JimofPennsylvan
Platinum Member
- Jun 6, 2007
- 878
- 527
- 910
The Supreme Court in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case, the current case challenging the 1973 landmark abortion case of Row v. Wade, if they issue as their opinion the draft opinion of Justice Alito or anything like it they will be setting off a nuclear bomb that will destroy the "rule of law" in America as the American people have known it for approximately two-hundred and fifty years it will inject an unreliability and a propensity to change at the Judiciary level into America's law that will not only block America from being as strong and successful as it can be, it will continually create societal earthquakes across our nation as the law changes or real fear of change prevails significantly hurting a lot of Americans! What the Justice Alito opinion does is it reverses the law created by that Roe v. Wade opinion which created in America for a women the constitutional right to an abortion during part of her pregnancy. The American people need to focus on the fact that there has been a quality in American law since the U.S. Constitution was adopted that certain laws from our appellate court system are considered settled law they cannot be changed by any future appellate court, lawyers say that the law has the Doctrine of Stare Decisis behind it (which is Latin for the phrase let the decision stand). Even when the Supreme Court has probably gotten its legal decision wrong if the ruling is deemed to have the status of Stare Decisis subsequent Supreme and appellate courts are as a matter of practice and norms prevented from reversing the decision. One famous example of this is that the Supreme Court has interpreted the "Commerce Clause" of the U.S. Constitution about as broadly as humanly possible it has ruled that this Clause gives the Congress the power to pass regulatory laws as long as their regulating action not only directly but indirectly affects interstate commerce even to the smallest degree. The vast majority of people that have competent knowledge of America's colonial history know that was not the intent of the framers of the Constitution, the framers were very parochial, their top priority was their state they were very leery to trust the Federal government the Federal government posed the risk of becoming like a Monarchy government, oppressive and unfair; but; the quality of our nation's laws set forth by the Doctrine of Stare Decisis has given the Congress largely cart blanche power on matters that touch interstate commerce.
There is also another critical quality in America's Supreme Court law and the U.S. Supreme court even periodically cites this in their opinions; the Supreme Court makes their legal decisions as best they can trying to interpret U.S. laws as the drafters intended however sometimes they acknowledge their legal decision might not be the best for the country, it might not even be an accurate interpretation of the law and if this is so it is the Congress' job is to make a new law correcting Supreme Court law that is the way America's government is supposed to work. It is not the role of the Supreme Court to act like a legislature for the country, America's system for making law isn't supposed to work like if the Supreme Court makes a bad decision well the people through their election of the President and Senators can just change the personnel on the Supreme Court selecting ones that have the right viewpoint and the new Justices can just reverse and correct the prior decision. In America it is only Congress in conjunction with the President's role to make law it is not the Supreme Court's role. This Roe Constitutional right to an abortion has been around almost fifty years the U.S. Supreme Court during this period through many different Supreme Court make-ups had multiple opportunities to reverse this holding but had not found the justification to do so, just because a U.S. President had campaigned and advocated that he was going to change the Roe law through appointments to the Supreme Court doesn't make those appointees acting jointly in their decision on the abortion issue a sound legal decision. In all fairness what this abortion controversy for the nation involves is a minor percentage of Americans who are extremely zealous anti-abortion rights advocates think this constitutional right should not be and since this this right was effectuated by the Supreme Court who found authority to effectuate it from the U.S. constitution this minority made their goal to replace the court membership with their ideological allies; this minority has decided not to advance their beliefs in a way that respects America's democracy because they have no chance of succeeding now or likely ever because the majority of Americans support, and will likely always support abortion rights because their humanity calls them to recognize this right for women to terminate their pregnancy at least during the early period of that pregnancy and stop a dramatic change in their life that would result from bearing a child and understanding for that women and her circumstances that would bring the women to such a decision.
Supporters of this Alito opinion eliminating this constitutional right to an abortion that has existed for forty-nine years say this decision should not harm the Doctrine of Stare Decisis in our nation's legal system because the nation had another issue of tantamount importance in our society and it was overturned after fifty-eight years, the issue being segregation. The case of Plessy v. Ferguson issued in 1896 is said to stand for the legalization of segregation in America saying it did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the case of Brown v. Board of Education issued in 1954 is said to stand for the opposite. It is unreasonable and completely illegitimate to try to equate these cases saying anything like there is at least a fifty-eighty year window for the Supreme Court to reverse or overrule a prior decision and not damage the Stare Decisis Doctrine quality of American Law or to use this issue to defend their casting aside of the Doctrine of Stare Decisis in American law. The Supreme Court in 1896 could not have stopped segregation in America, no way no how, and if they tried they would not have succeeded and a lot of people and especially a lot of black people would have been seriously injured and killed in the process. In 1896 America was a very segregated society schools were segregated the military was segregated neighborhoods were segregated, it was incomprehensible back then to many white people that black people would be allowed to integrate with white people. Back then in America racial, ethnic, religious and economic divisions were pronounced and that was just the way things were, that is the way things worked in America society back these social divisions were too ingrained in America's character to be uprooted by government laws. Back then a black man dating a white women would put that black man in grave physical danger, a black family moving into a white neighborhood would be inconceivable the black family's house would likely be burned down over time or some other devastating harm would befall the family to drive them out. It was only after World War II in America where women's social standing rose and black Americans' social standing rose because of their vital role in the war effort and fighting the Nazis and the Japanese and the consideration that real evil was being fought against in this war and evil in America's society albeit a much lesser degree should likewise be eliminated that these racial, ethnic and gender walls in our society began to be taken down. The Supreme Court in the Plessy case in their opinion sort of indicated of the impracticality of stopping segregation in America at that time when it wrote "Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial instincts, or to abolish distinctions based upon physical differences and the attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present situation. If the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.". Furthermore, the case of Brown v. Board of Education technically did not overturn or reverse the holding of the case of Plessy v. Ferguson; Plessy's holding is that a state can separate people based on race as long as it gives equal service to both groups meaning such state action does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Brown's holding does not say it is violative of the 14th Amendment for a state to separate people based on race even if it gives both groups equal services. Brown remember is a segregated school case where you have White and Black schools in Topeka Kansas and the issue is the constitutional legality of such; Brown's holding is that segregation in a school setting can never be equal it is inherently unequal which makes it violative of the Equal Protection Clause. The Brown's court reasoning was essentially that segregating black children puts a stamp of inferiority on them it affects their motivation and the potential they believe they can reach which is detrimental to them in an educational setting. This detrimental effect the Court pointed to when it wrote, "Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to (retard) the educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial(ly) integrated school system." There is no legitimate question on God's green earth that the Alito draft opinion overturns the legal holding of Roe; Roe holds women have a constitutional right to abortion prior to viability, the Alito draft opinion says the U.S. Constitution provides no such right for women, the reversal couldn't be starker!
Justice Alito and other allied Justices pathetically do and/or can try to prevent or mitigate the damage to the Supreme Court in its guardianship duty to protect the belief of the settled law doctrine in American Jurisprudence but their efforts are meaningless. It wouldn't matter even if each of them swears that he or she will never overturn another prior Supreme Court holding again for their entire remaining of their time on the Supreme Court bench, the damage will have been done by their opinion and it cannot be fixed it is no longer about them it is about how future Justices are now permitted to rule, it has changed the rules, norms and practices for Justices on the Supreme Court now no prior Supreme Court ruling is sacred or safe. This decision by the darling appointees of the right political wing in America I predict will come to bite this political faction over time. No one should be surprised to see other heretofore settled law questions reopened. Justice Alito and company will be green lighting a Supreme Court filled with progressive Democrat appointees to change the law on the second Amendment it will no longer establish that everyone has a right to bear arms but people will have to go through a rigorous background and mental health check to get a gun so America sees lesser mass shootings and gun violence rates, the right to Free Speech will no longer protect big money contributors in America's elections so to stop special interest hijacking of the government in America, the constitution will be interpreted as prohibiting any money going to religious schools such courts will insure all public monies are steered to public schools to try to make them universally effective, etc..
Aside from the legal merits of the holding of Justice Alito's draft opinion, what is shocking and alarming about that opinion is the poor quality of that opinion; the existence of distortions and inaccuracies in that opinion and nature of such are quite surprising, a Supreme Court Justice should not be producing such inferior work product. If this opinion is the quality of Justice Alito's work he does not deserve to be on the Supreme Court of the United States and performing the role of one of a small group of final arbiters of what U.S. law stands for because he simply doesn't have the character or legal acumen to do the job. This abortion controversy in the nation is a giant open wound for the nation and I actually have some sympathies for the anti-abortion side of this debate because my senses, intellect and conscience indicates that in the latter stages of a pregnancy a little baby exists in a women's womb and that our society, America's government, should protect that baby's life! Supreme Court Justices that think like this have a path to healing this abortion controversy wound for the nation; Justice O'Connor, Justice Kennedy and Justice Souter in their opinion in the Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Robert Casey case provided the framework for resolving this matter, for ruling on this Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case!
There is also another critical quality in America's Supreme Court law and the U.S. Supreme court even periodically cites this in their opinions; the Supreme Court makes their legal decisions as best they can trying to interpret U.S. laws as the drafters intended however sometimes they acknowledge their legal decision might not be the best for the country, it might not even be an accurate interpretation of the law and if this is so it is the Congress' job is to make a new law correcting Supreme Court law that is the way America's government is supposed to work. It is not the role of the Supreme Court to act like a legislature for the country, America's system for making law isn't supposed to work like if the Supreme Court makes a bad decision well the people through their election of the President and Senators can just change the personnel on the Supreme Court selecting ones that have the right viewpoint and the new Justices can just reverse and correct the prior decision. In America it is only Congress in conjunction with the President's role to make law it is not the Supreme Court's role. This Roe Constitutional right to an abortion has been around almost fifty years the U.S. Supreme Court during this period through many different Supreme Court make-ups had multiple opportunities to reverse this holding but had not found the justification to do so, just because a U.S. President had campaigned and advocated that he was going to change the Roe law through appointments to the Supreme Court doesn't make those appointees acting jointly in their decision on the abortion issue a sound legal decision. In all fairness what this abortion controversy for the nation involves is a minor percentage of Americans who are extremely zealous anti-abortion rights advocates think this constitutional right should not be and since this this right was effectuated by the Supreme Court who found authority to effectuate it from the U.S. constitution this minority made their goal to replace the court membership with their ideological allies; this minority has decided not to advance their beliefs in a way that respects America's democracy because they have no chance of succeeding now or likely ever because the majority of Americans support, and will likely always support abortion rights because their humanity calls them to recognize this right for women to terminate their pregnancy at least during the early period of that pregnancy and stop a dramatic change in their life that would result from bearing a child and understanding for that women and her circumstances that would bring the women to such a decision.
Supporters of this Alito opinion eliminating this constitutional right to an abortion that has existed for forty-nine years say this decision should not harm the Doctrine of Stare Decisis in our nation's legal system because the nation had another issue of tantamount importance in our society and it was overturned after fifty-eight years, the issue being segregation. The case of Plessy v. Ferguson issued in 1896 is said to stand for the legalization of segregation in America saying it did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the case of Brown v. Board of Education issued in 1954 is said to stand for the opposite. It is unreasonable and completely illegitimate to try to equate these cases saying anything like there is at least a fifty-eighty year window for the Supreme Court to reverse or overrule a prior decision and not damage the Stare Decisis Doctrine quality of American Law or to use this issue to defend their casting aside of the Doctrine of Stare Decisis in American law. The Supreme Court in 1896 could not have stopped segregation in America, no way no how, and if they tried they would not have succeeded and a lot of people and especially a lot of black people would have been seriously injured and killed in the process. In 1896 America was a very segregated society schools were segregated the military was segregated neighborhoods were segregated, it was incomprehensible back then to many white people that black people would be allowed to integrate with white people. Back then in America racial, ethnic, religious and economic divisions were pronounced and that was just the way things were, that is the way things worked in America society back these social divisions were too ingrained in America's character to be uprooted by government laws. Back then a black man dating a white women would put that black man in grave physical danger, a black family moving into a white neighborhood would be inconceivable the black family's house would likely be burned down over time or some other devastating harm would befall the family to drive them out. It was only after World War II in America where women's social standing rose and black Americans' social standing rose because of their vital role in the war effort and fighting the Nazis and the Japanese and the consideration that real evil was being fought against in this war and evil in America's society albeit a much lesser degree should likewise be eliminated that these racial, ethnic and gender walls in our society began to be taken down. The Supreme Court in the Plessy case in their opinion sort of indicated of the impracticality of stopping segregation in America at that time when it wrote "Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial instincts, or to abolish distinctions based upon physical differences and the attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present situation. If the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.". Furthermore, the case of Brown v. Board of Education technically did not overturn or reverse the holding of the case of Plessy v. Ferguson; Plessy's holding is that a state can separate people based on race as long as it gives equal service to both groups meaning such state action does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Brown's holding does not say it is violative of the 14th Amendment for a state to separate people based on race even if it gives both groups equal services. Brown remember is a segregated school case where you have White and Black schools in Topeka Kansas and the issue is the constitutional legality of such; Brown's holding is that segregation in a school setting can never be equal it is inherently unequal which makes it violative of the Equal Protection Clause. The Brown's court reasoning was essentially that segregating black children puts a stamp of inferiority on them it affects their motivation and the potential they believe they can reach which is detrimental to them in an educational setting. This detrimental effect the Court pointed to when it wrote, "Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to (retard) the educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial(ly) integrated school system." There is no legitimate question on God's green earth that the Alito draft opinion overturns the legal holding of Roe; Roe holds women have a constitutional right to abortion prior to viability, the Alito draft opinion says the U.S. Constitution provides no such right for women, the reversal couldn't be starker!
Justice Alito and other allied Justices pathetically do and/or can try to prevent or mitigate the damage to the Supreme Court in its guardianship duty to protect the belief of the settled law doctrine in American Jurisprudence but their efforts are meaningless. It wouldn't matter even if each of them swears that he or she will never overturn another prior Supreme Court holding again for their entire remaining of their time on the Supreme Court bench, the damage will have been done by their opinion and it cannot be fixed it is no longer about them it is about how future Justices are now permitted to rule, it has changed the rules, norms and practices for Justices on the Supreme Court now no prior Supreme Court ruling is sacred or safe. This decision by the darling appointees of the right political wing in America I predict will come to bite this political faction over time. No one should be surprised to see other heretofore settled law questions reopened. Justice Alito and company will be green lighting a Supreme Court filled with progressive Democrat appointees to change the law on the second Amendment it will no longer establish that everyone has a right to bear arms but people will have to go through a rigorous background and mental health check to get a gun so America sees lesser mass shootings and gun violence rates, the right to Free Speech will no longer protect big money contributors in America's elections so to stop special interest hijacking of the government in America, the constitution will be interpreted as prohibiting any money going to religious schools such courts will insure all public monies are steered to public schools to try to make them universally effective, etc..
Aside from the legal merits of the holding of Justice Alito's draft opinion, what is shocking and alarming about that opinion is the poor quality of that opinion; the existence of distortions and inaccuracies in that opinion and nature of such are quite surprising, a Supreme Court Justice should not be producing such inferior work product. If this opinion is the quality of Justice Alito's work he does not deserve to be on the Supreme Court of the United States and performing the role of one of a small group of final arbiters of what U.S. law stands for because he simply doesn't have the character or legal acumen to do the job. This abortion controversy in the nation is a giant open wound for the nation and I actually have some sympathies for the anti-abortion side of this debate because my senses, intellect and conscience indicates that in the latter stages of a pregnancy a little baby exists in a women's womb and that our society, America's government, should protect that baby's life! Supreme Court Justices that think like this have a path to healing this abortion controversy wound for the nation; Justice O'Connor, Justice Kennedy and Justice Souter in their opinion in the Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Robert Casey case provided the framework for resolving this matter, for ruling on this Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case!
