. You either believe in it or you don’t. Let’s find out what everyone believes.
If you believe this, then, your previous post -- on the sliver of hope resting on Alito's assurances that this decision is sandboxed -- can only be viewed as either a satirical take or a contradiction.
Roe eastblished the right to provacy as a Constitutional right, Alito and cronies have now taken that away. This WILL leard to the rolling back of other rights. The next will be same-sex marriage, birth control, and merry hell of glee on the part of the GOP as they reset to 1950. Or before.
*privacy*
That is because they hoped Black women would have abortions. You can read the guilt. Little did they know the Christian Zionist rise during the 80's and 90's which mirrored the great awakening crap from the 1830's/40's.
Maybe Republicans can have a commercial with a little niggy toddler representing a saved fetus. Oh joy.
Here's a dissenting conservative opinion, just for you, Mr. Friedman:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/03/opinion/abortion-supreme-court-conservative.html