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

[Zoupa]

I would never. I've learned my lesson. 

[alfred russel]

A special election days after the ruling and the Republican still won...

If in November the democrats perform 5 points better than the partisan skew that means an expanded senate majority and expanded house majority, and if the presidency was on the ballot they would win that as well.

As opposed to where things looked a few weeks ago, with republicans set up to have a massive majority in the house and quite possibly a filibuster proof senate majority if the environment stayed the same through 2024.

[Valmy]

A special election days after the ruling and the Republican still won...

The Nebraska First District has been held by Republicans since 1967. Somehow I think the majority of that district actually liked the Supreme Court Decision. If it suddenly made it close for the Democrats, which it hasn't been for well over thirty years, then that might be a thing. Or maybe not as turnout for these kinds of elections is very low. So maybe among the most politically motivated it moved the needle. We will see what things look like in November when this same district will have twice or more as many voters participating.

[Sheilbh]

I've said before that I actually low-key rate Gorsuch as a fairly valid Supreme Court justice (who I disagree with) but is intellectually committed to his interpretation of the law unlike, say, Alito or Kavanaugh who I think are basically pure partisan hacks. I think he's often wrong but legitimately engaging as a judge.

A real example of that is the line of cases he's written opinions on (always on the losing side) where he looks at the treaties the US made with native Americans and says they should be applied. So another example of that today as Gorsuch (again) joins with Democrat appointees on the losing side of a tribal sovereignty case and (again) writes a blistering dissent:

[Berkut]

I've said before that I actually low-key rate Gorsuch as a fairly valid Supreme Court justice (who I disagree with) but is intellectually committed to his interpretation of the law unlike, say, Alito or Kavanaugh who I think are basically pure partisan hacks. I think he's often wrong but legitimately engaging as a judge.

A real example of that is the line of cases he's written opinions on (always on the losing side) where he looks at the treaties the US made with native Americans and says they should be applied. So another example of that today as Gorsuch (again) joins with Democrat appointees on the losing side of a tribal sovereignty case and (again) writes a blistering dissent:

How did he vote on Roe?

How did he vote on the NY Concealed/Carry law?

[Sheilbh]

How did he vote on Roe?

How did he vote on the NY Concealed/Carry law?

I'm not sure I get the relevance?

[Berkut]

How did he vote on Roe?

How did he vote on the NY Concealed/Carry law?

I'm not sure I get the relevance?

I am disputing the claim that he is not a partisan hack, and has some kind of " intellectually committed to his interpretation of the law"

[Sheilbh]

I am disputing the claim that he is not a partisan hack, and has some kind of " intellectually committed to his interpretation of the law"

Okay.

I think the conservative legal movement adopted, spread and invested in Gorsuch's style of textualism and originalism because it would give them the tools to overturn Roe - which has been their goal for 50 years (plus Roe was a useful litmus test). I think some of them, like Alito and Kavanaugh, basically are advancing their political agenda but that legal philosophy is just a tool to do that.

My read of Gorsuch is that he genuinely believes in textualism and originalism and applies it even if it takes him to a conclusion he might not politically support and that is opposed by fellow Republican appointed judges. For example the line of cases on tribal rights where he reads the treaties literally and says they should be applied literally - which puts him on the same side as the Democrat appointed judges. Or on the LGBT discrimination law where he ruled that the Civil Rights Act protected LGBT+ people because it protected discrimination on the basis of sex - as he pointed out if an employer fires someone for being gay or transgender on the basis of behaviour that they wouldn't have fired someone over if they were a different sex, then it is sex-based discrimination. Both of those seem to me entirely coherent applications of a textualist approach - as does Roe and the gun laws and gutting the EPA etc.

It's why I think in the tribal cases and Bostock, Kavanaugh and Alito's opinions seem absolutely furious with Gorsuch's opinions. They show them up.

[Berkut]

You think a textual/originalist reading of the Second Amendment supports overturning a law that has been on the books for over a century? The the "textualist" reading somehow ignores the actual plain English text itself?

Sorry, I don't buy it. If he actually believe in "textualism" or "originalism" he could no possibly conclude that the Second Amendment somehow doesn't include a third of the words in the Second Amendment.

[crazy canuck]

I agree with Berkut, the rigor with which he analyzes the text of the treaties (giving meaning to the document as a whole) is not the rigor with which he has decided the second amendment and abortion issues.  He has adopted a different standard for those issues - partisanship.

[alfred russel]

You think a textual/originalist reading of the Second Amendment supports overturning a law that has been on the books for over a century? The the "textualist" reading somehow ignores the actual plain English text itself?

Sorry, I don't buy it. If he actually believe in "textualism" or "originalism" he could no possibly conclude that the Second Amendment somehow doesn't include a third of the words in the Second Amendment.

The text is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you just go by the text as written, I can see striking down the NY law. It isn't clear when the clause relating to a well regulated militia should infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It actually says that right shall not be infringed. But in any case if you read that to say the state has the right to regulate gun ownership because of the "well regulated militia" clause, I don't think NY was arguing that its laws were intended to regulate a militia.

[Berkut]

Yes, we are all aware of the NRA Approved New And Revised Second Amendment.

[alfred russel]

Yes, we are all aware of the NRA Approved New And Revised Second Amendment.

That isn't the new and revised second amendment. it is the actual one...here is a link to an official website with the text:

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/

[The Minsky Moment]

The text is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you just go by the text as written, I can see striking down the NY law. It isn't clear when the clause relating to a well regulated militia should infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It actually says that right shall not be infringed. But in any case if you read that to say the state has the right to regulate gun ownership because of the "well regulated militia" clause, I don't think NY was arguing that its laws were intended to regulate a militia.

You are stating the matter backwards.  New York is not contending that its regulation is necessary for regulating a militia; it is contending that its regulation in no way impairs the operation of a well-regulated militia and thus is not prohibited by the amendment.

New York is also contending that nothing in the text of the amendment and nothing in its history or its interpretation requires a state to allow the concealed carry of firearms.

[The Minsky Moment]

Gorsuch's opinions in the tribal cases aren't about originalism; they are about the sanctity of contract.  His view is the US made a deal with the tribes and shouldn't be allowed to go back on it.