I disagree entirely. If a court decision grants us more freedoms and liberties that we would not otherwise have, then reversing that decision is government tyranny. Particularly if it's reversed based on unsound logic and religious dogma.
The government doesn’t grant freedom, liberty or rights - they are innate, or if you’re religious, god-given. In America people simply agreed to enumerate them in a document so there’s no disagreement regarding what those rights are. If people think they have more rights than what is enumerated, there’s a system permitting them to expand the document. They’re welcome to do that, they’re not welcome to pretend that they can’t read.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: constitutional originalism is no different from extremism. It's a living document created for the sole purpose of being expanded upon and interpreted in such a way that the American people are granted more rights and liberties over time. Any SCOTUS justice who would instead dig deep for interpretations that strip away our rights and liberties is a threat to both our democracy and our very way of life.
Living document, yes. Amended, yes. Interpreted? Only through the lens of what the words actually mean in context. 300 years from now someone will find a very dusty server hard drive with a log of this conversation - I would like to think that whoever reads it won’t “interpret” it to mean that you were my wife because I called you “buddy”, and that’s how they call wives in 2320. The author of the words had something specific in mind, and it is our job to determine what that was. If the language is archaic, we have access to their notes, personal letters and other work in which they clearly described their positions. We can’t just say they meant something different because the language has changed, that’s ridiculous.
And what's to stop the conservative justices from claiming this about all our rights? "Well, this amendment wasn't there when the constitution was ratified, so it grants rights that weren't rights to begin with. Repealed." Slow-boiling the frog has always been a major pillar of long-term fascist strategy.
Oh, nothing important - just the constitution. The constitution stops that from happening.
No, their defense of the issue is tepid because they're largely a Christian party, and they allow Republicans to define much of what Christian morals/values are in this country. Yet another way in which they're controlled opposition, and another example of why so many US citizens don't have their beliefs and interests properly represented in government.
If you say so. My take is that they got to the 1 yard line and sat down.
Again, the reasoning behind the repeal is much more of a stretch than the reasoning behind the initial decision, and the majority opinion references pretty much everything except the constitution. Whether they want to admit to it or not, I think the Buffalo mass shooter and conservative SCOTUS justices have something in common, and that's belief in the "great replacement" conspiracy theory. Barrett's "domestic supply of infants for adoption" quote in particular comes off sounding very 1488.
I don’t care about their reasoning for the repeal. I only care about whether Roe v. Wade is a correct decision or not. It is incorrect, therefore it should be repealed.
Additionally, three of the justices had major conflicts of interest in this case, to the extent two of them should've recused and one should've been under investigation. A rapist, a religious cultist, and a known insurrectionist cannot and did not remain impartial on abortion. The court lacks both credibility and integrity right now, and there will soon come a day where their rulings are openly defied because of it.
That’s slander, and is at odds with freedom of religion as guaranteed by the constitution.
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the concept of judicial review itself? As I understand it, it's another example of a power that the SCOTUS essentially gave to itself, despite the Constitution not saying that the courts can strike down laws for being unconstitutional.
AFAIK, the UK does not have the concept of judicial review at all. If Parliament passes a law that the people don't like, they can't go to the courts to strike it down. The only way to get rid of it is to elect different MPs who can then repeal it by passing new legislation.
Recent history suggests the checks on the SCOTUS are inadequate, which is a big part of the problem. The only checks are the President's ability to nominate judges and the Senate's ability to decline them; once you're on the court, you're untouchable. The fact that all nominees essentially lie under oath during their confirmation hearings to avoid being "borked" makes the confirmation process useless if there's no way to hold nominees accountable after their appointment.
On the other hand, the SCOTUS can't worry about members being removed for making unpopular decisions without tainting the resulting decisions, so a recall process probably won't help, either. The best option appears to be term limits, although it's unclear if a Constitutional amendment is required to implement that.
Judicial review can be logically inferred from article 3 and 4. In the instance of two or more laws conflicting with each other, it is the sworn duty of the judiciary to determine the boundaries of each law. That being said, they are not the legislature. Putting excessive checks on the SCOTUS would interfere in its function, but we may have been too trusting of those given the vote of confidence to sit on the highest court in the land. Their job, one and only job, is to determine the constitutionality of laws put before them. If a given justice gives opinions tainted by party affiliation or ideological bias, the hope is that other justices will balance that injustice out. Not a great check, but in a perfect world, the SCOTUS would be a check on itself, by the virtue of justices being appointed for life (no danger of political pressure) and by various different presidents (allowing the pendulum to swing back and forth). Sadly, sometimes a curve ball slips past the goalie, so ultimately the biggest check on all of government are the people, who can only be governed by consent. In short, I think judicial review in useful, maybe even necessary, but also dangerous. Somebody needs to have the authority to nullify unjust legislation, and justices seem to be the ideal pick, considering the judiciary exists specifically to interpret law.
As you mention in another post, abortion, like any other polarising issue, should go through the pipeline of public debate and legislation. That process was interrupted abruptly by having the court decide upon it unilaterally instead, thus ending the debate. Legal scholars have been critical of this decision from day 1, it should come as no surprise that a house built on sand eventually crumbles. The time since making this decision was wasted, so if it is repealed, we may end up back at square one. Is that a good, or a bad thing, only time can tell.