Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

[garbon]

Why?

Because i'll have a relatively well informed basis on which to judge their rulings.

I see. Well for myself I'm a bit more horrified as there are some very suspect traditional things in American history.

Look, sometimes in history white people used their guns to make sure they could lynch black people. They even used those guns to stop other white people from interfering!

So you just have to accept that the nerds in all of us will appreciate how neatly that fits into our understanding of history.

 

[The Minsky Moment]

If a state legislature took back the autority to choose electors by legislation I would be horrified.  If a state legislature used that power to overturn a contrary popular vote I would be even more horrified.  It would be the end of democracy.

If the Supreme Court their upholds their right to do so, I would not have grounds to object.

You would because each state has its own constitution, and most state constitutions require free and fair elections.  For example the North Carolina constitution states that the people are sovereign and "all elections shall be free."  And the USSC accepts the principle that each state supreme court is the ultimate authority on interpreting and applying the state constitutions - indeed it must accept that principle or forfeit its own parallel authority.

The question at issue in Moore is whether state courts can restrain state legislatures acting unconstitutionally under state constitutions when their action relates to federal elections.

Moore's argument is that it can't because the Elections clause, by designating state legislatures specifically, empowers them to act as independent constitutional agents, outside the controls and bounds of their own state constitutions,

The opposing view, which seems to be the better one, is that *anything* a legislature does is necessarily constrained by the state constitution, because the very existence and authority of the legislature derives from that constitution.  That is not inconsistent with the federal constitutional text.  The federal constitution gives the state legislatures the power to set the time, place, and manner of elections, but it doesn't provide that state constitutions can't affect the exercise of that power.

[bogh]

What's even the point of a state constitution if legislatures aren't subject to judicial review?

[crazy canuck]

@Yi, a history nerd would wouldn't want a bunch of lawyers, with no training as historians, making judgments on the basis their understanding of history.

[alfred russel]

@Yi, a history nerd would wouldn't want a bunch of lawyers, with no training as historians, making judgments on the basis their understanding of history.

How many people come to judgments at odds with what they want? What percent of the legal community wants abortion to be illegal but thinks that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, or vice versa?

Early in his political career Biden was against abortion, and wanted an amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade. He also believed the Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. Those are separate judgments: what the constitutional framework is, and what the right public policy should be. But of course they really aren't: we are team A and team B, and if you want to be intellectual you just use sophistry to justify your side, and maybe even convince yourself you believe it at some level.

[Berkut]

@Yi, a history nerd would wouldn't want a bunch of lawyers, with no training as historians, making judgments on the basis their understanding of history.

How many people come to judgments at odds with what they want? What percent of the legal community wants abortion to be illegal but thinks that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, or vice versa?

Early in his political career Biden was against abortion, and wanted an amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade. He also believed the Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. Those are separate judgments: what the constitutional framework is, and what the right public policy should be. But of course they really aren't: we are team A and team B, and if you want to be intellectual you just use sophistry to justify your side, and maybe even convince yourself you believe it at some level.

Bullshit.

Objectivity is hard, but it is hardly impossible.

In general, humans mostly suck at it, but this idea that just because most people aren't objective, it means that everyone is not objective, is simply false.

Most people cannot dunk a basketball. That doesn't mean that the people who can are all lying about it, or that the evidence of your eyeballs watching someone dunk is somehow fake. You can evaluate the logical validity and cohesiveness of an argument, even your own if you have the fortitude to do so. 

Just saying "Well, my argument might be sophistry, but so is yours!" is lazy and dishonest.

[Admiral Yi]

You would because each state has its own constitution, and most state constitutions require free and fair elections.  For example the North Carolina constitution states that the people are sovereign and "all elections shall be free."  And the USSC accepts the principle that each state supreme court is the ultimate authority on interpreting and applying the state constitutions - indeed it must accept that principle or forfeit its own parallel authority.

The question at issue in Moore is whether state courts can restrain state legislatures acting unconstitutionally under state constitutions when their action relates to federal elections.

Moore's argument is that it can't because the Elections clause, by designating state legislatures specifically, empowers them to act as independent constitutional agents, outside the controls and bounds of their own state constitutions,

The opposing view, which seems to be the better one, is that *anything* a legislature does is necessarily constrained by the state constitution, because the very existence and authority of the legislature derives from that constitution.  That is not inconsistent with the federal constitutional text.  The federal constitution gives the state legislatures the power to set the time, place, and manner of elections, but it doesn't provide that state constitutions can't affect the exercise of that power.

Interesting.  I was not familiar with this case.

Would you happen to know how many red states have this sort of constitutional provision?

My hunch is the USSC will decide against Moore.  When is a ruling expected?

[Sheilbh]

How many people come to judgments at odds with what they want? What percent of the legal community wants abortion to be illegal but thinks that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, or vice versa?

This is the legal realist position (and I think also in critical legal studies - which of course gave us the dreaded critical race theory) in the US which I think has also been observed in the European Court of Human Rights that most judgements are predictable based on non-legal factors. Basically you can predict most judges judgements based on their political values and other non-legal factors. I think objectivity is utterly impossible - but that there is value in trying to reach it.

I understand there's been fewer studies in the UK but the ones that have been done show they don't seem to divide on observable political grounds (though sometimes do - so we could say Baroness Hale and Lord Kerr formed the left, while Lord Sumption and Lord Rodgers were the conservatives). But they divide more strongly based on background/specialism and the UK Supreme Court is a court of specialist judges from different areas of the law - generally the "specialist" on a panel hearing a case has a very strong influence. But they also probably hear fewer purely "political" cases than the US Supreme Court or ECtHR.

[Eddie Teach]

@Yi, a history nerd would wouldn't want a bunch of lawyers, with no training as historians, making judgments on the basis their understanding of history.

How many people come to judgments at odds with what they want? What percent of the legal community wants abortion to be illegal but thinks that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, or vice versa?

Early in his political career Biden was against abortion, and wanted an amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade. He also believed the Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. Those are separate judgments: what the constitutional framework is, and what the right public policy should be. But of course they really aren't: we are team A and team B, and if you want to be intellectual you just use sophistry to justify your side, and maybe even convince yourself you believe it at some level.

Bullshit.

Objectivity is hard, but it is hardly impossible.

In general, humans mostly suck at it, but this idea that just because most people aren't objective, it means that everyone is not objective, is simply false.

Most people cannot dunk a basketball. That doesn't mean that the people who can are all lying about it, or that the evidence of your eyeballs watching someone dunk is somehow fake. You can evaluate the logical validity and cohesiveness of an argument, even your own if you have the fortitude to do so.

Just saying "Well, my argument might be sophistry, but so is yours!" is lazy and dishonest.

Humans may be objective on some things, but not on grading their own objectivity.

[Razgovory]

I'm an object.

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xELYLLp2ZTk

New York just passed a law forbidding firearms in "certain public places."

[bogh]

How many people come to judgments at odds with what they want? What percent of the legal community wants abortion to be illegal but thinks that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, or vice versa?

Early in his political career Biden was against abortion, and wanted an amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade. He also believed the Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. Those are separate judgments: what the constitutional framework is, and what the right public policy should be. But of course they really aren't: we are team A and team B, and if you want to be intellectual you just use sophistry to justify your side, and maybe even convince yourself you believe it at some level.

The logical conclusion of this view is the US constitution is basically a worthless and completely irrelevant piece of paper. If cases are entirely decided on the opinions of the justices involved, then the Supreme Court is just an indirectly elected upper chamber with tenure. If that's the case, there is really no need to preserve it or respect it in any way.

I disagree completely BTW. Plenty of judges rule against their own personal opinions on cases every single day. The inability of the SCOTUS to do so reflects the people nominated to it, not that objectivity is entirely fictional and completely unattainable.

[Tonitrus]

Instead of "packing" the USSC, we should "un-pack" it back to the original six justices...kicking off the oldest-appointed three.

[Admiral Yi]

Instead of "packing" the USSC, we should "un-pack" it back to the original six justices...kicking off the oldest-appointed three.

Betcha it would take an impeachment to remove a sitting justice.

[Tonitrus]

A justice cannot sit, if you take away the seat.