SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Beet]

The reality is, all court decisions are judges "making up stuff". If it wasn't, there would be no need for judges, since the Constitution would be self-explanatory and the text itself would simply resolve all disputes. But of course, a document written 235 years ago cannot possibly account for the life and times of a country of 330 million people today. Yes, there's an amendment process, but it's far too unwieldy as replacing judicial review with amendments would result in possibly passing a new amendment for every court dispute touching on a constitutional issue (or potentially, thousands of amendments at the last, depending on how much leeway you want to give to judges, which is again, not a clear or easy matter). Thus, as a matter of practicality, judges have progressively built upon a body of common law that sits on top of the Constitution, in line with the tradition of English common law.

Thus, the notion of "I read the constitution and there's no guarantee of abortion/gay rights/interracial marriage/one man one vote, etc." is from this view nonsensical, as you would also have to reference common law precedent, which does now speak to these issues.

How does it speak to these issues? The how, in modern times, does largely depend on politics. Judges have political opinions, and although they may hide them for political reasons (especially during confirmation hearing) they still allow them great and perhaps decisive influence over their decisions. This is merely a result of being human. Thus the judicial branch is largely a political branch, whether you like it or not. Admitting that it is political does not necessarily mean that it is illegitimate; it is as legitimate as the other branches, which are also political. It just means that the notion that one side is "objectively right" or that there is some kind of "objectively right" way to interpret the Constitution totally independent of the social and political conditions of the time is an illusion.

[Beet]

Michigan board blocks certification of abortion rights ballot measure, throwing it to the courts

The Michigan Board of State Canvassers on Wednesday deadlocked 2-2 along partisan lines on whether a sweeping abortion-rights amendment can be included on the November ballot, blocking certification of the measure.

Both of the board’s Republicans voted against approving the ballot initiative, while both Democrats voted for it.

The bipartisan panel’s vote comes after abortion-rights activists spent several months gathering more than 750,000 signatures from all 83 counties in the state — far exceeding the roughly 425,000 required to qualify.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/31/michigan-abortion-ballot-measure-00054406

Well, there goes 50 years of rhetoric about "letting the people decide". It seems the Republicans prefer judicial activism after all.

[Beet]

Call this a part of a campaign to slowly but surely chip away at abortion rights until it becomes entirely illegal, but this proposal is pretty moderate and maybe even to the left of the median voter.

That would only be true if it was coupled with a federal abortion rights guarantee under 15 weeks.

I've long said that in the new situation, that's the position the federal Democrats should take.

[Beet]

Was in D.C. the other day seeing some women holding up protest signs and one of them was like "We are NEVER going back."

I thought, "Ah, but we have already gone back, my friend."

Dobbs has shattered something that cannot be regained. A notion which, at least since the 1960s, but perhaps since the abolitionist movement of the early 19th century, has reigned in Western culture -- the notion that social history is a linear process of progress, whereby rights are continually expanded. In my view, that, is one of the most important legacies of Dobbs. It shows that social regression is in fact possible.

A historic "first" has occurred, but not the kind social liberals often celebrate. Rather, for the first time, a major social right that was once considered settled has been taken away. No matter how many rights you think you have as a woman, as a minority, as a gay, as any kind of minority, it can be taken away again.

The only group that rights cannot be taken away from are white men. Anything else, and your rights in the West will always be up for debate -- perpetually up for debate. You cannot sleep soundly. That is the real difference between social classes.