Fresh Start Political Thread

[SunnySide]

There has also been considerable focus on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that Judge Kavanaugh would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. Protecting this right is important to me. To my knowledge, Judge Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition, but rooted in Article 3 of our Constitution itself. He believes that precedent is not just a judicial policy, it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent. In other words, precedent isn’t a goal or an aspiration. It is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary circumstances.

The judge further explained that precedent provides stability, predictability, reliance and fairness. There are, of course, rare and extraordinary times where the Supreme Court would rightly overturn a precedent. The most famous example was when the Supreme Court in Brown vs. The Board of Education overruled Plessy vs. Ferguson, correcting a “grievously wrong decision” to use the judge’s term, allowing racial inequality. But someone who believes that the importance of precedent has been rooted in the Constitution would follow long-established precedent except in those rare circumstances where a decision is grievously wrong or deeply inconsistent with the law. Those are Judge Kavanaugh’s phrases.

As the judge asserted to me, a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked. Its roots in the Constitution give the concept of stare decisis greater weight simply because a judge might want to on a whim. In short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.

Noting that Roe v. Wade was decided 45 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, I asked Judge Kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. He said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence. Our discussion then turned to the right of privacy on which the Supreme Court relied in Griswold vs. Connecticut, a case that struck down a law banning the use and sale of contraceptions. Griswold established the legal foundation that led to roe eight years later. In describing Griswold as settled law, Judge Kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920’s, Meyer and Pierce that are not seriously challenged by anyone today.

Finally, in his testimony, he noted repeatedly that Roe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, describing it as a precedent. When I asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said “no.”

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/5/179432...kavanaugh-vote

Precedents ... what are they and how do they work?

I guess "precedents" will change whenever the bench changes.

Dangerous. SCOTUS is becoming a political football to be kicked around the field by whoever has the ball.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

Likewise. I'm probably the biggest asshole here on the topic of abortion. I earn a lot of what I get here on the subject.

Other than this subject I don't have any beef with you, but at least we can respectfully disagree on this.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

Can't believe "conservatives" here are having a discussion about when killing a baby is OK or not OK. Like there is some sort of magic drop-dead date.

......

https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2020...ack-americans/

Not all conservatives (I'd venture to say most) believe that human life begins at conception.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Went to a few sites, including Rueters and AP, to try to find some political news that a majority of both sides would agree on. Really couldn't find anything. No wonder why we seem way more divided than ever.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Just something to change the conversation to a different topic. This is about the Fair Tax/National Sales Tax.

I'm not promoting it, just an article I read:

https://thecollegeinvestor.com/35525...-the-fair-tax/

[Chico23231]

I think my favorite reaction about the Texas thing outrage is the conspiracy theories are back from Blue Anon on social media…

Who PAID OFF Kavanaugh debt??

Why did Judge Kennedy suddenly Retire??


😂…those always getting me rolling around laughing

[sdskinsfan2001]

Press Secretary = Worst job in America

You have to be at least a little insane to want that job.

[BaltimoreSkins]

Regardless of the abortion aspect. They have legalized thought crime in the state. You have a pregnant woman stop and look at clinic on the street and she can now be sued have to pay 10k and pay the legal fees for the person suing her. It is Orwellian at its finest.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

Regardless of the abortion aspect. They have legalized thought crime in the state. You have a pregnant woman stop and look at clinic on the street and she can now be sued have to pay 10k and pay the legal fees for the person suing her. It is Orwellian at its finest.

Just what we need in America, turn more of us against each other. Good work Texas /s. Ridiculous to profit off of something like that. I could never imagine how hard actually having an abortion is. I'd imagine 99% of them are done with a heavy heart. While I disagree with abortion, I wouldn't ever want to be a woman in a position to even contemplate it. You would have to be a pretty big POS to try to get money off of it.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

Regardless of the abortion aspect. They have legalized thought crime in the state. You have a pregnant woman stop and look at clinic on the street and she can now be sued have to pay 10k and pay the legal fees for the person suing her. It is Orwellian at its finest.

I found this to be the most bizarre part of an already bizarre situation.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I think my favorite reaction about the Texas thing outrage is the conspiracy theories are back from Blue Anon on social media…

Who PAID OFF Kavanaugh debt??

Why did Judge Kennedy suddenly Retire??


😂…those always getting me rolling around laughing

Yet you push many of their theory's yourself in your own post's.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

Regardless of the abortion aspect. They have legalized thought crime in the state. You have a pregnant woman stop and look at clinic on the street and she can now be sued have to pay 10k and pay the legal fees for the person suing her. It is Orwellian at its finest.

https://news.yahoo.com/chief-justice...063747804.html

Chief Justice Roberts, 3 other dissenters slam colleagues for hastily rewarding Texas 'bounty hunter' abortion ban scheme


A sharply divided Supreme Court early Thursday said it will not block a new Texas law that deputizes any Texan to enforce a six-week ban on abortions. Five justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — explained in a brief, unsigned majority opinion that the abortion advocates asking for an emergency stay "raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue," but they were unable to untangle the "complex and novel antecedent procedural questions" raised by the law.

The four dissenters — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — argued in separate rebuttals that their five colleagues, without any real debate, were rewarding Texas lawmakers for inventing a novel scheme to stomp on decades of Supreme Court precedent.

"The statutory scheme before the Court is not only unusual, but unprecedented," Roberts wrote, and he would have granted "preliminary relief" at least until "the courts may consider whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws in such a manner." Instead, the court allowed the law to take effect before lower courts weighed in, "without ordinary merits briefing, and without oral argument."

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

Went to a few sites, including Rueters and AP, to try to find some political news that a majority of both sides would agree on. Really couldn't find anything. No wonder why we seem way more divided than ever.

Well one easy one is that a majority of both sides did want to surrender in Afghanistan. How it was done is what the groups that wanted to surrender are debating.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

Regardless of the abortion aspect. They have legalized thought crime in the state. You have a pregnant woman stop and look at clinic on the street and she can now be sued have to pay 10k and pay the legal fees for the person suing her. It is Orwellian at its finest.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't sue the woman directly for getting an abortion, but you could creepily follow her to an abortion clinic and then accuse the clinic of giving abortions and if you win they give you 10 grand and pay your legal bills.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by nonniey

................................ surrender .

You don't seem to understand what this word means yet you keep using it.