3 ms·

Given your history on the issue[1][2][3], I don't think its reasonable to trust your judgement on how the court will vote. I think it's worth keeping in mind t

• glogla 4y ago
• arthurcolle 4y ago
  How did you find these so fast? Do you glow in the dark?
  • joshuamorton 4y ago
    No. The answer is mostly that I've seen Rayiner discuss Roe before in years prior, and had a weak inkling recollection that his statements had changed. An HN search for "rayiner roe overturn" I think it was got to things pretty quickly. For what it's worth (mostly in response to other comments), I don't think he's being disingenuous here, I think there's just a deep disagreement about values. In another thread, he says: > As a foreigner, what I admire most about Americans is their ability to dispassionately accept the results of legal procedures. I truly think that’s what is responsible for the success of America and England before it. We have people who have high minded principles and notions of justice in Bangladesh. That’s not special. What we lack is a populace that will accept even monumental decisions contrary to what they wanted and move on. And that’s what I fear is being eroded. Charitably, I think, this is "Americans are willing to accept the rule of law", which is perhaps true. Uncharitably, it's something like "Americans are privileged and/or apathetic enough that even as the law wildly vacillates, they don't care to act when their rights are impugned." I also don't think it's true, given the long history of protest and sometimes violence in response to legal proceedings (Shay's Rebellion, the Civil War, anti-Abortion violence and murders in the '90s and today, etc.). But even taking it as true, I think there's a requirement that to respect the (appellate) judiciary we need to respect that the system is at least somewhat apolitical. I don't mean that judges aren't conservative or liberal, they obviously will be, but the actions of the Federalist Society, which preaches and advocates for a very particular judicial philosophy is, to many, a violation of the social contract that allows us to respect the court. I think it's easy for someone who is a lawyer, especially an appellate lawyer to have "the institution" go to their head, to an extent. And I think that's what I'm seeing here: what the court is doing must be justified not in particular because rayiner agrees with it (though he does), but because the court cannot be questioned. He takes it as a given that the institution must be respected by virtue of what it is. I don't buy that, I think the institution needs to earn its legitimacy, and when you have justices doing what is charitably described as misleading Congress and the American people, and uncharitably described as perjury, well, it's difficult to see why the office remains deserving of respect.
    • rayiner 4y ago
      > Charitably, I think, this is "Americans are willing to accept the rule of law", which is perhaps true. Yes, that’s what I mean. > I also don't think it's true, given the long history of protest and sometimes violence in response to legal proceedings (Shay's Rebellion, the Civil War, anti-Abortion violence and murders in the '90s and today, etc.). It’s relative. Americans are incredibly orderly compared to say Bangladeshis, where there are violent protests after every election. > I don't mean that judges aren't conservative or liberal, they obviously will be, but the actions of the Federalist Society, which preaches and advocates for a very particular judicial philosophy is, to many, a violation of the social contract that allows us to respect the court. How is it a violation of the social contract to advocate for reading the Constitution the same way we read any other written document? How is that worse than say law schools, which vigorously advocate reading the Constitution as loose guidelines to guide elite lawyers in dispensing Justice according to their own world views. That’s exactly what Roe was, seven highly educated white men overturning the will of the people based not on law, but on their personal notions of justice. > I think it's easy for someone who is a lawyer, especially an appellate lawyer to have "the institution" go to their head, to an extent. I respect the institution because I’m a foreigner who comes from a country where respect for institutions is conditional. I have a deep veneration for societies where people reflexively trust institution even when they’re in the losing end of a decision. A court could order a British person to jump off a bridge and they’d do it! And I’m terrified of what I’m seeing in the US. There’s always been unruly mobs, but now elites are egging them on. Your accusations of “perjury” are exactly the problem I’m highlighting. Nobody perjured themselves. They said Roe was precedent, which it is. Precedent can be overruled—and there are clear guidelines for when to do so and Roe fit the bill on a lot of the factors. To say otherwise is to rely on the ignorance of the general public in an effort to delegitimize the institution in their eyes, and that’s irresponsible.
• random314 4y ago
  That's some brilliant research and take down. It can be really difficult to pin down a consistent Gish galloper, but you did great!
• rayiner 4y ago
  I said Robert’s wouldn’t overturn, and I was correct. I said Kavanaugh was a maybe. I got Gorsuch wrong. The Mississippi law was written to give the Justices an out at 15 weeks, but I didn’t anticipate how hard the Solicitor General would push to defend the full scope of Roe. In my opinion that was a tactical error. In the 9 year old post you cite, I said Roe was wrongly decided, but I didn’t think it was necessary to overturn it. Nothing I said today is inconsistent with that. As to your point about Thomas, you cite a comment correcting a misreading of Thomas’s concurrence in the Kim Davis case. I said nothing about how “extreme” he is or wasn’t. Also, that has no bearing on Roe. Anyone could have told you Thomas would vote to overturn Roe. You say I’m wrong about support for second trimester abortions, but neither of your sources actually asks about second trimester abortions. In this poll, only 34% support elective abortions in the second trimester: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/24/how-americans-really-feel-about-abortion-the-sometimes-surprising-poll-results-as-supreme-court-reportedly-set-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/24/how-ame... Same thing in this poll, 65% oppose in second trimester: https://apnews.com/article/only-on-ap-us-supreme-court-abortion-religion-health-2c569aa7934233af8e00bef4520a8fa8 https://apnews.com/article/only-on-ap-us-supreme-court-abort... Same in this poll, only 28% support in second trimester: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-americans-stand-on-abortion-in-5-charts/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-americans-stand-o... You can’t rely on polling of “Roe” because most people don’t know the precise contours of the precedent.
  • joshuamorton 4y ago
    > I said Kavanaugh was a maybe. Most recently you said there were three votes (acb, Thomas, alito), and before that you said kav was "probably" not going to overturn. I don't think it's wrong to hold you to that. Either you were downplaying compared to what you really thought, or you're creating a justification now. I'm really just asking that you take a minute to reflect on that. From the npr link: > Allows abortions, but only up to the time there is viability outside the womb, at about 24 weeks Has support from 30% of republicans and 40% of democrats. The remaining Democrats generally want less restrictions. That's consistent with 60%+ support for second trimester abortions. Your Forbes link also mentions 47% support (and only ~40 percent against) elective abortion until viability, which may be well into the third trimester! And I have a difficult time believing that "all or most of the time" doesn't include the second trimester. I'm not relying on polling of roe. I'm relying on your polls! I agree that there's inconsistency here, but it's not cut and dry like you claim. > As to your point about Thomas, you cite a comment correcting a misreading of Thomas’s concurrence in the Kim Davis case. I said nothing about how “extreme” he is or wasn’t. Also, that has no bearing on Roe. Anyone could have told you Thomas would vote to overturn Roe My mistake, I thought that thread was about the draft opinion. But I'm not talking about roe, but revisiting Obgerfell, which between Thomas, alito, barret, and one of the others probably does get cert! And I can see Roberts ruling against it now since dobbs splits the precedent (I'm not saying thats likely, I'm just saying it's believable). > In my opinion that was a tactical error. For whom? Like it's obviously harmful, but it's correct jurisprudence and supports the federalist strategy of dismantling as much federal civil rights law as possible. Like I have a very hard time finding the consistent values you work from, since apparently this was an error despite you agreeing with the ruling in a technical sense and in a meta-political sense (in that whatever your opinion on abortion, you believe abortion law being defederalized is good for the social fabric). And it's obviously what Republicans, if not conservatives, want. Who is it a tactical error for, and why?