U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

I'm surprised no one's jumped on the relish with which Thomas used "substantive due process" as if trying to pwn the libs. Like Clarence and the rest of the Sinister Six wouldn't have voted against maximum hours, minimum wages, child labor laws, the income tax, and the other Lochner-era decisions while citing "liberty of contract."

does anyone else remember a (late?) 80s-era propagandistic refrain to a lot of u.s. history lessons: " ... so if you really want to make a change, you should work from within the system." like i remember more than one of my primary teachers used that exact saying with regards to rbg or brown v boe or something. i thought it was weird then, but i was a weird child so shrug

anyway, yeah. what a load of indoctrinating bullshit that was.

seems like it was around the same time credit scores became a thing. fucken reagan. dunno how he does it, but that fucken rascal has just continued to fuck the country. even in his own death, until he fucks it *to* death. his policies were like an STD. so toxic it magnifies in severity with each new strain. cool fucken story, bro.

fuckin' Reagan

Getting Thomas on the record about why Loving is dIfFeRent would be mildly interesting. Wouldn't change shit, probably, but so far all I've seen is liberals posting this zing at one another.

I'm all for hearing less from Thomas, with the exception of a death rattle followed by ~flatline~

TBF, Loving can also stand under the Equal Protection clause. But then you'd have to accept Obergefell for the same reason. Roe and Griswold are not under the Equal Protection clause.

thomas' "originalist" explanation iirc is that the equal protection clause only applied in cases of race and ought not be applied to gender, sexuality, etc

TBF, Loving can also stand under the Equal Protection clause. But then you'd have to accept Obergefell for the same reason. Roe and Griswold are not under the Equal Protection clause.

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Friday, June 24, 2022 6:02 PM (forty minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

The decision is not based on even a shred of precedent or law, dude. They would outlaw one and then create an exception or doctrine for another. The result is all that matters anymore.

Roe and Griswold are not under the Equal Protection clause.

According to Ginsburg, Roe should have been. In hindsight, it's easy to say she's right. I can't tell you the number of troglodytes I've had try to inform me that "even RBG thought Roe was wrong." Sure, but not for the reasons you think, and you wouldn't understand the reasons even if I explained them to you.

they’ve mastered public relations and done a great job of snowing guileless liberal and centrist law dorks and media outlets but these federalist psychos gave up any kind of jurisprudential integrity decades ago.

According to Ginsburg, Roe should have been. In hindsight, it's easy to say she's right. I can't tell you the number of troglodytes I've had try to inform me that "even RBG thought Roe was wrong." Sure, but not for the reasons you think, and you wouldn't understand the reasons even if I explained them to you.

― immodesty blaise (jimbeaux), Friday, June 24, 2022 5:47 PM (sixteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

That's not really just "hindsight" - I'm pretty sure it was common legal opinion at the time of the decision and it was something that we studied/discussed in law school like 12 years ago

anyway good idea for the next liberal court to consider in 20 years or whenever but for now the fight is in the states

I think that has been more of an ex post facto alternative developed to support the right. I don't think the majority thought it applied.

even though RBG did think that about Roe, she also knew that the job of SCOTUS justices was not to upset the balance of society, i.e., allowing it to stand because otherwise millions of women would lose a fundamental right.

even most conservative justices used to somewhat care about that, now they're ok winning Capture the Flag by spraying lethal poisonous chemicals all over the campsite.

She was definitely not in favor of overturning it, she just thought it could and should have been decided on a more solid constitutional basis.

Yep

oh yeah, for sure. No question.

People on my FB feed are posting RBG memes saying “I dissent!” or “Fight back!” or whatever, and it’s all I can do not to reply, “How about fucking retire when you have the chance?”

Was today's vote 6-3 or 5-4? Saw both reported

It was both — 6-3 to allow the Mississippi law (a ban after 15 weeks), but 5-4 to overturn Roe completely, which Robert’s was not up for. Hence the significance of RBG refusing to step down. With another Obama justice on the court, we’d be in a still-bad but not-as-bad situation.

(Autocorrect made Roberts possessive)

McConnell had some role as well, on something, if I remember correctly. I believe he killed rbg

Yeah, McConnell is the prime player for sure. But RBG had more power over this than almost any other person. (Even than Trump, because if she’d retired he wouldn’t have gotten to name her replacement.)

was kind of shocked to see via text from a friend (we volunteered for Abrams’ 2018 campaign) say the same today. I mean, she’s mad at a lot of people but her teeing off on RBG was noteworthy

thanks tipsy. couldn't get a clear summation on it earlier, but that makes sense.

RBG definitely has her share of blame for this. I've been wondering whether there's any larger benefit in pointing that out, and I guess the main thing is that it's a cautionary tale against a certain kind of liberal egotism/hubris/getting a little too high off your own supply.

liberal egotism is the worst

much worse than fascist criminality

I’d honestly forgotten about the RBG retirement thing in this whole mess today until it was mentioned elsewhere. Hell of a way to undo your legacy.

But yes fucking 100% in line with liberal “we got this” complacent arrogance of the time.

I mean it was kind of a combo of prizing individual heroes and narratives above structural power and also taking the superficial "principles" and "norms" a little too seriously instead of just paying lip service to them like we should be doing.

we basically left our future to gambling on when old fossils with robes will die

celebrated moderate Kennedy really got over

Kennedy at least retired strategically and he knew it -- he even picked his successor.

It can impeach and remove justices. It can increase or decrease the size of the court itself (at its inception, the Supreme Court had only six members). It can strip the court of its jurisdiction over certain issues or it can weaken its power of judicial review by requiring a supermajority of justices to sign off on any decision that overturns a law. Congress can also rebuke the court with legislation that simply cancels the decision in question

Jamelle Bouie re what a Congress could do, if we had the numbers and leadership

Key word there being "if"

Nine justices is not enough for a country of 50 states (plus territories) and 300 million people.

We should have 450 justices, with the option of shooting one when they get uppity

Good idea, Lord Alfred! We could fund the court's operating costs by having an annual raffle for the chance to hunt the justices for sport.

2 justices. Duking it out for justice. And the winner gets to be president until they are defeated in physical combat

Thomas vs Alito

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXWVpcypf0w

Ginny Thomas would definitely put gorilla glue in the opponent’s mouthguard and then Clarence would gallantly pretend to hear or see absolutely nothing and to completely ignore any allegations that she was trying to help him or he was trying to help her. “What happens in the ring is completely separate and irrelevant to what happens outside of the ring, even in cases where a gluelike substance may or may not have found its way into my opponent’s mouthguard, many are saying that Thomas Paine believed”, he will think (but not say)

Now do Plessy vs Ferguson/Brown vs Board of Education. https://t.co/hrUYCcIq8Y

— Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) June 25, 2022

He's got him there — Brown v. Board did limit the rights of millions of white supremacists.

But this Court will put that right, given the chance.

I THINK he's saying Brown corrected a historic wrong like yesterday's case did Roe, but this is John Fucking Cornyn.

Yea that's what it seems in context. Mega clumsy way to put it

‘clumsy’ is being charitable. certainly a troll job if not a trial balloon

Cornyn quick to squander the thimbleful of goodwill the gun bill bought him.

Things Biden could do:

1. Set up abortion clinics on federal land inside red states (@ewarren’s idea)
2. Federal telehealth service for free abortion pills
3. Funding for abortion clinics and travel vouchers in nearby states

None of this is “waiving a magic wand”

— Childless Feminist Slut with Cats (@katewillett) June 24, 2022