Legal/scotus thread

cajunrevenge said:
Wow are we really doing Roe v Wade yet again? I would consider myself Pro-life but theres no putting this cat back in the bag. Best case scenario for Republicans they win big in this case but its reversed as soon as they lose the majority in the court. Then everyone prosecuted under unconsitutional laws is set free but the damage is still done. Who compensates the victims who were prosecuted under unconsitutional laws that we all knew at the time would eventually be ruled unconstitutional.


Also, and I will bring this up in any abortion debate. How can the right to privacy of ones body, the right cited for abortion, not apply to me smoking a joint. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...


The best scenario for the pro-life side is probably not a full repeal of Roe, and I think that middle ground is where Roberts will steer this. He's a fan of incrementalism and seems to have a long game view of this stuff.

They can use Casey's undue burden ruling along with the much earlier cutoffs of basically all of Europe to rule that the 15 week line Mississippi has drawn is reasonable.

In a year or two, once the lesser anger that ruling causes has died off, another case would come to them with an even earlier cutoff. That would allow them to rule the undue burden clause to be overly arbitrary (it is) and toss both Roe and Casey as irreconcilable precedents.

Then it would all be up to the individual states, as it always should have been, and the danger of Democrats immediately using 50 Senators and Kamala to kill the filibuster and pack the Court in retaliation will have passed.
 
msstate7 said:
Mississippi produces great lawyers like Rudy Baylor, jake Brigance, and Lucien wilbanks. We've also produced a great divorce attorney, Harry Rex vonner
Click to expand...

My joke fell flat, or you guys don't recognize great characters in John Grisham novels haha
 
msstate7 said:
My joke fell flat, or you guys don't recognize great characters in John Grisham novels haha
Click to expand...

Being an attorney has ruined most pop culture legal things for me. Things like Law and Order and John Grisham novels grate against me when they sacrifice legal correctness for plot.
 
Tapate50 said:
Probably read half of the LLA books in my childhood.
Click to expand...

They're simple, formulaic, incredibly descriptive old friends at this point. I realized years ago that they definitely helped form my senses of manhood and morality.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Its not a right of privacy its a right to abortion. If we had the right to privacy of our own body I could smoke a joint in my own home legally.
Click to expand...

You've landed on what is, for me, the single best argument against the legality of marijuana laws in the US.

If you have a right to an abortion because of your right to privacy and autonomy over your own body, then you should have the right to smoke a joint in your home. The same reasoning applies.

It gets even more interesting. People generally aren't charged with smoking marijuana or being high, they're charged with possession of marijuana. If it was the act of smoking it or being high, you start running into other issues. However, by that logic states should be able to outlaw possession of abortion equipment by doctors. The reason they can't is because of the undue burden test in the Casey case.

However, if we bring that logic back the other way, outlawing possession of marijuana is an undue burden on your right to privacy and/or autonomy over your body.

What we come to now is whether the government has an interest in regulating the possession of marijuana. As we see in abortion cases, the right to an abortion is not absolute. The weight of privacy rights is eventually outweighed by the government's interest in protecting the fetus. This line is generally viability.

So the question is whether the government's interest in regulating marijuana outweighs your right to privacy/autonomy. For hard drugs like cocaine or heroin I would absolutely say it does. There are societal harms there. It's a harder case to make for weed though. However, courts generally aren't terribly accommodating to the side of drugs so they tend to take any pretense as valid.
 
Huh. It's weird that the pilot in the Ghislaine Maxwell case remembered flying Spacey and Tucker on Epstein's plane, but didn't mention the other, far more famous guy shown here when he was testifying.
[tw]1466665658238713856[/tw]
 
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-california-sanctuary-625a118108bcda253196697c83548d5b


California plans to be a sanctuary state for people in states that criminalize abortion. And this is why I think outlawing it is silly. Red states response will be interesting. What are they gonna do? Checkpoint at the border for pregnant women? Women in trunks trying to sneak over the border? Arrest women based on "suspicion" they might get an abortion and lock them in a cage till they give birth? Interrogating women who have a miscarriage?
 
Dems put activists on the court... This is why they get away with either tyranny, and is why they are so upset they have lost their activist majority.

This is shameful lack of knowledge

[Tw]1479500787583758346[/tw]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
sturg33 said:
Dems put activists on the court... This is why they get away with either tyranny, and is why they are so upset they have lost their activist majority.

This is shameful lack of knowledge

[Tw]1479500787583758346[/tw]
Click to expand...

This is what happens when you worry about equity more than merit...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
sturg33 said:
Dems put activists on the court... This is why they get away with either tyranny, and is why they are so upset they have lost their activist majority.

This is shameful lack of knowledge

[Tw]1479500787583758346[/tw]
Click to expand...

Her calling OSHA's power a police power is an absolute travesty. Her law school should take her JD away. OSHA derives its power from the commerce clause. The commerce clause IS NOT federal police powers. That is well, well settled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
striker42 said:
Her calling OSHA's power a police power is an absolute travesty. Her law school should take her JD away. OSHA derives its power from the commerce clause. The commerce clause IS NOT federal police powers. That is well, well settled.
Click to expand...

She is aware. But she is an activist. And it's why the Dems are so desperate to expand the court. Activists are necessary for the tyrannical takeover happening
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
I do think there needs to be ways to hold judges more accountable for BS. In particular things like civil asset forfeiture and stop and frisk are laughably unconstitutional. Judges, who are 99% former prosecutors, give our rights away all while being the most protected class in America.
 
cajunrevenge said:
I do think there needs to be ways to hold judges more accountable for BS. In particular things like civil asset forfeiture and stop and frisk are laughably unconstitutional. Judges, who are 99% former prosecutors, give our rights away all while being the most protected class in America.
Click to expand...

If Congress had its act together it would be an amazing check on the judiciary. I'm not even talking about increasing the number of justices or anything like that. A ton of what the SCOTUS does can be undone by statute. What can't be could be undone by constitutional amendment. But Congress is broken and so the judiciary becomes a super legislature in Congress' absence.
 
sturg33 said:
She is aware. But she is an activist. And it's why the Dems are so desperate to expand the court. Activists are necessary for the tyrannical takeover happening
Click to expand...

The party in control always rushes to fill openings with so-called activists. Sotomayor is a parallel to Thomas and Alito.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top