After a year of SCOTUS decisions, where are we?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So, just a year (and 1 week) ago, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down Roe v. Wade, a 50 year precedent. Most recently, it has eviscerated affirmative action meant to compensate for damages done to some races for purely racist reasons, started the process of removing protections for some groups (LGBTQ+), and government attempt to help millions saddled with debt burdens from simply seeking to be well-educated.

So the question is this: Is the U.S., because of the activities of SCOTUS, more kind, more decent, more fair and more just than it was a year ago? Or less?

Make your best arguments for however you vote.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Other - although I see things as a little bit worse, I'd say "too many variables to say" especially with this being a year or so before heavy election campaigning starts up.

 

[Stevicus]

So, just a year (and 1 week) ago, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down Roe v. Wade, a 50 year precedent. Most recently, it has eviscerated affirmative action meant to compensate for damages done to some races for purely racist reasons, started the process of removing protections for some groups (LGBTQ+), and government attempt to help millions saddled with debt burdens from simply seeking to be well-educated.

So the question is this: Is the U.S., because of the activities of SCOTUS, more kind, more decent, more fair and more just than it was a year ago? Or less?

Make your best arguments for however you vote.

Not sure if I can pick any of these choices, since it's not really the Supreme Court's purview to make things kind or decent.

If there's a problem with the Supreme Court, it may be with the legal system as a whole - or possibly even our national philosophy regarding law and government. I've heard it said that "A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers."

There's a section in Vincent Bugliosi's book "Outrage," in which he offers a less-than-flattering portrait of judges and how they are often perceived. He mentions that Americans typically have contempt for lawyers, just as they have contempt for politicians. But, combine the two roles, add a black robe, and suddenly, the judge is elevated to that of some kind of "holy figure," who is infinitely sage and wise. Using the same analogy, the Supreme Court is something akin to a Vatican council or holy synod.

That's the problem, in a nutshell.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not sure if I can pick any of these choices, since it's not really the Supreme Court's purview to make things kind or decent.

While that may be true, do you not think that they have powers that can "make things kind or decent?" Or more importantly -- less so? And without constraint, as they won't be facing reappointment any time in the future!

Next term, for example, they'll be asked to decide whether convicted abusive spouses should be permitted to carry guns. That might lead to some unkindness -- at the very least.

 

[Sand Dancer]

It's a bad time to be a minority. Next will they pick on women, even though we are a majority?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's a bad time to be a minority.

Because some lost a wrongful privilege?
Note that Asians lost a wrongful disadvantage.

 

[Stevicus]

While that may be true, do you not think that they have powers that can "make things kind or decent?" Or more importantly -- less so? And without constraint, as they won't be facing reappointment any time in the future!

Next term, for example, they'll be asked to decide whether convicted abusive spouses should be permitted to carry guns. That might lead to some unkindness -- at the very least.

Only the citizenry can truly make things kind or decent, but the governmental powers were designed to be limited. The Constitution is written in vague language which can be interpreted in various ways - and it has been throughout history. The Supreme Court exists to be a kind of "referee" to deal with disagreements over interpretation and make a ruling.

So, yes, you could say that they have the power to make things kind or decent - or less so. We the people gave them that power, as we've gotten to the point where we can't seem to resolve even minor issues on our own.

We're in a litigious, sue-happy society where the lawyers profit and the judges' power to make law is expanded. And that largely happens because the legislative branch is all too often hobbled by political squabbling and grandstanding, when they're the ones who are supposed to be making the laws. They're the ones who are directly elected by the people, and the people count on them to make things kind and decent. But if they can't or won't do that, then, well, we end up having what we have.

As to your example - and all gun control/2nd Amendment cases - a lot of people blame the Supreme Court for making rulings unfavorable to gun control. But the easiest way to deal with that is for the people and their state governments to get together and repeal the 2nd Amendment. Then the Court can't make such rulings, and that power would be taken away from them. But if the people are not up to the task, then that's on them. Can't have it both ways.

If the political situation is such that there's too much gridlock and entrenchment as to make it political unfeasible to make sensible, constitutional laws or necessary amendments to the Constitution, then the Court, by default, has to take on that power. But if we have to depend on the rulings of the Supreme Court, then we're already in deep trouble.

 

[crossfire]

One thing that I like about SCOTUS this past year is that they upheld the Voting Rights Act which holds States in check regarding gerrymandering.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Even if we don't touch on the other rulings whatsoever, I consider the reversal of Roe v. Wade alone to be a bona fide sociopolitical disaster, especially given that it has resulted in situations like this:

2022 Ohio child-rape and Indiana abortion case - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So I voted for all of the "less" options. I think that would apply to any nation, not just the US, that had such a harmful ruling.

 

[Revoltingest]

Even if we don't touch on the other rulings whatsoever, I consider the reversal of Roe v. Wade alone to be a bona fide sociopolitical disaster, especially given that it has resulted in situations like this:

Would you say that anyone whose religion
believes abortion is murder is a sociopath?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Would you say that anyone whose religion
believes abortion is murder is a sociopath?

Not anyone, no. How is this question relevant at all, though?

 

[Revoltingest]

Not anyone, no. How is this question relevant at all, though?

You posted...

I consider the reversal of Roe v. Wade alone
to be a bona fide sociopolitical disaster...

The decision was made by justices who have
the support of many tens of millions of people.
So it raised the question about applying that
same term to the justices & people who
advocated for it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You posted...
"I consider the reversal of Roe v. Wade alone
to be a bona fide sociopolitical disaster..."

The decision was made by justices who have
the support of many tens of millions of people.
So it raised the question about applying that
same term to the justices & people who
advocated for it.

What term? Did you perhaps misread "sociopolitical" as "sociopathic"?

 

[Quintessence]

I mean, slightly over half the population of this country was rendered second-class citizens last year. And more of them were rendered second-class citizens again this year. Sometimes, these populations overlap which makes us, what, third-class citizens?

 

[Revoltingest]

What term? Did you perhaps misread "sociopolitical" as "sociopathic"?

I did.
I'll blame fatigue.
Time to sign off.
Good night, & may dunderheaded posters afflict you no more today.

 

[Shaul]

Just, Fair, Kind and Decent are not determined by popular opinion. This poll is useless.

 

[SomeRandom]

What term? Did you perhaps misread "sociopolitical" as "sociopathic"?

For what it’s worth, reading some of the responses from the Right To Life folks in your linked article (basically to the effect that said child should have been forced to carry to term) certainly made me question whether or not they were sociopaths.
Absolutely horrific and beyond disgusting!

 

[Nakosis]

So, just a year (and 1 week) ago, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down Roe v. Wade, a 50 year precedent. Most recently, it has eviscerated affirmative action meant to compensate for damages done to some races for purely racist reasons, started the process of removing protections for some groups (LGBTQ+), and government attempt to help millions saddled with debt burdens from simply seeking to be well-educated.

So the question is this: Is the U.S., because of the activities of SCOTUS, more kind, more decent, more fair and more just than it was a year ago? Or less?

Make your best arguments for however you vote.

None of the above.
I would say more conservative.
Conservatives having a different moral outlook the more or less is relative to that.

While I agree with some conservative values, I disagree with others so for me I'd say it is kind of a wash.

 

[pearl]

I would say more conservative.
Conservatives having a different moral outlook the more or less is relative to that.

To some extent SCOTUS has always had a political bent, liberal or conservative.
It was a Republican Court that struck down Roe v Wade, but also a Republican
Court that gave us Roe v Wade. The Court now is a majority conservative Christian Court.
Far more dangerous to personal freedoms.

 

[Revoltingest]

To some extent SCOTUS has always had a political bent, liberal or conservative.
It was a Republican Court that struck down Roe v Wade, but also a Republican
Court that gave us Roe v Wade. The Court now is a majority conservative Christian Court.
Far more dangerous to personal freedoms.

Specifically, we have a Catholic
court (6 of 9 justices). This is
somewhat different from a
merely conservative court.

Note:
I'm OK with people being Catholic.
But I don't want to give their
church total control of SCOTUS.