New Conservative Supreme Court Supermajority

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee New Conservative Supreme Court Supermajority

Tagged: 

  • This topic has 56 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 4 months ago by ujm.
Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 57 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1914426
    ujm
    Participant

    How long will it take the new conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court to overturn despicable liberal decisions such as Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and Roe v. Wade (1973)?

    #1914443
    Yserbius123
    Participant

    People, the goyim aren’t bothering us with these decisions. Just let them do their things.

    (FYI, Rav Moshe ZT”L was not against Roe v. Wade)

    #1914473
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    The mother might be endangered when reversing Roe vs Wade.

    #1914479
    Health
    Participant

    RE -“The mother might be endangered when reversing Roe vs Wade.”

    I’ve Posted this Before – with Modern Medicine – there is No Such Thing!

    #1914499
    ujm
    Participant

    When general society has immoral laws, it certainly affects the Yidden in their midst. Even the Shomer Torah uMitzvos Jews. All the more so the Jews who utilize the immoral laws.

    Even before Roe v Wade mother’s whose lives were endangered were permitted to abort to save their lives. Reversing Roe v. Wade would not change that.

    #1914509
    Toi
    Participant

    See, this is interesting. Eliezer hates trump. Fullstop. But, ostensibly, that’s a middos based distaste of the best president ever. Okay, that’s fine. Why would your distaste for the man carry over into the civics part of our country, why do you feel the need to argue for a lefty position that has no connection to trump whatsoever. I think you are a little crazy.

    #1914518
    sifsei chachamim
    Participant

    Sorry to disappoint but Obergefell and Lawrence will never be overturned, even their fiercest opponents agree. Roe will likely be curtailed but won’t be overturned outright for a long time if ever.

    #1914521

    Don’t know about 1973, but id say if roe vs wade is overturned, they will almost certainly still allow for abortion in cases where the mother is in danger…

    #1914552
    akuperma
    Participant

    1. The only conservative in Chief Justice Roberts. There are five originalists, but that doesn’t guarantee a right wing decision, not would it necessarily be good for Jews. The anti-test act clause never was understood as requiring religious accommodation, and the first amendment was understood to protect belief not practice, and if the originalists take a look at the 14th amendment, they may object to it having been expanded beyond protecting the rights of ex-slaves and their descendants (bad for religious minorities). And the right to privacy, which is the basis of allowing “sexual freedom” is also the basis for laws allowing parents to control the religious upbringing of children – and that right isn’t written in the constitution.

    2. It only takes a simple statute to turn a 6-3 majority into a 7-6 minority. Plus the Congress and the blue states can probably manipulate things to restrict the ability of the Supreme Court in ideological matters (e.g. making abortion a matter of state rights and prohibiting anyone from traveling to a blue state for an abortion).

    #1914554
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    Toi, maybe you are crazy. I formed my opinion because of Trump’s behavior. I don’t think you would want your children to learn from his constant lying and general character. He has contributed to tbe death of thousands by downplaying COVID-19. see why to vote for Trump being a melech kasha kehaman https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/trump-winning. He thinks he knows everything better than anyone else by firing his best advisors when they disagree with him. This is not
    Torah view.

    #1914655
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    Today’s 5-3 decisions not to grant expedited consideration of the Pennsylvania and North Carolina GOP petitions to strike down state efforts to extend deadlines for counting mail-in votes (with Barrett recusing herself) must have been a disappointment to Trump. It continues a recent trend to allow legislated changes to state law to stand while striking down judicial changes not authorized in state law. Next up will be the ACA hearings right after the election and decisions whether to grant cert to Mississippi and other cases testing the limits on Roe v. Wade.

    #1914671
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    Correction: Barrett didn’t formally “recuse” herself…..she didn’t participate in today’s orders because she “didn’t have sufficient time to review the pleadings”. That means she left open the option of participating should derivative litigation come back to the court after the election.

    #1914673
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    There is a lot of confusion in this thread

    “Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Lawrence v. Texas (2003),” will no be overturned, and there wont even be cases brought (to the supreme court) to overturn them.

    ” and Roe v. Wade (1973)”
    Doubtful it will be overturned.
    Though even if it is, keep in mind it will still be up to states. In most states it will remain legal in a few states it might be curtailed.

    “I’ve Posted this Before – with Modern Medicine – there is No Such Thing!”

    This is pure ignorance. To use the least controversial example tubal pregancy.

    “Even before Roe v Wade mother’s whose lives were endangered were permitted to abort to save their lives. Reversing Roe v. Wade would not change that.”
    Who decides what constitutes “lives were endangered” ?

    #1914675
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    There is a lot of confusion in this thread

    “Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Lawrence v. Texas (2003),” will no be overturned, and there wont even be cases brought (to the supreme court) to overturn them.

    ” and Roe v. Wade (1973)”
    Doubtful it will be overturned.
    Though even if it is, keep in mind it will still be up to states. In most states it will remain legal in a few states it might be curtailed.

    “I’ve Posted this Before – with Modern Medicine – there is No Such Thing!”

    This is pure ignorance. To use the least controversial example tubal pregancy. (Yes Yes I know you will say it is different, and I agree it is, but it is a pregancy and it does endanger the mother to say “there is No Such Thing” is wrong.

    “Even before Roe v Wade mother’s whose lives were endangered were permitted to abort to save their lives. Reversing Roe v. Wade would not change that.”
    Who decides what constitutes “lives were endangered” ?

    #1914678
    Health
    Participant

    Akuperma -“The only conservative in Chief Justice Roberts. There are five originalists, but that doesn’t guarantee a right wing decision”

    Well so far, the cases the Originalists have voted on, are just like they are Conservative.

    What I don’t understand why e/o calls Roberts – Conservative?!?
    His record is Split. Half the Time he voted with the Conservatives & the other half he Voted with the Libs.
    I think this is just a Manipulation from the Fake Media!

    #1914696
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“This is pure ignorance. To use the least controversial example tubal pregancy”

    Removal is not an Abortion.
    So Abortion could become Illegal!
    Stop showing e/o that you Don’t know Medicine.

    #1914719
    Toi
    Participant

    Eliezer- I did not disagree with what you said you said. I’m wondering how your distaste for him carries over into making knee-jerk lefty arguments that have no merit. Whether or not the mothers life would be in danger based on overturning roevwade would not make it inherently included in the constituttion.

    #1914779
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health love it!!

    “Removal is not an Abortion.
    So Abortion could become Illegal!”

    Lets make everyone happy.
    Abortion is banned, only embryo or fetus removal is allowed .
    I assume reduction and termination would be ok too. But no abortion!

    Akuperma
    I liked most of your post. It might make you feel better though to consider that “originalist” isn’t really a thing. Nobody would argue the constitution doesn’t protect internet speech although originally obviously it didn’t. “Originalist” is used as a magic word to reduce protections by interpreting the constitution as narrowly as possible. If they want to protect something they forget to be originality (like scalia in Bush v Gore with his creative reinterpretation of the 14th amendment)
    So bottom line is it depends more on what the judges want to protect than on how they claim to view the constitution

    #1914807
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    “Removal is not an Abortion. So Abortion could become Illegal!

    I think this is an idea people could get behind. Make abortion illegal.
    Only embryo or fetus “removal” , reduction or termination would be allowed

    #1914817
    jackk
    Participant

    Ubiquitin,

    You have disheartened so many right wing people. They are so happy to take away rights from American citizens and want to establish Shariah/Christian/Jewish law as the new constitution.

    Are you sure that all 3 are not going to be overturned? If they aren’t, then why does everyone care so much that trump and the republicans shoved in a conservative on the SCOTUS?

    #1914824
    🍫Syag Lchochma
    Participant

    Regarding sharia law – i am petrified of it but in other countries where they’re succeeding in imposing it on their ‘districts’ it comes thru filling the area with those who observe it who vote in others who observe it until they have a majority. Right now those congress members are rooting for biden.

    #1914823
    🍫Syag Lchochma
    Participant

    Don’t know if your just spewing rhetoric or asking a question but I’ll take my chances.
    Personally I have long exited the roe v wade topic. I see it as a win for what can be brought to the court in the future.

    #1914821
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    akuperma
    “There are five originalists, but that doesn’t guarantee a right wing decision,”

    I like the gist of your post but this isnt true. “originalist” is just an excuse used by the right when they want to limit the protection of the constitution. It works to their favor, that the framers had more limited view too . nobody argues that Free speech/press doesnt cover internet speech, (although originally it didnt obviosuly) because that isnt something they want to limit.
    Look at the great originalist Scalia, he creatively reinterpreted the 14th amendment when he wanted to give the Republican the presidency.
    If that is ancient history for you, look no further than this week Kavanaugh’s decision thrid reason makes a passionate defense of having results counted by “election day” however this is not mentioned in the constitution

    #1914849
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    Be careful what you wish for. Recall that in the employment discrimination case decided earlier this year ( Bostock v. Clayton County), the Court majority, including Gorsuch, ruled that federal law prohibits discrimination against LGBTQ workers. Gorsuch is probably the Court’s most vocal proponent of “textualism,” a bedrock conservative view that the meaning of a law turns on its words alone, not on the intentions of those who drafted the legislation. The Bostock case forced Gorsuch to decide between his own conservative social policy beliefs and following the broad language of a landmark civil rights law. Gorsuch didn’t simply honor his textualist approach in Bostock; he wrote the majority opinion
    Specifically, that case required the Court to apply the language of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts, which literally forbids employment discrimination that occurs “because of [an employee’s] race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
    Its fairly clear that the drafters 55 years ago had no intention of banning discrimination against LGBTQs (indeed that probably had no idea of what the Ts and Qs were even about) Gorsuch unabashedly ruled that only the literal text of the statute and NOT the expectations of lawmakers mattered. Thus, he and the majority (liberal justices) ruled that the words of the statute clearly prohibited employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
    I’ll acknowledge this was an anomaly in is generally siding with the conservatives and he is no David Souter but there are other cases coming up where a similiar textualist approach may yield some very unexpected results.

    #1914878
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“Lets make everyone happy.
    Abortion is banned, only embryo or fetus removal is allowed .
    I assume reduction and termination would be ok too. But no abortion!”

    Your Not funny.
    I’m for Trump, but he has No sense of Humor, just like you!

    You claim that your in the Medical Field, but you Don’t Know the definition of Ectopic Preg. vs Abortion.

    That’s Right – any Religious Jew – Should oppose the Legality of Abortion.
    The Heter that the Gemorra says – that if the Fetus is a Rodef, Doesn’t apply in Our Day & Age!

    #1914899
    Avi K
    Participant

    Yserbius 123, decisions on freedom of religion will have repercussions for Orthodox Jews. One very important case in the pipeline is Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

    #1914906
    anonymous Jew
    Participant

    Ubuiqutin, you don’t have a clear understanding on how a “textual” or an ” originalist” interprets the law. It applies to Federal and State legislation as well the Constitution, and they oppose judicial activism. So, for example, the they reversed the judge who ordered Wisconsin to extend the voting deadline . The majority opinion went out of it’s way to criticize the judge for substituting his policy for the one enacted by the Wisconsin legislature. However, they ruled differently in Pennsylvania because there the Legislature enacted the delay.

    #1914918
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    This judges are wrong. Not for nothing it says chesed veemes yekadmu panecha, Hashem places kindness before truth. When we have coronavirus, unexpected by the legislature, the law cannot be interpreted as written and allowances must be made in voting.

    #1914917
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    Just to be clear, “originalism” and “textualism” are not the same although both are tools of statutory interpretation passionately advocated and invoked by conservative jurists.

    #1914962
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    Should be above, These judges.

    #1914944
    se2015
    Participant

    Originalism usually refers to a method of interpreting the constitution.

    #1914975
    Toi
    Participant

    Eliezer

    “This judges are wrong. Not for nothing it says chesed veemes yekadmu panecha, Hashem places kindness before truth. When we have coronavirus, unexpected by the legislature, the law cannot be interpreted as written and allowances must be made in voting.”

    So judges should just act against their role, and instead be a super-legislative body, because you think so???? So basically, you’re not anti-Trump, you’re just a blazing progressive….why pretend otherwise?

    #1914986
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    google is your friednd
    Ectopic pregnancy “a pregnancy in which the fetus develops outside the uterus, typically in a fallopian tube.”
    define abortion “the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.”

    Sure I grant that you didnt mean ectopic pregnancy in your comment

    BUT it is a pregnncy and it does pose risk to the mother these are indisputable facts

    #1914987
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    anon
    “It applies to Federal and State legislation as well the Constitution, and they oppose judicial activism”
    Yes obviously

    Yet Kavanaugh engaged in judicial activism, when it suited him. I didnt say the entire opinion was an example. I specifically said his third reason
    In his third reason he makes a case that we need the results of an election right away. including this bizzare sentence “want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after Election Day and potentially flip the results of an election”
    THIS argument is pure judicial activism No where in the constitution does it say results must be available on election day.
    This is not an argument neither based on a textual nor originalist interpretation of the constitution. IT is pure activism driven by his desired outcome

    (GH, yes they are different but they are related and in this conversation the difference is largely inconsequential . furthermore “originalism” is sometimes used to refer to “original intent” and sometimes “original meaning” while original intent would include secondary sources , motivations behind the law etc, “original meaning typically does not and is pretty much the same as “textualism”)

    #1914989
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    se2015. Both the constitution as well as amendments thereto…many adopted decades later. I thought Barrett, at her confirmation hearings last week, did a really decent job of explaining the differences to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who frequently used the terms interchangeably.

    #1915022
    anonymous Jew
    Participant

    Eliezer, that’s the role of the legislature, not the judiciary. The judiciary cannot create new laws.

    #1915032
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    When there are unforeseen circumstances as coronavirus, the intent of the legislature in judgement becomes important and they cannot follow the letter of the law even textualists.

    #1915037
    yytz
    Participant

    I agree the Lawrence is unlikely to be overturned. Even among hard-core social conservatives, few are eager to return to criminal prosecutions of this kind. No one’s going to even try to overturn it.

    Obergefell is different. It is a relatively recent 5-4 decision, which Scalia called “lawless” in his dissent. Some experts may claim it’s unlikely to be overturned, but really nobody knows. It all depends on whether someone tries to challenge it, and what the justices decide. I think there’s a pretty good chance of overturning it if there is a decent challenge.

    Roe is different because it’s an old case, a so-called “super-precedent.” But it could still be overturned. It all depends.

    #1915139
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“Ectopic pregnancy “a pregnancy in which the fetus develops outside the uterus, typically in a fallopian tube.”
    BUT it is a pregnncy and it does pose risk to the mother these are indisputable facts”

    There is Nothing Wrong to Remove this condition, whether acc. to Halacha or Xitianity.

    “define abortion “the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.””
    You missed the Main Definition of Abortion.
    You claim that your a Medical Guy, but you don’t know the Definition of Abortion.
    Here it is:
    From Medline Plus (Gov.) – “An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus. The procedure is done by a licensed health care professional.”

    #1915148
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    “Roe is different because it’s an old case, a so-called “super-precedent.”

    Well I’d like to believe that but our newest Associate Justice refused to classify Roe in her listing of “super precedents” such as Brown v. Board of Ed and Marbury v. Madison etc. To be a “super precedent” she argued that the outcome has to be one which is widely accepted, society has come to rely upon it and where there is no longer significant public disagreement. On the latter criteria, she separated out Roe from other cases as one where the Court might still reverse and find that it was “wrongly decided”.

    #1915200
    Toi
    Participant

    GH- ACB made the democrat senators look incredibly stupid when they asked about Roe, and you just did the same thing they did. ABC argues that Roe cannot be considered super precedent id people are still nervous about it being overturned and activel debating whether to confirm a supreme court justice based on those considerations. If it was super precedent, that would not be a conversation we’d be having. Anyway, why exactly would you be pro one of the worst decisions on SCOTUS history, and do you endorse the murder of millions of babies every year?

    #1915220
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health
    “There is Nothing Wrong to Remove this condition, whether acc. to Halacha or Xitianity”

    I never said there was

    YOU said “there is no such thing” (as a mother being endangered by a pregnancy)

    your definition of abortion applies to Ectopic pregnancy “An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus.”
    Since you obviously don’t know, Ill fill you in. If diagnosed early then medicine is used “to remove the embryo or fetus” (usually methotrexate) if late then surgery is needed. Regardless this is an abortion according to the definition you supplied.

    #1915221
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    GH

    ” but our newest Associate Justice refused to classify Roe in her listing of “super precedents” such as Brown v. Board of Ed”

    Brown vs Board of Ed is another great example of “originalists” abandoning their originalism. No “originalist” would dream of saying it was wrongly decided although obviously the 14th amendment was not meant (nor intended). As you point out Amy Coan Barret labeled it a “super-precedent”
    Scalia would often be asked about this, which angered him once complaining “Waving the bloody shirt of Brown again, eh?” He did try to defend it on numerous occasions, though not very convincingly.

    #1915288
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    Toi: I wouldn’t want your name on my amicus on a Roe case, whichever way you were to argue. Dems would like to consider Roe as “super-precedent”. Barrett and other conservatives (not sure about Roberts) will adhere to the litmus test Barrett offered and I noted above that a case cannot be “super-precedent” and thus immune from being overturned if there is still ongoing and widespread public debate over its legitimacy. I personally find ANY legislation mandating how we make our own medical decisions a violation of personal liberty while acknowledging that tethering Roe into a Constitutional right to “personal liberty” is likely to be back before the Court within the next year or two. Watch the Mississippi case where the AG is deliberately pushing a case that intentionally violates Roe as a test case for the new conservative court.

    #1915309
    ujm
    Participant

    The next goal of the left abortion supporters is the legalization of doctor assisted suicide. As GHD above describes his support of abortion, it being illegal for doctors to assist in suicide (no less than doctors assisting abortion) is a “violation of personal liberty”.

    #1915338
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    UJM? Not going to get into a debate on end-of-life medical directives. For another time.

    #1915349
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“your definition of abortion applies to Ectopic pregnancy “An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus.
    Regardless this is an abortion according to the definition you supplied.”

    Are you sure that you went to HS, College & Med School?
    I’d rather post to a H.S. kid, than to you.

    Abortion doesn’t ever Refer to Ectopic Preg.
    I gave you the definition before.
    Here it is again:
    From Medline Plus (Gov.) – “An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus. The procedure is done by a licensed health care professional.”
    Do you see the word Uterus?
    Now – do you know the definition of Ectopic?!?

    Either you believe in Abortion, which is against the Torah or you’re very Ignorant!

    #1915355
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    “Do you see the word Uterus?”

    I did , and as always you are wrong

    1. That is one definition and of course it isnt exact. for example Abortion can occur spontaneously as in “spontaneous abortion” clearly your definition is lacking. (I provided a better definition earlier, Webster’s is fine too)
    2. Some ectopic pregnancies occur in the uterus, I realize this is advanced stuff that isnt taught in ambulance driving school . Look up “cornual pregnancy” or “interstitial pregnancy” which occurs in the uterus thus would be labetled an “abortion” even according to your inexact definition

    “Either you believe in Abortion, ”
    what does “believe in abortion” mean?

    #1915535
    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“which occurs in the uterus thus would be labetled an “abortion” even according to your inexact definition”

    You’re too old to practice Medicine!
    You can’t keep up with the definitions.
    Abortion only applies to Intrauterine pregnancy!

    From Wiley.com:
    “The Term “Cornual Pregnancy” Should Be Abandoned
    Oksana H. Baltarowich MD
    The term “cornual pregnancy” is imprecise because it has been applied to 5 different types of pregnancies. Two of these are ectopic pregnancies, which by definition are pregnancies implanted outside the endometrial cavity, and 3 of these are intrauterine pregnancies.”

    #1915606
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    ““The Term “Cornual Pregnancy” Should Be Abandoned”

    Yes it should be , but it is still used, and I mentioned “interstitial pregnancy” to avoid this confusion .

    As you correctly noted “The term “cornual pregnancy” …. 3 of these are intrauterine pregnancies”
    It is an imprecise term, BUT as you correctly noted it is used for intrauterine pregnancies.

    So to sum up
    “Abortion only applies to Intrauterine pregnancy!”

    a. That isn’t necessarily true (sure some dictionaries may take a more limited definition but not al do)
    b. Some ectopic pregnancies are intrauterine (eg interstitial pregnancies sometimes imprecisely referred to as Cornual pregnancies)

    BTW see “Is Abortion Really Necessary For Treating Ectopic Pregnancies?” On the federalist dot com whre the author argued against allowing abortion even for ectopic pregnancies (Though to be fair, she has since apologized after consultation with doctors, hopefully if Roe gets overturned whoever writes any law will consult with Doctors BEFORE they write it and not correct it after like this author)

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 57 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.