Supreme Court Is 'Lawless'

[PureX]

"Packing the court" is exactly how we ended up with a biased, lawless court.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't understand. How is it that when they supported the right to remove a baby in the womb it is considered non-political but when they limited the time it is political?

So, when they Okayed a new definition of marriage, it is not political? Or is it "political" when you don't agree?

Gay marriage infringes on no one and impedes nor hinders the rights of no one.

 

[sun rise]

This is nothing new.
It seems that people complaining now just
weren't bothered by earlier lawlessness.

The point is not the decision but the process. I might vehemently disagree with the decision but having had hearings and then released a legal argument, the process was followed. Here there was no process but an ex cathedra, zero process decision.

 

[Revoltingest]

The point is not the decision but the process.

No argument here.
The process has resulted in illegalities over centuries.

I might vehemently disagree with the decision but having had hearings and then released a legal argument, the process was followed. Here there was no process but an ex cathedra, zero process decision.

To pass on hearing about temporary suspension of a law
with immediate great deleterious effect is a bad process.

 

[sun rise]

I don't understand. How is it that when they supported the right to remove a baby in the womb it is considered non-political but when they limited the time it is political?

So, when they Okayed a new definition of marriage, it is not political? Or is it "political" when you don't agree?

As I noted in my response to @Revoltingest , the issue is lack of process. A court is supposed to consider evidence and legal arguments brought by differing parties and render an opinion based on their understanding of the law.

It was political because five members of SCOTUS acted like Congress members not like justices.

 

[Kenny]

Gay marriage infringes on no one and impedes nor hinders the rights of no one.

that wasn't the point, was it?

 

[Kenny]

As I noted in my response to @Revoltingest , the issue is lack of process. A court is supposed to consider evidence and legal arguments brought by differing parties and render an opinion based on their understanding of the law.

It was political because five members of SCOTUS acted like Congress members not like justices.

And they didn't.... how?

 

[Stevicus]

It just occurred to me that if the Supreme Court is "Lawless," then she should be on it:

 

[Shadow Wolf]

that wasn't the point, was it?

There was nothing political about it. Religion doesn't have exclusive rights or a monopoly on marriage. They can define ot according their beliefs but they can't define it for another. Amd because marriage involves legal things it cannot be denied to a group of people because some Christians think it's icky.

 

[Kenny]

There was nothing political about it. Religion doesn't have exclusive rights or a monopoly on marriage. They can define ot according their beliefs but they can't define it for another. Amd because marriage involves legal things it cannot be denied to a group of people because some Christians think it's icky.

I think you misunderstood me. what I was saying was that just because a decision runs cross-grain with one's position, it doesn't make it political.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think you misunderstood me. what I was saying was that just because a decision runs cross-grain with one's position, it doesn't make it political.

The abortion ban is political as it denies medical treatment, bodily autonomy, and ignores sound medicine and science. It's effects extend far beyond those who adhere to those religious beliefs.

 

[Kenny]

The abortion ban is political as it denies medical treatment, bodily autonomy, and ignores sound medicine and science. It's effects extend far beyond those who adhere to those religious beliefs.

You will have to give me more than personal viewpoints - though you have every right to form your personal viewpoints.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You will have to give me more that personal viewpoints.

It is objective it denies access to medical treatment, that it does deny bodily autonomy, amd it does ignore science and medicine (like their heartbeat claim).
Is a 'fetal heartbeat' really a heartbeat at 6 weeks?

 

[Kenny]

It is objective it denies access to medical treatment, that it does deny bodily autonomy, amd it does ignore science and medicine (like their heartbeat claim).
Is a 'fetal heartbeat' really a heartbeat at 6 weeks?

Again... you have too provide more information... It doesn't deny medical treatment, how doe it deny bodily autonomy (as you still have 6 weeks to still make a decision) , where does it ignore science and medicine in as much as it is science and medicine that determines the heartbeat claim.

Up until now, it is more personal viewpoint. IMO

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again... you have too provide more information... It doesn't deny medical treatment, how doe it deny bodily autonomy (as you still have 6 weeks to still make a decision) , where does it ignore science and medicine in as much as it is science and medicine that determines the heartbeat claim.

Up until now, it is more personal viewpoint. IMO

Abortion is a medical treatment, and banning it does mean a woman has had autonomy over her own body removed. You're going to have to explain how that isn't the case.
I also linked that the fetal heartbeat thing Reps and Cons rally around is a misnomer and doesn't actually exist at 6 weeks. Lots if women don't even know they are pregnant when they are at six weeks.

 

[Kenny]

Abortion is a medical treatment, and banning it does mean a woman has had autonomy over her own body removed. You're going to have to explain how that isn't the case.

1) It isn't banned... it is limited
2) It is a procedure... not a treatment.
3) You haven't explained how medically it is her own body or at which point (medically) it ceases to be her own body

I also linked that the fetal heartbeat thing Reps and Cons rally around is a misnomer and doesn't actually exist at 6 weeks. Lots if women don't even know they are pregnant when they are at six weeks.

Yes... there are pros and cons... did the judge review it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You haven't explained how medically it is her own body

That doesn't make any sense. How can it not be her body? Who's else is it? Who's else should it be?

at which point (medically) it ceases to be her own body

Never.

Yes... there are pros and cons... did the judge review it?

I said Reps and Cons, and in Republicans and Conservatives. And how they built up a fallacy to campaign on something that doesn't exist.

1) It isn't banned

It is banned by the time tons of women find out their pregnant. And they are banned after six weeks. Same with treatment vs procedure.
I don't play this semantics crap.

 

[Watchmen]

Given that SCOTUS acted as a political entity not as a court of law, I say let's put AOC, Ilhan Omar and two others who share their politics on SCOTUS.

'Lawless behavior': Legal experts say the Supreme Court acted out of 'political motivations' in upholding Texas' abortion ban

"Our court is broken. I mean, it's more of a political institution than it is a legal institution," Barry McDonald, a law professor at Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law, told Insider,...
...
Traditionally, the court uses the shadow docket for procedural purposes — to accept or deny applications for emergency action — in typically small, uncontroversial cases. But in recent years, the court's use of the shadow docket has sparked outrage over what critics describe as increasingly partisan and unsubstantial rulings, including now in the Texas abortion case.

"In the abortion case, it's not only short, it's just a jumble of nonsense," Richard Pierce, a law professor at the George Washington University Law School, told Insider of the court's opinion. "It's incoherent. The reasoning makes no sense at all."
...
"It's stunning," McDonald said of the court's ruling. "It just adds to this perception that the court is acting out of political motivations as opposed to impartial and objective application of legal principles."

Another Supreme Court hit piece. So stupid. The court expressly ruled on procedural grounds and said the constitutional questions are very important. In other words, the court WILL address the Texas law when the issue is properly before the court. They pretty much said as much. And if I were a betting man, I’d say the court is going to strike down the law.

 

[Watchmen]

Yeah, considering the Reps refused to let Obama do his job and then turned hypocrite (no surprise) by rushing through an appointment through under the same circumstances they said it's improper for an acting president to appoint someone to the SC.

Actually, the situation was a bit different. And shame on Dems for not doing their jobs. It’s hardly Republicans’ fault that they were weak.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Actually, the situation was a bit different. And shame on Dems for not doing their jobs. It’s hardly Republicans’ fault that they were weak.

Yeah, it was different. Reps cried that a year was too close to the election and then insisted just a couple months was ok the next time.
And it was entirely the Reps who blocked Obama with what was his rightful appointment. McCain indicated they would indefinitely block Hillary if she won.