3 ms·

A leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion is an extraordinary breach of judicial confidentiality protocols and severely damages the integrity of the highest court

A leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion is an extraordinary breach of judicial confidentiality protocols and severely damages the integrity of the highest court. Are you saying that the rule of law is already so degraded in other areas that further degrading it with this kind of action is of no consequence and therefore if it happens to advance what you consider to be a good policy then we should welcome it?

trasz 4y ago
Given that it all revolves around allowing states to turn a Christian fundamentalist idea into a criminal law, I’d say the idea of “rule of law” is long gone.
- CryptoPunk 4y ago
  You've found a way to rationalize undermining rule of law, by arguing that this exercise of the law is.. not the law. Like I said at the start: If the law is only respected and observed when it agrees with one political platform, it's no law at all.
  - trasz 4y ago
    The idea of keeping religion out of law is not "one political platform". If the law is working against the society - like in this case - then it needs to be fixed, not blindly obeyed.
    - CryptoPunk 4y ago
      There are more than religious arguments for prohibiting abortion and the Supreme Court draft opinion on Roe vs Wade has zero religious argument contain therein. Beyond that, the law says the Supreme Court and legislature decides what is or isn't a violation of the separation of Church and State, not activists deciding for themselves what law should or should not be observed. >>If the law is working against the society - like in this case - then it needs to be fixed, not blindly obeyed. There is a legal process for changing the law. What you are attempting to justify is undermining the rule of law with haphazard rationalizations.
      - trasz 4y ago
        No, there are no logically valid, non-religious arguments for prohibiting abortion. That’s the point: abortion ban is not “a view”; it’s a moral equivalent of antivax. It means one is either misinformed, or lacks basic ethics. You’ve just demonstrated that yourself, by ignoring the fact that the draft opinion quoted a professional witch hunter and marital rape apologist. Beyond that - the courts exist for a reason, because of the mandate given by society. When the society realizes they aren’t working properly, it should be possible to fix said courts. And no, in US there is no working legal process for fixing the court, even in very obvious cases, like a judge protecting its wife, or just being a straight out human waste, like Scalia.
        CryptoPunk 4y ago
        >>No, there are no logically valid, non-religious arguments for prohibiting abortion. There are so many reasons why this is wrong. Under the Constitution, the tenth amendment clearly reserves powers not expressly enumerated for the federal government, to the people and states, and the only exception to that is powers expressly denied by the Constitution to the states, which defining human life as beginning before birth is not one of them. Moreover, defining human life as starting at a heartbeat or before birth can be an entirely secular belief, your dogmatism denial notwithstanding. >>You’ve just demonstrated that yourself, by ignoring the fact that the opinion was based on works of a professional witch hunter and marital rape apologist. This is just ad hominem / character assassination, and not relevant to this point. >>When the society realizes they aren’t working properly, it should be possible to fix said courts. And you're arguing for fixing said courts through illegal acts. Like I said: If the law is only respected and observed when it agrees with one political platform, it's no law at all. >>And no, in US there is no working legal process for fixing the court, even in very obvious cases, like a judge protecting its wife, or just being a straight out human waste, like Scalia. Of course there is a way to fix the courts: legislation can dictate the jurisdiction of courts, and legislatures can appoint new justices to the court, and the legislature is democratically elected. Of course the latter takes time, as Supreme Court justices are lifetime appointments, but that is the Constitutional process, and that can also be changed if a supermajority vote for a Constitutional amendment. Your expressions of hatred and disgust toward those who through the Constitutionally legitimate process, became Supreme Court justices, is not a moral argument. It's just a manifestation of the moral superiority complex exhibited by those on the political left who support this subversion of the law.

trasz 4y ago

Given that it all revolves around allowing states to turn a Christian fundamentalist idea into a criminal law, I’d say the idea of “rule of law” is long gone.

CryptoPunk 4y ago
You've found a way to rationalize undermining rule of law, by arguing that this exercise of the law is.. not the law. Like I said at the start: If the law is only respected and observed when it agrees with one political platform, it's no law at all.
- trasz 4y ago
  The idea of keeping religion out of law is not "one political platform". If the law is working against the society - like in this case - then it needs to be fixed, not blindly obeyed.
  - CryptoPunk 4y ago
    There are more than religious arguments for prohibiting abortion and the Supreme Court draft opinion on Roe vs Wade has zero religious argument contain therein. Beyond that, the law says the Supreme Court and legislature decides what is or isn't a violation of the separation of Church and State, not activists deciding for themselves what law should or should not be observed. >>If the law is working against the society - like in this case - then it needs to be fixed, not blindly obeyed. There is a legal process for changing the law. What you are attempting to justify is undermining the rule of law with haphazard rationalizations.
    - trasz 4y ago
      No, there are no logically valid, non-religious arguments for prohibiting abortion. That’s the point: abortion ban is not “a view”; it’s a moral equivalent of antivax. It means one is either misinformed, or lacks basic ethics. You’ve just demonstrated that yourself, by ignoring the fact that the draft opinion quoted a professional witch hunter and marital rape apologist. Beyond that - the courts exist for a reason, because of the mandate given by society. When the society realizes they aren’t working properly, it should be possible to fix said courts. And no, in US there is no working legal process for fixing the court, even in very obvious cases, like a judge protecting its wife, or just being a straight out human waste, like Scalia.
      - CryptoPunk 4y ago
        >>No, there are no logically valid, non-religious arguments for prohibiting abortion. There are so many reasons why this is wrong. Under the Constitution, the tenth amendment clearly reserves powers not expressly enumerated for the federal government, to the people and states, and the only exception to that is powers expressly denied by the Constitution to the states, which defining human life as beginning before birth is not one of them. Moreover, defining human life as starting at a heartbeat or before birth can be an entirely secular belief, your dogmatism denial notwithstanding. >>You’ve just demonstrated that yourself, by ignoring the fact that the opinion was based on works of a professional witch hunter and marital rape apologist. This is just ad hominem / character assassination, and not relevant to this point. >>When the society realizes they aren’t working properly, it should be possible to fix said courts. And you're arguing for fixing said courts through illegal acts. Like I said: If the law is only respected and observed when it agrees with one political platform, it's no law at all. >>And no, in US there is no working legal process for fixing the court, even in very obvious cases, like a judge protecting its wife, or just being a straight out human waste, like Scalia. Of course there is a way to fix the courts: legislation can dictate the jurisdiction of courts, and legislatures can appoint new justices to the court, and the legislature is democratically elected. Of course the latter takes time, as Supreme Court justices are lifetime appointments, but that is the Constitutional process, and that can also be changed if a supermajority vote for a Constitutional amendment. Your expressions of hatred and disgust toward those who through the Constitutionally legitimate process, became Supreme Court justices, is not a moral argument. It's just a manifestation of the moral superiority complex exhibited by those on the political left who support this subversion of the law.