As for Hendu Hammer's comment, and mention of abortion, all three of the clown's nominees were asked directly and specifically about Roe, and all of them responded in Senate testimony that it was "settled law." Then, they overturned it. And it's unclear what can be done.
I loved your piece generally. For many conservatives this Supreme Court is just bringing the Court back to its rightful place from all those years of a liberal court, starting with the Warren Court, to a neutral place. For decades the Court and the Executive filled-in for the Congress's inability to get things done. With Trump it has reached an extreme. I have a short piece explaining a more moderate opinion of this court.
The Dobbs decision overturning Roe is a good example of this court seeing its constitutional role as not making policy, just deciding constitutional questions. In Dobbs the Court decided that it did not have the authority to decide on abortion, since that would be a policy decision and the constitution does not mention "abortion". Under the 10the Amendment it could have held that the "people" have the authority to decide this but it gave that authority to the state legislatures. I think that was wrong. hasselhilljr@gmail.com 720 315 2808 Aurora, Colorado
“Without structural constraints on what any court can do, any reform will just be a band-aid”, yet band-aids certainly do have their uses.
This reminds me of my frustration over Biden’s, at least seemingly, inaction on the problematic 6th January and other rather fundamental attacks on reasonable governance.
At one side is it the hunt on the “perfect” solution, meaning a solution that doesn’t exist and will forever solve a specific problem or dilemma. On the other side is it inactivity that encourages more of the same.
I am not saying *I* know the solutions to everything, but in the case of Biden’s tenure, was it not lack of warnings or lack of perspectives on the consequences of Republican hooliganism and use of inconsistent moral and ethical arguments, yet solutions were not prepared or presented.
I like how the article breaks down the 9 ways the court contributes to backsliding.
Sort of confused on what exactly what we mean by "democracy." The abortion decision, which is one of the most consequential decisions during the Roberts court, was extremely pro-democratic as it transferred power to the people and the States on the issue of abortion. I've always viewed "democracy" as "power to the people."
If giving over decisions to states is more democratic, why not devolve such decision-making power to counties or cities? That would be even more democratic, right? Or…get this…why not devolve the decision-making power to the individual in the case of abortion? What could possibly be more democratic than that?
If we lived in a country called "United America," you would be correct. But we don't.
If rights of individual behavior aren't enshrined in the federal constitution (or federal law), we go to the state level and let democracy do its thing.
So it’s fine for states to legislate away private decisions? Why don’t they decide to be more democratic and allow each county or city/ town to decide? That would be WAY more democratic.
Just a hint here: letting states make more decisions about what we can’t do isn’t “more democratic.” Anyone arguing this is either disingenuous or stupid.
I'm not arguing that democracy is good or bad or whether states should legislate private decisions. I'm arguing this is the system we have, whether we like it or not.
States do legislate some private decisions. use of weed, school choice, obviously abortion like we discussed.
Some States (depending on the state constitution) do allow city/town/counties to have more power, we saw this during COVID where some localities where able to lockdown without State approval. We see this with land use laws.
I'm arguing that for abortion specifically, the outcome was more democratic than before because now people could have decide on a State level what they wanted to do.
Therefore, when these authors say the Supreme Court is anti-democratic, I'm wondering what does that mean if one of the most important decisions was pro-democratic.
Where do we disagree? What's your definition of democracy?
This is a shockingly demoralizing post.
As for Hendu Hammer's comment, and mention of abortion, all three of the clown's nominees were asked directly and specifically about Roe, and all of them responded in Senate testimony that it was "settled law." Then, they overturned it. And it's unclear what can be done.
I loved your piece generally. For many conservatives this Supreme Court is just bringing the Court back to its rightful place from all those years of a liberal court, starting with the Warren Court, to a neutral place. For decades the Court and the Executive filled-in for the Congress's inability to get things done. With Trump it has reached an extreme. I have a short piece explaining a more moderate opinion of this court.
The Dobbs decision overturning Roe is a good example of this court seeing its constitutional role as not making policy, just deciding constitutional questions. In Dobbs the Court decided that it did not have the authority to decide on abortion, since that would be a policy decision and the constitution does not mention "abortion". Under the 10the Amendment it could have held that the "people" have the authority to decide this but it gave that authority to the state legislatures. I think that was wrong. hasselhilljr@gmail.com 720 315 2808 Aurora, Colorado
“Without structural constraints on what any court can do, any reform will just be a band-aid”, yet band-aids certainly do have their uses.
This reminds me of my frustration over Biden’s, at least seemingly, inaction on the problematic 6th January and other rather fundamental attacks on reasonable governance.
At one side is it the hunt on the “perfect” solution, meaning a solution that doesn’t exist and will forever solve a specific problem or dilemma. On the other side is it inactivity that encourages more of the same.
I am not saying *I* know the solutions to everything, but in the case of Biden’s tenure, was it not lack of warnings or lack of perspectives on the consequences of Republican hooliganism and use of inconsistent moral and ethical arguments, yet solutions were not prepared or presented.
Yes. Let's do all these things.
I like how the article breaks down the 9 ways the court contributes to backsliding.
Sort of confused on what exactly what we mean by "democracy." The abortion decision, which is one of the most consequential decisions during the Roberts court, was extremely pro-democratic as it transferred power to the people and the States on the issue of abortion. I've always viewed "democracy" as "power to the people."
How do the authors define democracy?
If giving over decisions to states is more democratic, why not devolve such decision-making power to counties or cities? That would be even more democratic, right? Or…get this…why not devolve the decision-making power to the individual in the case of abortion? What could possibly be more democratic than that?
If we lived in a country called "United America," you would be correct. But we don't.
If rights of individual behavior aren't enshrined in the federal constitution (or federal law), we go to the state level and let democracy do its thing.
So it’s fine for states to legislate away private decisions? Why don’t they decide to be more democratic and allow each county or city/ town to decide? That would be WAY more democratic.
Just a hint here: letting states make more decisions about what we can’t do isn’t “more democratic.” Anyone arguing this is either disingenuous or stupid.
I'm not arguing that democracy is good or bad or whether states should legislate private decisions. I'm arguing this is the system we have, whether we like it or not.
States do legislate some private decisions. use of weed, school choice, obviously abortion like we discussed.
Some States (depending on the state constitution) do allow city/town/counties to have more power, we saw this during COVID where some localities where able to lockdown without State approval. We see this with land use laws.
I'm arguing that for abortion specifically, the outcome was more democratic than before because now people could have decide on a State level what they wanted to do.
Therefore, when these authors say the Supreme Court is anti-democratic, I'm wondering what does that mean if one of the most important decisions was pro-democratic.
Where do we disagree? What's your definition of democracy?