The US Supreme Court Thread - Post Roe v. Wade reversal edition

I wouldn't count on Puerto Rico electing two democrats to the senate. Start with DC.

 

Imagine a world after Puerto Rican statehood. What would be Republican rhetoric on the issue? Can you imagine them electing Republicans after a couple of years of Republicans talking about them? I can’t.

 

I wouldn't count on American Sāmoa doing so either (not that they would ever get statehood anyway - the closest they would come is being absorbed into Hawai'i as a combined Polynesian state).

 

https://messaging-custom-newsletter...f0e0&user_id=60d1c53f57b8981e9fe04ebcee5b71a9

Jamelle Bouie writes about Ron Wyden’s judicial reform proposal.

This is gonna be such a long term project. It’s daunting as hell. But a journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step.

 

I hear you. Just laying out the difficulties and the idea this is moot for the forseeable future:

+the odds of a Dem trifecta at any point in the next 4 years is incredibly low. Harris needs to win 50/50), the Dems will have 47-49 Senate seats next Congress. It would be extraordinary for them to gain 3 Senate seats the Congress after that (hold everywhere and pick up ME, NC and TX), somehow holding/winning a very tight House in the incumbent executive party’s midterm. At best, this is probably a 10-1 shot at any point in the next 4 years for Dems.

+People tend to overestimate the degree to which we can “ungerrymander” the House. When people run various geospatial algorithms to “ungerrymander” the House, it typically only nets another 10 Dem seats. Which can obviously be decisive, but only under a very narrow set of circumstances. The real culprit is single member districting/FPTP methods given the spatial partisan electoral composition.

+there is no real measure of electoral assurance to be gained in doing this 2027-28 even if it was possible. And unless public opinion of the SCOTUS erodes to the point where we see a 60/40 split or better on the issue of court expansion, it effectively practically guarantee a GOP trifecta in 2028 just in time to undo and redistrict as part of the 2030 census.

Putting eggs into court expansion basket via a trifecta isn’t a smart or realistic play IMO. This is cynical, but Harris will need to use the bully pulpit repeatedly to delegitimize the court if she’s elected. Keep pushing for reform/accountability bills that get shot down. People are going to need to suffer by the court’s decisions. Harris will need to tell them that the court is making them suffer consistently with every decision. Ethics/oversight polling is incredibly popular now. But a strong majority of voters need to view the court as a completely corrupt arm for moneyed and social extremist interests. The court’s reputation will need to degrade.

 

I repped the above post because yes, Democrats are going to have to out in a lot of work delegitimizating the courts.

 

Does GA SC count for this thread? Real banger from this judge.

NEW: THREAD: A new ruling from Judge McBurney in Georgia overturning the abortion ban and allowing the procedure to continue has some REMARKABLE quotes. Let's take a look at just a few. 1/

— Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) September 30, 2024

"For these women, the liberty of privacy means that they alone should choose whether they serve as human incubators for the five months leading up to viability. It is not for a legislator, a judge, or a Commander from The Handmaid’s Tale to tell these women what to do with their…

— Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) September 30, 2024

 

Left out the best one…one of the most articulate explanation I’ve seen of the way this used to work before this travesty

"While the State’s interest in protecting “unborn” life is compelling, until that life can be sustained by the State -- and not solely by the woman compelled by the Act to do the State’s work -- the balance of rights favors the woman." 2/

— Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) September 30, 2024

 

Repped both of these.

I get it.

My counterpoint is 1)the court has done a pretty good job of delegitimizing itself, and 2)that work should have already started.

What I’m saying if the Dems don’t make this a central point of all political campaigns and instead treat it like some proverbial third rail…Dem voters are going to give up. Why fight and come out and continue to try to give you a trifecta if you’re not gonna commit to actually fixing this situation if it’s given to you? And mark my words…if they have a trifecta…and DON’T at least attempt it…and expose the Manchin of the world for voting against it…the backlash will be tremendous and they’ll get smoked. Dems will be blamed for it.

The GOP captured the court with partisan hacks over a 30 year period. Dems don’t have three decades to take it back.

 

Trump justices "Mwaah haa haa! Women have no right to privacy. You must carry everything to term, viable and enviable. Now get back to reproducing, ladies!"

 

I get what your saying…but I’m pretty certain the right to privacy the judge is referring to here is the right guaranteed in the GA constitution…not the us constitution

 

But we have a history and tradition of telling states to f themselves when it suites our conservative agenda (and supporting them when it supports us) therefore it's constitutional to tell states to force women to be incubators to prevent the death of the white race.

-C Thomas, S Alito

 

Wait! Wha? The decision only applies to white women???

 

They were really that grateful for the paper towels?

 

That would be strange…very few states have one person from each party.

 

Was meaning to ask you…but given the reasoning in Dobbs…if this is upheld by the GA Supreme Court that’s it, right? Is there any mechanism by which this could then be reviewed by SCOTUS? I would think no.

I have no idea the makeup of the GA Supreme Court, or how well reasoned this is in relation to the GA constitution…but were GA…or any other state…to determine that their state constitutions protect the right to an abortion…that’s pretty much it, no? (Short of federal law banning….in which case…)

 

Isn't precedent something this court has shown to not gaf about when it suites them?