Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

shalafi71 t1_iyorxhe wrote

Reply to comment by Artisanal_Shitposter in We're Tom Wolf,Eliza Sweren-Becker, and Ethan Herenstein. We work on democracy reform at the Brennan Center for Justice. Ask us anything about the Supreme Court’s upcoming case Moore v. Harper and the “independent state legislature” theory. by TheBrennanCenter

Precedent is, "how a law has been interpreted in the past".

Making a new law shoots down that ambiguity. Best the court can do is say, "This law violates the Constitution." They cannot just make up new laws.

It's a fine line that I'm failing to impart...

23

macrofinite t1_iyr4e7p wrote

I mean, did you read any of the Roe opinion?

They super obviously don’t give a shit about precedent anymore and have no compunctions about making shit up out of whole cloth.

5

ilikedota5 t1_iys52fy wrote

I mean, Roe was pretty detached from the constitution. The penumbra and emanation logic was never been used again.

At least this case is directly about elections, something that is addressed by the text.

1

macrofinite t1_iyspxno wrote

That’s not relevant to what I said man.

In the opinion in which they overturned Roe, they blatantly disregarded precedent, fabricated a history that doesn’t exist, and just plain made things up.

We’ve got 5 judges that are ok with doing these things. And you think it makes a single bit of difference how much a topic is covered by the text of a law?

2

ilikedota5 t1_iysqzts wrote

Dobbs wasn't just made up from nothing. It legally made sense. The historical part is a bit wanting. But there were problems with it. But Roe was even more made up. Its legally suspect from day 1. The legal roots are nonexistant. Disregarding precedent made sense since what was an undue burden was never really established. It was constantly going back to the court on the same question presented.

I think Alito played a bit fast and loose with the history part particularly around his analysis on the quickening part. And yes I think it makes a difference how much is covered by the text of the law because that's kind of their job. Roe existed because there was nothing addressing abortions, thus they literally made up the law, not interpreting the law.

0

macrofinite t1_iyszsya wrote

Well, there you go.

Roe wasn’t made up, it just offends the reactionary way of thinking. Clearly, making up a bit of history is a smidge distasteful to you, but whatever it takes for the cause, right?

But here in the real world, it’s impossible to create a set of laws that covers every facet of human need an behavior. There is no choice but to infer judgement in cases where the law is not explicit. And I really doubt you want to start arguing that a right to privacy is a terrible thing that is unconstitutional and needs to be overturned across the board. But maybe you do, who knows. The fascists are everywhere these days.

Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are hacks, and Roberts is a pussy. They will enforce their personal preferences upon the law with the flimsiest justification, regardless of what the law says or means, and often in direct opposition to what is right. The deepest of irony is looking back at those decades of reactionaries whining about activist judges, and then coming to a full realization of how deeply they have fucked the country by installing these hacks for life.

Their whining was always projection. Because these people don’t give a shit about law, they just want the legitimacy that the “law” provides. Their way of thinking would be laughably childish if it weren’t hurting so many people.

2

ilikedota5 t1_iyszzsh wrote

The court is not where this stuff should be fought out. Its the province of the legislature. That's precisely why Dobbs threw it back to the States.

The court is supposed to be brakes on the system, to stop the other branches from infringing on existing rights, not inventing new ones out of whole cloth, because they aren't the legislature.

The issue with arguing that the right to privacy extends to abortions is that where does it stop? What is the limit to the right to privacy. All rights have their limits somewhere, because the right to something means defining what encompasses that right. I could strawman it to death, and my point is, without a limit it would swallow up everything else. And should SCOTUS be the one creating and defining those limits? From what basis of constitutional text should they have that power?

1

BaronVonBaron t1_iyqlp4m wrote

The line isnt there anymore. SCOTUS is now a captured regulatory agency.

3

BlatantFalsehood t1_iyrclgb wrote

This. If democracy survives, the Roberts Court will go down in history as the most illegimate, corrupt court ever.

And I HATE that Roberts thinks the issue is the Roe decision and that we just don't like it. BULL. I have been a SCOTUS fan for years, despite numerous rulings I didn't like. Bush v. Gore, anyone?

This court is illegimate because:

  • Roberts shows no leadership. Leaks anyone?
  • Three justices were appointed by someone who was installed by a foreign government and did not win the majority of the popular vote
  • Justices leak regularly and give politicwl speeches
  • One justice's wife was part of a plan to overturn a free and fair election, and he didn't bother to recuse himself from related cases.
  • Even after all of this, Roberts doesn't see a need for a SCOTUS code of ethics.

Roberts, if you don't see the corruption in this, you are blind.

8