Mississippi Abortion Ban Case to be Heard December 1 by Supreme Court
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:22:59 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Mississippi Abortion Ban Case to be Heard December 1 by Supreme Court
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Author Topic: Mississippi Abortion Ban Case to be Heard December 1 by Supreme Court  (Read 5896 times)
Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins
johnzaharoff
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 925


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: December 01, 2021, 10:03:07 PM »

Listing to the arguments it sounded like a 6-3 in favor of Mississippi. Roberts seemed to want to find a more narrow ruling than the other Justices. I see him assigning the opinion to himself or to a justice he has convinced to write a narrower opinion. He might fail to keep a majority behind his opinion and I could see him writing a sole concurrence in a 5-1-3 case or this case turning into a messy plurality opinion. Hard to see a majority invalidating Mississippi's law
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: December 02, 2021, 12:12:21 PM »

Listing to the arguments it sounded like a 6-3 in favor of Mississippi. Roberts seemed to want to find a more narrow ruling than the other Justices. I see him assigning the opinion to himself or to a justice he has convinced to write a narrower opinion. He might fail to keep a majority behind his opinion and I could see him writing a sole concurrence in a 5-1-3 case or this case turning into a messy plurality opinion. Hard to see a majority invalidating Mississippi's law

The swing vote on Roe is probably Gorsuch.
Logged
NYDem
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,119
United States Minor Outlying Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: December 02, 2021, 01:39:31 PM »
« Edited: December 02, 2021, 03:47:09 PM by NYDem »

For the people who are closer court-watchers than I am: When can we expect a ruling on this case? Is there any sort of expectation beyond "before July"?
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: December 02, 2021, 01:48:54 PM »

Listing to the arguments it sounded like a 6-3 in favor of Mississippi. Roberts seemed to want to find a more narrow ruling than the other Justices. I see him assigning the opinion to himself or to a justice he has convinced to write a narrower opinion. He might fail to keep a majority behind his opinion and I could see him writing a sole concurrence in a 5-1-3 case or this case turning into a messy plurality opinion. Hard to see a majority invalidating Mississippi's law

The swing vote on Roe is probably Gorsuch.

What makes you say that? He might not have as "personally pro-life" a reputation as most of the other conservative justices, but nothing about his jurisprudence suggests he'd be at all open to reaffirming a decision that (from a textualist perspective) goes out on as many limbs as Roe just because it's longstanding precedent. He might be the most "procedurally extremist" current justice despite the relatively nuanced substance of his views.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: December 02, 2021, 01:56:40 PM »

Listing to the arguments it sounded like a 6-3 in favor of Mississippi. Roberts seemed to want to find a more narrow ruling than the other Justices. I see him assigning the opinion to himself or to a justice he has convinced to write a narrower opinion. He might fail to keep a majority behind his opinion and I could see him writing a sole concurrence in a 5-1-3 case or this case turning into a messy plurality opinion. Hard to see a majority invalidating Mississippi's law

The swing vote on Roe is probably Gorsuch.

What makes you say that? He might not have as "personally pro-life" a reputation as most of the other conservative justices, but nothing about his jurisprudence suggests he'd be at all open to reaffirming a decision that (from a textualist perspective) goes out on as many limbs as Roe just because it's longstanding precedent. He might be the most "procedurally extremist" current justice despite the relatively nuanced substance of his views.

Has ever overruled precedent like this when he didn't have a strong interest in the subject matter of the case but I will say that this is the only reason why he might not be a rubberstamp on the opinion that overturns Roe.
Logged
new_patomic
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: December 02, 2021, 02:20:03 PM »

Gorsuch I'm pretty sure, in what limited questioning he had, used his time to argue that the undue burden standard was unworkable and needed to be chucked.

That doesn't exactly scream swing vote to me. If anything it seems to be a shot at Roberts intended compromise.
Logged
I’m not Stu
ERM64man
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,747


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: December 02, 2021, 02:22:03 PM »

Will Roberts end up with just a lonely vote from himself?
Logged
Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins
johnzaharoff
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 925


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: December 02, 2021, 06:36:31 PM »

For the people who are closer court-watchers than I am: When can we expect a ruling on this case? Is there any sort of expectation beyond "before July"?

The big controversial decisions are generally some of the last opinions of the term issued. So I would guess June.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: December 02, 2021, 07:40:46 PM »

Will Roberts end up with just a lonely vote from himself?

I've seen speculation that he might try to craft something baroque enough for Kagan to join it, but I doubt she'd do so unless it would be the controlling precedent, which would presumably require Kavanaugh and/or Barrett to join it too.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: December 03, 2021, 02:08:01 AM »

Listing to the arguments it sounded like a 6-3 in favor of Mississippi. Roberts seemed to want to find a more narrow ruling than the other Justices. I see him assigning the opinion to himself or to a justice he has convinced to write a narrower opinion. He might fail to keep a majority behind his opinion and I could see him writing a sole concurrence in a 5-1-3 case or this case turning into a messy plurality opinion. Hard to see a majority invalidating Mississippi's law

The swing vote on Roe is probably Gorsuch.
What makes you say that? He might not have as "personally pro-life" a reputation as most of the other conservative justices, but nothing about his jurisprudence suggests he'd be at all open to reaffirming a decision that (from a textualist perspective) goes out on as many limbs as Roe just because it's longstanding precedent. He might be the most "procedurally extremist" current justice despite the relatively nuanced substance of his views.

I think there's something there to what he said. Obviously, no one here, myself included, thinks the Mississippi law is going to be struck down. This is all going to come down to whether Roe and Casey over outright overruled or just massively gutted (which is effectively the same as overruling). Gorsuch didn't really tip his hand, but his exchange with the pro-Roe/Casey side seemed to focus on the undue burden standard. He is a bit on an enigma to me, to be honest. I could see him going a number of ways on this, but I would agree that the most likely is that he votes to overrule Roe and Casey.

As has been noted, Roberts appears to want to uphold the law without overruling Roe/Casey outright. He seems willing to uphold the basic liberty of a right to an abortion through his views on stare decisis. I think the most likely way to get there is the elimination of the viability standard, but leave something like the undue burden standard. I'm not sure what the cut-off would be, but it would certainly have to preclude 6-week bans and anything shorter. The ultimate question as to whether this will be an overruling (with Roberts left out of the controlling opinion) or something closer to that potential Roberts view is whether he can get another Justice on board. I think the only options are ether Gorsuch or Barrett. Considering her brief tenure on the Court, she's probably more of an enigma than even Gorsuch.
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: December 09, 2021, 11:23:46 AM »




1. Ignore judicial review
2. Right wing states ignore Roe and ban abortion
3. HuhHuh
4. Right-wing judicial tyranny is gone and leftists rule supreme 

Broke: Overturn Roe v. Wade
Woke: Overturn Marbury v Madison
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: December 09, 2021, 11:32:40 AM »

For the people who are closer court-watchers than I am: When can we expect a ruling on this case? Is there any sort of expectation beyond "before July"?

The big controversial decisions are generally some of the last opinions of the term issued. So I would guess June.

Dumb question: Can the US Supreme Court just sit and not issue opinions indefinitely or must they issue something after a certain deadline? (Asking cause here we've seen tons of judicial decisions get stuck in judicial limbo for very long times. So asking if there is some sort of "judicial filibuster" possible)
Logged
David Hume
davidhume
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,581
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: 1.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: December 09, 2021, 12:57:02 PM »

For the people who are closer court-watchers than I am: When can we expect a ruling on this case? Is there any sort of expectation beyond "before July"?

The big controversial decisions are generally some of the last opinions of the term issued. So I would guess June.

Dumb question: Can the US Supreme Court just sit and not issue opinions indefinitely or must they issue something after a certain deadline? (Asking cause here we've seen tons of judicial decisions get stuck in judicial limbo for very long times. So asking if there is some sort of "judicial filibuster" possible)
Blackmun was notoriously slow in writing opinions, such that CJ needed to keep pressuring him, threatening to assign it to others. So it seems to me this is up to CJ.

Roe itself was in court for a few years. They originally planned to issue the opinion by the seven member court, but changed course later.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: December 11, 2021, 11:55:35 PM »

For the people who are closer court-watchers than I am: When can we expect a ruling on this case? Is there any sort of expectation beyond "before July"?

The big controversial decisions are generally some of the last opinions of the term issued. So I would guess June.

Dumb question: Can the US Supreme Court just sit and not issue opinions indefinitely or must they issue something after a certain deadline? (Asking cause here we've seen tons of judicial decisions get stuck in judicial limbo for very long times. So asking if there is some sort of "judicial filibuster" possible)

In theory, perhaps. However, certainly not in practice. At most, nowadays, something might get kicked to the next term, but that's quite rare. In practice, the Court wants to get everything done before July so they can start their summer break. Apart from the 2019-2020 term, which forced the Court well into July due to the pandemic, this past summer had the first regular July opinions for the first time since 1996 (both of those final opinion days were on July 1).

I would say with nearly absolute certainty that this decision will come down no later than July 1st, 2022. Considering July 1 is a Friday of a holiday weekend next year, it'll be before that.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: December 27, 2021, 02:48:38 PM »
« Edited: December 27, 2021, 02:54:12 PM by PR »

Really disgusting that a handful of extremists are poised to overturn both a fundamental right and the will of the vast majority. But then again, they've been doing that as a matter of routine for many years now.
Logged
(no subject)
Jolly Slugg
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 604
Australia


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: December 28, 2021, 09:57:26 PM »

The notion of what is a “right” is malleable and changes over time.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: January 14, 2022, 11:03:44 PM »

The notion of what is a “right” is malleable and changes over time.

Thank God you're not in charge.
Logged
(no subject)
Jolly Slugg
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 604
Australia


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: January 14, 2022, 11:11:17 PM »

The notion of what is a “right” is malleable and changes over time.

Thank God you're not in charge.

It's accurate. For example, until the 1950s, virtually all Australians supported the White Australia Policy, and positive views of it were entirely within the political mainstream at the time.

Please don't take me for a fool in future.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: January 20, 2022, 06:05:26 PM »
« Edited: January 21, 2022, 12:38:33 AM by MarkD »

In 1982, Ronald Reagan appointed Robert Bork to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Five years later, Reagan nominated Bork for the Supreme Court. The Senate, voting mostly along party lines, rejected that nomination. (The 54 Democratic Senators voted 52 to 2 to reject confirmation; the 46 Republican Senators voted 40 to 6 to confirm the appointment.) Anthony Kennedy ended up getting confirmed for that seat on the Supreme Court instead.

Bitter and angry about not getting confirmed for the Supreme Court, Bork resigned from the Court of Appeals the next year, and set out to write a book about these three things:
One) The history of the ways that the Supreme Court has been interpreting, and sometimes misinterpreting, the U.S. Constitution.
Two) The essence of Bork’s judicial philosophy: Originalism. What does it mean; what are some arguments - advanced by some scholars - against that judicial philosophy; what are some other alternative judicial philosophies, other than originalism, that are advocated by many liberal Con Law scholars and by some conservative Con Law scholars; why originalism is the only valid judicial philosophy to have.
Three) How and why did American liberals go on a rampage to defeat his confirmation to the Supreme Court. Since that campaign was successful, what does it mean for the future?

The purpose of this post (I was thinking about creating a new thread) is to discuss certain things Bork said in Chapter 7 of “The Tempting of America,” and whether those things he said influenced Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter as they grappled with the abortion issue.

Chapter 7 is entitled “The Original Understanding.” It begins with these two paragraphs:

Quote
What was once the dominant view of constitutional law – that a judge is to apply the Constitution according to the principles intended by those who ratified the document – is now very much out of favor among the theorists in the field. In the legal academies in particular, the philosophy of original understanding is usually viewed as thoroughly passe, probably reactionary, and certainly – the most dreaded indictment of all – “outside the mainstream.” That fact says more about the lamentable state of the intellectual life of the law, however, than it does about the merits of the theory.

In truth, only the approach of original understanding meets the criteria that any theory of constitutional adjudication must meet in order to possess democratic legitimacy. Only that approach is consonant with the design of the American Republic. (Page 143.)

The first sub-chapter heading is “The Constitution as Law: Neutral Principles.” Next comes, “Neutrality in the Derivation of Principle,” followed by, “Neutrality in the Definition of Principle,” then, “Neutrality in the Application of Principle,” and, “The Original Understanding of Original Understanding.” Then the last sub-chapter heading is called, “The Claims of Precedent and Original Understanding.” This is what I am going to focus on in this post.

”The question of precedent is particularly important because, as Professor Henry Monaghan of Columbia University law school notes, ‘much of the existing constitutional order is at variance with what we know of the original understanding.’ Some commentators have argued from this obvious truth that the approach of original understanding is impossible or fatally compromised.” But Bork says that those commentators who say so are making a mistake, because they “confuse the descriptive with the normative. To say that prior courts have allowed, or initiated, deformations of the Constitution is not enough to create a warrant for present and future courts to do the same thing.”

Quote
All serious constitutional theory centers upon the duties of judges, and that comes down to the question: What should the judge decide in the case now before him? Obviously, an originalist judge should not deform the Constitution further. Just as obviously, he should not attempt to undo all mistakes made in the past. … At the center of the philosophy of original understanding, therefore, must stand some idea of when the judge is bound by prior decisions and when he is not.

Many people have the notion that following precedent (sometimes called the doctrine of stare decisis) is an ironclad rule. It is not, and never has been. …

The practice of overruling precedent is particularly common in constitutional law, the rationale being that it is extremely difficult for an incorrect constitutional ruling to be corrected through the amendment process. Almost all Justices have agreed with Felix Frankfurter’s observation that “the ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” (Graves v. New York, (1939), Frankfurter, J., concurring.) … [W]hat “the Constitution itself” says may … be irretrievable, not simply because of “what [the Justices] have said about it,” but because of what the nation has done or become on the strength of what the Court said.

The law currently has no very firm theory of when precedent should be followed and when it may be ignored or overruled. It is an important subject nonetheless, and it is particularly so to a judge who abides by the original understanding, because, as Monaghan said, so much of our constitutional order today does not conform to the original design of the Constitution. If we do not possess anything worthy of being called a theory of precedent, it is possible at least to suggest some of the factors that should be considered when facing a question of following or overruling a prior decision.

No question arises, of course, unless the judge concludes that the prior constitutional decision, which is urged as controlling his present decision, was wrong. In making that determination, particular respect is due to precedents set by courts within a few decades of a provision’s ratification since the judges of that time presumably had a superior knowledge of the original understanding of the Constitution. Similarly, precedents that reflect a good-faith attempt to discern the original understanding deserve far more respect than those that do not. Here, there are not only the claims of stability and continuity in the law, but respect for the knowledge and intelligence of those who have gone before. Today’s judge should reflect that if the prior court has been wrong, he too many fall into error.

But if the judge concludes that a prior decision was wrong, he faces additional considerations. The previous decision on the subject may be clearly incorrect but nevertheless have become so embedded in the life of the nation, so accepted by the society, so fundamental to the private and public expectations of individuals and institutions, that the result should not be changed now. This is a judgment addressed to the prudence of a court, but it is not the less valid for that. Judging is not mechanical. Many rules are framed according to predictions of their likely effects, and it is entirely proper for a decision to overrule or not overrule to be affected by a prediction of the effects likely to flow from that. …

There are times when we cannot recover the transgressions of the past, when the best we can do is say to the Court, “Go and sin no more.” (Bork, “Tempting,” pages 155-159.)

So what kinds of previous Supreme Court decisions are ones that Bork said should not be overturned now, even though they were clearly, obviously wrong? He gave one specific example and one very general and broad phenomenon. The specific example pertained to the issue of the federal government issuing paper currency. The Court ruled in 1870, Hepburn v. Griswold, that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to make paper money legal tender for antecedent debts. But only one year later, in the Legal Tender Cases, the Court overruled Hepburn and allowed paper money. Bork says the 1870 decision was right and the  1871 one was wrong, but the Hepburn decision now is “irretrievable,” and “if a judge today were to decide that paper money is unconstitutional, we would think he ought to be accompanied not by a law clerk but by a guardian.” (Page 155.)

The general and broad phenomenon that Bork says cannot be overturned now, even though it was wrong for the Supreme Court to have allowed it when it happened, was “the centralization [of federal power] accomplished by abandoning restrictions on congressional powers during the New Deal.” Bork discussed the general phenomenon of “The Court Stop[ped] Protecting Federalism” during the New Deal era in pages 51-57 and 214-216 of his book, and to Bork that was a mistake, but it’s a mistake that simply cannot be undone now. “It is too late to overrule not only the decision legalizing paper money but also those decisions validating certain New Deal and Great Society programs pursuant to the congressional powers over commerce, taxation, and spending. To overturn these would be to overturn most of modern government and plunge us into chaos. No judge would dream of doing it.” (Page 158.)

But, consistent with Bork’s recognition of “Go and sin no more,” he said that if Congress tries now to pass new legislation that deals with entirely new issues and such new laws are not consistent with the original understanding of federalism – the limits to the meaning of the Commerce Clause, for example – then the Court should strike down those laws now. “The past decisions are beyond reach, but there remains a constitutional principle of federalism that should be regarded as law more profound than the implications of the past decisions. They cannot be overruled, but they can be confined to the subject areas they concern.” If Congress passes new laws that go beyond a historically correct understanding of the Commerce Clause, “the Court could refuse to extend the commerce power so far without overruling its prior decisions, thus leaving existing legislation in place but not giving generative power to the faulty principle by which that legislation was originally upheld.” (Pages 158-159.)

Those are interesting concepts, but, IMO, very messy ones as well. But I am not here on this thread to discuss any of those implications in the last few paragraphs. I am interested in grappling with the concept that Bork said precedents should not be overturned if they are “so embedded in the life of the nation, so accepted by the society, so fundamental to the private and public expectations of individuals and institutions,” that those precedents should not be overruled now.

Bork himself said that Roe v. Wade should be overruled, “it will never be too late to overrule [Roe]”; that precedent does not conform to what he had said about precedents that are “too late” to overturn. “[Roe] remain(s) unaccepted and unacceptable to large segments of the body politic, and judicial regulation could at once be replaced by restored legislative regulation of the subject.” Suppose, as I do, that O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter read Bork’s book, in 1990 or up until the time they decided how to conclude the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. Is it possible that they were more influenced by what Bork said about precedents that are “so embedded in the life of the nation, so accepted by the society, so fundamental to the private and public expectations of individuals and institutions,” than by what Bork said about the ability to overturn Roe? When the three of them wrote the plurality opinion in Casey, they emphasized that millions of American women rely on the constitutional right to obtain legal abortions - they rely on Roe - and that was one of the most important reasons why they decided not to overturn that precedent. Were they impressed by the concept - as expressed by Bork - that Roe is probably a precedent that is “embedded in the life of the nation,” “accepted by society,” “fundamental to the private and public expectations of individuals,” and that was why they declined to overturn it? If so, might it be the case that one of the current staunchly conservative Justices have read Bork's "Tempting" as well, and might they now think the same thing that O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter were thinking in 1992?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 12 queries.