Lol! When courts make laws apart from the people, that's no democracy at all. This way at least the voters will have a say.
SCotUS majority will repudiate Roe v Wade, leaked draft reveals
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
If we assume that juries are representative of the general population, I think democracy does work and cite the following two examples.
1) In 18th century England over 200 crimes were punishable by hanging until dead. Juries refuse to convict.
2) In the Morgentaler case, juries refuse to convict despite the fact he clearly broke the law.
Ludicrous crimes that would have gotten you hanged in 18th century England | by Ash Woods | The Crime Historian | Medium
The Supreme Court of Canada’s 1988 Morgentaler Decision
1) In 18th century England over 200 crimes were punishable by hanging until dead. Juries refuse to convict.
2) In the Morgentaler case, juries refuse to convict despite the fact he clearly broke the law.
Ludicrous crimes that would have gotten you hanged in 18th century England | by Ash Woods | The Crime Historian | Medium
The Supreme Court of Canada’s 1988 Morgentaler Decision
They think it is murder. (Or really, they think it is insubordination but they will pretend to think it is murder.)
I'm confused why you think a lack of national or interstate elements matters.
"The sluts and bitches are out of control, we will control them."
You make up the legal justification after.
It is possible a woman can cross a state line for an abortion, therefore it falls under Federal jurisdiction.
That's all you need to say.
Lots of people think it would be.
But that's the genius of it.
You can only settle that using the Supreme Court, which can then say the only solution is to ban abortion everywhere at the Federal level and fix the problem.
He's not really wrong here.
Throughout most of its existence, the Supreme Court of the United States has been an extremely reactionary institution.
Juries refusing to convict women was a big part of the move away from criminalizing abortion in the US as well.
It's a balancing act, JC. The courts utilize the Constitution to rein in the most unappealing aspects of democracy. Nothing is guaranteed to work well. That's why you have the SC doing bad shit like Alito.
OTOH, the US has a well-honed and long-established track record of appointing bigoted asshole judges. The reason most Southern states elect their state Bench was to make sure that no meddling Yankees appointed the "wrong type" of judge. That's how you get crazy good old boys like Roy Moore sitting as Chief Justice of AL.
Be serious:
The big fallacy people have is that the Supreme Court is there to enforce justice, the rights of people and moral rules.
Lawyers, the courts, i.e. the legal system never does anything like that. The legal system, including the SC is there to justify what the ruling class wants. In the entire history of the human race, the legal system, the lawyers and the courts have without exception been servile to the ruling class.
Everything Hitler and Stalin did was sanctioned by the legal system and the courts. The best legal minds in Russia and Germany justified everything that was done. And in America, the Supreme court for 200 years sanctioned race segregation, women's inability to vote, and heaven knows what. The Constitution allowed that. More recently, brilliant lawyers in USA justified torture of detainees. The SC was fine with that too.
Why would anybody now think that the SC would do what is right?
Last edited:
It may be a balancing act, but the Court was wrong. As a matter of fact the top complaint against the Rv.W has always been that neither the opponents nor the supporters of abortion received their due. The US Supreme Court, in its most basic form(a good place to start) is there to arbitrate the constitutionality of the legislative and the executive actions. It not always correct and sometimes downright harmful. In this case, it actually created a larger problem that, I hope, will be rectified by the states according to the will of the voters.
So called conservatives believe in strict constructionism of the constution except when it suits them to ignore strict construction. They also believe in states rights except when it suits them not to. Hence because abortion is not mentioned in the constitution it cannot be protected. I cant remember which article or amendment are computers, cars, television, the interne referred to in?
so conservatives want a society that is moral and decent on the outside, but they know we’re all rotten on the inside.im fine with this approach to raise kids in a ‘good’ society. it’s worked for 2 million years.
as opposed to having a 4chan society that is openly deviant.
i prefer hypocrisy monday to Saturday & repentance on Sunday.
as opposed to having a 4chan society that is openly deviant.
i prefer hypocrisy monday to Saturday & repentance on Sunday.
The rights not in the Constitution belong to the states/people. Hence, the abortion opinion is a step in the right direction and great for democracy.
whatever can help to defeat the "conservatives" at the poll
The Constitution has never served the people, and never will. The courts are servile to the ruling elites.
How does this work with slavery?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The often overlooked aspect of that statement is that all men are CREATED equal. That doesn't imply that they should END UP equal. What you do in life matters.
It was for a long time, while the Constitution and the Supreme Court was in effect.
My point was not to look to the courts for individual freedoms. The legal system always serve the ruling class.
You say you lived under the Soviet Union. You should understand this better than any of us.
I think the thrust of that quote is that they are equal in the eyes of the Law, not that they all drive the same cars, Dutch.
