Legal/scotus thread

[acesfull86]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...le-parameters/


The abortion debate that the Supreme Court’s calendar has ignited is compelling Americans to consider what abortion policy ought to be but first to recognize what the United States’ policy is: an extreme outlier. In 39 of the 42 European nations that permit elective abortions, the basic limit is at 15 weeks of pregnancy or earlier. In 32 of the 39, the limit is at 12 weeks or earlier. Worldwide, fewer than a dozen countries allow abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy on any grounds.

In 1975, two years after Roe was decided, Archibald Cox, Harvard law professor and former U.S. solicitor general under President John F. Kennedy, said in a lecture at Oxford University: “The [Roe v. Wade] opinion fails even to consider what I would suppose to be the most important compelling interest of the State in prohibiting abortion: the interest in maintaining that respect for the paramount sanctity of human life which has always been at the centre of Western civilization.” That interest, although perhaps unintelligible to the likes of [Letitia] James, is important to the broad American majority.

This majority might soon have the dignified task of instructing their elected representatives to codify, state by state, community standards about the onset of personhood. An acorn is not an oak tree; an oak sapling is. The burden of intelligence, and self-government, is that distinctions must be drawn.

[nsacpi]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...le-parameters/


The abortion debate that the Supreme Court’s calendar has ignited is compelling Americans to consider what abortion policy ought to be but first to recognize what the United States’ policy is: an extreme outlier. In 39 of the 42 European nations that permit elective abortions, the basic limit is at 15 weeks of pregnancy or earlier. In 32 of the 39, the limit is at 12 weeks or earlier. Worldwide, fewer than a dozen countries allow abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy on any grounds.

In 1975, two years after Roe was decided, Archibald Cox, Harvard law professor and former U.S. solicitor general under President John F. Kennedy, said in a lecture at Oxford University: “The [Roe v. Wade] opinion fails even to consider what I would suppose to be the most important compelling interest of the State in prohibiting abortion: the interest in maintaining that respect for the paramount sanctity of human life which has always been at the centre of Western civilization.” That interest, although perhaps unintelligible to the likes of [Letitia] James, is important to the broad American majority.

This majority might soon have the dignified task of instructing their elected representatives to codify, state by state, community standards about the onset of personhood. An acorn is not an oak tree; an oak sapling is. The burden of intelligence, and self-government, is that distinctions must be drawn.

It seems obvious to me there are competing interests involved. This is what policy and politics are about. Weighing competing interests and finding a balance between them.

[striker42]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...le-parameters/


The abortion debate that the Supreme Court’s calendar has ignited is compelling Americans to consider what abortion policy ought to be but first to recognize what the United States’ policy is: an extreme outlier. In 39 of the 42 European nations that permit elective abortions, the basic limit is at 15 weeks of pregnancy or earlier. In 32 of the 39, the limit is at 12 weeks or earlier. Worldwide, fewer than a dozen countries allow abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy on any grounds.

In 1975, two years after Roe was decided, Archibald Cox, Harvard law professor and former U.S. solicitor general under President John F. Kennedy, said in a lecture at Oxford University: “The [Roe v. Wade] opinion fails even to consider what I would suppose to be the most important compelling interest of the State in prohibiting abortion: the interest in maintaining that respect for the paramount sanctity of human life which has always been at the centre of Western civilization.” That interest, although perhaps unintelligible to the likes of [Letitia] James, is important to the broad American majority.

This majority might soon have the dignified task of instructing their elected representatives to codify, state by state, community standards about the onset of personhood. An acorn is not an oak tree; an oak sapling is. The burden of intelligence, and self-government, is that distinctions must be drawn.

I found that analogy amusing. It hints at the true difficulty of the abortion debate. When does personhood begin?

Few would argue that an egg or a sperm is a person. Is a fertilized egg a person? It has a unique human genetic code and could easily grow into something everyone would consider a person? But if it is a person, what happens if it doesn't implant? Are we flushing bodies down the toilet? What about the line when implantation occurs? But what if it's an ectopic pregnancy? What about the line when the fetus gains a heartbeat? Or can move on its own? Or can feel pain? Or develops reflexes? etc.

Why stop in utero? Is a baby a person or does it not become a person until it gains self awareness? Is a severely mentally disabled adult a person?

You can even go to the other end and start arguing about when a person stops being a person. Is it upon the heart stopping? Brain death? A doctor pronouncing them dead? Would someone in a vegetative state still be a person?

The problem is that we're dealing with human created definitions and these things always get a little fuzzy around the edges. To go back to the oak analogy, what makes something an oak tree? Does an acorn become an oak tree when it germinates? Is a sprout an oak tree? Does it become an oak tree when the sprout breaks through the surface? Does it have to develop into a sapling with grayish bark and a woody interior before it becomes an oak tree?

People like to act like they know the absolute truth and all other beliefs are silly. All I ask is for people to think about the issue, examine their belief, and decide what they truly believe and not what they've been told to believe.

[cajunrevenge]

I dont like or support abortion but I also dont support a slim majority or in this case the vast minority from using violence to enforce their version of morality. Nothing should be illegal that 2/3rds of us cant agree should be illegal.

[Jaw]

If 2/3 of us believe that abortion on demand should be legal then it should be relatively easy for the single party that uses that in their platform to gain power and make it always legal.

All they need to do is make it front and center in their campaigns (they certainly do,) and not be beyond distasteful in their other policies.

So tell me, are you concerned that 2/3 of us don't really want abortion on demand, or that the Democratic party is so distasteful otherwise that people still won't vote for them?

Are you aware that the polling actually shows that a majority believe abortion should not be available after the first trimester, or available on demand? Are you aware that our policy currently allows abortion later than 39 of 42 European countries? If not, why not?

[cajunrevenge]

We dont vote on single issues. If we did marijuana would have been legalized many years ago. There is no doubt there are a significant amount of Republicans voters who support abortion. How many would switch over or just stay home because of this I guess we will find out.



Democrats already hold a significant majority in the country. Big enough that it's almost inconceivable that Republicans would actually win the popular vote in a Presidential election. They have done so once in the last 30 years and the gap is widening. A supreme court where 1/3rd are appointed by a President who has never even got 47% of the vote overturning rights repeatedly confirmed for 50 years is not a good thing. It's the exact opposite of how the system was supposed to work.



The mid terms and 2024 will show us how popular or unpopular abortion is. If Republicans fail to win either side of Congress or the Presedential election it will no doubt be because of this.

[cajunrevenge]

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/202...tate-abortions


The games have started which shows why radically different laws on abortion between states is ridiculous. Texas Republicans are threatening businesses that cover the costs to get an abortion in another state. The legality of trying to trap a pregnant woman in a state to prevent them from doing something legal in that state will be an interesting court battle.

[Tapate50]

I highly doubt that

[mqt]

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...es/9900209002/

In a direct blow to prisoners who are hoping to get federal courts to hear their innocence, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday voted in favor of Arizona, which argued that federal judges can't determine guilt of people for state crimes — even if there is proof of innocence.

In a 6-3 super-majority ruling, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing the majority’s opinion for the case, Shinn v. Ramirez, he described that the federal courts should only act as a review of state procedures, and whether or not they acted correctly when finding someone guilty. He said the court's lower rulings violated state sovereignty.

This is the **** that really bothers me. I don’t give a single **** if state sovereignty is violated in death row cases. Any step taken that makes it easier for the state to murder an innocent person is morally repugnant. Instead of decrying a lack of gun control as GOP “Pro-life” hypocrisy, maybe there should be more interest in things like this where SCOTUS is actively implementing barriers to stopping the state from killing people.

I anticipate several procedural points to be offered as justification for the ruling, and I just don’t care. The state shouldn’t decide if someone is worthy of living in the first place, and I oppose any ruling that takes away an avenue to appeal a death sentence.

[striker42]

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...es/9900209002/




This is the **** that really bothers me. I don’t give a single **** if state sovereignty is violated in death row cases. Any step taken that makes it easier for the state to murder an innocent person is morally repugnant. Instead of decrying a lack of gun control as GOP “Pro-life” hypocrisy, maybe there should be more interest in things like this where SCOTUS is actively implementing barriers to stopping the state from killing people.

I anticipate several procedural points to be offered as justification for the ruling, and I just don’t care. The state shouldn’t decide if someone is worthy of living in the first place, and I oppose any ruling that takes away an avenue to appeal a death sentence.

That article contains a very poor explanation of the case. It was a case trying to reconcile a federal statute preventing evidentiary hearings in federal court when a defendant hasn't developed a factual basis at the state court level, with a holding from another case allowing defendants to raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims for the first time in post-conviction proceedings.

I think the court got it wrong here as ineffective assistance of counsel can lead to failure to develop a factual basis at the state court level thus putting the defendant in a bit of a catch 22. They have no idea and often no ability to investigate evidence on their own that could be raised at the state level and so would subject themselves to not being able to bring it in federal court but if they get counsel and that counsel is ineffective then they still fail to develop the factual basis and so still can't raise the new evidence at the federal level.

It's actually a very tricky case and I'm probably not doing it justice. I just wanted to point out that it was about reconciling a statute and a very narrow exception. It wasn't saying that federal judges can't determine guild of people for state crimes.

[mqt]

That article contains a very poor explanation of the case. It was a case trying to reconcile a federal statute preventing evidentiary hearings in federal court when a defendant hasn't developed a factual basis at the state court level, with a holding from another case allowing defendants to raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims for the first time in post-conviction proceedings.

I think the court got it wrong here as ineffective assistance of counsel can lead to failure to develop a factual basis at the state court level thus putting the defendant in a bit of a catch 22. They have no idea and often no ability to investigate evidence on their own that could be raised at the state level and so would subject themselves to not being able to bring it in federal court but if they get counsel and that counsel is ineffective then they still fail to develop the factual basis and so still can't raise the new evidence at the federal level.

It's actually a very tricky case and I'm probably not doing it justice. I just wanted to point out that it was about reconciling a statute and a very narrow exception. It wasn't saying that federal judges can't determine guild of people for state crimes.

Thank you for the more thorough explanation. It doesn’t change my overall perception of the ruling much, as I am still very much in favor of more rights for the accused than less, even if it’s a narrow set of circumstances.

[Krgrecw]

A man in Texas has been charged with the capital murder of his girlfriend and their unborn baby girl, after he allegedly told police that “rough sex” was the cause of the expectant mother’s death.




How can this piece of **** be charged with capital murder of an unborn baby girl, yet abortion be perfectly legal? It’s either ‘murder’ or not. You can have it both ways.

[thethe]

A man in Texas has been charged with the capital murder of his girlfriend and their unborn baby girl, after he allegedly told police that “rough sex” was the cause of the expectant mother’s death.




How can this piece of **** be charged with capital murder of an unborn baby girl, yet abortion be perfectly legal? It’s either ‘murder’ or not. You can have it both ways.

People that kill children should be tortured publicly

[goldfly]

yet abortion be perfectly legal? You can have it both ways.

glad you have finally figured it out

welcome

[goldfly]

[sturg33]

man imagining suing people for the right to kill your kids

[thethe]

man imagining suing people for the right to kill your kids

Its a new age Synagogue of course. THe type of Jew that votes Democrats and loves the squad.

[goldfly]

man imagining suing people for the right to kill your kids

Hmm, do you have a link to back such a story up?

That’s wild if that is happening somewhere

[sturg33]

if you ever find a woman willing to marry you and bring your child into the world, your perspective might change.

but until then, the wifeless childless losers continue to cheer on the destruction of anything worthwhile in the world.

enjoy your next pride parade

[goldfly]

if you ever find a woman willing to marry you and bring your child into the world, your perspective might change.

but until then, the wifeless childless losers continue to cheer on the destruction of anything worthwhile in the world.

enjoy your next pride parade

So, that’s a lot of crazy jibberish that doesn’t provide a link to your statement insinuating that there are people suing to kill their children

Weird

I’m shocked

But yeah, thanks for more evidence that you should be taken seriously and aren’t anything but a pathetically bad troll lol