ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amy Coney Barrett , People of Praise , Supreme Court nominees

Reply
Old 27th October 2020, 08:49 PM   #361
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,753
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
.....
I think 9 is a damn fine number and -other than partisan considerations-
Why? The number is purely arbitrary. The U.S. has become vastly bigger and more complex since that number was set. Having more justices would reduce the power of any single justice. Gathering the votes to achieve a majority would require more negotiation and compromise if there were, say, 15 or 17 justices, and generally would be more likely to reach more moderate decisions. More seats would bring in people with broader legal and life experience. Term limits of 18 or 20 years would also ensure a rational, predictable turnover. Scalia served 30 years, Ginsburg 27 years. The idea that somebody should be able to park forever unto death in a job that touches all our lives runs counter to the norms in every other government and private sphere.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 08:52 PM   #362
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,753
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
I like nine too. Perhaps impeachment of justices will become the new norm to adjust the political affiliation of the court.
On what basis would anyone be impeached? That would require proof of extraordinary misconduct, not just voting for decisions that somebody doesn't like.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 08:55 PM   #363
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,108
I would start by removing any Justice who was not elected by the required 60 votes in the Senate.
__________________
Normal is just a stereotype.
Silly Green Monkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 09:07 PM   #364
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,753
Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
I would start by removing any Justice who was not elected by the required 60 votes in the Senate.
All federal judges are appointed for life "on good behavior." Nobody gets to just remove them. And 60 votes was only required by a Senate rule that the Senate changed. Nothing about it in the Constitution.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 09:42 PM   #365
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,193
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
On what basis would anyone be impeached? That would require proof of extraordinary misconduct, not just voting for decisions that somebody doesn't like.
Well, since impeachment is largely political, it can be done in whatever the Congress critters think is relevant... Wearing a tan suit, using the wrong kind of mustard, receiving oral sex....

In theory they could impeach drunky mcrapeface for lying during his confirmation hearing. (that would be awesome... The history textbooks would have to contain definitions for "devil's triangle").

Only problem is impeachment would require more than just a simple senate major and u can't see the democrats getting anywhere near that number.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 09:58 PM   #366
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,193
Re: number of judges vs number of circuits...

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
That was like 150 years ago. It had been 10 before that. So I don't think "the number of circuit courts" has any particular signifigance. The changes in number have always been related to political concerns, not practical ones in the administration of circuit courts.
While currently there are more circuit courts than supreme Court justices, it might make some sense to establish some sort of equality.

Right now, each circuit is assigned to a supreme Court judge. Some judges are responsible for more than one circuit. Make it 13 judges and each has their own circuit.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/c...signments.aspx

Quote:

I think 9 is a damn fine number and -other than partisan considerations- I can't think of a good reason to increase it. At some point it becomes a little unweildy, I should think.
9 may be a good number. But it is also good to have a court who's composition reflects the interests of the general population. Right now those concepts are in conflict. Of those 2 issues, I think the "9 is a good number" takes second priority.



Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2020, 10:16 PM   #367
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,767
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
That was like 150 years ago. It had been 10 before that. So I don't think "the number of circuit courts" has any particular signifigance. The changes in number have always been related to political concerns, not practical ones in the administration of circuit courts.
Many changes were not related to political concerns and the size of the court was directly tied to the number of circuit courts.

The Supreme Court was originally 6, which matched the 6 circuits. Each Supreme Court Justice is assigned to a circuit (more than one now). Until the late 1800s, Supreme Court Justices were required to ride their assigned circuit to hear appeals. Justice were traditionally appointed with judges residing in the area covered by the circuit to which they would be assigned.

In 1801, the Supreme Court was reduced to five with changes to how appeals would be handled in the circuits. But that was repealed 1802 and the Supreme Court restored to 6 without the 1801 changes having any affect. That was all political with the lame-duck Adams and the Federalists try to establish judicial power before Jefferson took over, and Jefferson subsequently trying to undo those actions (which led to Marbury v. Madison).

When the number of circuits was increased to 7, the Supreme Court was increased to 7. When increased to 9, the Supreme Court was increased to 9.

When increased to 10, the Supreme Court was increased to 10. This abolished the short-lived California circuit.

Republican Lincoln ran with Democrat Johnson as his Vice President. After Lincoln was assassinated, the Republican controlled Congress didn't like the way Johnson was handling reconstruction. When a Supreme Court seat opened, they restructured the circuits into 9 circuits. They considered reducing the seats to 9 (to take away a Johnson appointment and to resolve the issue of a possible tie vote), but they decided to further further reduced it 7 to keep Johnson from getting any appointments (and in part from Justice Chase trying to justify a raise for himself).

After Grant was elected, Congress restored the number of seats to 9 to match the number of circuits.

They circuits got replaced by the district courts and the courts of appeals, which had the appellant authority of a Supreme Court Justice. Eventually Supreme Court Justices were no longer required to ride the circuit at all.

By the time new districts were added, Supreme Court Justices were no longer so closely tied to the circuits and no new Supreme Court seats were added and it has remained at 9 ever since.

Other than the reduction to 7 during the Johnson administration, the number of Justices was always tied directly to the number of circuits. But it stopped being increased when the district and appellant courts took over much of the circuit work that Justices had previously done.
__________________
I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:34 AM   #368
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,555
Why don't the number of justices rise in step with the population increase? With more people populating the land, does not the number of legal matters increase apace?
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:40 AM   #369
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,191
One argument is that you want the SC to remain unable to deal with many cases per year, to disincentivise frivolous appeals.
__________________
Prediction
https://xkcd.com/2370/
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:31 AM   #370
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,123
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
One argument is that you want the SC to remain unable to deal with many cases per year, to disincentivise frivolous appeals.
Feels like that would just clog up the system.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:48 AM   #371
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 57,548
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Why don't the number of justices rise in step with the population increase? With more people populating the land, does not the number of legal matters increase apace?
But they don't divvy up the work, do they? Aren't all cases heard by all of them? Whether there are nine or fifty judges it'll still be the same number of cases. But the more judges there are the longer each case will take as there will be more to ask questions, more organization, more writing, and more coordination of schedules.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:11 AM   #372
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,312
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Why don't the number of justices rise in step with the population increase? With more people populating the land, does not the number of legal matters increase apace?
It's still one Supreme Court. Having more judges on the bench won't make it work any faster. Probably the opposite. Besides, not every legal matter needs to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Most appeals are going to be decided by a lower court anyway.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:50 AM   #373
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,300
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
But they don't divvy up the work, do they? Aren't all cases heard by all of them? Whether there are nine or fifty judges it'll still be the same number of cases. But the more judges there are the longer each case will take as there will be more to ask questions, more organization, more writing, and more coordination of schedules.
And you would need the senate processing more than 5 times as many SC nominees. Won't that be fun?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:20 AM   #374
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 57,548
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And you would need the senate processing more than 5 times as many SC nominees. Won't that be fun?
They seem to go pretty quick when they want to.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:27 AM   #375
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,312
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And you would need the senate processing more than 5 times as many SC nominees. Won't that be fun?
I mean, if it keeps them from getting anything else done...
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:09 AM   #376
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,300
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I mean, if it keeps them from getting anything else done...
OK, now I'm sold on the idea.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:00 PM   #377
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 29,404
Angela Stanton King tweeted

@theangiestanton
US House candidate, GA-5
Roe V. Wade we’re coming for you!
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:13 PM   #378
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,901
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Angela Stanton King tweeted

@theangiestanton
US House candidate, GA-5
Roe V. Wade we’re coming for you!
That actually took longer than I thought. I legit thought the first legal action would have happened already.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:26 PM   #379
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 21,425
If the Dems take the house, the senate and the white house, they can just pass a bill that limits federal spending in states that outlaw or restrict abortion. That's just off the top of my head, I assume there are other ways for the full federal government to protect a woman's right to medical care even if the Supreme Court does not require the states to protect that right.

Sure, that is subject to change down the road, like the ACA, but it does forestall the current issue.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:29 PM   #380
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,901
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
If the Dems take the house, the senate and the white house, they can just pass a bill that limits federal spending in states that outlaw or restrict abortion.
... which some red state will immediately challenge in Federal Court, which will then be overturned by the Theologian Court of the United States.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:38 PM   #381
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 21,425
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
... which some red state will immediately challenge in Federal Court, which will then be overturned by the Theologian Court of the United States.
I think the power of the purse is pretty secure, even among theology based justices. Once congress no longer wields the power of the purse, which is actually in the constitution, how long do you think the Supreme Court maintains their power of judicial review?
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:55 PM   #382
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,312
So what's the plan? Pass a law that challenges RvW, find a defendant to prosecute under the new law, appeal it all the way up, and get a ruling along party lines?

Probably not quite that. We've seen that the justices don't always rule along party lines. Presumably whatever law it is will have to satisfy at least some theory of constitutional interpretation that is palatable to at least five justices.

Or maybe such a law is already on the books somewhere, and the state prosecutor has been waiting for the court to shift, before bringing a case?

Anyway, if there's a constitutionally justifiable reason to overturn RvW, that's acceptable to at least five justices... then would their ruling be wrong? This isn't a question of what we'd like to have. It's a question of what the law actually says.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:07 PM   #383
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,108
No, it's a question of precedent. RvW is established precedent, it's already been ruled upon.
__________________
Normal is just a stereotype.
Silly Green Monkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:15 PM   #384
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 21,425
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
So what's the plan? Pass a law that challenges RvW, find a defendant to prosecute under the new law, appeal it all the way up, and get a ruling along party lines?

Probably not quite that. We've seen that the justices don't always rule along party lines. Presumably whatever law it is will have to satisfy at least some theory of constitutional interpretation that is palatable to at least five justices.

Or maybe such a law is already on the books somewhere, and the state prosecutor has been waiting for the court to shift, before bringing a case?

Anyway, if there's a constitutionally justifiable reason to overturn RvW, that's acceptable to at least five justices... then would their ruling be wrong? This isn't a question of what we'd like to have. It's a question of what the law actually says.
This is not my area of study, but it is my understanding that some southern states are pretty much constantly passing laws that try to make abortions less accessible and then but heads against RvW in the various courts. I feel like there is a never ending queue of such cases, but I could be wrong. It doesn't take a direct attack to weaken the precedential value of RvW.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:24 PM   #385
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,312
Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
No, it's a question of precedent. RvW is established precedent, it's already been ruled upon.
In that case everybody is freaking out over literally nothing. RvW is safe no matter how many theocrats get "installed" on the court.

But I think you may be wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ourt_decisions

Apparently the Supreme Court can in fact overturn its own precedents. When you think about it, this would explain why everybody is freaking out.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:29 PM   #386
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,385
She sat out on Trump's appeal of Pennsylvania's election case today. I still don't trust her.

I believe Roe vs Wade will either be turned over or defanged by other decisions. After all, her motivation to enter law is to make abortion illegal.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:41 PM   #387
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,555
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
So what's the plan? Pass a law that challenges RvW, find a defendant to prosecute under the new law, appeal it all the way up, and get a ruling along party lines?

Probably not quite that. We've seen that the justices don't always rule along party lines. Presumably whatever law it is will have to satisfy at least some theory of constitutional interpretation that is palatable to at least five justices.

Or maybe such a law is already on the books somewhere, and the state prosecutor has been waiting for the court to shift, before bringing a case?

Anyway, if there's a constitutionally justifiable reason to overturn RvW, that's acceptable to at least five justices... then would their ruling be wrong? This isn't a question of what we'd like to have. It's a question of what the law actually says.
Maybe we should ask this. In light of right to abortion having been the law of the land for decades, and that something like 3/4 of Americans today support it, would it be constitutional to roll back the clock? Against the tide of history and the desires of the majority and precedent?

If we're going back to 1955, well then, let's re-segregate, and put the gays back in the closet. If one established law can be repealed, the gate's open for others, ain't it?
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:45 PM   #388
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 11,648
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I fail to see how abortion would be any different than gambling or marijuana. IOW, no state has made it a crime to travel to another state for those things.
I think you've got this wrong. Maybe you don't and I'm the one getting it wrong. But it could be massively different than gambling or marijuana.

Alabama has legislated that a fetus is a person. If that law makes it to the Supreme Court, it could rule on whether that provision is constitutional. If it is, that makes a fetus a person in Alabama only. And I think it's problematic to have the Supreme Court affirming that the definition of full personhood can vary from state to state. I can't think of any example other than slavery where that situation was allowed to stand, and that's been over 150 years ago and it got very messy.

IIUC Alabama also holds women harmless while holding doctors criminally liable. That's a logical conundrum, but in real life there's no widespread call to punish the women legally, though I would argue the subtext is to punish women, just not with prison sentences.

There is a strange out - I think vacuum aspiration without a confirmed pregnancy would still be legal, but it means getting the procedure very early.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:56 PM   #389
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,312
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Maybe we should ask this. In light of right to abortion having been the law of the land for decades, and that something like 3/4 of Americans today support it, would it be constitutional to roll back the clock? Against the tide of history and the desires of the majority and precedent?

If we're going back to 1955, well then, let's re-segregate, and put the gays back in the closet. If one established law can be repealed, the gate's open for others, ain't it?
The Supreme Court neither establishes nor repeals laws. It does, however, sometimes overturn its previous rulings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ourt_decisions

Try not to get hit on the head by any of those pieces of sky that are dropping around you.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:09 PM   #390
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,193
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Quote:
No, it's a question of precedent. RvW is established precedent, it's already been ruled upon.
In that case everybody is freaking out over literally nothing. RvW is safe no matter how many theocrats get "installed" on the court.

But I think you may be wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ourt_decisions

Apparently the Supreme Court can in fact overturn its own precedents. When you think about it, this would explain why everybody is freaking out.
Yes the supreme court CAN overturn its own precedents.

Hopefully it does so when there is a valid reason... such as a major shift in society (e.g. the widespread acceptance of homosexuality caused the courts to overrule precedent on gay marriage). I don't think overturning Roe v. Wade just because "religious nuts rule the courts" counts as such a shift.

Plus, as others have hinted at, its possible that instead of completely overturning Roe v. Wade, the courts might slowly chip away at it by allowing ever more draconian limitations... "You can have an abortion, but you must have mandatory counseling"... "Your doctor must have 20 years experience giving abortions".... "you can only have it done on months that end in a 'y'". So technically Roe still exists, but abortion is pretty much outlawed in practice.

We have already seen hints of that with 2 recent cases... a law in texas that required doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals and clinics to have major upgrades. That would have severely reduced the number of operating clinics. That law was struck down 5-3. However, a very similar law in Louisiana was brought before the supreme court this year. It was struck down 5-4 (with Roberts being the swing vote), but the 4 other conservatives voted to keep the law in place, even though the previous ruling on the Texas law should have served as precedent.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:15 PM   #391
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,193
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Maybe we should ask this. In light of right to abortion having been the law of the land for decades, and that something like 3/4 of Americans today support it, would it be constitutional to roll back the clock? Against the tide of history and the desires of the majority and precedent?
Well, whether it is 'constitutional' is completely up to the supreme court... if they say that laws restricting abortion are constitutional, then it is.

And yes, it would be going against the wishes of a majority of voters in the united states. I wonder how many people might have voted differently in past elections if they realized just what would happen if Moscow Mitch and Stubby McBonespurs got there wishes to cram in a bunch of right-wing lunatic judges into the courts.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:33 PM   #392
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,753
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
....
Apparently the Supreme Court can in fact overturn its own precedents. When you think about it, this would explain why everybody is freaking out.
Of course the Supreme Court can overrule or modify its previous decisions. Why would you imagine otherwise?

And a federal law could protect abortion rights no matter what the states do.
Quote:
A federal law could set a general limit on state regulation, like the Kansas Court did in requiring a compelling interest to justify restrictions on abortion access. Or it might provide more structure for what states may and may not do.
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-ri...ight-be-needed

Last edited by Bob001; Yesterday at 04:35 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:37 PM   #393
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,312
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Yes the supreme court CAN overturn its own precedents.

Hopefully it does so when there is a valid reason... such as a major shift in society (e.g. the widespread acceptance of homosexuality caused the courts to overrule precedent on gay marriage). I don't think overturning Roe v. Wade just because "religious nuts rule the courts" counts as such a shift.

Plus, as others have hinted at, its possible that instead of completely overturning Roe v. Wade, the courts might slowly chip away at it by allowing ever more draconian limitations... "You can have an abortion, but you must have mandatory counseling"... "Your doctor must have 20 years experience giving abortions".... "you can only have it done on months that end in a 'y'". So technically Roe still exists, but abortion is pretty much outlawed in practice.

We have already seen hints of that with 2 recent cases... a law in texas that required doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals and clinics to have major upgrades. That would have severely reduced the number of operating clinics. That law was struck down 5-3. However, a very similar law in Louisiana was brought before the supreme court this year. It was struck down 5-4 (with Roberts being the swing vote), but the 4 other conservatives voted to keep the law in place, even though the previous ruling on the Texas law should have served as precedent.
Thanks. This is the kind of discussion worth having.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:38 PM   #394
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,312
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Of course the Supreme Court can overrule or modify its previous decisions. Why would you imagine otherwise?
I think you must be replying to the wrong person. I've been the one pointing out that the Supreme Court can overrule itself. I've been pointing it out to people who have imagined otherwise.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:39 PM   #395
Tero
Graduate Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 1,993
She was sworn in. Why do we still have abortion?!!!
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:44 PM   #396
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,312
Originally Posted by Tero View Post
She was sworn in. Why do we still have abortion?!!!
Trump won't let go of the sharpie she needs to cross Roe v Wade off the books.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.