SCOTUS stops the election interference....cold!

“Our constitutional democratic republic”? When at least one side of our political divide (and I’m not so convinced about the other either) believes that the constitution is a “living document” and its meaning changes with political or moral or linguistic fashions? They remind me of children playing a new game on the playground, making up new rules and changing previous ones as they go to gain some advantage or just to suit their whims.
“Authoritarian dictatorships”? Not my preference at all. Not anyone’s but the dictators’ I would imagine. This, however, does little to prevent them from perennially arising.

 

The alternative would have been a country frozen in time, unable to cope effectively with the changing world. The Framers filled our Constitution with grand ambiguities like "due process', "cruel and unusual punishment", "life", "liberty", "person", "commerce" "necessary and proper". They also left us with a judicial system for interpreting those and an amendment process for over-riding that if a substantial enough majority are dissatisfied, or a less formal process of appointing new judges and justices by democratically elected legislatures and chief executives. We see that happening, for better of for worse, with our courts recently: the Dobbs decision, overturning fifty years of precedent on abortion, came about when new judicial appointees to the Court joined others to bring about the change. In his effort to determine the "original intent" of the framers on that subject (assuming it was something they ever thought of), Justice Alito dug up such "authorities" as Lord Hale, an English jurist of the seventeenth century, fresh from his decisions executing women for witchcraft and upholding marital rape. He had to resort to such old Englishmen, since the eighteenth century American Framers didn't make their intent, if any, known on the matter. The reaction to the new ruling has been strong, and it remains to be seen what happens to it in the future. Hitler, Putin, or Xi could settle it quickly and definitively, but I prefer the admittedly messier process the Framers gave us.

Wasn't it you who said you thought the U.S. was worse than Putin's Russia or Xi's China? Do you think those aren't authoritarian dictatorships? When you tell us the U.S. is awful, and those aren't so bad, don't you think it helps such dictators to "permanently arise"?

 

Again, you’re saying things that I did not say. I said that our governments’ previous actions, overthrowing democratically elected governments all over the world, would suggest that we are a bigger threat to democracy than Putin, xi, or even trump. I said nothing more than this. There were no other comparisons. You may wish to paint me as unpatriotic or sinful in some similar way so that you can devalue my perspective but please, at least be truthful.

As to the dobbs decision, was not roe v wade reliant upon a right that was not granted in the constitution and, therefore, reserved for the states? If so, then the dobbs decision would be the correct constitutional decision. I have not read the decision but, despite what I’ve written above being painstakingly avoided by npr and any other articles I saw, that was still the impression I formed. Mind you, I had read many articles on roe many years ago that said the original decision was on very shaky legal and constitutional footing and was destined to be overturned sooner or later.

 

“What have the Romans ever done for us?” was not an actual question that I was asking. It was an allusion. Google is your friend.

 

Oh, I'm sorry. You were just saying the U.S is a bigger threat to democracy than Putin, Xi or Trump. I see. It's still a claim I find hard to believe.

 

Yes, if what you say is correct, that trump and/or other republicans wish to impose a national ban, then I would be against such an idea since I believe this is the purview of the individual states.

 

If griswald was the basis for roe, it still changes nothing, as far as I understand. The court found an “implied” right? When all others are made explicit and any that aren’t are reserved to the states? Hmm, doesn’t sound like the most logical of legal minds at work to me.

 

All others are made explicit? Doesn't the Ninth Amendment explicitly state that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." And hasn't much of the case law concerning freedom of speech, religion, the press, assembly, etc., been a result of figuring out what those "explicit" rights entailed? I'm basically a pragmatist and utilitarian at heart, and think a flexible reading that enhances individual liberties is much more workable and conducive to a free and democratic society than the strait jacket you're proposing. Does this mean you think Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided, too? Do we need to go back to segregated schools and Jim Crow? And do stare decisis and legal precedent have any value? In the space of four days, the U.S. Supreme Court got rid of over 200 years of case law by overturning the precedents not only of Roe, but also a New York state gun law going back to the early 1900s (New York State Pistol and Rifle Association v. Bruen), and prayer by high school football coaches (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District). IMO, such opinions that blatantly ignore well-established precedent are bound to cause confusion and chaos. With "conservatives" like these, who needs anarchists?

 

With regard to dobbs or other complicated issues where there likely can be no general consensus one way or the other, I like the idea of leaving it to each state. The decisions can be made at a level closer to the people it affects and can reflect differences in values and culture. Folks in any jurisdiction that has a ruling that severely conflicts with their wishes or values can move to a state more in line with them.
As to brown: I’ve not bothered to read about it. It’s nowhere near as controversial as roe so I’m inclined to believe it was decided on a more solid legal/constitutional basis. If you care to summarize the basis of the decision, please feel free to do so.

 

And folks in a country like the U.S.A, who find our laws and policies offensive can move to another country? Russia? Red China? Uganda? Venezuela? Go for it!

Not at he time, but it sure was back in the fifties and sixties. Brown held that the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibited segregated schools, because segregation per se harmed school children, even tho the facilities were supposedly "separate but equal". Critics at the time said it was judicial legislation. The Court was "legislating morality". They focused on Footnote 11, referencing studies packed with social science date showing the harmful effects of segregated schools on black kids. They said it was sociology, not law. That would come under the heading of "social engineering" on your gripe list.

 

Well, yes. They can. Where there’s a will…. But that is not what I was suggesting though, was it? I WAS suggesting that, with at least 50 variations to choose from, surely they could find one most suited to their values or wishes.

 

As anyone in the fifties and sixties who didn't like Jim Crow could pick up and move northward? Lots did, but others found themselves unable to make the move because of their economic circumstances. For folks of limited means, that's a quite challenge!

 

Yes. And?

 

For folks of limited means, what’s not a challenge? Not everyone gets to have exactly what they want. At least the devolution to the states allows more people the opportunity to live how they wish in a culture that comports more with their own values. Is this not better than one size fits all?

 

So they're stuck, and that's okay? In the case of segregation, they, if they were black, were subject to discrimination as second class citizens and effectively deprived of the means of doing anything about it by absurd and differentially enforced literacy tests. Injustice doesn't bother you? I have a white neighbor who lived thru that era. He tells about the time as a kid he saw a water fountain labeled "colored", thoughtit would be interesting to see what colored water tasted like, and had horrified busybodies descend on him and chew him out for the offense. Racial minorities in this country were essentially left without the protection of law in many states, and when they moved to others they were often relegated to ghettos which were breeding grounds of crime and disease.

 

Not if the different sizes include racial apartheid, which is not okay anywhere! There's quite a difference between not having things "exactly as you want" and being subjected to invidious discrimination because of your skin. Or being forced to have a rapist's kid at the age of thirteen. BTW, when it comes to abortion, some red states are trying to restrict or criminalize going out of state to have the procedure. Idaho already does that. If a woman moves from one of those, she better not come back! Two Texas counties and two Texas cities have followed suit ,making it illegal to transport someone through one of these counties or cities for the purpose of obtaining an out-of-state abortion. These laws, of course, clash with federal precedent in Shapiro v. Thompson concerning the right to travel--one of those implied rights based on the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

 

Mkay, I thought we were talking about the potential for folks with differing and various views on abortion to live in a jurisdiction that more aligned with their values but I’ll give this new focus some thought in a similar context and try to get back to you with some thoughts on the matter.

 

You maybe didn't read my last post which addressed abortion.

 

No I had not. Regarding that post then, I would think the various states that are trying to prevent travel for abortion would probably have those laws struck down for the reasons you mentioned so I will assume those are temporary and will be corrected.

As to your mention of the babies due to rape; I’ve heard and empathize with both sides of that argument. Forcing the mother to have to carry and care for the child of her rapist: the thought is repulsive. For the rapist to know his potential progeny would be protected is also a horrible concept and incentivizes such behavior. From the other side of the argument, the resulting baby is innocent in this matter and should not have to forfeit its life for the sins of its father. The thought that it would have to do so is also repulsive.

I still think the solution I’ve suggested previously, letting each state create its laws and regulations in accordance with the wishes and values of its population, is the best one. Some may choose more extreme restrictions because their populations will want that and want to protect the innocent child despite the other negative issues I mentioned above. Some will choose moderate variations, exceptions, allowances, and so on. Some may choose the opposite extreme and pass laws to incentivize abortions. All of this, in my opinion, is the best POSSIBLE outcome. Assuming the OPPORTUNITY to relocate or travel between states, the people will vote with their feet.