3 ms·

Supreme Court said you can agree to things online awhile ago.

jacurtis 3y ago
Nothing in the American legal system is that straightforward and simple, even less so among our Supreme Court. Things got even more confusing now that this year the Supreme Court has set a new precedent that they can now overturn their own rulings from decades earlier. While I think that’s generally true that online signatures are acceptable in most circumstances, I’d be careful to blindly believe it as a blanket statement.
- vitus 3y ago
  > this year the Supreme Court has set a new precedent that they can now overturn their own rulings from decades earlier What happened this year specifically? Dobbs was in June 2022, but that isn't even close to the first time that the Supreme Court overturned precedent from 50+ years prior -- Brown v Board largely overturned Plessy v Ferguson ("separate but equal") from nearly 60 years prior. And, we've had plenty of Supreme Court precedents overruled since the 19th century. According to Congress: https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/ https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overru... (Most of those never rose to the level of landmark decisions, but Plessy certainly did.)
  - otteromkram 3y ago
    Roe v. Wade
    - quickthrower2 3y ago
      That is covered by the comment you replied to
    - rs999gti 3y ago
      I would blame the congress more than the supreme court for Roe being overturned. The legal precedent was made in the initial supreme court ruling, all someone needed to do in the legislature is codify it into law. But no, laziness and re-electabilty on both sides, led to the ruling being overturned in the second examination of Roe.
  - Guvante 3y ago
    Eliminating separate but equal was based on the evidence of how that statue was used. Eliminating abortion protections was based on "we don't think the founders meant that" which is a form of consideration never before used. This kind of test is effectively in the eye of the beholder. You can say whatever you want and disproving it requires Goldilocks evidence. You can't talk about the case law the American system was based on even if it was adopted wholesale and unchanged. You can't talk about the intervening decades and how the legal system handled things. You need to basically quote the founding fathers talking about a specific topic or the Supreme Court can say "no I disagree" and overrule you.
    - vitus 3y ago
      > Eliminating abortion protections was based on "we don't think the founders meant that" which is a form of consideration never before used. Textualism and originalism have been in play for decades -- off the top of my head: 2008's DC v Heller basically codified today's broad interpretation of the second amendment's protections. I don't personally agree with the decisions (among other things, the resulting patchwork application of laws has meant that your access to abortion is dependent on how strong your state's Democratic bent in the statehouse(s) is), but it's not novel to the past decade, even. The only new development from the past 5-10 years is the presence of 5 votes on the court willing to overturn Roe's long-standing precedent.
      - Guvante 3y ago
        Wasn't DC v Heller ghost written by the same group as Dobbs? (not literally but guided in a similar fashion) Of course it is similar it was a test bed to pull this. At least DC v Heller could point to actual facts to back up it's interpretation. Dobbs just dances around the idea saying "we believe" a lot and super focusing on the Supremacy clause in a way not seen in... I couldn't even say how long ago it was that the SC said it couldn't restrict something in that way.
        vitus 3y ago
        > Wasn't DC v Heller ghost written by the same group as Dobbs? (not literally but guided in a similar fashion) What, the Federalist Society? In as far as the last three justices willing to overturn Roe were hand-selected by them, yes, but there was little doubt that any of them would vote to overturn Roe even before their confirmations. > At least DC v Heller could point to actual facts to back up it's interpretation. Dobbs just dances around the idea saying "we believe" a lot and super focusing on the Supremacy clause in a way not seen in... I couldn't even say how long ago it was that the SC said it couldn't restrict something in that way. On one hand, there's a difference between who authored those opinions (say what you will about Scalia, but his application of originalism didn't have as clear of a partisan bent). On the other, there was clearly an effort to thread the needle such that both Thomas (who wanted Dobbs to go so much further) and Roberts (who has started to think about his court's legacy and its public perception) were willing to sign onto said opinion. I suspect we would have had the same style of opinions 5 years ago if it had been Ginsburg instead of Scalia who passed away in 2016.
dataviz1000 3y ago
Click wrap is binding.

Nothing in the American legal system is that straightforward and simple, even less so among our Supreme Court. Things got even more confusing now that this year the Supreme Court has set a new precedent that they can now overturn their own rulings from decades earlier. While I think that’s generally true that online signatures are acceptable in most circumstances, I’d be careful to blindly believe it as a blanket statement.

vitus 3y ago
> this year the Supreme Court has set a new precedent that they can now overturn their own rulings from decades earlier What happened this year specifically? Dobbs was in June 2022, but that isn't even close to the first time that the Supreme Court overturned precedent from 50+ years prior -- Brown v Board largely overturned Plessy v Ferguson ("separate but equal") from nearly 60 years prior. And, we've had plenty of Supreme Court precedents overruled since the 19th century. According to Congress: https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/ https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overru... (Most of those never rose to the level of landmark decisions, but Plessy certainly did.)
- otteromkram 3y ago
  Roe v. Wade
  - quickthrower2 3y ago
    That is covered by the comment you replied to
  - rs999gti 3y ago
    I would blame the congress more than the supreme court for Roe being overturned. The legal precedent was made in the initial supreme court ruling, all someone needed to do in the legislature is codify it into law. But no, laziness and re-electabilty on both sides, led to the ruling being overturned in the second examination of Roe.
- Guvante 3y ago
  Eliminating separate but equal was based on the evidence of how that statue was used. Eliminating abortion protections was based on "we don't think the founders meant that" which is a form of consideration never before used. This kind of test is effectively in the eye of the beholder. You can say whatever you want and disproving it requires Goldilocks evidence. You can't talk about the case law the American system was based on even if it was adopted wholesale and unchanged. You can't talk about the intervening decades and how the legal system handled things. You need to basically quote the founding fathers talking about a specific topic or the Supreme Court can say "no I disagree" and overrule you.
  - vitus 3y ago
    > Eliminating abortion protections was based on "we don't think the founders meant that" which is a form of consideration never before used. Textualism and originalism have been in play for decades -- off the top of my head: 2008's DC v Heller basically codified today's broad interpretation of the second amendment's protections. I don't personally agree with the decisions (among other things, the resulting patchwork application of laws has meant that your access to abortion is dependent on how strong your state's Democratic bent in the statehouse(s) is), but it's not novel to the past decade, even. The only new development from the past 5-10 years is the presence of 5 votes on the court willing to overturn Roe's long-standing precedent.
    - Guvante 3y ago
      Wasn't DC v Heller ghost written by the same group as Dobbs? (not literally but guided in a similar fashion) Of course it is similar it was a test bed to pull this. At least DC v Heller could point to actual facts to back up it's interpretation. Dobbs just dances around the idea saying "we believe" a lot and super focusing on the Supremacy clause in a way not seen in... I couldn't even say how long ago it was that the SC said it couldn't restrict something in that way.
      - vitus 3y ago
        > Wasn't DC v Heller ghost written by the same group as Dobbs? (not literally but guided in a similar fashion) What, the Federalist Society? In as far as the last three justices willing to overturn Roe were hand-selected by them, yes, but there was little doubt that any of them would vote to overturn Roe even before their confirmations. > At least DC v Heller could point to actual facts to back up it's interpretation. Dobbs just dances around the idea saying "we believe" a lot and super focusing on the Supremacy clause in a way not seen in... I couldn't even say how long ago it was that the SC said it couldn't restrict something in that way. On one hand, there's a difference between who authored those opinions (say what you will about Scalia, but his application of originalism didn't have as clear of a partisan bent). On the other, there was clearly an effort to thread the needle such that both Thomas (who wanted Dobbs to go so much further) and Roberts (who has started to think about his court's legacy and its public perception) were willing to sign onto said opinion. I suspect we would have had the same style of opinions 5 years ago if it had been Ginsburg instead of Scalia who passed away in 2016.

dataviz1000 3y ago

Click wrap is binding.