Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[superchuck500]

I'll say a little why I say nah. That 6-3 majority will be short-lived, and I suspect it's why the Republicans have a sense of urgency about this. It's likely that Biden will win this election, and also a good possibility that they'll be in the minority in Congress as well. Of that's the case, they're trying to get this done now before the pendulum swings back the other way. That 6-3 majority won't last long.

Something else to consider. Justices have surprised people with their decisions on occasion. It's happened a few times over the years, and who knows? ACB might do the same thing. We won't know fully until the court starts handing down decisions. I'd argue a wait and see approach here. But that's me.

I think you're right that we don't know how judges will act on the Supreme Court - there are famous examples of justices being more moderate than anticipated.

But I'm not sure why the 6-3 majority would be short-lived. The next oldest justices are Breyer (82) and Thomas (72). Beyond that, they're all 70 and under - and the average age of Supreme Court retirement (or death) is after the justice turns 78. More recently, it has been later than that. (Scalia was 79 at death, Kennedy was 81 at retirement, and RBG was 87 at death).

So clearly Breyer is in the zone for replacement (either by retirement or death), but after that, it doesn't seem like there will be another vacancy for some time. And a Breyer vacancy filled with a liberal judge isn't going to impact the balance of the court - it would only replace one of the 3 on the left of the 3-6 conservative majority.

If ACB is confirmed, that majority is likely to remain for some time barring some kind of unexpected death of a conservative justice during a Democratic administration. Unless, of course, the Democrats try to adjust the number of justices (which I am against).

 

[DaveXA]

The problem is that you are arguing a wait and see approach is it applies to basic civil rights.

Who's civil rights are being violated?

 

[wardorican]

Who's civil rights are being violated?

I'm sure there are dozens of cases, if not more, in the court system.

But anything around the periphery of Gay marriage, abortion, gun restrictions, without even looking hard.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[DaveXA]

I'm sure there are dozens of cases, if not more, in the court system.

But anything around the periphery of Gay marriage, abortion, gun restrictions, without even looking hard.

There's no federal law prohibiting gay marriage that I'm aware of. Roe vs. Wade isn't going anywhere, although there will always be groups trying to reverse it. Gun restrictions are legal, although the extent of those restrictions have long been debated. I don't think gun ownership is necessarily a civil right. Most civil rights laws on the books have been upheld by the courts.

What civil right that became law was ever actually struck down?

And, usually, if a new civil right has been passed by Congress, the Courts have generally upheld the laws passed.

I do think because of freedom of religion, churches and other religions may not accept or practice those rights in their organizations. So what they do in their churches are outside the purview of the state so long as they're not harming the public and people are free to join or leave if they want to.

 

[MT15]

They want to strike down Roe, Dave. It’s as clear as it can be. They won’t say so out loud, but if they can do it they will. They’ve been planning for this for decades. If they cannot strike it down directly, they will happily make it so difficult that it may as well be illegal.

They want to strike down the Affordable Care Act. That much is also clear. It was upheld by 1 vote, and that vote will now be a vote in the other direction. Barrett has made that very clear.

They want to outlaw same sex marriage, or at least make it legal for places to discriminate against gays. Barrett was giving speeches to a group that wants to criminalize homosexuality and force trans people to be sterilized. I doubt she would hesitate to reverse the ruling that allows gay marriage.

Women, poor people who rely on the ACA and the LBGTQ community should all be fearful that their lives will change drastically. That they will lose rights they currently enjoy, should the court become as lopsided as it will be. It’s not very comforting to hear, “it probably won’t happen”. I worry about our society becoming more authoritative and less tolerant. More punitive if you don’t adhere to a religious code.

 

[DaveXA]

They want to strike down Roe, Dave. It’s as clear as it can be. They won’t say so out loud, but if they can do it they will. They’ve been planning for this for decades. If they cannot strike it down directly, they will happily make it so difficult that it may as well be illegal.

They want to strike down the Affordable Care Act. That much is also clear. It was upheld by 1 vote, and that vote will now be a vote in the other direction. Barrett has made that very clear.

They want to outlaw same sex marriage, or at least make it legal for places to discriminate against gays. Barrett was giving speeches to a group that wants to criminalize homosexuality and force trans people to be sterilized. I doubt she would hesitate to reverse the ruling that allows gay marriage.

Women, poor people who rely on the ACA and the LBGTQ community should all be fearful that their lives will change drastically. That they will lose rights they currently enjoy, should the court become as lopsided as it will be. It’s not very comforting to hear, “it probably won’t happen”. I worry about our society becoming more authoritative and less tolerant. More punitive if you don’t adhere to a religious code.

I get it, but I just disagree with most of what you said. Wanting something and actually getting it are 2 different things. And I really don't think we'll see some sort of sea change with a 6-3 court. Some of it will be significant, but in the bigger picture, ultimately incremental. The court has long tweaked her rulings over the years as they've changed with the times to some degree.

I just don't think we'll see that authoritative and punitive bent you're alluding to. We're seeing it in some other areas and people are resisting that. But from the court I don't get that sense. Now could that possibly change? I suppose so. But I'm skeptical at this point.

In any case, I think it's going to depend a lot on what cases come before the court.

 

[coldseat]

There's no federal law prohibiting gay marriage that I'm aware of.

Come on. If they strike down Obergefell, what other nationwide federal protection is there for gay marriage? It would revert to being a state issue, in which I'm sure it would be illegal in more than half of the states. It would be illegal in the state that I live in. I know that's not a civil right to you, but it is to me.

 

[DaveXA]

Come on. If they strike down Obergefell, what other nationwide federal protection is there for gay marriage? It would revert to being a state issue, in which I'm sure it would be illegal in more than half of the states. It would be illegal in the state that I live in. I know that's not a civil right to you, but it is to me.

I think it's a civil right. There should should be no prohibition at the state or federal level. If 2 consenting adults want to marry, go for it. I'm not familiar with Obergefell though.

 

[Ayo]

I'm not familiar with Obergefell though.

You’re about to be

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I think it's a civil right. There should should be no prohibition at the state or federal level. If 2 consenting adults want to marry, go for it. I'm not familiar with Obergefell though.

It's the Supreme Court ruling that held gay marriage is protected under both the Substantive Due Process Clause and Equal Protection. It was a 5-4 decision. I think you underestimate the possibility that both it, and Roe v. Wade, will be overturned by a conservative majority. Not from a purely religious perspective (although that'll definitely be Barrett's motivating factor), but Alito and Thomas loathe Substantive Due Process and think sexual orientation discrimination should only be afforded rational basis scrutiny. I doubt Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are much different. If those rulings are reversed then states would be free to prohibit gay marriage and abortion. Thus, while it is true we will probably never see federal legislation banning either (although the Republicans tried before with the Defense of Marriage Act), that's not much comfort to people impacted in conservative states. Sure they can always move and the great irony is that will probably lead to conservative states falling further behind more liberal states from an economic standpoint.

As far as what cases come before the Court... this isn't an issue as state legislatures will simply pass laws and challenges will follow in short order.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Maybe I'm missing it, but what exactly is the corruption you're referring to?

Abusive and hypocritical use of power.

 

[LA - L.A.]

You have that luxury. "Wait and see" to somebody who's basic fundamental freedoms and liberties are under attack isn't appealing.

Exactly. Like I said earlier, corruption is just like systemic racism in that it's easy to accept or support if you are in no danger of being harmed by it. The corruption used to pack the Supreme Court was just for the fun of it.

This is about making sure white Christians, and for the most part men, get to stay in control and make sure everyone lives by their rules.

 

[DaveXA]

It's the Supreme Court ruling that held gay marriage is protected under both the Substantive Due Process Clause and Equal Protection. It was a 5-4 decision. I think you underestimate the possibility that both it, and Roe v. Wade, will be overturned by a conservative majority. Not from a purely religious perspective (although that'll definitely be Barrett's motivating factor), but Alito and Thomas loathe Substantive Due Process and think sexual orientation discrimination should only be afforded rational basis scrutiny. I doubt Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are much different. If those rulings are reversed then states would be free to prohibit gay marriage and abortion. Thus, while it is true we will probably never see federal legislation banning either (although the Republicans tried before with the Defense of Marriage Act), that's not much comfort to people impacted in conservative states. Sure they can always move and the great irony is that will probably lead to conservative states falling further behind more liberal states from an economic standpoint.

As far as what cases come before the Court... this isn't an issue as state legislatures will simply pass laws and challenges will follow in short order.

Appreciate the post. Thanks.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I don't think there should be a religious test for justices, and if we had a Muslim or Hindu justice, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

I'm guessing you would if that Muslim or Hindu justice said that they approach the law with their religious beliefs coming first.

 

[DaveXA]

Exactly. Like I said earlier, corruption is just like systemic racism in that it's easy to accept or support if you are in no danger of being harmed by it. The corruption used to pack the Supreme Court was just for the fun of it.

This is about making sure white Christians, and for the most part men, get to stay in control and make sure everyone lives by their rules.

Not really. How exactly is it corrupt to do what you have the right to do as the party in power? Don't tell me the Democrats wouldn't do just exactly this if they were in power? The President has the authority to pick a nominee and Congress has the authority to advise and consent during their term of office. And for what it's worth, whatever the Republicans are doing now, they're basically paving the way for the Democrats to do later.

If they succeed in getting ACB confirmed, then it won't be too long before the shoe is on the other foot. Turnabout will be fair play when the Democrats hold the WH and Senate. Picking a new justice isn't packing the court. It's doing what you have the authority to do. None of that is illegal.

That said, how they get there remains an open question. I don't think the Republicans need to do anything unusual to get ACB confirmed. What might be unusual will be if they do some out of the ordinary parliamentary procedure if they're unable to muster a quorum due to covid, which I admit, I hope it throws a wrench in their plans because I really don't care that much for ACB as a nominee.

Ultimately, there is still a lame duck Congress after the election, and they could decide to wait until after the election to confirm. But there are risks to that too.

 

[DaveXA]

I'm guessing you would if that Muslim or Hindu justice said that they approach the law with their religious beliefs coming first.

It would certainly give pause at the very least, and ACB's comments do give me pause. Not willing to say it's automatically disqualifying, but they would definitely have to speak to that during the confirmation hearings.

 

[wardorican]

There's no federal law prohibiting gay marriage that I'm aware of. Roe vs. Wade isn't going anywhere, although there will always be groups trying to reverse it. Gun restrictions are legal, although the extent of those restrictions have long been debated. I don't think gun ownership is necessarily a civil right. Most civil rights laws on the books have been upheld by the courts.

What civil right that became law was ever actually struck down?

And, usually, if a new civil right has been passed by Congress, the Courts have generally upheld the laws passed.

I do think because of freedom of religion, churches and other religions may not accept or practice those rights in their organizations. So what they do in their churches are outside the purview of the state so long as they're not harming the public and people are free to join or leave if they want to.

If not already, at some point there has to be a reckoning with medical marijuana and the work place. Right now there is no state or definitely no federal protections for anyone actually using their medical marijuana. I'm ignoring recreational, but they'd be under a similar umbrella. I mean, outside of narcotics for pain, how many jobs won't let you come to work due to prescription meds? Especially if you don't use it until AFTER work?

And gay marriage is only a thing due to specific states inacting laws allowing it, after most inacted laws prohibiting gay marriage. In other cases, the right to marry had to go through the court system. It then went to the SCOTUS to become the law of the land. There is no federal law on gay marriage. The only ones proposed were to outlaw it.

Gay Marriage ‑ DOMA, United States v. Windsor, Obergefell v. Hodges | HISTORY

The road to full marriage equality for same‑sex couples in the United States was paved with setbacks and victories. The landmark 2015 Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges made gay marriage legal throughout the country.

www.history.com

The point is, many of our civil rights actually have nothing to do with Bills passed into laws by congress. They're court cases saying when your rights do or don't apply and how.