advertisement


Roe V Wade overturned?

Tony L said:
I certainly support the idea of a constitution and Bill Of Rights. I’d want to see it based on broad concepts of ever-increasing human rights, civil liberties, political and legal accountability etc. As such more of a fluid ethos of equality, tolerance, support and political/legal scrutiny that could be updated to improve things, but never reversed into authoritarianism. It would obviously have an absolute split between state and religion, and the monarchy would be long gone outside a cosplay theme park context. Aligning fully with EU/international human rights legislation would be a good first step.
Click to expand...
Perhaps what we need is a principles-based constitution, rather than something which spells out rights and responsibilities. That is likely to have more ability to flex with the times.
 
droodzilla said:
I haven't read the whole thing but this headline from The Times is interesting:

https://twitter.com/flying_rodent/status/1521739681402081281

FR5KaA0XsAUxuS1


My partner's been saying for a while that the right will import these issues from the US as yet another weapon in their culture wars.

I've always been sceptical about this because there are relatively few fundamentalist Christians in the UK. However, looking at the polling on abortion, a significant minority (around 20%) that opposes it in all circumstances and I suspect that some of the support for abortion is quite soft. That's probably enough for a well-organised and funded campaign by the right to work with.
Click to expand...
Two things about that headline:
- The expression "judge-made law" makes me cringe. It is usually a slimy, passive-aggressive attempt to repudiate those laws that the person disapproves of.
- IANOL but I thought precedent was one of the pillars of common law. Precedent involves a court with, like, judges, deciding how to interpret the law, thereby developing and furthering it.
- The SC judges seem to have no problem deciding whether to overturn this particular "judge-made law", in a move that will transform US society. Their decision will be "judge-made law".
OK, that was three things.

The politicians that are supposed to make laws in the US have happily passed hot potatoes to the judiciary for decades. "Regulation by lawyer" (rather than "regulation by bureaucrat", preferred in the EU) is the US way. The UK system is different, but the basics are there for similar moves to be attempted.
 
PsB said:
Two things about that headline:
- The expression "judge-made law" makes me cringe. It is usually a slimy, passive-aggressive attempt to repudiate those laws that the person disapproves of.
- IANOL but I thought precedent was one of the pillars of common law. Precedent involves a court with, like, judges, deciding how to interpret the law, thereby developing and furthering it.
- The SC judges seem to have no problem deciding whether to overturn this particular "judge-made law", in a move that will transform US society. Their decision will be "judge-made law".
OK, that was three things.

The politicians that are supposed to make laws in the US have happily passed hot potatoes to the judiciary for decades. "Regulation by lawyer" (rather than "regulation by bureaucrat", preferred in the EU) is the US way. The UK system is different, but the basics are there for similar moves to be attempted.
Click to expand...
Yes, all good points. The Daily Mail ran this front page for a reason:

Daily_Mail_-_Enemies_of_the_People.png
 
droodzilla said:
I haven't read the whole thing but this headline from The Times is interesting:
Click to expand...

I also cannot read the article although the headline makes it sound like the Times is being horribly disingenuous. "overturn judge made law and put the issue in the hands of elected politicians" should read "remove established constitutional rights and supreme court precedents so that elected politicians in states can pass laws that would otherwise be illegal and unconstitutional".

The whole point here is about removing impediments to laws that are currently illegal (constitutionally and by precedent) so that laws can be made that match the political leanings *of the judges*.
 
It is fortunate that the 'blue' states in the US will uphold and codify reproductive rights into their respective state constitutions. Connecticut for example, has fortified their state laws, so that states like Texas and Oklahoma which have extradition laws regarding aiding and abetting those who provide abortions across state lines (doctors, interstate drivers, patients, etc..) cannot be persecuted in the state of Connecticut. I expect other 'blue' states will follow their lead.

The US is a country of minority rule. Opinion polls routinely show over 55% of the populace have no interest in seeing Roe overturned, vs the 30% who absolutely do. Look at the current Supreme Court justices, and note that most of the conservative members were appointed by presidents who LOST the popular vote (Clarence Thomas being the exception) but WON the Electoral College. Unfortunately, no real reform will be possible in the US until the Electoral College is eradicated completely, and presidents are elected directly by popular vote. The Orange Menace did damage to the court that will take a generation to unwind (providing there's no civil war in the immediate future (also thanks to that imbecilic asshole)).
 
palasr said:
It is fortunate that the 'blue' states in the US will uphold and codify reproductive rights into their respective state constitutions. Connecticut for example, has fortified their state laws, so that states like Texas and Oklahoma which have extradition laws regarding aiding and abetting those who provide abortions across state lines (doctors, interstate drivers, patients, etc..) cannot be persecuted in the state of Connecticut. I expect other 'blue' states will follow their lead.
Click to expand...
It does imply, however, that doctors who perform abortions legally in blue states, are effectively denied the right to travel to states like Texas and Oklahoma for fear of arrest and prosecution under state laws which make their (lawful) practise illegal.
 
Joe P said:
< irony >
Turns out it was a mistake. The Supreme Court's leaked memo meant to say that vasectomies will be mandatory.
< irony >
Joe
Click to expand...

only passed by the skin of your tee…





apologies for being a schmuck
 
palasr said:
The US is a country of minority rule. Opinion polls routinely show over 55% of the populace have no interest in seeing Roe overturned, vs the 30% who absolutely do. Look at the current Supreme Court justices, and note that most of the conservative members were appointed by presidents who LOST the popular vote (Clarence Thomas being the exception) but WON the Electoral College. Unfortunately, no real reform will be possible in the US until the Electoral College is eradicated completely, and presidents are elected directly by popular vote. The Orange Menace did damage to the court that will take a generation to unwind (providing there's no civil war in the immediate future (also thanks to that imbecilic asshole)).
Click to expand...

I agree up to a point but there are a bunch of issues here. The electoral college was intended to prevent dictatorship by a majority and to allow individual states to retain some of their individuality. The EU have done something similar by limiting the scope of majority voting. Basically the bigger the entity the more danger local preferences are erased and the more likely the bigger entity is to fall apart in turn.

Of course however good a system is on paper (and the US one was pretty clever) people will learn to game it. So allowing things to evolve and improve is necessary but also dangerous because there are always those who care little for good governance but focus instead exclusively on their own interests. While others too will focus on particular negative results (like Trump or the pending reversal of Roe vs Wade) and not worry enough about other consequences. State rights might look bad now but after a succession of Trump style presidents might be all that stands between safe havens and a roiling alt-right tide. In other words what happens if a future Trump wins the popular vote and all the protections and opt outs have been swept away?

PS not saying the electoral college should be kept (I don't know enough to say that) just that easy solutions can be deceptive.
 
PsB said:
I thought precedent was one of the pillars of common law.
Click to expand...

It is, and in a common law system, one deviates from precedent only with very solid grounds. If fact, both the British legal principles of common law and equity are entirely reliant on precedent, as they are nowhere codified. Of course, US federal law is the result of a violent collision between common law/equity and a somewhat antediluvian Constitution, and the US Supreme Court is the official interpreter of what the latter means. The Tenth Amendment reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, is the right to an abortion provided by the Constitution? The original Roe decision said that it was. This means that the conservative judges will need to provide arguments to show that Roe, in a Federal law sense, was wrongly decided. Of course, the old joke is that judges decide who deserves to win and then go looking for excuses to justify it.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Terrifying in its possibilities. Talibanesque, almost.
Click to expand...

No one should be in even the slightest doubt as to what the modern Republican party is. The UK Conservative Party is but a short step behind. They are already implementing Republican voter-suppression techniques and have been lining up their scapegoats for a very long time now. We are where we are and we need to fight it with everything we have access to IMO.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
It does imply, however, that doctors who perform abortions legally in blue states, are effectively denied the right to travel to states like Texas and Oklahoma for fear of arrest and prosecution under state laws which make their (lawful) practise illegal.
Click to expand...

Yebbut - WTF would want to travel to Texas and Oklahoma !? I think I could happily live out my remaining time on this planet without visiting the confederacy. ;)
 
If this doesn't get the Democrat vote out then nothing will. All those sitting on their hands because Biden isn't what they would prefer or the "Democrats are no different" won't cut it.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
It does imply, however, that doctors who perform abortions legally in blue states, are effectively denied the right to travel to states like Texas and Oklahoma for fear of arrest and prosecution under state laws which make their (lawful) practise illegal.
Click to expand...
Until being from Texas becomes a crime in the blue states
 
matthewr said:
Adam Serwer in The Atlantic on the scope of this decision.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...n-abortion-supreme-court-civil-rights/629748/
Click to expand...

What a chilling excerpt from that article:

"In the Court’s religious-freedom decisions related to the coronavirus pandemic, and in its choice last year to allow Texas to nullify the right to an abortion, you can see the outlines of this new legal regime: On the grounds that it constitutes a form of religious discrimination, conservatives will be able to claim an exemption from any generally applicable rule they do not wish to follow, while imposing their own religious and ideological views on those who do not share them."

Let's not call them 'conservatives' either. There's nothing conservative about them. They are religious fundamentalists, and far-right extremists.

Welcome to the Divine Republic of Gilead.
 
Last edited:
I think if I were a US citizen, I'd be in favour of some kind of partition to allow the progressive states to move ahead in the modern world and leave what would become a rump of largely economically deprived backward states to their own devices. With free immigration of course, to allow people to escape fascism. Of course, this would all fall at the who keeps the nukes hurdle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top