Breyer to Retire

blondy28 wrote:I'm glad he's going to retire before dems lose the senate, but I'm definitely going to miss him.  I've been listening to oral arguments for the last few sessions, and he literally has zero fucks left to give.  He's been saying just about everything I'm thinking...except "shut the fuck up.  I liked you better when you didn't speak" to Clarence Thomas.

blondy28 wrote:I'm glad he's going to retire before dems lose the senate, but I'm definitely going to miss him.  I've been listening to oral arguments for the last few sessions, and he literally has zero fucks left to give.  He's been saying just about everything I'm thinking...except "shut the fuck up.  I liked you better when you didn't speak" to Clarence Thomas.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:I'm glad he's going to retire before dems lose the senate, but I'm definitely going to miss him.  I've been listening to oral arguments for the last few sessions, and he literally has zero fucks left to give.  He's been saying just about everything I'm thinking...except "shut the fuck up.  I liked you better when you didn't speak" to Clarence Thomas.

Speaking of Clarence Thomas, I've generally laid off of these dudes and ladies and give them their space.  They know way more about the law than I do.  But his wife is dallying significantly with groups that are taking suits to the court.  She's out there helping groups prepare and consulting them on how to present a case about abortion laws to the court.  Ummm, ethical conflict of interest for $500 Alex?  Recusal anyone?  How is this not a bigger deal?  If R v W is overturned, so be it.  Abortion will still be legal in about 25-35 states and I suspect we'll see groups begin raising funds and providing transportation and hotel services to poor women who want an abortion who happen to live in places like TX or Alabama.  I believe it'll work out ok is my point.  That said, how is it ok that a SCOTUS justice's wife is helping groups prepare for Supreme court cases?  Do we not assume she has insights about how her husband thinks and will need to be approached?  Lordy, I'm just befuddled by this.  Seems nearly as egregious as anything I saw in the Trump administration.

sharpy wrote:  If R v W is overturned, so be it.  Abortion will still be legal in about 25-35 states and I suspect we'll see groups begin raising funds and providing transportation and hotel services to poor women who want an abortion who happen to live in places like TX or Alabama




Here's my concern. And "so be it" can't be an answer. The Supreme Court of the US declared that the right to have an abortion is guaranteed by the Constitution of the US. Now, not b/c the constitution has changed, but because the justice's religious and political beliefs are anti-abortion, this isn't going to be the case, and an abortion and control of your body is "not your right", but can be prohibited by law. "So be it"  Okay- whats next?  Maybe next the religious and conservative justices don't like the fact that the prior SCOTUS deemed the LBGQT community were protected against discrimination and now, maybe let's get rid of that "right" as well, b/c well, Catholics don't like them and neither do conservatives. "so be it".  Then one year, its brought to the SCOTUS that this nation was founded on the christian religion, and exactly, why do we allow Jews to run free?  And maybe the christian court and conservatives feel that well, Jews aren't mentioned in the constitution, "so be it". And, say Justice Alito what about the constitution and blacks? Didn't it say something about blacks being 3/4 a person? Who cares what the prior SCOTUS' ruled, we rule that blacks aren't equal citizens and their votes really shouldn't count b/c the constitution never promised that and the other amendments really were anti-constitutional. "so be it".  Then maybe they don't like the homeless - get rid of them, "so be it".  And then, maybe the  Catholics really shouldn't be here either, after all, country founded by protestants ...so be it.  


The loss of freedom of any group opens the door to loss of freedom for anyone else. 

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

sharpy wrote:  If R v W is overturned, so be it.  Abortion will still be legal in about 25-35 states and I suspect we'll see groups begin raising funds and providing transportation and hotel services to poor women who want an abortion who happen to live in places like TX or Alabama




Here's my concern. And "so be it" can't be an answer. The Supreme Court of the US declared that the right to have an abortion is guaranteed by the Constitution of the US. Now, not b/c the constitution has changed, but because the justice's religious and political beliefs are anti-abortion, this isn't going to be the case, and an abortion and control of your body is "not your right", but can be prohibited by law. "So be it"  Okay- whats next?  Maybe next the religious and conservative justices don't like the fact that the prior SCOTUS deemed the LBGQT community were protected against discrimination and now, maybe let's get rid of that "right" as well, b/c well, Catholics don't like them and neither do conservatives. "so be it".  Then one year, its brought to the SCOTUS that this nation was founded on the christian religion, and exactly, why do we allow Jews to run free?  And maybe the christian court and conservatives feel that well, Jews aren't mentioned in the constitution, "so be it". And, say Justice Alito what about the constitution and blacks? Didn't it say something about blacks being 3/4 a person? Who cares what the prior SCOTUS' ruled, we rule that blacks aren't equal citizens and their votes really shouldn't count b/c the constitution never promised that and the other amendments really were anti-constitutional. "so be it".  Then maybe they don't like the homeless - get rid of them, "so be it".  And then, maybe the  Catholics really shouldn't be here either, after all, country founded by protestants ...so be it.  


The loss of freedom of any group opens the door to loss of freedom for anyone else. 

100% agree, Tim, but if it's handed down as a ruling by SCOTUS, then we have to live with it until it's changed again.  Hence, my "so be it" comments.  We have to live with the ruling and my thinking is that we will find a way to navigate through this and move forward.  Of course, you and I see this as wrong, and so do many others.  The original R v W ruling concluded that we have a certain right to personal medical and bodily privacy that excludes someone from being able to outlaw our right to abortion.  My concern is to ask when did that change?  Has there been a new ruling that a fetus has rights that supersede the rights of the mother/carrier of the fetus?  If not, I don't understand any notion that R v W is no longer a viable ruling.  

It seems to me that the Court has become a political body.  It's clear that it has.  GOP nominees are made by Club for Growth and Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society, based on careful scrutiny of the exact profiles of the nominees and how they politically stand.  When a case goes before them and is heard, we can generally very accurately predict how the ruling will look, based on ideologies of the justices.  It's kind of a joke right now.  It's really just an extension of the legislative branch by my view.

sharpy wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

sharpy wrote:  If R v W is overturned, so be it.  Abortion will still be legal in about 25-35 states and I suspect we'll see groups begin raising funds and providing transportation and hotel services to poor women who want an abortion who happen to live in places like TX or Alabama




Here's my concern. And "so be it" can't be an answer. The Supreme Court of the US declared that the right to have an abortion is guaranteed by the Constitution of the US. Now, not b/c the constitution has changed, but because the justice's religious and political beliefs are anti-abortion, this isn't going to be the case, and an abortion and control of your body is "not your right", but can be prohibited by law. "So be it"  Okay- whats next?  Maybe next the religious and conservative justices don't like the fact that the prior SCOTUS deemed the LBGQT community were protected against discrimination and now, maybe let's get rid of that "right" as well, b/c well, Catholics don't like them and neither do conservatives. "so be it".  Then one year, its brought to the SCOTUS that this nation was founded on the christian religion, and exactly, why do we allow Jews to run free?  And maybe the christian court and conservatives feel that well, Jews aren't mentioned in the constitution, "so be it". And, say Justice Alito what about the constitution and blacks? Didn't it say something about blacks being 3/4 a person? Who cares what the prior SCOTUS' ruled, we rule that blacks aren't equal citizens and their votes really shouldn't count b/c the constitution never promised that and the other amendments really were anti-constitutional. "so be it".  Then maybe they don't like the homeless - get rid of them, "so be it".  And then, maybe the  Catholics really shouldn't be here either, after all, country founded by protestants ...so be it.  


The loss of freedom of any group opens the door to loss of freedom for anyone else. 

100% agree, Tim, but if it's handed down as a ruling by SCOTUS, then we have to live with it until it's changed again.  Hence, my "so be it" comments.  We have to live with the ruling and my thinking is that we will find a way to navigate through this and move forward.  Of course, you and I see this as wrong, and so do many others.  The original R v W ruling concluded that we have a certain right to personal medical and bodily privacy that excludes someone from being able to outlaw our right to abortion.  My concern is to ask when did that change?  Has there been a new ruling that a fetus has rights that supersede the rights of the mother/carrier of the fetus?  If not, I don't understand any notion that R v W is no longer a viable ruling.  

It seems to me that the Court has become a political body.  It's clear that it has.  GOP nominees are made by Club for Growth and Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society, based on careful scrutiny of the exact profiles of the nominees and how they politically stand.  When a case goes before them and is heard, we can generally very accurately predict how the ruling will look, based on ideologies of the justices.  It's kind of a joke right now.  It's really just an extension of the legislative branch by my view.

I'm sure you've seen the bill in Florida - making it illegal for schools to teach gender identity and discuss homosexuality in grades K-12?  Allowing "offended" parents to sue the school and the teachers?... First the pro-choice .... then the gays ....then who??

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

sharpy wrote:  If R v W is overturned, so be it.  Abortion will still be legal in about 25-35 states and I suspect we'll see groups begin raising funds and providing transportation and hotel services to poor women who want an abortion who happen to live in places like TX or Alabama




Here's my concern. And "so be it" can't be an answer. The Supreme Court of the US declared that the right to have an abortion is guaranteed by the Constitution of the US. Now, not b/c the constitution has changed, but because the justice's religious and political beliefs are anti-abortion, this isn't going to be the case, and an abortion and control of your body is "not your right", but can be prohibited by law. "So be it"  Okay- whats next?  Maybe next the religious and conservative justices don't like the fact that the prior SCOTUS deemed the LBGQT community were protected against discrimination and now, maybe let's get rid of that "right" as well, b/c well, Catholics don't like them and neither do conservatives. "so be it".  Then one year, its brought to the SCOTUS that this nation was founded on the christian religion, and exactly, why do we allow Jews to run free?  And maybe the christian court and conservatives feel that well, Jews aren't mentioned in the constitution, "so be it". And, say Justice Alito what about the constitution and blacks? Didn't it say something about blacks being 3/4 a person? Who cares what the prior SCOTUS' ruled, we rule that blacks aren't equal citizens and their votes really shouldn't count b/c the constitution never promised that and the other amendments really were anti-constitutional. "so be it".  Then maybe they don't like the homeless - get rid of them, "so be it".  And then, maybe the  Catholics really shouldn't be here either, after all, country founded by protestants ...so be it.  


The loss of freedom of any group opens the door to loss of freedom for anyone else. 

100% agree, Tim, but if it's handed down as a ruling by SCOTUS, then we have to live with it until it's changed again.  Hence, my "so be it" comments.  We have to live with the ruling and my thinking is that we will find a way to navigate through this and move forward.  Of course, you and I see this as wrong, and so do many others.  The original R v W ruling concluded that we have a certain right to personal medical and bodily privacy that excludes someone from being able to outlaw our right to abortion.  My concern is to ask when did that change?  Has there been a new ruling that a fetus has rights that supersede the rights of the mother/carrier of the fetus?  If not, I don't understand any notion that R v W is no longer a viable ruling.  

It seems to me that the Court has become a political body.  It's clear that it has.  GOP nominees are made by Club for Growth and Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society, based on careful scrutiny of the exact profiles of the nominees and how they politically stand.  When a case goes before them and is heard, we can generally very accurately predict how the ruling will look, based on ideologies of the justices.  It's kind of a joke right now.  It's really just an extension of the legislative branch by my view.

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

sharpy wrote:  If R v W is overturned, so be it.  Abortion will still be legal in about 25-35 states and I suspect we'll see groups begin raising funds and providing transportation and hotel services to poor women who want an abortion who happen to live in places like TX or Alabama




Here's my concern. And "so be it" can't be an answer. The Supreme Court of the US declared that the right to have an abortion is guaranteed by the Constitution of the US. Now, not b/c the constitution has changed, but because the justice's religious and political beliefs are anti-abortion, this isn't going to be the case, and an abortion and control of your body is "not your right", but can be prohibited by law. "So be it"  Okay- whats next?  Maybe next the religious and conservative justices don't like the fact that the prior SCOTUS deemed the LBGQT community were protected against discrimination and now, maybe let's get rid of that "right" as well, b/c well, Catholics don't like them and neither do conservatives. "so be it".  Then one year, its brought to the SCOTUS that this nation was founded on the christian religion, and exactly, why do we allow Jews to run free?  And maybe the christian court and conservatives feel that well, Jews aren't mentioned in the constitution, "so be it". And, say Justice Alito what about the constitution and blacks? Didn't it say something about blacks being 3/4 a person? Who cares what the prior SCOTUS' ruled, we rule that blacks aren't equal citizens and their votes really shouldn't count b/c the constitution never promised that and the other amendments really were anti-constitutional. "so be it".  Then maybe they don't like the homeless - get rid of them, "so be it".  And then, maybe the  Catholics really shouldn't be here either, after all, country founded by protestants ...so be it.  


The loss of freedom of any group opens the door to loss of freedom for anyone else. 

100% agree, Tim, but if it's handed down as a ruling by SCOTUS, then we have to live with it until it's changed again.  Hence, my "so be it" comments.  We have to live with the ruling and my thinking is that we will find a way to navigate through this and move forward.  Of course, you and I see this as wrong, and so do many others.  The original R v W ruling concluded that we have a certain right to personal medical and bodily privacy that excludes someone from being able to outlaw our right to abortion.  My concern is to ask when did that change?  Has there been a new ruling that a fetus has rights that supersede the rights of the mother/carrier of the fetus?  If not, I don't understand any notion that R v W is no longer a viable ruling.  

It seems to me that the Court has become a political body.  It's clear that it has.  GOP nominees are made by Club for Growth and Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society, based on careful scrutiny of the exact profiles of the nominees and how they politically stand.  When a case goes before them and is heard, we can generally very accurately predict how the ruling will look, based on ideologies of the justices.  It's kind of a joke right now.  It's really just an extension of the legislative branch by my view.

Given the events of last week, I wasn't sure which post I would quote reply on.  This topic has everything.  Sharpy's post about Clarence Thomas's health.  Ginni Thomas' texts.   But this post being about rulings fits nicely with my observations of the KBJ hearings.  

Not sure if you listened to any of the hearings, but John Cornyn's comments really address your questions.  And also made me want to jump through my TV screen.  He kept asking about "unenumerated rights", saying that activist judges make rulings on rights that don't exit.  Which is total bullshit, of course.  The reason the conservative side believes that Roe was wrongly decided is because the constitution doesn't provide a right to privacy.  They consider the right to privacy an "unenumerated right" that isn't specifically in the text of the constitution and, therefore, Roe was wrongly decided.  The thing is...if they publish a ruling on a case establishing that there is no right to privacy, that would overturn cases that we aren't even considering.  And I can tell you that the Alliance Defending Freedom uses "bodily privacy" in the lawsuits about trans people using the lockerroom and bathroom of the gender with which they identify.  But they are now saying that there is no such right. They're such fucking hypocrites.  The constitution doesn't say money is speech...SCOTUS did that.  The consitution doesn't say corporations are people...SCOTUS did that.  By contrast, the constitution DOES refer to a "well regulated militia" in the second amendment, yet in the Heller ruling, they dismiss it.  

Both during the hearings, and in a couple statements that have been released by Republicans who aren't voting for her, the say it's because she refused to say her judicial philosophy.  Also bullshit.  What they wanted was something with a name.  "Textualist" or "Originalist"  Instead, she outlined...many, many times...exactly how she approaches each case.  "1st I do XYZ, then XYZ, then XYZ, then XYZ."  She spelled this out throughout the hearings.  She never deviated from that approach.  As a parallel, if someone says "I'm going to the gym after work", but someone else actually defines "going to the gym" (10 minutes of stretching, 20 minutes on the bike, free weights, and a cool down), the detail of what you'll be doing at the gym is the more comprehensive response.  KBJ was very clear about her process.  And I don't recall any of them showing concern about the process she laid out.  It was far more thorough than any other justice provided in their hearings.  I mean, the constitution doesn't give a fetus any rights, yet they have determined that a fetus does have rights.  There are so many of these instances, I just can't think of all of them.  The "unenumerated rights" folks, with their "money is speech" and "corporations are people" can go fuck themselves.  

KBJ is simply outstanding.