Senate confirms Justice Handmaid One

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

it’s damn stupid to assume the problem conservatives have with roe is “there’s no right to privacy” and not that they see it as a violation of a “higher law”; one of the Ten Commandments, Thou Shall Not Murder. 
 

 

[Guest]

Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

it’s damn stupid to assume the problem conservatives have with roe is “there’s no right to privacy” and not that they see it as a violation of a “higher law”; one of the Ten Commandments, Thou Shall Not Murder. 
 

 

Nobody is making that claim here.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

Read the article @Joe just linked to which explains Ginsburg’s position which is incredibly widely held by con law academics.
 

Find the con law professor at your nearest college and ask them about how the Roe opinion is viewed on a technical basis and I would wager they would echo that same position.

 

What I find peculiar about your response here is that you have shown yourself to understand that the holding isn’t the only thing that matters, the legal basis is also important. See your own posts about Roberts writing opinions on cases that despite a holding you agree with could curtail progressive policy moving forward.

I don’t give a shit about any conlaw professor, and neither should you. They’re not the highest authority on the law, nor should they be. It’s not an observable science, it’s all political!

 

And you’re right, the holding and legal basis is important. I just find the legal basis for privacy quite sound, just like the right to freely travel in, out, and generally around a state. Draw all you want to from some stuffy academic, because not all rights are enumerated by the constitution by my political interpretation 
 

the problem with the holding of the court using conservative opinions with liberal concurrence in holding is that it is done in bad faith by conservatives generally, even when the court liberals use their own words against them. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

13 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Nobody is making that claim here.

“Roe is rightly decided but for the wrong reasons “ is explicitly called out here by reference to the rbg article. The problem is you, joe, and others think that if it’s equal protection or privacy reasoning it would matter to the court conservatives specifically or conservatives generally in their opposition! If there’s a will to overturn the right to an abortion, and there most certainly is, there will be a way

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The problem is you, joe, and others think that if it’s equal protection or privacy reasoning it would matter to the court conservatives specifically or conservatives generally in their opposition!

Nobody has argued this from what I have seen. At least I know neither Joe nor I have, I’d have to re-read @mclumber1’s posts.

 

14 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I don’t give a shit about any conlaw professor, and neither should you. They’re not the highest authority on the law, nor should they be. It’s not an observable science, it’s all political!

 

And you’re right, the holding and legal basis is important. I just find the legal basis for privacy quite sound, just like the right to freely travel in, out, and generally around a state. Draw all you want to from some stuffy academic, because not all rights are enumerated by the constitution by my political interpretation 
 

the problem with the holding of the court using conservative opinions with liberal concurrence in holding is that it is done in bad faith by conservatives generally, even when the court liberals use their own words against them. 

You are arguing against what Joe and I said by creating a different argument out of whole cloth. We pointed out what the legal community thinks about Roe as a matter or jurisprudence. So the con law prof’s take on how it is viewed is certainly germane to that point. And the fact that even a left leaning SCOTUS justice held that same position says a lot about how common that view is within the field.

[Joe]

"Your argument that the legal community thinks this way is bullshit"

 

"Now that you have proven the legal community thinks this way, who the fuck cares what they think anyway?

 

Okay.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

The legal community phrase is meaningless. I’ll get to it in my reply to joes post. 

 

the decision of roe falls into a few camps: rightly decided for sound reasons, rightly decided but for unsound reasons, wrongly decided but sound reasoning (????), or wrongly decided because of the unsound reasoning. 
 

if the first, you’re generally in agreement with me. I’d put Jason in this camp. Generally, there is a right to privacy, unenumerated yet protected by the constitution. This upholds the right to an abortion. 

 

In the second, is where you’d generally agree with some of what you claim tHe LeGaL cOmMuNiTy, or at least rbg, is with regard to the decision. I’d wager joe is here. This is in effect a concurrence. So yes, there is a right to abortion, but it should have been done another way. Same end result, legal abortion. 

 

No idea how someone could be the third so I’ll skip it.
 

The last is where most all conservatives are and the rest of the LeGaL cOmMuNiTy. the arguments from them are really irrelevant because the point is that abortion is murder and against the Christian religion. Those aren’t the legal arguments because ultimately they will say whatever they need in order to get the job done and ban abortion. These people don’t operate in good legal faith so choosing 1 or 2 is irrelevant. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

19 minutes ago, Joe said:

"Your argument that the legal community thinks this way is bullshit"

 

"Now that you have proven the legal community thinks this way, who the fuck cares what they think anyway?

 

Okay.

These are dorks in tweed jackets not the Oracle at Delphi they don’t have all the answers

[Joe]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

These are dorks in tweed jackets not the Oracle at Delphi they don’t have all the answers. Submitting yourself to their opinion leaves your agency at the doorstep. They aren’t the end all be all of interpretation of the constitution! Why you should care what these people think instead of making your own decisions is questionable. 

 

At the end of the day, a stronger constitutional argument for the right to have free access to abortion means it has more of a chance of sticking. Time has proven that justices appointed by Republicans don't always decide cases in the way conservatives wish. You seem to think that this will never happen again, but even last year proved otherwise. At the end of the day, we just think about this issue differently and arguing about it is a supreme waste of time.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

These are dorks in tweed jackets not the Oracle at Delphi they don’t have all the answers. Submitting yourself to their opinion leaves your agency at the doorstep. They aren’t the end all be all of interpretation of the constitution! 

Sure, but their opinion is derived from a place of knowledge of the history of the document, the history of the court, and the history of tons of law in between. Expert opinion is helpful for understanding subjects to which you aren’t an expert.

 

For example, how do you arrive at the conclusion that Roe is decided on solid legal reasoning? Have you yourself read the opinion? Did you check out all the cases it references? Did you comb through the constitution to see if the ideas it advocates are there in the text, either explicit or implicit?

 

Or do you simply find it to be on solid legal footing because you like the outcome?

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Just now, Joe said:

 

At the end of the day, a stronger constitutional argument for the right to have free access to abortion means it has more of a chance of sticking. Time has proven that justices appointed by Republicans don't always decide cases in the way conservatives wish. You seem to think that this will never happen again, but even last year proved otherwise. At the end of the day, we just think about this issue differently and arguing about it is a supreme waste of time.

This would normally be true, and with a less ideologically rigorous vetting process by the right wing that exists now might make some difference on the margin, with an occasional 5-4 that grants temporary reprieve. By looking at a 6-3 court and it doesn’t matter, the justices will be done. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

Sure, but their opinion is derived from a place of knowledge of the history of the document, the history of the court, and the history of tons of law in between. Expert opinion is helpful for understanding subjects to which you aren’t an expert.

 

For example, how do you arrive at the conclusion that Roe is decided on solid legal reasoning? Have you yourself read the opinion? Did you check out all the cases it references? Did you comb through the constitution to see if the ideas it advocates are there in the text, either explicit or implicit?

 

Or do you simply find it to be on solid legal footing because you like the outcome?

I haven’t done all of that work, but I have read the opinion and one or two that are cited like Griswold. I formed my own legal opinions based on my reading and scholars who have done this work and whom I agree with. Surprisingly the LeGaL cOmMuNiTy isn’t unanimous and there is no single way to interpret the laws at hand, the constitution, let alone the history of the court and its rulings. I’m not making my arguments here on this concept of the legal community. They don’t have all the answers, and I’m presenting my opinions based on what I have read instead of wholly leaning on the work of some unnamed mass of others. 
 

but keep referencing the legal community like trollpez and not have anything interesting to say yourself

[Guest]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

but keep referencing the legal community like trollpez and not have anything interesting to say yourself

 

This is hilarious given that you have not one time in this thread explained your own thoughts on the matter. You've just argued against things nobody is saying. But it honestly seems like you're having a bad day since you aren't normally rude to me, so I'm just going to go back to playing Civilization for  an obnoxious number of hours.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

This is literally the first time in my life anyone has ever accused me of withholding my opinion on any manner great or small

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

We wouldn't be having these issues under the VASTLY superior civil law system! 

 

 

Put THAT in your pipe @Massdriver!

[SaysWho?]

I'd like to echo something @Anathema- asked.

 

Where are all the "I like the composition of the court the way it is" folks, shitting bricks over someone like Scalia getting replaced but mum over this?

[Anathema-]

Of all the terrible decisions that scotus has made I'm fine with the one that legalized abortions. If you want truly bad decisions there are plenty of more recent and more indefensible ones to choose from. We don't have to quibble about how technically correct a cabal of dominionists might be in allowing states to ban the procedure; and that's assuming they don't also rule it must be made illegal nationwide.

[Jason]

BTW I wasn't commenting earlier on whether Roe being based on the right to privacy was a good decision, I was commenting on the super lulzy idea that the constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy at all.

[Joe]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

BTW I wasn't commenting earlier on whether Roe being based on the right to privacy was a good decision, I was commenting on the super lulzy idea that the constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy at all.

 

Don't worry, it was super clear from the emoji.

[Joe]

1 hour ago, Anathema- said:

Of all the terrible decisions that scotus has made I'm fine with the one that legalized abortions. If you want truly bad decisions there are plenty of more recent and more indefensible ones to choose from. We don't have to quibble about how technically correct a cabal of dominionists might be in allowing states to ban the procedure; and that's assuming they don't also rule it must be made illegal nationwide.

 

It matters because it makes it easier to be overturned. I'm definitely fine with a shitty decision that actually benefits people for once lol.

[CitizenVectron]

Crowd outside Supreme Court chants "Vote Him Out" as Trump stands in tribute to RBG:

 

 

You love to see it.

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Gottem

[Jason]

On 9/21/2020 at 7:56 PM, Uaarkson said:

If one more of you motherfuckers types RGB instead of RBG I’m going to have an aneurism.

 

Ruth Badger Ginbsurg

[ort]

We need to nominate a justice with the initials CMYK.

[SuperSpreader]

19 minutes ago, ort said:

We need to nominate a justice with the initials CMYK.

CYMK 

[Jason]

[MarSolo]

3 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

Crowd outside Supreme Court chants "Vote Him Out" as Trump stands in tribute to RBG:

 

 

You love to see it.

 

Christ, he even wears a mask awkwardly.

[Anathema-]

23 hours ago, Joe said:

 

It matters because it makes it easier to be overturned. I'm definitely fine with a shitty decision that actually benefits people for once lol.

 

Well, thing is, it will be exactly as easy and as hard as getting a liberal majority on the court. The precise speciousness of the decision isn't all that relevant. 

[Anathema-]

What I find interesting is waiting to see if the idiotic trump minority movement winds up hoisting themselves on their own petard by doing something moronic like ruling that the state banning something constitutionally protected through onerous regulations is itself constitutional, only to have California turn around and regulate gun shops out of business. 

[Guest]

So is Collins the only Republican senator in record as not on board with voting for the Trump nominee?

[PaladinSolo]

6 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

So is Collins the only Republican senator in record as not on board with voting for the Trump nominee?

Murkowski.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, PaladinSolo said:

Murkowski.

She kinda weaseled out of that stance

 

http://www.alaskapublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/AKfavicon.png Alaska's Sen. Murkowski says she can't rule out voting for Trump's Supreme Court pick - Alaska Public Media

WWW.ALASKAPUBLIC.ORG

---

Sen. Murkowski said Tuesday she could not rule out that she would vote to confirm a Trump nominee if the Judiciary Committee approves of one before the November election.

 

[thewhyteboar]

Libertarians: a Serious Party.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Just now, thewhyteboar said:

Libertarians: a Serious Party.

"Unusual knowledge of state age of consent laws" party

[b_m_b_m_b_m]