User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana abortion restrictions, with Roberts joining libs

  1. #11

    Original Ranter
    Points: 236,188, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.3%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    50309
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    60,547
    Points
    236,188
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    27,336
    Thanked 19,304x in 14,598 Posts
    Mentioned
    133 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    Yes, because the plain text of the Constitution has so much to say about abortion.
    Roberts had been on the dissenting side of the 2016 case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. While the law in contention in the case June v. Gee was nearly identical to the Texas law, Roberts based his decision on court precedent rather than his own opinion of the law.....snip~

    It was enough to get him to flip now, wasn't it?
    History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~

  2. #12

    Original Ranter
    Points: 236,188, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.3%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    50309
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    60,547
    Points
    236,188
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    27,336
    Thanked 19,304x in 14,598 Posts
    Mentioned
    133 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JakeStarkey View Post
    RvW is safe from the right wing.
    With hope on Roberts, Right? Without him.....its not safe, huh?
    History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~

  3. #13

    Original Ranter
    Points: 236,188, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.3%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    50309
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    60,547
    Points
    236,188
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    27,336
    Thanked 19,304x in 14,598 Posts
    Mentioned
    133 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~

  4. #14
    Points: 483,738, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 83.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    400674
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    155,450
    Points
    483,738
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    16,875
    Thanked 48,249x in 35,309 Posts
    Mentioned
    1759 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Maybe we should rethink Robert's opinion.

    Why conservative Chief Justice Roberts just struck down an anti-abortion law

    Roberts ultimately concludes that he cannot uphold a law that is nearly word-for-word identical to another law that the Court struck down four years ago. But his opinion is laden with hints that, in a future case, he is likely to vote to restrict — or even eliminate — the constitutional right to an abortion.

    Roberts opens his opinion by declaring that he still believes that Whole Woman’s Health was “wrongly decided.” He notes that “neither party has asked us to reassess the constitutional validity” of the Court’s seminal abortion rights decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) — a hint that, if future litigants directly attack Casey, Roberts will welcome such a challenge. And he spends as much of his opinion attacking Breyer’s approach to this case as he does explaining why he reluctantly voted to honor stare decisis.

    Whole Woman’s Health, Roberts notes, states that “the rule announced in Casey ... requires that courts consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits those laws confer.” But balancing these burdens against these benefits, Roberts suggests, is entirely beyond the capacity of the judiciary.
    In this context, courts applying a balancing test would be asked in essence to weigh the State’s interests in “protecting the potentiality of human life” and the health of the woman, on the one hand, against the woman’s liberty interest in defining her “own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” on the other. There is no plausible sense in which anyone, let alone this Court, could objectively assign weight to such imponderable values and no meaningful way to compare them if there were. . . Pretending that we could pull that off would require us to act as legislators, not judges, and would result in nothing other than an “unanalyzed exercise of judicial will” in the guise of a “neutral utilitarian calculus.”

    In this sense, Roberts’s opinion harks back to Justice Bryon White’s dissenting opinion in Roe v. Wade (1973) itself, which similarly argued that courts are not competent to weigh the difficult moral questions presented by the abortion debate. “In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ,” White wrote in that dissent, courts should leave the question of abortion rights “with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.”
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (06-30-2020)

  6. #15
    Points: 3,500, Level: 13
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 50
    Overall activity: 43.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points31 days registered
    CenterField's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    363
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    1,217
    Points
    3,500
    Level
    13
    Thanks Given
    106
    Thanked 353x in 288 Posts
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    According to my son who is a lawyer, Roberts explicitly decided due to res judicata only because the law was verbatim the same as the Texas law struck down in Whole Woman's Health 4 years ago, but he also explicitly invited a challenge to Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He said he thinks Whole Woman's Health is wrongly decided but nothing has changed since then, and the law is exactly the same so he reluctantly struck down the law. On the other hand he laid out a blueprint for what type of challenge he would prefer, to strike down abortion rights.

    --------

    On the other hand, we've seen a few times already, Chief Roberts siding with the liberal wing of the SCOTUS. So people counting on a 5-4 decision in favor of Trump if the 2020 election becomes the mess that hit the country in Bush v. Gore, may be in for a surprise. I heard rumors that Chief Roberts is upset at Trump (although he wouldn't say it publicly) because in his opinion Trump is a man who doesn't uphold the Rule of Law.
    Last edited by CenterField; 06-29-2020 at 05:48 PM.
    _________________________
    Please take COVID-19 seriously; don't panic but don't deny it; practice social distancing (stay 6ft from people); wear a mask, wash your hands a lot, don't touch your face, don't gather with too many people, so that you help us contain it.

  7. #16
    Points: 308, Level: 3
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 42
    Overall activity: 22.0%
    Achievements:
    250 Experience Points
    JakeStarkey's Avatar Member
    Karma
    38
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Intermountain West
    Posts
    130
    Points
    308
    Level
    3
    Thanks Given
    30
    Thanked 28x in 24 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    With hope on Roberts, Right? Without him.....its not safe, huh?
    It's safe. And when six new seats are added next year, it will become impregnable (heh).

  8. #17
    Original Ranter
    Points: 582,093, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    438209
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    173,322
    Points
    582,093
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    105,151
    Thanked 89,191x in 59,722 Posts
    Mentioned
    2292 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Roberts dissented in the Texas case.

    Quote Originally Posted by CenterField View Post
    According to my son who is a lawyer, Roberts explicitly decided due to res judicata only because the law was verbatim the same as the Texas law struck down in Whole Woman's Health 4 years ago, but he also explicitly invited a challenge to Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He said he thinks Whole Woman's Health is wrongly decided but nothing has changed since then, and the law is exactly the same so he reluctantly struck down the law. On the other hand he laid out a blueprint for what type of challenge he would prefer, to strike down abortion rights.

    --------

    On the other hand, we've seen a few times already, Chief Roberts siding with the liberal wing of the SCOTUS. So people counting on a 5-4 decision in favor of Trump if the 2020 election becomes the mess that hit the country in Bush v. Gore, may be in for a surprise. I heard rumors that Chief Roberts is upset at Trump (although he wouldn't say it publicly) because in his opinion Trump is a man who doesn't uphold the Rule of Law.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  9. #18

    Original Ranter
    Points: 236,188, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.3%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    50309
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    60,547
    Points
    236,188
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    27,336
    Thanked 19,304x in 14,598 Posts
    Mentioned
    133 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JakeStarkey View Post
    It's safe. And when six new seats are added next year, it will become impregnable (heh).
    6 new seats huh? Cmon back from the twilight zone. You do know that the infinity stones is a made up story Right?
    History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~

  10. #19
    Original Ranter
    Points: 582,093, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    438209
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    173,322
    Points
    582,093
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    105,151
    Thanked 89,191x in 59,722 Posts
    Mentioned
    2292 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    6 new seats huh? Cmon back from the twilight zone. You do know that the infinity stones is a made up story Right?
    He is speaking of the Hard Left Loon plan to stack the Court.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  11. #20
    Points: 3,500, Level: 13
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 50
    Overall activity: 43.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points31 days registered
    CenterField's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    363
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    1,217
    Points
    3,500
    Level
    13
    Thanks Given
    106
    Thanked 353x in 288 Posts
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Roberts dissented in the Texas case.
    I know that. And he still thinks that it was decided wrongly. But he went along this time with that decision out of respect for that decision's majority, although he individually opposed it. His reasoning was something like "despite my individual objection, the majority decided that way; the parameters and facts haven't changed; so there is no reason to change the decision now because this law is identical to that law."

    Which, I actually think (in my humble opinion; not a way of speaking; I am hereby acknowledging that I do not possess the knowledge to be authoritative in legal matters), makes sense. Aren't the courts supposed to rely on jurisprudence to examine decisions on previous laws in order to inform a decision about a current law that is being considered? Should the courts be inconsistent and keep alternatively finding one way then the opposite way, when the parameters and facts haven't changed? How would that work for the stability of a country? If there is a novelty, then by all means let's reconsider the issue, but if things remain the same, in the name of consistency I think the previous decision should remain.

    Again, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a legal scholar, so I'm asking you: what do you think of this argument?
    _________________________
    Please take COVID-19 seriously; don't panic but don't deny it; practice social distancing (stay 6ft from people); wear a mask, wash your hands a lot, don't touch your face, don't gather with too many people, so that you help us contain it.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Single Sign On provided by vBSSO