4 ms·
Across the country, many laws are passed by red states that might not hold up if they are challenged in Supreme Court. But how many cases can SC take on? How lo
by akudha 4y ago
Across the country, many laws are passed by red states that might not hold up if they are challenged in Supreme Court. But how many cases can SC take on? How long will these cases take?
Primary objective of these laws is to scare people and theatrics. By that metric, this law seems to be doing well.
That said, are we even sure the current SC will act in the best interests of the ordinary citizen?
- krapp 4y agoThe reason red states are passing laws like this is that they believe the Supreme Court, recently stacked by Conservatives hand-picked by the Federalist Society, will either leave it to the states or rule in their favor.
- PartiallyTyped 4y agoAnd given Roe v Wade, a so called by the Catholic majority “settled decision”, has been reverted, all the evidence suggests it will rule in their favour. If the SC can’t protect a freedom as fundamental as person’s bodily autonomy and integrity, they will do nothing here.
- xupybd 4y agoWhile I understand your point I think that ruling came down to the technicalities of constitutional law. It should not be up to the judicial branch to make laws only interpret them. If there is a problem with the law congress needs to fix it.
- krapp 4y agoWhether the supreme court is making up laws or merely interpreting the constitution seems to depend on whether one agrees with their decisions.
- xupybd 4y agoThey over reach in every political direction. That is a problem as if they're stacked left or right they'll unfairly bias the system.
- PartiallyTyped 4y agoWhile I agree with your interpretation of the responsibilities of the SC, my problem is with the course of action taken by the justices. The SC did not have to change the ruling, but the majority chose to do so, with full knowledge that a repeal would trigger laws that put the health and livelihood of conscious, living and breathing citizens at risk. The SC gave a metaphorical loaded gun to certain states, allowing them to aim and shoot at bystanders, at people who can not get out of the way (= i.e. have an out of state abortion), and in the process enact economic violence towards its own citizens [1] and put their life in danger. I am not expressing that the states are not at fault, I am expressing that the SC could have simply not taken any course of action given that they had previously expressed that it is a settled matter. [1] https://www.epi.org/publication/economics-of-abortion-bans/?utm_source=sillychillly https://www.epi.org/publication/economics-of-abortion-bans/?...
- nathanaldensr 4y agoAgain, the Supreme Court's role is not to cause or avoid social outcomes; it's to rule on the constitutionality of law. To suggest otherwise is confirming that you believe in an activist court--as long as it suits you, of course.
- PartiallyTyped 4y agoFair enough, let that be the purpose of the SC as envisioned by the founding fathers. Does the evidence suggest that the SC is filling that role and is not an activist court?
- bodiekane 4y ago[flagged]
- PartiallyTyped 4y agoI am not going to entertain a strawman by a throwaway account. If you wish to discuss this properly, log in to your main account, and attempt to communicate your argument without a strawman. To help you, I did not claim that the bodily autonomy and integrity of a __child__ should not be protected.
- ErikVandeWater 4y ago> Across the country, many laws are passed by red states that might not hold up if they are challenged in Supreme Court. This is definitely not specific to red states.
- nathanaldensr 4y agoExactly. See New York's and Chicago's blatantly unconstitutional gun laws--passed after recent USSC rulings.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kodah 4y agoHell, even in blue states. I live in Oregon and we're fighting a gun law that was clearly laughing at the hurdles one must go through in order to undo a law.