Thank you for starting with the observation that feelings are a terrible guide to reality. If only people would quit relying on feelings instead of reality, maybe our times wouldn’t feel so fraught (pun intended).
Good follow-up! Per the Library of Congress’ database of laws struck down by the Supreme Court (https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional-laws/), the Roberts Court has struck down 31 federal laws and 40 state/local laws/ordinances in whole or in part since 2005. The Rehnquist Court struck down 30 federal laws and 105 state/local laws/ordinances between 1986 and 2005.
Excellent stack. Thanks for explaining to the TDS crowd that certain decisions by the current administration and the Supreme Court are far from unprecedented.
They are actually, in that a lot of the justification is quite questionable.
I have my own issues with Roe, but fundamentally what changed in Dobbs is just who is on the court, or the Justice's personal political opinions in Slaughter. It wasn't that a novel argument was used, or there was a clear problem from the earlier precedent, it just isn't something American Conservatives like.
There isn't really any sane appeal to there being novel information being presented to the court, vs the court just having people with different opinions on it, or the court making straight-up judgement calls that clearly echo political lines.
Somehow, for example, Congress making a whole bunch of executive agencies isn't enough to be a reliance interest? Which is just kinda fucking nuts.
Dobbs v Jackson is very questionable. Not only in terms of legal precedents but in terms of its interpretations of the Constitution. Curiously, it doesn't adhere well to the five principles of removing stare decisis, yet the Roberts court allowed it anyway. The crux of the majority ruling was that Roe incorrectly argued the Constitution provides Americans with a constitutional "Right to Privacy" when it does not. Most Americans would disagree. Moreover ignoring 50 years of legal precedents and subsequent laws is surprising. No doubt laws legalizing gay marriage is next, Thomas has already stated as much
First Amendment. Protects freedom of speech, religion, association, and belief. The Supreme Court reasoned that freedom to associate necessarily implies a degree of privacy. Third Amendment. Prohibits the quartering of soldiers in private homes without consent. This reflects the Founders' concern the privacy of one's home should be protected from government intrusion. Fourth Amendment. Protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. Explicitly recognizes that individuals have a protected "private sphere" (their persons, houses, papers, and effects). Fifth Amendment
Protects against compelled self-incrimination and guarantees due process (personal privacy regarding one's thoughts and communications).
Ninth Amendment. Imo the strongest textual basis for privacy rights. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Fourteenth Amendment
Provides that no state shall deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.". The Supreme Court have already interpreted "liberty" to include certain fundamental personal decisions including marriage, family, child-rearing, contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut)
Don't tell me what the Supreme Court “reasoned”. You can't show me specific language from the Constitution because there isn't any privacy, and certainly not abortion. That's why the current SCOTUS reasoned that Roe was unreasonable.
? You're not getting it. The Constitution protects rights that are not explicitly written in text. Which is the obvious logical conclusion. Do you believe that Americans have the right to travel between states even though that is not explicitly written in the Constitution lol
You should study American history. The Supreme Court have long determined the Constitution has implict rights even if not written in text. The Right to Travel. Parental rights to raise their children even though the Constitution does not explicitly grants a parent's authority over their children's upbringing. The Right to Marry, again not explicitly written in the Constitution. Freedom of Association (Constitution does not grant Americans to freedom to freely have friends with whom they choose). The Presumtion of Innocence (Due Process is not the same as the presumption of innocence)
Apologies if this comes off as pedantic, but casualties of a war include not just deaths but also the injured and MIA. 17 is the number of service members killed in action. Casualties are closer to 600 from what I've read.
First Amendment. Protects freedom of speech, religion, association, and belief. Supreme Court has reasoned this necessarily implies a degree of privacy in one's personal relationships and political affiliations. Third Amendment
Prohibits the quartering of soldiers in private homes without consent. This reflects the Founders' concern of the privacy of one's home should be protected from government intrusion. Fourth Amendment. Protects people privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures. That there is a protected "private sphere". Fifth Amendment. The privilege against self-incrimination preserves a measure of personal privacy for one's thoughts and communications. Ninth Amendment, imo the strongest textual basis. That "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Fourteenth Amendment, which Blackmun used to justify Roe. No state shall deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." It should be noted that ruling for Roe relied upon earlier case recognizing the Constitutional privacy in marriage and contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut)
Thank you for starting with the observation that feelings are a terrible guide to reality. If only people would quit relying on feelings instead of reality, maybe our times wouldn’t feel so fraught (pun intended).
Okay, so I guess a separate question is, how often has this Court ignored, overridden, or struck down federal or state laws compared to others?
Good follow-up! Per the Library of Congress’ database of laws struck down by the Supreme Court (https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional-laws/), the Roberts Court has struck down 31 federal laws and 40 state/local laws/ordinances in whole or in part since 2005. The Rehnquist Court struck down 30 federal laws and 105 state/local laws/ordinances between 1986 and 2005.
Excellent stack. Thanks for explaining to the TDS crowd that certain decisions by the current administration and the Supreme Court are far from unprecedented.
They are actually, in that a lot of the justification is quite questionable.
I have my own issues with Roe, but fundamentally what changed in Dobbs is just who is on the court, or the Justice's personal political opinions in Slaughter. It wasn't that a novel argument was used, or there was a clear problem from the earlier precedent, it just isn't something American Conservatives like.
There isn't really any sane appeal to there being novel information being presented to the court, vs the court just having people with different opinions on it, or the court making straight-up judgement calls that clearly echo political lines.
Somehow, for example, Congress making a whole bunch of executive agencies isn't enough to be a reliance interest? Which is just kinda fucking nuts.
Dobbs v Jackson is very questionable. Not only in terms of legal precedents but in terms of its interpretations of the Constitution. Curiously, it doesn't adhere well to the five principles of removing stare decisis, yet the Roberts court allowed it anyway. The crux of the majority ruling was that Roe incorrectly argued the Constitution provides Americans with a constitutional "Right to Privacy" when it does not. Most Americans would disagree. Moreover ignoring 50 years of legal precedents and subsequent laws is surprising. No doubt laws legalizing gay marriage is next, Thomas has already stated as much
Please provide a textual reference to the right to privacy granted by the Constitution.
First Amendment. Protects freedom of speech, religion, association, and belief. The Supreme Court reasoned that freedom to associate necessarily implies a degree of privacy. Third Amendment. Prohibits the quartering of soldiers in private homes without consent. This reflects the Founders' concern the privacy of one's home should be protected from government intrusion. Fourth Amendment. Protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. Explicitly recognizes that individuals have a protected "private sphere" (their persons, houses, papers, and effects). Fifth Amendment
Protects against compelled self-incrimination and guarantees due process (personal privacy regarding one's thoughts and communications).
Ninth Amendment. Imo the strongest textual basis for privacy rights. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Fourteenth Amendment
Provides that no state shall deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.". The Supreme Court have already interpreted "liberty" to include certain fundamental personal decisions including marriage, family, child-rearing, contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut)
Don't tell me what the Supreme Court “reasoned”. You can't show me specific language from the Constitution because there isn't any privacy, and certainly not abortion. That's why the current SCOTUS reasoned that Roe was unreasonable.
? You're not getting it. The Constitution protects rights that are not explicitly written in text. Which is the obvious logical conclusion. Do you believe that Americans have the right to travel between states even though that is not explicitly written in the Constitution lol
You should study American history. The Supreme Court have long determined the Constitution has implict rights even if not written in text. The Right to Travel. Parental rights to raise their children even though the Constitution does not explicitly grants a parent's authority over their children's upbringing. The Right to Marry, again not explicitly written in the Constitution. Freedom of Association (Constitution does not grant Americans to freedom to freely have friends with whom they choose). The Presumtion of Innocence (Due Process is not the same as the presumption of innocence)
You're not getting it. The Court reasoned that the 10th Amendment leaves this decision up to the states.
Apologies if this comes off as pedantic, but casualties of a war include not just deaths but also the injured and MIA. 17 is the number of service members killed in action. Casualties are closer to 600 from what I've read.
I think it is necessary to separate the court from Trump They are acting on their own beliefs and interpretations
Stare decisis is found in English Common Law
First Amendment. Protects freedom of speech, religion, association, and belief. Supreme Court has reasoned this necessarily implies a degree of privacy in one's personal relationships and political affiliations. Third Amendment
Prohibits the quartering of soldiers in private homes without consent. This reflects the Founders' concern of the privacy of one's home should be protected from government intrusion. Fourth Amendment. Protects people privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures. That there is a protected "private sphere". Fifth Amendment. The privilege against self-incrimination preserves a measure of personal privacy for one's thoughts and communications. Ninth Amendment, imo the strongest textual basis. That "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Fourteenth Amendment, which Blackmun used to justify Roe. No state shall deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." It should be noted that ruling for Roe relied upon earlier case recognizing the Constitutional privacy in marriage and contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut)