SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Adam Griffin]

At some point we need to start ignoring the courts.

What exactly does "ignoring the courts" entail here?

Arguing that Marbury v. Madison/judicial review was an invalid and unconstitutional ruling/concept; that the Supreme Court is an advisory body; and adopting the paraphrased spirit of Andrew Jackson (and Jefferson before him): ("[The court] has made [its] decision; now let [them] enforce it").

As Matt Bruenig argues at the People's Policy Project, it would be quite easy in practical terms to get rid of judicial review: "All the president has to do is assert that Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality are merely advisory and non-binding, that Marbury (1803) was wrongly decided, and that the constitutional document says absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court having this power." So, for instance, if Congress were to pass some law expanding Medicare, and the reactionaries on the court say it's unconstitutional because Cthulhu fhtagn, the president would say "no, I am trusting Congress on this one, and I will continue to operate the program as instructed."

[Adam Griffin]

At some point we need to start ignoring the courts.

What exactly does "ignoring the courts" entail here?

Arguing that Marbury v. Madison/judicial review was an invalid and unconstitutional ruling/concept; that the Supreme Court is an advisory body; and adopting the paraphrased spirit of Andrew Jackson ("[The court] has made [its] decision; now let [them] enforce it").

As Matt Bruenig argues at the People's Policy Project, it would be quite easy in practical terms to get rid of judicial review: "All the president has to do is assert that Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality are merely advisory and non-binding, that Marbury (1803) was wrongly decided, and that the constitutional document says absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court having this power." So, for instance, if Congress were to pass some law expanding Medicare, and the reactionaries on the court say it's unconstitutional because Cthulhu fhtagn, the president would say "no, I am trusting Congress on this one, and I will continue to operate the program as instructed."

I get that, but Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court ruling to begin with. What exactly could Biden or Democrats do that would prevent red states from banning abortion?

(Pass a law that makes abortion legal everywhere I guess, but that requires Manchin agreeing to get rid of the filibuster, and it's not really the same as "ignoring the courts".)

Yes, this is a much larger issue of course. Perhaps one of the only reasons why liberals even still care for the court is because of a handful of relatively recent rulings like Roe v. Wade. But after a certain point - if people don't want these kinds of things to continue happening - the trajectory is rather clear. The Warren Court was a blip on the radar of 200 years of anti-democratic, regressive behavior. Combined with the unprecedented partisan and political polarization in today's America, the court is (and always has been) effectively designed in such a manner where if you cannot control it, you must eliminate its influence altogether.

There will continue to be many more rulings such as these in the coming years I am sure - many of which will be against concepts not established by previous iterations of the court.

[Adam Griffin]

At some point we need to start ignoring the courts.

What exactly does "ignoring the courts" entail here?

Arguing that Marbury v. Madison/judicial review was an invalid and unconstitutional ruling/concept; that the Supreme Court is an advisory body; and adopting the paraphrased spirit of Andrew Jackson (and Jefferson before him): ("[The court] has made [its] decision; now let [them] enforce it").

As Matt Bruenig argues at the People's Policy Project, it would be quite easy in practical terms to get rid of judicial review: "All the president has to do is assert that Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality are merely advisory and non-binding, that Marbury (1803) was wrongly decided, and that the constitutional document says absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court having this power." So, for instance, if Congress were to pass some law expanding Medicare, and the reactionaries on the court say it's unconstitutional because Cthulhu fhtagn, the president would say "no, I am trusting Congress on this one, and I will continue to operate the program as instructed."

And what if the red state governors were just to ignore the Courts? Have the state police shutter any building offering abortion services? 'State's rights, make someone stop us.' The US military is sent in?

Or better yet, if red state governors have the courts on their side and ignore Biden edicts, as the situation is likely to exist. Is the military still supposed to enforce that?

The messiness is real, of course. This is a recurring pattern: "what happens if one side decides to invalidate the courts?", "what happens if the filibuster is abolished?", etc. Increasingly, it is the status quo party (Democrats) that argue these concerns. After all, "MUH WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE RIGHT CONTROLS GOVERNMENT?" etc. Elections should have real consequences - and in the absence of being able to realize them electorally due to various machinations, the politicians should face them via more overt means.

Compared to virtually every other legitimate democratic republic/representative democracy in the world, the US is an anachronistic monolith frozen in time, with no real consequences for elections and no ability to change its governing procedures. Maybe this was a beneficial concept in its early days, but the fact that basically every other developed nation has rewritten its governing documents multiple times and can actually respond to a changing world has left the US in the dust.

I'd also argue that the fact that so many Americans from across the aisle have lost confidence in the government to do what's right, act in their best interests or solve any problem is directly a result of this mindset. When it takes 75% of states to ratify even a minor change to the Constitution or 60% of one body of one branch of government to even pass statute, it's no surprise that so many feel that "both parties are the same" or that "government doesn't matter". Of course, this is a wet dream and intended outcome for the right (as they've never relied upon confidence in government in the modern era), so why should anybody else buy into it?

Let elections actually have consequences. Grease the slippery slope. Maybe we'll have a terrible revolution or breakthrough in enlightenment; either way, this nation is doomed if it remains on its current trajectory. Time to let the fault lines crack. Change is growth and vice-versa.

[Adam Griffin]

To keep with the emerging theme of others' posts here, I'll also make another argument against the existence of the court in present day: when was the last time any landmark policy (left or right, that was reliant upon one of them alone) got implemented in this country?

It's pretty easy for anybody left-of-center to answer this: 1968. CRA, VRA, FHA, etc: that's the last time any transformative policy actually passed via elected branches of government. Everything else has either been bipartisan in spirit (ACA) or actuality ("welfare reform"), or done by the courts. It's a scapegoat, and it's pretty sad when a regressive institution is still more proactive on social and cultural matters than the combined elected body of the so-called greatest representative democracy on the planet. I posit it's because we're reliant upon some arcane body to either protect these rights or advance them, rather than making the electeds actually act.

Elected government hasn't done a damn thing transformative for society or the economy (without it benefiting the rich) in 60 years. Make them.

[Adam Griffin]

To keep with the emerging theme of others' posts here, I'll also make another argument against the existence of the court in present day: when was the last time any landmark policy (left or right, that was reliant upon one of them alone) got implemented in this country?

It's pretty easy for anybody left-of-center to answer this: 1968. CRA, VRA, FHA, etc: that's the last time any transformative policy actually passed via elected branches of government. Everything else has either been bipartisan in spirit (ACA) or actuality ("welfare reform"), or done by the courts. It's a scapegoat, and it's pretty sad when a regressive institution is still more proactive on social and cultural matters than the combined elected body of the so-called greatest representative democracy on the planet. I posit it's because we're reliant upon some arcane body to either protect these rights or advance them, rather than making the electeds actually act.

Elected government hasn't done a damn thing transformative for society or the economy (without it benefiting the rich) in 60 years. Make them.

1986 probably saw the most sweeping tax reform in history pass from a bipartisan process .

Read my post again.

[Adam Griffin]

To keep with the emerging theme of others' posts here, I'll also make another argument against the existence of the court in present day: when was the last time any landmark policy (left or right, that was reliant upon one of them alone) got implemented in this country?

It's pretty easy for anybody left-of-center to answer this: 1968. CRA, VRA, FHA, etc: that's the last time any transformative policy actually passed via elected branches of government. Everything else has either been bipartisan in spirit (ACA) or actuality ("welfare reform"), or done by the courts. It's a scapegoat, and it's pretty sad when a regressive institution is still more proactive on social and cultural matters than the combined elected body of the so-called greatest representative democracy on the planet. I posit it's because we're reliant upon some arcane body to either protect these rights or advance them, rather than making the electeds actually act.

Elected government hasn't done a damn thing transformative for society or the economy (without it benefiting the rich) in 60 years. Make them.

1986 probably saw the most sweeping tax reform in history pass from a bipartisan process .

Read my post again.

The 1986 tax reform :

- Raised capital gain rates

- Curtailed Depreciation Deductions

- Made AMT Rules much more strict

-  Eliminated many tax shelters

- Passive Investors we’re not able to deduct real estate losses to offset taxable income

Most of that s[inks]t didn't pertain to how real wealthy people (i.e. not cracked-out, nouveau riche Wall Street goons) were making their money at the time - not to mention that virtually none of that added up to the 40-percent top-bracket reduction the wealthy saw under the program - but you still haven't read the entirety of what I wrote and you're still making an argument for a policy change that doesn't apply.

[Adam Griffin]

does the united states constitution as it is currently written provide for a right to an abortion?

Spoiler alert: the answer is "no" for almost anything and everything the judicial branch has ruled on since unconstitutional judicial review became a thing over 200 years ago. Jefferson and Jackson were right, and the Democratic Party was wrong for renaming its main annual fundraising dinners (even if I played a role at a local level!) if only because of this one poignant issue.

[Adam Griffin]

Can France and the UK take the Northeast back under their control, please? I think independence was a mistake.

Hell, just take the Original 13: 56-44. #WelcomeBackLabour

[Adam Griffin]

All Democrats (especially at the state level) have to do is start yelling "Marbury v. Madison" and/or "judicial review" - or what? Is the Supreme Court going to send in its army?

This country has been on Terri Schiavo levels of life support for the past 40 years. Let's just get it over with now. Who's going to win, after all: the tightly-clustered and defensible population centers allied with multinational corporations who actually own most of the land, food, water and utility operations alongside the educated people who actually fly the drones, turn the keys and drop the bombs, or....the rubes whose Walmarts, pharmacies, utilities and grocery stores can be red-zoned, along with those who spent 20 weeks in basic/AIT and/or can shoot at planes with 1% accuracy?

[Adam Griffin]

I've heard this from you already.  We agree on some subjects, but not this one.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction."
Proverbs 1:7, KJV.  The word "fool" has a powerful meaning in Scripture, implying someone who is both unreasonable and unteachable.  If people are beginning to think that maybe they're not on God's Side on this issue, that is all to the good.  I hope their discomfort grows to the point to where they cry out to God, who is lovingly waiting for them to come.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

"The fear of the LORD" here refers to Trump, just in case you missed it.

[Adam Griffin]

All Democrats (especially at the state level) have to do is start yelling "Marbury v. Madison" and/or "judicial review" - or what? Is the Supreme Court going to send in its army?

This country has been on Terri Schiavo levels of life support for the past 40 years. Let's just get it over with now. Who's going to win, after all: the tightly-clustered and defensible population centers allied with multinational corporations who actually own most of the land, food, water and utility operations alongside the educated people who actually fly the drones, turn the keys and drop the bombs, or....the rubes whose Walmarts, pharmacies, utilities and grocery stores can be red-zoned, along with those who spent 20 weeks in basic/AIT and/or can shoot at planes with 1% accuracy?

Kudos to whomever reported this. And we're supposedly the snowflakes!

[Adam Griffin]

As if they don't seemingly realize it's disproportionately going to be a bunch of unwanted non-white babies popping out going forward

[Adam Griffin]

https://twitter.com/YouGovAmerica/status/1540830563073986560?cxt=HHwWgMC4sfjOkOI...

It's going to be very sad when Senator Dick's Sporting Goods (D-PA) loses re-election in November!

[Adam Griffin]

Truly amazing to watch all the fundies twist themselves into knots trying to explain how conception and life are completely connected, and that ending a pregnancy is murder.

After all, mass studies of hormonal levels and chemicals in women of child-bearing age shows that 40% of conceptions end in miscarriage, and the vast, vast majority of those happen prior to 8 weeks - before a woman even knows she's pregnant. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" - and yet God snuffed out that life before any living being or doctor was aware of your existence. No "tests, trials or tribulations" to be had or learned from in this case.

If you believe life begins at conception, then you must also reconcile the scientific reality that God murders fully over one-third of the human race before anybody is even aware of their existence for reasons unknown (Blood sacrifice? Maybe that's how he remains omnipotent! #Adrenochrome #Groomer). Apparently only God gets to slaughter babies!

[Adam Griffin]

Truly amazing to watch all the fundies twist themselves into knots trying to explain how conception and life are completely connected, and that ending a pregnancy is murder.

After all, mass studies of hormonal levels and chemicals in women of child-bearing age shows that 40% of conceptions end in miscarriage, and the vast, vast majority of those happen prior to 8 weeks - before a woman even knows she's pregnant. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" - and yet God snuffed out that life before any living being or doctor was aware of your existence. No "tests, trials or tribulations" to be had or learned from in this case.

If you believe life begins at conception, then you must also reconcile the scientific reality that God murders fully over one-third of the human race before anybody is even aware of their existence for reasons unknown (Blood sacrifice? Maybe that's how he remains omnipotent! #Adrenochrome #Groomer). Apparently only God gets to slaughter babies!

Yeah it's a really bizarre cognitive dissonance. If pregnancy is a 'gift from god' then is a miscarriage a punishment?

Really hard to define something as a punishment when the majority of people affected never even know they've been punished. No lesson to learn from or tribulation to overcome, etc. Blood sacrifice or rich, uptight men making the whole thing up are the two most logical explanations.