Is it ever time to pack the court? (US politics)

[Astro Cat]

I understand the argument that once this starts, it's hard to stop it. But what recourse is there when a court has an illegitimate/stolen seat, a rushed though barely legitimate seat, and at least two members that lied under oath saying they wouldn't do what they just did (overturn Roe vs. Wade)?

A Republican president hasn't won the popular vote since 1988. 5 out of 9 justices were seated by a president that lost the popular election and generally gravitate towards views that the population doesn't share using dubious interpretational "theories" that are muddy from the start (e.g. Originalism).

Republican Senate power is equal to that of Democrats despite the latter representing more than 10% more US citizens.

We have a tyranny of the minority that just shattered half a century of precedent, with one of the concurring opinions calling for more blood (contraception, marriage equality -- I notice that he oddly left out miscegenation from his extremist rambling).

When is it time to pack the courts? How badly could it backfire?

[UniversalAlien]

I understand the argument that once this starts, it's hard to stop it. But what recourse is there when a court has an illegitimate/stolen seat, a rushed though barely legitimate seat, and at least two members that lied under oath saying they wouldn't do what they just did (overturn Roe vs. Wade)?

A Republican president hasn't won the popular vote since 1988. 5 out of 9 justices were seated by a president that lost the popular election and generally gravitate towards views that the population doesn't share using dubious interpretational "theories" that are muddy from the start (e.g. Originalism).

Republican Senate power is equal to that of Democrats despite the latter representing more than 10% more US citizens.

We have a tyranny of the minority that just shattered half a century of precedent, with one of the concurring opinions calling for more blood (contraception, marriage equality -- I notice that he oddly left out miscegenation from his extremist rambling).

When is it time to pack the courts? How badly could it backfire?

Good points - And welcome to the world of political racketeering ........
{see my post:
The Republican Party classified as RICO [Racketeer.....]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=17996}

Trump's Republican Party doesn't believe in democracy - Its a Republic they will tell you - which has come to mean, as shown by ex President Donald Tramp, that whatever manipulation, legal or not, necessary to maintain power, should be used
- And as he is still getting away with it as they have yet to charge him with any crimes - Crime pays
{but not as well as politics }

The Conservative Supreme Court Justices installed by Trump probably sold their souls to the devil to satisfy the New Trump Republican crime cartel

I don't, and I think no intelligent person, can really believe that these bought and paid for bureaucrats really give a damn about
unborn babies in women's wombs. What they do care about are contributions and votes from a religious right, that if allowed to
continue will set the United States back to the days of the Puritans and/or stage a new Medieval Inquisition

What happened to the Constitutional principal of separation of church and state

Democrats and Liberals don't have enough power in the Senate to pass any meaningful legislation protecting women's, or for that matter anyone else's rights and/or to pack the Supreme Court.

Take note of the next elections coming up - If Trump's Republican Party gains more power its all over - Abortion will probably be outlawed nationwide, even though for now at least Biden could veto it.

This is a philosophy forum and what we may ask is what happened to the Republican Party that agreed Nixon was crooked and had to go, and that today continues to support Trump whose criminal attempt to take over the United Stats by fraud and deceit has been playing out since January 6, 2020 and is now being shown again in graphic detail as the January 6 Hearings play out on television

[Leontiskos]

The Court is not a legislative body, and that is why it should not be packed, why appointments should not be seen in an overtly political light, etc. Roe was an example of terrible jurisprudence, and legal scholars from every corner of the political spectrum know it. Not even progressives have been willing to defend Roe qua internal reasoning, only qua stare decisis. If Roe was the decision of a lower court it would have no influence, for its internal reasoning is deeply and uncontroversially flawed. Whether or not one is pro-life or pro-choice, Dobbs must be seen as good jurisprudence once the proper role of the Court as an interpretive body is understood. Incidentally, very few Americans understand the difference between the judicial and legislative branches, and this is because of silly jurisprudence like Roe. In the face of stare decisis Dobbs is at great pains to show forth the substantial flaws of Roe by corralling the literature and holdings of recent decades, and even for that reason is a worthwhile read. Clinging to Roe in 2022 would be a bit like clinging to geocentrism in the late 19th century, and doing so on the basis of sheer precedent.

As for Originalism, even the Obama-apointee, Justice Elena Kagan, has said that, "[W]e are all originalists" (link). Some Republicans have recently counseled abandoning Originalism because it has not proven "effective," and part of that puzzle is its wide acceptance across the spectrum. For example, Bostock v. Clayton Country relied heavily on textualist analysis.

[gad-fly]

The Court is not a legislative body, and that is why it should not be packed, why appointments should not be seen in an overtly political light, etc.

Incidentally, very few Americans understand the difference between the judicial and legislative branches

Well said about the Court being independent and non-political. Such independence is an inalienable foundation of America. Whether you are for or against the majority decision of the Court, to pack the court would be no worse than to storm Congress on January 6. It is seditious.

I do not agree that few American understand the difference. I would give them due respect. Deep down, most of them understand, even if vaguely.

Personally, I do not agree with overturning Roe vs Wade. I can feel the impact, but we must let the Court run its course, and give it due respect, even as some of us demonstrate to voice strong objection.

[Pattern-chaser]

I understand the argument that once this starts, it's hard to stop it. But what recourse is there when a court has an illegitimate/stolen seat, a rushed though barely legitimate seat, and at least two members that lied under oath saying they wouldn't do what they just did (overturn Roe vs. Wade)?

A Republican president hasn't won the popular vote since 1988. 5 out of 9 justices were seated by a president that lost the popular election and generally gravitate towards views that the population doesn't share using dubious interpretational "theories" that are muddy from the start (e.g. Originalism).

Republican Senate power is equal to that of Democrats despite the latter representing more than 10% more US citizens.

In fairness, Trump won according to the rules in place in your country at the time. I happen to think that was a travesty as huge for the US as Brexit was for my UK. But he was voted in according to the rules. Better to look at how some non-white voters were disenfranchised if you're looking to show Trump's election was a fraud, I think?

And now your Supreme Court is peopled with extreme right-wing n̶u̶t̶t̶e̶r̶s̶ judges, and you're reaping the consequences of that vote for Trump and his Good Ole' Boys...

It's all very sad.

[Astro Cat]

The Court is not a legislative body, and that is why it should not be packed, why appointments should not be seen in an overtly political light, etc. Roe was an example of terrible jurisprudence, and legal scholars from every corner of the political spectrum know it. Not even progressives have been willing to defend Roe qua internal reasoning, only qua stare decisis. If Roe was the decision of a lower court it would have no influence, for its internal reasoning is deeply and uncontroversially flawed. Whether or not one is pro-life or pro-choice, Dobbs must be seen as good jurisprudence once the proper role of the Court as an interpretive body is understood. Incidentally, very few Americans understand the difference between the judicial and legislative branches, and this is because of silly jurisprudence like Roe. In the face of stare decisis Dobbs is at great pains to show forth the substantial flaws of Roe by corralling the literature and holdings of recent decades, and even for that reason is a worthwhile read. Clinging to Roe in 2022 would be a bit like clinging to geocentrism in the late 19th century, and doing so on the basis of sheer precedent.

As for Originalism, even the Obama-apointee, Justice Elena Kagan, has said that, "[W]e are all originalists" (link). Some Republicans have recently counseled abandoning Originalism because it has not proven "effective," and part of that puzzle is its wide acceptance across the spectrum. For example, Bostock v. Clayton Country relied heavily on textualist analysis.

Typing on a tiny screen.

If the court shouldn’t be seen in an overly political light, why has one party packed it on the basis of stripping rights with a wink and a nudge to lie about whether they would do that to get an easier pass?

De jure, we have an impartial body interpreting a now-ancient document according to the intent of that document, but we have a body that is de facto predictable by modern political biases and seems to do whatever it wants because 5 is a greater number than 4.

I don’t think Originalism is coherent or possible — or, frankly, desirable. Technically, bullets didn’t even exist when the document was penned, yet somehow we’ve concluded that it was their original intention that the federal government can barely regulate a device that spews enough bullets to kill tens of people within minutes (to use a hot button example. Somehow, in all this, we also conveniently interpret “well-regulated militia” to somehow mean something more modern than was originally intended).

I also question the wisdom of wanting[/] to emulate a group of people for whom it was normal to own other people and for whom women weren’t even worthy to vote.

I guess what I’m trying to say is this: the problem is that Originalism is impossible. We can’t know what some dead guys would think about modern problems, and it’s ludicrous to even pretend that we can. What judges really do, whether they admit it or not, is that they imagine what a modern version of the original writers might think. But that is why they are de facto political, and I’m tired of pretending they’re not.

[Astro Cat]

I should also note that without the court doing some of the things it has done, we would be living in an awful country right now. Would desegregation have ever happened? Would miscegenation laws have ever been able to be dumped? I know for sure that marriage equality would never have been achieved with as utterly broken as our legislative branch is currently.

And now Thomas et al may just take it away again. As a woman, as a lesbian that would like to be able to live my life, I feel like it’s outrageous to shunt me right back into second class citizenship because that’s indeed the way the founding fathers would have wanted it.

I say to Hell with that. It is not only necessary for the court to imagine a modern version of the authors, but necessary to make up for the broken legislative branch. Because we fundamentally have a broken country, and people like me suffer because my rights and my body get to be put on ballots, while other peoples’ are enshrined and don’t have to depend on the masses to keep them!

[Astro Cat]

This is going to sound like it’s aimed at you Leontiskos but I want to assure you that we’re cool. I’m speaking more to a concept and a circumstance than to you as a person, whom I value and like.

But I don’t know what to do. If I go along with what I perceive to be a laughably impossible and ill-advised concept of a court somehow being able to impartially channel dead peoples’ exact opinions on things they couldn’t possibly have imagined, then the only thing I can hope for is to expect a bunch of people to vote for my ability to control my own body (now I have less control than a corpse!) or to marry whom I will.

Everybody else gets to live their life but I have to ask permission.

If that doesn’t seem fair to me, I get calmly explained to that well, I need to work with the legislative branch to be a real person with the same rights.

The legislative branch that would never in a million years openly vote for marriage equality. That legislative branch.

So what am I supposed to do? Here we had a system that was working, and one that didn’t pretend to be doing something impossible (again, I think originalism is impossible). And I think it’s ironic that Thomas of all people explicitly targeted other things that will hurt people like me when he benefited from the court himself (as I said, I noticed he didn’t target miscegenation laws, which I doubt he could have relied on the legislative branch to resolve either!)

I have to be the one that sits here while my life and my rights are just oh so calmly debated.

[Astro Cat]

It feels like having a bunch of people calmly talking amongst each other whether you have the right to live or not.

Your heart sinks as a bunch of people that are fully protected of course tell you to calm down while they just oh so calmly discuss whether you have the right to exist.

All you want to do is say “maybe this is something that shouldn’t be left up to the masses to debate?”

Some people get to live their lives assured that they won’t ever be put on a ballot.

Others have to wring their hands hoping they’re not up on the ballot next.

I was up on the ballot yesterday effectively (rather, thrown into the pit where it’s possible to be put on the ballot), every woman was; and then I was threatened to be put on the ballot again and again for access to contraceptives (still useful to me for menstrual control reasons) and for marrying whom I will.

And I just can’t wrap my head around how this could happen while people just say “calm down, just convince the wolves not to vote you down when you’re on the ballot.”

[Astro Cat]

I am clearly upset, I’m sorry everyone. I’m going to go make lunch with my sweetheart and try to have some fun this weekend. Cheers <3

[Astro Cat]

Put on my face and worried that came off like I was upset at anyone here (ugh I worry too much), I’m not! Just at the situation. Promise not to bite any responders’ heads off.

[Gertie]

America had a tribal tantrum in the face of globalism and impending decine when it elected Trump, and it's still dealing with the fallout. If an elected government can't deal with courts imposing regressive theocratic laws on its people, to the point of forced pregnacy and childbirth, there's something gone wrong somewhere.

[Astro Cat]

Welp. Couldn’t get away from it. I guess we’re heading out to protest. We’ll be safe

[GE Morton]

The Court is not a legislative body, and that is why it should not be packed, why appointments should not be seen in an overtly political light, etc. Roe was an example of terrible jurisprudence, and legal scholars from every corner of the political spectrum know it. Not even progressives have been willing to defend Roe qua internal reasoning, only qua stare decisis. If Roe was the decision of a lower court it would have no influence, for its internal reasoning is deeply and uncontroversially flawed. Whether or not one is pro-life or pro-choice, Dobbs must be seen as good jurisprudence once the proper role of the Court as an interpretive body is understood.

Neither Roe nor Dobbs is "good jurisprudence." But the reason for that is not that the justices in either case were prejudiced, incompetent, Democrats or Republicans, Catholics, Jews, or Protestants, but because the question before them in both cases is inherently difficult. How the Constitution should be applied to that question is not at all clear, because what that document regards as a person is not clear.

The basic conflict is this: the 5th and 14th Amendments both prohibit government, federal and state, from "depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." So is aborting a pregnancy among the liberties government must not infringe, or is the fetus's life one that it must also protect?

Justice Blackmun in Roe tried to answer that question, by citing how "person" is used elsewhere in the Constitution. Fetuses, for example, have never been counted in the censuses of "free Persons" ordered in Article I:

"The Constitution does not define 'person' in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to 'person.' The first, in defining 'citizens,' speaks of 'persons born or naturalized in the United States.' The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. 'Person' is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art, I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3;53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emoulument Clause, Art, I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electros provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible prenatal application.

"All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

You might think that would settle the issue: if the fetus is not a person then it has no Constitutional right to life, and so the woman's liberty right to abort it prevails. But Blackmun knew it wouldn't, because even if the fetus is not a person, it is a "potential person" (or so it was argued). His response to those arguments are the weakest part of the Roe decision, yielding the "trimester" breakdown of a pregnancy and dictating what restrictions could be imposed on the practice in each trimester. Trying to tie that reasoning to any language in the Constitution is spurious and fatuous.

The dissenters in Roe, and the majority in Dobbs, on the other hand, prefer to ignore the entire issue of personhood. Their basic position is that when the Constitution is not clear on some point, then the question must be left to the States to answer, not the federal courts. The Bill of Rights mentions no right to abortion, but the 9th Amendment asserts, "The enumeration in this Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others held by the people." Are the rights of privacy and abortion among those unenumerated rights? The Dobbs majority's response to those questions is the same: what "other rights" those may be is for the States to decide, not the federal courts. They prefer to rely on the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." To them, "to the United States" means not only Congress, but the federal courts as well.

You're right that the Roe decision has been criticized by legal scholars of all stripes. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a strong pro-choicer, called it "heavy-handed" and poorly reasoned. Many scholars will find the new Dobbs decision poorly reasoned as well, especially with regard to their construal of the 9th Amendment, which renders it impotent. But it is pointless to dismiss the pro-choicers as heartless baby-killers, and pro-lifers as male supremecists and oppressors of women. Many pro-lifers are themselves women, including one of the majority justices in Dobbs. The justices in both cases acted in good faith and applied what they saw as sound Constitutional jurisprudence. But the issue is a tough one, constitutionally speaking.

[UniversalAlien]

America had a tribal tantrum in the face of globalism and impending decine when it elected Trump, and it's still dealing with the fallout. If an elected government can't deal with courts imposing regressive theocratic laws on its people, to the point of forced pregnacy and childbirth, there's something gone wrong somewhere.

Trump is a very slick conman {my opinion} and somehow convinced many {including me} that he was the alternative to insider special interest politics - Time and his deeds have shown that nothing could be further from the truth. Trump defines special interest political
manipulation at its worst. And when he said he was going to drain the swamp, its what he didn't say that is most important
- He was going to drain the swamp so the alligators could take over

But this anti abortion, right to life issue is, again in my opinion, insane. How could a bunch of 'witch hunters' so demonize women's rights to the ownership of their own bodies so as to set the United States back to a Puritan ideology of hundreds of years ago

Were we all sleeping when they actually killed abortion doctors and:

"Violence to Abortion Providers"

For nearly four decades reproductive health clinics and abortion providers throughout the United States have been under attack. There have been thousands of violent incidents including blockades, invasions, chemical attacks, arsons, bombings, death threats, shootings, sniper attacks, and cold-blooded murder.

Anti-abortion extremists are waging a war of attrition. This strategy targets one set of clinics and health care workers today … then after these clinics are closed or severely injured, extremists move on to target another set of clinics. While abortion remains legal, the tide of violence jeopardizes access to vital medical services.....

https://feminist.org/our-work/national- ... idnapping/

These are very sick people - And this was never, or never should have been, a political issue

What one might wonder is why people want to have children at all when Human reproduction is controlled by a fascist, Inquisition like
ideology that usurps Human rights to satisfy a sick control freak mentality

Unless we recognize how far this insanity has gone, you know the worst is yet to come. The 'Inquisition' has just begun

"Justice Thomas: SCOTUS ‘should reconsider’ contraception, same-sex marriage rulings"

Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a concurring opinion released on Friday that the Supreme Court “should reconsider” its past rulings codifying rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.

The sweeping suggestion from the current court’s longest-serving justice came in the concurring opinion he authored in response to the court’s ruling revoking the constitutional right to abortion, also released on Friday.

In his concurring opinion, Thomas — an appointee of President George H.W. Bush — wrote that the justices “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell” — referring to three cases having to do with Americans’ fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights.

Overturn of Roe to spark statewide battles: Politico Explains

Since May, when POLITICO published an initial draft majority opinion of the court’s decision on Friday to strike down Roe v. Wade, Democratic politicians have repeatedly warned that such a ruling would lead to the reversal of other landmark privacy-related cases.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/2 ... s-00042256