> "I do not want 9 unelected people deciding matters of great moment. "
OK, let's break that down. It was 9 unelected people who decided Roe v Wade, overturning laws which had been democratically passed by millions of people. Are you saying you consider that to be invalid?
How about 9 unelected people legalizing gay marriage? Overtuning…
> "I do not want 9 unelected people deciding matters of great moment. "
OK, let's break that down. It was 9 unelected people who decided Roe v Wade, overturning laws which had been democratically passed by millions of people. Are you saying you consider that to be invalid?
How about 9 unelected people legalizing gay marriage? Overtuning anti-sodomy laws? Legalizing inter-racial marriage? Still against it those unelected people deciding matters of great moment?
Many of those ruling are based extensions to a "right to privacy" which does not exist in the Constitution, but was invented up by the Supreme Court. I think that such a right to privacy is a great idea, and I appreciate all the above extensions of that or of actual Constitutional rights. But my rational mind can still admit that they can be described as examples of "ruling from the bench" rather than "just following the law as written".
Let's be consistent. The truth is, we're fine with 9 unelected people having vast powers over the society whenever we agree with them, but find it atrocious when we do not. That is not a coherent intellectual or political philosophy.
I support abortion rights, and I live in a state which strongly supports them via the democratic process. And I too would help women come here for abortions (or pass pro-abortion laws in their own states). But I don't make a big deal about "9 unelected people", as if that was somehow illegitimate - but only when I disagree.
And you are right - there are far more women in power today than in 1973, which gives me some hope, but it's going to be a long struggle for abortion rights. It's MUCH easier if the court will impose the solution I prefer nationwide in one fell swoop, but we've lost that option for now.
"Let's be consistent. The truth is, we're fine with 9 unelected people having vast powers over the society whenever we agree with them, but find it atrocious when we do not"
You make a very good point here, but I think the issue is more that people will always react more strongly when rights are taken away as opposed to when they're given.
There have long been claims of "judicial activism", levelled at the Supreme Court, as you say, that's always going to be the case when they make decisions that are unpopular with certain people. But in an ideal world, the Court would be apolitical, and *certainly* not ideological. That doesn't feel as if it's the case here.
The problem, at least as I see it, isn't so much that Alito objected to the legal foundations of Roe vs Wade, it's that the rights and protections Roe provides women will be lost, which will unquestionably cost some women their lives, and there is no will to put those rights on a more appropriate legal footing.
As I say almost daily about software development standards, consistency is not its own virtue. Consistency is only good when it is around good practices, good morals.
The conservative justices came to the bench with a hit list and they are not only indifferent to the harm they cause but eager. Couching this harm in terms of legal minutiae is a contemptible lie, and the almighty Constitution comes from a world so unlike the present it may as well be from some medieval European dukedom. It comes from a world where slavery was unquestioned, a world without nuclear weapons, machine guns, satellite surveillance, television, anesthetics, a germ theory ... or abortion.
I don't give a flying rat ass for consistency. I want government to create a fair and just society where people can lead reasonably stable and secure lives and have at least some chance of fulfillment.
So if I understand it, you support 9 unelected people in making law from the bench, so long as you agree; but find it outrageous if they do so and you disagree.
What is hypocrisy, other than inconsistency? One set of rules for you, and a different more favorable rules for us. Perfectly OK, so long as it advances your personal concept of social justice (a fair and just society where people can lead reasonably stable and secure lives and have at least some chance of fulfillment).
What I would question is whether that philosophy of justified hypocrisy has ever created or sustained such a society. How stable is a society where everybody gets to be inconsistent if it serves their subjective sense of fairness? Where there is no binding underlying charter restricting the power of a simple majority to impose their will on the minority - or indeed guaranteeing any semblance of democracy?
If I'm misunderstanding your position, I'm open to hearing more nuance. But at the moment, this seems to be very consistent with the worst approaches of both the right and the left.
I believe that basing a society on concepts like the rule of law, and equal rights under an evolving charter, and aspiring to have the same rules for everybody, will turn out to be different in substantial aspects from consistent indentation rules for code.
I want to note here that I do not see democracy as a solid heuristic for creating wise policies; often the results can be very unwise or unintelligent. The primary values are in partially closing a feedback loop where the folks feeling the consequences of a policy have ongoing input into what that policy is (versus being rules by an autocrat who can isolate themselves from such consequences), and in obtaining buy-in (functional legitimacy) from the populace based on their ability to vote and to change the government at a later time, thus allowing adaptive changes in government direction with a peaceful transfer of power. Democracy is a heuristic not for wisdom, but for relatively stable cooperation among people with differing opinions. And blatant hypocrisy (disdain for consistent application of the rules) is sand in the gears of democracy.
> "it's that the rights and protections Roe provides women will be lost, which will unquestionably cost some women their lives"
You and I agree on that.
However, for those who believe that a fetus is a human being, the number of fetuses "killed" each year VASTLY outnumbers the number of women's lives to be saved, by many order of magnitude. So the argument that legal abortion will save some women's lives does not hold much traction as a resolving principle.
"However, for those who believe that a fetus is a human being,"
Again, you're weighing faith claims against concrete realities. That's why I think this argument is a non-starter.
None of us is qualified to pinpoint the moment that a foetus becomes endowed with the full rights of a human being (although we don't currently extend any rights to foetuses until they're born), but I think that except for "life of the mother" exceptions, first trimester abortions were accepted by the vast majority of people as a workable compromise between the potential rights of the foetus and the actual rights of the mother.
We're only having this conversation now because the rights of the mother are being overruled entirely.
> "I do not want 9 unelected people deciding matters of great moment. "
OK, let's break that down. It was 9 unelected people who decided Roe v Wade, overturning laws which had been democratically passed by millions of people. Are you saying you consider that to be invalid?
How about 9 unelected people legalizing gay marriage? Overtuning anti-sodomy laws? Legalizing inter-racial marriage? Still against it those unelected people deciding matters of great moment?
Many of those ruling are based extensions to a "right to privacy" which does not exist in the Constitution, but was invented up by the Supreme Court. I think that such a right to privacy is a great idea, and I appreciate all the above extensions of that or of actual Constitutional rights. But my rational mind can still admit that they can be described as examples of "ruling from the bench" rather than "just following the law as written".
Let's be consistent. The truth is, we're fine with 9 unelected people having vast powers over the society whenever we agree with them, but find it atrocious when we do not. That is not a coherent intellectual or political philosophy.
I support abortion rights, and I live in a state which strongly supports them via the democratic process. And I too would help women come here for abortions (or pass pro-abortion laws in their own states). But I don't make a big deal about "9 unelected people", as if that was somehow illegitimate - but only when I disagree.
And you are right - there are far more women in power today than in 1973, which gives me some hope, but it's going to be a long struggle for abortion rights. It's MUCH easier if the court will impose the solution I prefer nationwide in one fell swoop, but we've lost that option for now.
"Let's be consistent. The truth is, we're fine with 9 unelected people having vast powers over the society whenever we agree with them, but find it atrocious when we do not"
You make a very good point here, but I think the issue is more that people will always react more strongly when rights are taken away as opposed to when they're given.
There have long been claims of "judicial activism", levelled at the Supreme Court, as you say, that's always going to be the case when they make decisions that are unpopular with certain people. But in an ideal world, the Court would be apolitical, and *certainly* not ideological. That doesn't feel as if it's the case here.
The problem, at least as I see it, isn't so much that Alito objected to the legal foundations of Roe vs Wade, it's that the rights and protections Roe provides women will be lost, which will unquestionably cost some women their lives, and there is no will to put those rights on a more appropriate legal footing.
As I say almost daily about software development standards, consistency is not its own virtue. Consistency is only good when it is around good practices, good morals.
The conservative justices came to the bench with a hit list and they are not only indifferent to the harm they cause but eager. Couching this harm in terms of legal minutiae is a contemptible lie, and the almighty Constitution comes from a world so unlike the present it may as well be from some medieval European dukedom. It comes from a world where slavery was unquestioned, a world without nuclear weapons, machine guns, satellite surveillance, television, anesthetics, a germ theory ... or abortion.
I don't give a flying rat ass for consistency. I want government to create a fair and just society where people can lead reasonably stable and secure lives and have at least some chance of fulfillment.
So if I understand it, you support 9 unelected people in making law from the bench, so long as you agree; but find it outrageous if they do so and you disagree.
What is hypocrisy, other than inconsistency? One set of rules for you, and a different more favorable rules for us. Perfectly OK, so long as it advances your personal concept of social justice (a fair and just society where people can lead reasonably stable and secure lives and have at least some chance of fulfillment).
What I would question is whether that philosophy of justified hypocrisy has ever created or sustained such a society. How stable is a society where everybody gets to be inconsistent if it serves their subjective sense of fairness? Where there is no binding underlying charter restricting the power of a simple majority to impose their will on the minority - or indeed guaranteeing any semblance of democracy?
If I'm misunderstanding your position, I'm open to hearing more nuance. But at the moment, this seems to be very consistent with the worst approaches of both the right and the left.
I believe that basing a society on concepts like the rule of law, and equal rights under an evolving charter, and aspiring to have the same rules for everybody, will turn out to be different in substantial aspects from consistent indentation rules for code.
I want to note here that I do not see democracy as a solid heuristic for creating wise policies; often the results can be very unwise or unintelligent. The primary values are in partially closing a feedback loop where the folks feeling the consequences of a policy have ongoing input into what that policy is (versus being rules by an autocrat who can isolate themselves from such consequences), and in obtaining buy-in (functional legitimacy) from the populace based on their ability to vote and to change the government at a later time, thus allowing adaptive changes in government direction with a peaceful transfer of power. Democracy is a heuristic not for wisdom, but for relatively stable cooperation among people with differing opinions. And blatant hypocrisy (disdain for consistent application of the rules) is sand in the gears of democracy.
> "it's that the rights and protections Roe provides women will be lost, which will unquestionably cost some women their lives"
You and I agree on that.
However, for those who believe that a fetus is a human being, the number of fetuses "killed" each year VASTLY outnumbers the number of women's lives to be saved, by many order of magnitude. So the argument that legal abortion will save some women's lives does not hold much traction as a resolving principle.
"However, for those who believe that a fetus is a human being,"
Again, you're weighing faith claims against concrete realities. That's why I think this argument is a non-starter.
None of us is qualified to pinpoint the moment that a foetus becomes endowed with the full rights of a human being (although we don't currently extend any rights to foetuses until they're born), but I think that except for "life of the mother" exceptions, first trimester abortions were accepted by the vast majority of people as a workable compromise between the potential rights of the foetus and the actual rights of the mother.
We're only having this conversation now because the rights of the mother are being overruled entirely.