Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Supreme Court discussion thread The Supreme Court discussion thread

05-29-2019 , 11:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
Yeah, when I saw that I thought of your comments. Interesting dynamic with Thomas' separate opinion also.
I agree the dynamic is interesting, but Thomas's argument about eugenics strikes me as preposterous.

"OMG abortion is being used as a form of eugenics" is similar to "OMG rampant voter fraud." If it were actually happening on a significant scale, there would be a lot to discuss. But it isn't.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
05-29-2019 , 11:18 AM
Well, of course.

I meant interesting in the sense that he may be trying to push his colleagues into hearing a case.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
05-29-2019 , 11:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
Well, of course.

I meant interesting in the sense that he may be trying to push his colleagues into hearing a case.
Conventional wisdom is that he is signaling to future litigants how he would like to see the argument framed, which of course could relate to his opinions on which arguments will resonate with other justices.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
05-29-2019 , 11:59 AM
Ah, yeah, that makes sense.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
05-29-2019 , 07:58 PM
Maybe he has entered a new phase but I have never heard or read that Thomas was is a consensus-builder among the other justices.

From what I read, it sounds like he was presenting the worse case scenario (eugenics) to justify a state having a compelling interest in additional restrictions and regulations on abortion rights, possibly invading into the first trimester.

Last edited by jjjou812; 05-29-2019 at 08:08 PM.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
05-31-2019 , 04:32 PM
People don't like Thomas
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
05-31-2019 , 04:49 PM
High IQ, blonde, blue eyed, and athletic white men’s sperms are highly sought after by sperm banks. Indian and Chinese parents have been selectively aborting girls for years. Parents have also been aborting fetuses/embryos with known genetic defects, often at the recommendation of doctors. Genetic selection is not a virtually nonexistent phenomenon like voter fraud.

In not too distant future, we’ll probably be able to predict expected life spans based on a DNA test. Is aborting a child with an expected life span (due to genetic predispositions for certain diseases) of 30 years eugenics? At least, it would have the effect of eliminating certain genes from the pool, some of which we actually want to keep (though not the particular combination that leads to low life expectancy)

Some forms of eugenics are already socially acceptable. At some point we have to face the reality it’s a question of what traits can be selected for and what can be screened out, not whether we will select at all.

I am still perfectly okay with women doing whatever they want with their own bodies and aborting unwanted children even if the motivations are kind of “uhhhhh.... really you just don’t want a kid with some random gene mutation that lowers IQ by 5 points/height by an inch on average?”
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
06-29-2020 , 10:56 AM
le bump.

Supreme Court strikes down Lousiana abortion law

Quote:
The case, June Medical Services v. Russo, was a challenge to a Louisiana law that required abortion providers have admitting privileges with a nearby hospital -- an agreement between a doctor and a hospital that allows a patient to go that hospital if they need urgent care.

Abortion providers argued this was an unnecessary requirement unrelated to health outcomes that only served to prevent them from being able to provide abortion care.

In fact, in 2016, the Supreme Court ruled, in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, that a nearly identical hospital admitting privileges law out of Texas caused an "undue burden" on patients seeking abortions after it caused roughly half of clinics in the state to shut down. In the 2020 opinion, Breyer called the Louisiana law "almost word-for-word identical to Texas’ admitting-privileges law."
Read the decision

Breyer also wrote the majority opinion in the Hellerstadt case, but there Roberts joined a dissenting opinion, arguing that there was no clear causal link between the law and an increased burden or undue restriction of abortion access. I haven't read the new opinion yet, but I'm guessing he must have changed his mind on the evidence, rather than the law.

Maybe he is responsible for adding this section:

Quote:
(1) The evidence supporting the court’s findings in respect to Act 620’s impact on abortion providers is stronger and more detailed than that in Whole Woman’s Health.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
06-29-2020 , 11:20 AM
My instincts about Roberts on abortion were definitely correct. He is content to call balls and strikes on specific limitations until the end of time. He will never vote to overturn Roe.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
06-29-2020 , 11:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
I haven't read the new opinion yet, but I'm guessing he must have changed his mind on the evidence, rather than the law.
Nope. Voted to uphold precedent.

"The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents."

A man of principles (or a complete heel turn if you're a Republican).
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
06-29-2020 , 12:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
7 States have passed bills this year which place new restrictions on abortion. Alabama's new law, in particular, is a nearly outright ban clearly designed with the expectation that it would be challenged in court, hoping to setup a new Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade given the new conservative majority on the court.

So it now seems absolutely certain that the court will end up hearing an abortion related case sometime in the future. How should they adjudicate these new laws?

FWIW, I've always thought that the decision in Roe is worth reading, because it makes an interesting legal and philosophical argument in support of the compromise the justices reached, attempting to balance the the constitutional "right to privacy" which entails women's right to self-determination and the "legitimate state interest" in regulating abortion, e.g.



This balancing of interests leads them to make the viability of the fetus an inflection point with regard to when the state may legitimately assert an interest in requiring that the life of the fetus be protected.



Does the compromise outlined in Roe still make sense?

I also think there's probably room for a discussion about the role of the courts more generally, here, and particularly the way they are becoming politicized simply because the appointment process is so heavily politicized, i.e. the refusal to hold a vote on Merrick Garland, the Kavanaugh hearings, etc. But then one of the criticisms of Roe itself is that the compromise they reached might have been more appropriately reached via a legislative process, rather than by the courts. I've always thought that would have been optimal, but then I would not have traded the "optimal" legislative process for abortion being illegal the last 50 years either. So I am a supporter of Roe.
I followed the JANUS case in 2018 and it convinced me that none of these conservative judges care about the law, they're mere paid shills.

They will do what they're paid to do and think of reasons why later.

The court, like the presidency is a farce. The legislative branches aren't much better since Citizens United.

So while it may be interesting to debate legal points, they're all moot in the end.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
06-29-2020 , 12:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor
doubt the SC overturns Roe.

but they will certainly rule all of these crazy state laws like in AL and the hearbeat bills as constitutional.

They'll overturn it.
They'll do it in a couple of rulings though.
To make it look legit.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
06-29-2020 , 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFlushDiamonds
They'll overturn it.
They'll do it in a couple of rulings though.
To make it look legit.
Unless one of Breyer, Kagan, Sotamayor, RBG, or Roberts is the next justice to leave the court and is replaced by a GOP appointee, this will not happen. I would bet any amount of money.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
06-29-2020 , 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
Unless one of Breyer, Kagan, Sotamayor, RBG, or Roberts is the next justice to leave the court and is replaced by a GOP appointee, this will not happen. I would bet any amount of money.
You're betting on Roberts then ?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...e-medical.html

"The chief justice noted that “I joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided.” He then pointed out that no party in June Medical “has asked us to reassess the constitutional validity” of Casey. Here, Roberts strongly suggests that he would be open to overruling Casey if a state asked him to. But because Louisiana did not challenge that decision, Roberts felt obliged to stand by it. "

Exact same playbook as Janus.

The court simply doesn't respect any precedent at this point.
It's a wholly political entity.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
06-29-2020 , 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
I agree the dynamic is interesting, but Thomas's argument about eugenics strikes me as preposterous.

"OMG abortion is being used as a form of eugenics" is similar to "OMG rampant voter fraud." If it were actually happening on a significant scale, there would be a lot to discuss. But it isn't.
Margaret Sanger

Quote:
Margaret Higgins Sanger (born Margaret Louise Higgins, September 14, 1879 – September 6, 1966, also known as Margaret Sanger Slee) was an American birth control activist, sex educator, writer, and nurse. Sanger popularized the term "birth control", opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, and established organizations that evolved into the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.


---

EUGENICS:

After World War I, Sanger increasingly appealed to the societal need to limit births by those least able to afford children. The affluent and educated already limited their child-bearing, while the poor and uneducated lacked access to contraception and information about birth control. Here she found an area of overlap with eugenicists. She believed that they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit." She distinguished herself from other eugenicists, by saying that "eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother." Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aimed to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit.

Sanger's view of eugenics was influenced by Havelock Ellis and other British eugenicists, who believed that environmentally acquired traits were inherited by one's progeny. She did not speak specifically to the idea of race or ethnicity being determining factors and "although Sanger articulated birth control in terms of racial betterment and, like most old-stock Americans, supported restricted immigration, she always defined fitness in individual rather than racial terms.":195–6 Instead, she stressed limiting the number of births to live within one's economic ability to raise and support healthy children. This would lead to a betterment of society and the human race. Sanger's view put her at odds with leading American eugenicists, such as Charles Davenport, who took a racist view of inherited traits. In A History of the Birth Control Movement in America, Engelman also noted that "Sanger quite effortlessly looked the other way when others spouted racist speech. She had no reservations about relying on flawed and overtly racist works to serve her own propaganda needs."

The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members.

— Margaret Sanger, Woman and The New Race In "The Morality of Birth Control", a 1921 speech, she divided society into three groups: the "educated and informed" class that regulated the size of their families, the "intelligent and responsible" who desired to control their families in spite of lacking the means or the knowledge, and the "irresponsible and reckless people" whose religious scruples "prevent their exercising control over their numbers". Sanger concludes, "There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped."

Sanger's eugenics policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods, and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, as well as compulsory segregation or sterilization for the "profoundly ******ed". Sanger wrote, "we believe that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding." In The Pivot of Civilisation she attacked charity organizations arguing that their efforts contribute to spreading of "sinister forces of the hordes of irresponsibility and imbecility" and "human weed".

In personal correspondence she expressed her sadness about the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program, and donated to the American Council Against Nazi Propaganda.

Sanger believed that self-determining motherhood was the only unshakable foundation for racial betterment. Initially she advocated that the responsibility for birth control should remain with able-minded individual parents rather than the state. Later, she proposed that "Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples," but added that the requirement should be implemented by state advocacy and reward for complying, not enforced by punishing anyone for violating it.

Sanger justified her decision to speak to a women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan group by explaining, "to me any aroused group is a good group.":366–367 She was supported by one of the most racist authors in America in the 1920s, the Klansman Lothrop Stoddard, who was a founding member of the Board of Directors of Sanger's American Birth Control League. Chesler comments:

Margaret Sanger was never herself a racist, but she lived in a profoundly bigoted society, and her failure to repudiate prejudice—especially when it was manifest among proponents of her cause—has haunted her ever since. (as a side note:I find these apologist-type comments on lefty racist rather common.)


---


Due to her connection with Planned Parenthood, many who oppose abortion frequently condemn Sanger by criticizing her views on birth control and eugenics. In spite of such controversies, Sanger continues to be regarded as a force in the American reproductive rights and women's rights movements.

Last edited by itshotinvegas; 06-29-2020 at 02:42 PM.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
06-29-2020 , 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by itshotinvegas

Sanger died 54 years ago.
Evidence of eugenics ?
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
06-29-2020 , 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFlushDiamonds
Sanger died 54 years ago.
Evidence of eugenics ?
Why do you ask stupid questions, you probably already know the answer to? To a great many, abortion is eugenics, and the modern day birth control movement was largely started by Sanger, a eugenicist. I know you don't accept that characterization, so it makes your question kinda pointless. Abortion rights is a deeply held belief of yours, and you would never associate it with anything negative. You will never accept that characterization.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
06-29-2020 , 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFlushDiamonds
The court simply doesn't respect any precedent at this point.
It's a wholly political entity.
It always was. The judges, who don't have to be actual judges or even lawyers, are appointed by the patronage of the ruling politician of the day, whose party, due to the electoral cycle, almost always commands a majority in the Senate which approves the appointments.

It is for the same electoral reason that the impeachment process, the only means by which the ruling politician of the day can be held to account, since he is otherwise above the law, is not and never was fit for purpose. But it was never meant to be, because the constitution was drawn up by oligarchs to perpetuate oligarchy rather than democracy.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
06-29-2020 , 03:04 PM
Until just a few years ago, an abortion rights advocacy group issued an annual "Margaret Sanger" award.

If I see a statue or painting of her somewhere, I will tear it down or spray paint over it.

Y'all kewl with that, right?
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
06-29-2020 , 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by itshotinvegas
Why do you ask stupid questions, you probably already know the answer to? To a great many, abortion is eugenics, and the modern day birth control movement was largely started by Sanger, a eugenicist. I know you don't accept that characterization, so it makes your question kinda pointless. Abortion rights is a deeply held belief of yours, and you would never associate it with anything negative. You will never accept that characterization.
If I own a Volkswagen, am I a Nazi?
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
06-29-2020 , 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EADGBE
Nope. Voted to uphold precedent.

"The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents."

A man of principles (or a complete heel turn if you're a Republican).
Stare decisis and judicial stability are pretty important to Roberts, possibly as part of his desire to minimize politicization of SCOTUS as much as possible.

Roberts by the way voted to uphold the Texas law.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
06-29-2020 , 04:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by itshotinvegas
Why do you ask stupid questions, you probably already know the answer to? To a great many, abortion is eugenics, and the modern day birth control movement was largely started by Sanger, a eugenicist. I know you don't accept that characterization, so it makes your question kinda pointless. Abortion rights is a deeply held belief of yours, and you would never associate it with anything negative. You will never accept that characterization.


LOL

Abortion is the termination of a viable human life. It's negative by definition.
The problem is you're dealing with two lives so it's a complicated issue.
And guys like you don't do complicated. You do simple minded.

Sanger was a eugenics supporter does not equal the average abortion is based on eugenics. Fail.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
06-29-2020 , 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
Until just a few years ago, an abortion rights advocacy group issued an annual "Margaret Sanger" award.

If I see a statue or painting of her somewhere, I will tear it down or spray paint over it.

Y'all kewl with that, right?

Send pix.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
06-29-2020 , 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFlushDiamonds
You're betting on Roberts then ?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...e-medical.html

"The chief justice noted that “I joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided.” He then pointed out that no party in June Medical “has asked us to reassess the constitutional validity” of Casey. Here, Roberts strongly suggests that he would be open to overruling Casey if a state asked him to. But because Louisiana did not challenge that decision, Roberts felt obliged to stand by it. "

Exact same playbook as Janus.

The court simply doesn't respect any precedent at this point.
It's a wholly political entity.
I'll put the question to you. If Roberts wants to overturn Roe, then why hasn't he pushed the court in that direction? He certainly has had opportunities. You act like he is playing some sort of long game, but that's preposterous. If Roberts wanted to overturn Roe, now would be the time. If a Democrat is elected president for the next eight years, you very easily could wind up with a liberal majority on the court.

Roberts is no liberal. But he is concerned with preserving the reputation of the court. He knows that delivering a complete victory on abortion to the religious right would be disastrous for the court.

And as an aside, Roberts probably thinks (correctly) that it would be terrible politics for the GOP. From the GOP's perspective, the chase to eliminate reproductive rights is good politics. But actually capturing the fugitive (reproductive rights) is terrible, terrible politics. If Roe is ever overturned, you pretty much can pencil in a Democrat as the next POTUS. I probably would bet on a Democratic majority in both houses as well.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote
06-29-2020 , 04:36 PM
When I posted about the case earlier, I didn't realize that Roberts hadn't joined Breyer's opinion, but had written his own.

So I guess the answer to my question about why is just stare decisis, from what I gather from Roberts' opinion.
The Supreme Court discussion thread Quote

      
m