A few random thoughts.
- As a moral matter, it would be nicer to have a national decision on abortion. As a political / constitutional matter, there doesn’t seem to be any reasonable dispute that this should be decided at the state level.
- The U.S. is among the most radical in the world when it comes to abortion laws. We keep company with the Chinese and the North Koreans in our very permissive rules. In arguing its recent case, Mississippi said, “fully 75% of all nations do not permit abortion after 12 weeks’ gestation, except (in most instances) to save the life and to preserve the physical health of the mother.”
- There is a distinction between (1) a policy objective (e.g., ensuring women have access to abortion), and (2) the means you use to get there (e.g., creating a federal rule on something that ought to be decided by the states). While everybody takes a “whatever it takes” approach from time to time, Jonathan Haidt argues the political left is more likely to break rules to achieve a policy objective. My observation of the political scene generally agrees with that. Consequently, I’m not all that shocked that someone at the court leaked this alleged decision, and I think the odds are good it was a liberal who did it.
- My prediction: Chief Justice Roberts will find a way to cave to the liberals. I don’t know precisely how, but I’m fairly sure he’ll find a way.
QUOTE: As a moral matter, it would be nicer to have a national decision on abortion.
Agreed! If not, people will find a way to buck the system…crossing state lines, etc. Given the criticality of this matter, you would think partisanship would be put aside for the sake of what’s best for the country. Yet, I don’t have ANY hope that’s going to happen.
QUOTE: While everybody takes a “whatever it takes” approach from time to time, Jonathan Haidt argues the political left is more likely to break rules to achieve a policy objective. My observation of the political scene generally agrees with that. Consequently, I’m not all that shocked that someone at the court leaked this alleged decision, and I think the odds are good it was a liberal who did it.
My observation is that both sides do whatever it takes CONSISTENTLY. Given what we’ve seen in history…it wouldn’t surprise me if it was a conservative or liberal. Obviously, it would be done for different reasons, but both are equally capable of such a move.
Watergate, January 6 Capitol riot, Edgar J. Hoover’s corruption, McConnell/Graham SCOTUS nomination bait and switch, Joseph McCarthy’s demagoguery, Kevin McCarthy’s audio recordings (liar, liar), Trump’s incessant lies, Justice Thomas’ wife’s questionable text messages to POTUS Chief-of-Staff, Sarah Huckabee Sanders (as White House press secretary) blatant lies to US citizens and so many other examples give me ample cause to believe this leak could have been done by a conservative. Of course, the same goes for liberals.
Without clear evidence, it’s somewhat fruitless and silly to try to assign blame at this point…especially since history is replete with examples of both sides being caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
My prediction: Chief Justice Roberts will find a way to cave to the liberals. I don’t know precisely how, but I’m fairly sure he’ll find a way.
If Justice Roberts agrees with the liberals…would that be wrong? I understood the SCOTUS was there to judge laws/rulings based on their constitutionality…not political affiliation. Even Justice Barrett (Hero of Liberty) once indicated, “judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties.” Does agreeing with the liberals automatically presuppose Justice Robert’s perspectives are invalid or unconstitutional? Why would agreeing with liberals constitute “caving” to them?
As a rule of thumb, “agreeing with liberals” is usually wrong.
Is that to say that “agreeing with conservatives” is usually right? If so, on what basis?
Agreeing with conservatives would usually be right for the simple reason that “conservative” (in its proper sense) means preserving what’s already been agreed to. Generally speaking, what’s already been agreed and established is more likely to be true than what’s novel and experimental. Hence it is better, as a general rule, to agree more often with conservatives. (Properly understood.)
Unfortunately, we don’t use “conservative” that way very much. Also, what’s agreed and established is not always true, which is why we need new ideas — even though new ideas are very likely to be wrong.
QUOTE :Agreeing with conservatives would usually be right for the simple reason that “conservative” (in its proper sense) means preserving what’s already been agreed to.
Even in it’s proper sense, what has been agreed to hasn’t always right nor appropriate. There’s an exhaustive list of examples of that in our country’s history. So, I reject that notion.
QUOTE: Unfortunately, we don’t use “conservative” that way very much.
It certainly doesn’t mean that when it comes to today’s hyper-partisan culture and how it gets applied to the court.
The thing modern so-called conservatives miss is that the goal of conservatism is not to prevent progress, but it is to make sure progress doesn’t move too fast.
But with Barrett, Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh, they don’t need Roberts, right?
Yes, but if it’s a 5-4 decision, the argument will be this was only possible because of political shenanigans to rush a conservative onto the bench. A 6-3 decision would say “it would have gone this way anyway.”
That makes sense.
First, wasn’t that the motivation for McConnell/Graham “rigging” the Justice nomination process and conservatives only confirming those with very conservative ideologies? Seems the rule of thumb is merely “agreeing” liberals is “usually wrong” (regardless of the law and constitution).
Second, I find it interesting that now there’s a conservative majority on the Court, it’s okay to discuss them in “political” terms. Yet, liberal justices have been held to the standard of ALWAYS being non-political (which should go for ALL justices).
Third, since we are in a politically charged culture and that’s not likely to change, it would be ideal if the court consisted of liberals, centrists and conservatives. In that way, when there is a clearly majority on a ruling, it could be said that it would have gone this way anyway, not because political court stacking.
On the question of overturning long-established precedent, Plessy v. Ferguson was decided in 1896. It established “separate but equal.” It was overturned by Brown v Board of Education in 1954 — 58 years later.
QUOTE: On the question of overturning long-established precedent, Plessy v. Ferguson was decided in 1896. It established “separate but equal.” It was overturned by Brown v Board of Education in 1954 — 58 years later.
This is a clear example of what I was referencing when I said…“…what has been agreed to hasn’t always been right nor appropriate.”
As well, that’s why I indicated in a different thread that “controlled” ping-ponging is a necessary evil within our system. Without the ability to make change (when what has been agreed to is found to be inappropriate), the country would be stuck . Yet, the question is how to limit ping-ponging so that it doesn’t enable dysfunction and encourage games that are played to curry political favor.
Yes, it’s hard to create a fixed rule. We don’t want things to change too quickly, or without good reason, but we don’t want to be stuck with stupid decisions. I’m not sure you can be much more specific than that.