There is no way Roberts would have chosen Alito to write the majority opinion. My sense is that Roberts is in the minority 4 - so Thomas, as the Senior judge in the majority decided who would write it. Alito has been described as the "drunk fox news uncle" of the SCOTUS. - but Thomas wanted the most bat s**t, activist, crazy opinion he could get to "own the Libs"
One thing it shows the Mont Perelin society, the moral majority and the Federalist society knew how to play the long game - I mean it would have been unthinkable during the period of the Warren Court that such as thing was possible.
Props to the associate who leaked it - boss level political move.
Political debate has become an infantilised slanging match - each side of the political divide treats the other with outright contemptSome would argue removing a woman’s choice is dehumanising. Expand on your argument please
Political debate has become an infantilised slanging match - each side of the political divide treats the other with outright contempt
This atmosphere means that mature discourse is not even on anyone's radar. In short - no body is listening to anyone
The current crop of political leaders through much of the western world has reached what appears to be an irredeemable state.
Thus, we can expect more and more insane decisions.
Revoking Roe v Wade is but one exemplar
You are on the SRP the part of the site that is intrinsically politicalBut it’s not a political debate. Is it? Should a woman have the right to choose what they do with their body? Please address this in your next response.
Curious, I looked it up on the Wikis:Apparently the argument Alito used to argue against the constitutional protection of abortion is very similar to his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges. Its not hard - just think of the batshit Conservative Catholic position
Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition", Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition. Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment. Alito expressed concern that the majority's opinion would be used to attack the beliefs of those who disagree with same-sex marriage, who "will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools", leading to "bitter and lasting wounds". Expressing concern for judicial abuse, Alito concluded, "Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today's decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority's claim of power portends."
If we are to validate the trans-sexual argument, that gender is merely a cultural phenomena - then there is some logical power to the belief that culture can be used to persuade a gay person to fulfil his or her biological reproductive potential.Curious, I looked it up on the Wikis:
"same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment"
WTF? How? A gay bloke is going to switch teams, get married to a woman and have kids?
Where is the religion in this argument? It's perfectly rational for a secular person to hold an ethical belief which rejects the legal right to terminate a the life of human foetus - that this position appears to anecdotally be held more-often by someone of a religious disposition does not preclude the possibility that this religious factor is over-stated. It is equal plausible that secular people choose to buttress their objection to abortion by citing religious authority.I am so f***ing sick of religion being engrained in politics.
Studies have shown that bans on abortion only kill more pregnant women, the number of abortions rarely moves. It's the unsafe methods which go through the roof.As unpleasant as abortion is (very glad I'm not a doctor who has to perform them), there are legitimate reasons for having one - in the first trimester at least - and outlawing it will only make people look to other means. This can only be a worse alternative as abortion requires a medical professional.
IMO it will also be a bad precedent if the government has the power to enforce on people how to manage their own health/bodies.
THeir mistake is worse than that. Their constitution is no longer fit for purpose. Politicisation of every branch of Government, states and federal Govt at loggerheads over almost everything (poor states refuse to provide federal health-care assistance on principle!), religious zealotry having more influence than democracy.the two party oligopoly and Citizens United giving more rights to corporations than people, Presidents declaring wars without congressional approval, the list of problems with the constitution is longer than the list of successes.Poor old America- it’s stuffed. They made an enormous mistake putting trump in.
You can write whatever constitution you like - if people wilfully ignore it and there are no consequences when it is repeatedly breached - there is no constitution that will make a blind bit of difference.THeir mistake is worse than that. Their constitution is no longer fit for purpose. Politicisation of every branch of Government, states and federal Govt at loggerheads over almost everything (poor states refuse to provide federal health-care assistance on principle!), religious zealotry having more influence than democracy.the two party oligopoly and Citizens United giving more rights to corporations than people, Presidents declaring wars without congressional approval, the list of problems with the constitution is longer than the list of successes.
The US Constitution is no longer fit for purpose, but it's the one thing that both sides think is un-touchable. Or perhaps it just entrenches the political class's power and wealth so they don't want to do anything about it.
It wouldn't actually too hard to write a new one, but you couldn't trust the corporations who run the Government to stay out of it.