Who died and made the Supreme Court a Congress?

[In It to Win It]

Who died and made the Supreme Court a Congress?

June 24 marked one year since the Supreme Court, in the landmark Dobbs case, overturned Roe v. Wade, shockingly reversing almost 50 years of precedent to strip away what had been a constitutional right to an abortion.

You see, the conservative justices in the majority of that 5-4 decision argued the Roe decision was “egregiously wrong” because the Constitution never mentioned abortion. That meant, the justices said, abortion couldn’t possibly be a constitutional right and must be left to the states.

Doing anything else would amount to activist judges “making things up,” or as the phrase goes, “legislating from the bench.” To hear Republicans talk, that’s pretty much the worst thing a federal judge could do.

It’s one of Republicans' longest-running talking points: “Don’t legislate from the bench.”

Now that Republican appointees are a supermajority on the Supreme Court, you would think that this majority would steer clear of anything that might look like it was writing laws and thereby undermining the people’s representatives in Congress.

But you’d be wrong.

Today’s conservative justices are happily imposing their reactionary legislative vision on America, not just by interpreting laws, but by effectively rewriting them, in order to implement unpopular policies that could never get passed through Congress. Separation of powers be damned.

[jimfields33]

1. Congress needed to strengthen abortion Medicare care and

pass debt relief. Do that and the Supreme Court would not interfere.

[inthewind21]

2. The

American voters, that's who. I'm still amazed that anyone is shocked about the SC. It's not like we haven't been told for decades EXACTLY what the plan was.

[markie]

3. biggest problem....

we supposedly have a system of "checks and balances" ...we have become lopsided because of corruption, manipulation, cheating, voter suppression, etc...

Congress should be able to right the wrongs of the Court... ain't gonna happen until the voters take charge

[Johonny]

7. Congress is broken and has been most of American

History. Hence the growing power of the presidency and the court. Congress as a check and balance is mostly a crippled third leg since the Civil war.

[ITAL]

30. Congress was arguably the most powerful branch

From the Civil War until TR's presidency.

[Johonny]

31. I think it was most powerful

Before the Civil War.

[ITAL]

32. Depends on the President

But by and large I'd agree. I wouldn't say it was crippled post CW though. The Presidency really only became what we think of now around TR's terms. If you argued McKinley I might listen, as his term started to grab some power as well. Then Wilson and FDR furthered the transformation TR brought to the office.

[MOMFUDSKI]

4. They like making

new laws and there is no way to prevent it. “Stop me if you can” is their mantra now.

[MiniMe]

5. What bothers me most is that the states have taken away the right to medical abortions

It didn't take us back to where we were in the 1970's, because those type of abortions were legal then. They overreached when they didn't take the life of the mother into consideration

[OMGWTF]

20. Misogyny is the point.

[OMGWTF]

21. Misogyny is the point.

[Hekate]

29. Mental & physical health of the mother was taken into account, as well as rape & incest...

A woman or girl had to go before a (male) panel of doctors and be subjected to humiliating personal questions. And could still be refused.

It was a terrible system, and the lady who got pregnant while taking Thalidomide had to fly to Sweden (iirc) in order to get an abortion, then lost her kiddie tv show when she went public … and that was a woman who had money and community standing.

Pardon me for having to say this, but that kind of legal structure was more humane (at least on the surface) than the total ban now envisioned by the insane religious fanatics on the SCOTUS and in State legislatures. The current chaos unleashed by the Dirty Half-Dozen is utterly and nakedly without compassion, or even common sense.

[Johonny]

6. Republicans always project

When they scream don't legislate from the bench they mean, fuck yeah we're going to legislate from the bench. No one should ever take a modern GOPer at their word.

[lapfog_1]

8. Democracy died.

Time of death November 8th, 2016, around 8pm PST.

[rurallib]

10. I think the death happened when Scalia died and

McConnell and Grassley gave the finger to Obama and said 'not on our watch.'

[lapfog_1]

11. if Hillary had won, McConnell's scheme would have not mattered. - n/t

[rurallib]

12. true but with all the things the reich had going for it

they felt pretty confident of winning:
- social media campaign
- third party funding
- intimidation at the polls and more

I think they felt they had a pretty good shot at winning - and they are doing it again.

[inthewind21]

18. Ah,

The wore out blame social media, blame third party funding and blame intimidation. It couldn't possibly have been the actual VOTERS huh? It was the 3rd party and non voters who failed. It's just that simple.

By the way, Obama went up against boat loads of dark money, social media, and Fox News. He's not American! He didn't go to Harvard! OMG his pastor! Birth certificate anyone! And, intimidation at the polls. Please do explain how Obama got elected. TWICE!

[rurallib]

23. sure it was the voters, but they were persuaded by massive media campaign

And let me add that the American media should be hung with a large share of responsibility. They collectively made sure that their "news" shows were full of anti-Hillary stories and commentary.

Of course it was the voters but a right wing media did its damage to make it look like Hillary was an enemy. And they are poised to do so again.

[inthewind21]

25. No

They shouldn't. The American public should be able to think for themselves. Anyone, ESPECIALLY anyone who leans left, who wasn't crystal clear in 2016 that the twice elected first black president wasn't going to bring out a full on media blitz against whoever the DEM nominee was (as if it hadn't already been going on for 8 years) and was "persuaded" by media against said DEM nominee while at the same time seeing in the SAME media Trump campaign is too stupid to breathe. IT'S. JUST. THAT. SIMPLE! And the results lie squarely on THEIR shoulders. Again, I'll ask, why the massive media campaign against Obama didn't work?

[MurrayDelph]

13. McConnell was on the record

as saying he'd leave it open her entire term.

[In It to Win It]

19. I recall reading an article where John McCain said something to that effect also

if Hillary Clinton won

[Fresh Water Falling]

24. Oh, but Hillary wasn't Ideologically PURE

So a bunch of "liberal" fuckwits simply couldn't compromise their lofty standards by voting for her!

[inthewind21]

28. Exactly

I'm so sick of this "it's all the medias fault".

[inthewind21]

15. Exactly

That was the LAST line of defense. And the soldiers went AWOL.

[whatistheformat]

9. RBG did...

And she knew what would happen, which is why she hung in there as long as she could.

[RAB910]

16. THIS!

[MurrayDelph]

14. I think she did

[OMGWTF]

17. Fuck Precedent, fuck what the people want,

My fake Sky Daddy and his book of fairy tales (which only mention of abortion is how to do it) are telling me how to rule. Fuck the Constitution, fuck America.

[inthewind21]

22. Well

And you wonder how we got here.

[bronxiteforever]

26. As Reagan said

I intend to go right on appointing highly qualified individuals of the highest personal integrity to the bench, individuals who understand the danger of short-circuiting the electoral process and disenfranchising the people through judicial activism.

Ronald Reagan

Oh wait that must be confusing to the GOP of today. Disenfranchisement is the Court’s mission according to the ruling six.

[Blue Owl]

27. K&R

[Lonestarblue]

33. I believe the SC has set some dangerous precedents with recent decisions--precedents that will

be fully exploited by right-wing religious and other organizations. I have always understood that actual harm is a requirement for the harmed party to file a civil lawsuit against the person or entity that caused the harm. It is the harm that grants standing to file the case.

From the US Courts website:

“To begin a civil lawsuit in federal court, the plaintiff files a complaint with the court and “serves” a copy of the complaint on the defendant. The complaint describes the plaintiff’s damages or injury, explains how the defendant caused the harm, shows that the court has jurisdiction, and asks the court to order relief. A plaintiff may seek money to compensate for the damages, or may ask the court to order the defendant to stop the conduct that is causing the harm. The court may also order other types of relief, such as a declaration of the legal rights of the plaintiff in a particular situation.” https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/civil-cases

Neither the web designer nor the student loan case provided any evidence of actual harm. It was totally hypothetical. The case of the web designer seemed truly ridiculous, along the lines of “I’ve never designed a wedding website, but if I decided to go into that business and if I were asked to design a site for a same-sex wedding and if I said no because of my religious beliefs (bigotry), and if the same-sex couple complained to the state, and if the state of Colorado filed a suit against me for discrimination, and if I were found guilty, I might suffer harm for breaking state and federal laws.” A lot of ifs in that case based on absolutely no harm that is the basis of civil law.

The student loan case also supposed possible harm to a loan provider even though analyses showed no loss of profits with the federal government paying the loan. Again, no actual harm that is the basis for a lawsuit.

The precedent the Court has now set is that anyone can bring a civil lawsuit based on possible future harm not on actual harm. Another case that supports this precedent is the Texas abortion law. It set a couple of precedents—the right to bring suit against anyone aiding a woman in Texas to have an abortion, even if the person suing has no relationship with the woman and has suffered no harm. For example, if a vigilante is able to find out the name of a friend who drove the woman to a clinic in New Mexico, the person can sue to collect $10,000 upon proof of the events. The concept of standing has been turned on its ear. The SC refused to stay this law and once they overturned Roe refused to do anything about its vigilante aspect and the precedent of total strangers being able to sue for a civil settlement in an action to which they were not even a party!

These cases are not just about a special carve out to privilege the religious right. They are also setting precedent for future right-wing cases to be brought to the court to overturn as much of civil rights legislation as possible.

[inthewind21]

36. Nice

Novel. But it doesn't apply.

[Lonestarblue]

37. How so? How can there be standing when there's no actual harm?

I’m trying to understand the rationale for why harm is not longer necessary.

[inthewind21]

40. Declaratory judgement, It's done all the time

In fact, ROE V Wade is one of them. This might help you understand.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=18062230

[Lonestarblue]

43. That helps. Thank you!

[Zeitghost]

44. What you have always understood

Was misinformed. Preemptive cases happen all the time.

[inthewind21]

45. So you think

ROE was a misinformed preemptive case. Got it.

[Zeitghost]

46. I think you may have replied to the wrong post

n/t

[inthewind21]

47. Actually

you replied to mine. Mix up, It happens. Have good one.

[cstanleytech]

34. SCOTUS needs a complete overhaul on how judges are chosen and how long they serve.

One way is to make it so SCOTUS judges are chosen at random from a pool of the current Federal judges and if they refuse to serve they are automacitally removed as a Federal judge and cannot ever again serve as one.
Once they are a SCOTUS judge they then serve for a single term of up to 8 years and they can never serve as a Federal judge after they leave from their seat on SCOTUS.

[quakerboy]

39. Maybe im missing something

But your proposal is that we choose judges at random, force them to become SCOTUS justices, then fire them from the entire judiciary after 8 years, regardless of whether they do well or not.

So say Im a young star and make it to the federal judiciary young. A quick internet search seems to show the youngest were both appointed at 32. Then i get the random nod, become part of the scotus.. Then at the ripe old age of 40, I am completely and officially banned from my career, for life?

[inthewind21]

41. So

How you going to get that constitutional amendment through?

[budkin]

35. Scalia and RBG

Both those seats should have turned the court to the left for decades. Then we ended up getting the exact opposite.

[hadEnuf]

38. I guess they must have lied.

Why do we even believe for one second that anything the GOP ever says is truthful? They have been trying to seize power by any means necessary for decades and lying is not only necessary, it is required. Whatever gets them to their goal is perfectly fine with them because the end justifies the means as far as they are concerned.

This is exactly what we are fighting.

[inthewind21]

42. Clearly

not all are aware what has been in plain sight for the past 50 years.

[GoodRaisin]

48. We don't.

This commentary from MSNBC of course doesn’t surprise anyone who frequents this site. To us, this is more like “Captain Obvious” kind of stuff.