I realize this is a late comment, but somehow it just seemed so relevant. From a newsletter I received today from the NY Times, here is the appearance of impropriety judges should so carefully avoid -
Just remember, if this drug is unsafe after more than 20years of safety- what next? Maybe anticoagulants that save strokes for A-Fib or preventing deep vein thrombosis will be declared unsafe. What about fungal drugs which require close monitoring of kidney function are taken off
the market. This is a very slippery slope. Are we ready to see the coffins fill? Do not forget these measures are made not by medical experts but by elected politicians.
They opened the flood gates with the overturning of Roe and now the river is flooding and drowning women who may need this medical procedure. “My body, my choice” comes from the 14th amendment which was meant to prevent forced breeding and rape that was used in slavery.
They overturned Roe using a basis from 1100-1200s and William Hale who prosecuted witches in Salem prior to the actual constitution but claimed to be strict constitutionalists in overturning Roe. So they opened the door back to 11-12th century law and now have to decide if every modern medicine is legal based on I guess if a woman can float or not or if it existed in the 1200s?
I don’t support it any time on demand, but I think 12 weeks should be the norm for legal abortion. I have three loving grown children and believe this is a women’s decision not a govt decision.
The medical abortion matter is scientifically futile. The absence of misoprostol from the pharmacopoeia does not end medical abortion. Methotrexate, another drug with other uses besides abortion, works fine. If Doctor Kaz prefers it banned, then other drugs work. The chemotherapy treatment for acute leukemia is a guaranteed abortifacient. Should a 21 year old sick woman have to prove to a judge that she really has leukemia and is also not pregnant? Or just let nature take its course, and give her blessing for the dying instead?
And abortion can never be banned until suicide is prevented.
According to the CDC, "Among those pregnancy-related deaths with a determination, 82 (8.4%) were determined to be a suicide, and 29 (2.9%) were determined to be a homicide." [Pregnancy-Related Deaths: Data from Maternal Mortality Review Committees in 36 US States, 2017–2019]
"The maternal mortality rate for 2020 was 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births compared with a rate of 20.1 in 2019" [Maternal Mortality Rates in the United States, 2020]
So for 100,000 pregnancies that end in live birth, there is also 4 suicides and 1 homicide. The current birth rate for U.S. in 2023 is 12,023 births per 1,000,000 people. And our population is about 333 million - that's showing four million live births, or about a hundred or so suicides while pregnant, in a country with some access to abortion.
These are ugly facts, but very real questions. The implications are sobering.
You are far more optimistic. The 6 right wing members of it are radicals and flouting the established precedents, will of the people and constitution to dictate their ideologies to all Americans. They are the stooges of far right who are trying to impose their will on people and supplanting the legislature that has failed to do it. The case to have term limits and stronger accountability to their sworn statements has never been stronger.
This SC is determined to upend the access to abortion in any form because of personal viewpoint. The inevitable consequences if this continues will be an upheaval of the entire structure of the medical/prescription drug approval process, not just mife. They have also 'decided' to 'shadow' many other decisions and it's a hazy, lazy way to keep us in the dark, while it obliterates the reason for our trust in the third branch. But we see! Why don't they know that? I keep saying 'they', but it must rankle the other justices who are stuck with these self righteous egotists, some who are scamming the very system they are meant to uphold, using very naive reasons as their defense. C'mon! They used to call themselves Originalists. But we all knew they were Federalist Society buy-ins. Because why? The GOP had a long-term strategy that needed SCOTUS to implement their big money plan to take over our democratic government. Like a spider web. I wish I had paid more attention 40 years ago. Truly, did not think GOP would be so devious as to destroy Our America for the benefit of big money and religious racists. But it's apparent that the unscrupulous ones are now brazenly pushing for the 'freedoms' they want rather than the well being of our citizens.
I ask, what future decisions will SCOTUS decide? With climate change affecting the world, will they still be focusing on their originalist ideology? Disgusting how power/wealth has become the override to law and justice in our supreme court and the GOP.
The second paragraph just about says it all, better than anyone can say it, and thank you again, dear Dan Rather, if it was you who penned those words, as you are a gift to us, truth and wisdom, always.
Calling this court an activist court is very mild... In reality this court is an Autocratic Takeover of our Democracy... I am shocked that our legislators who are elected to represent we-the-people are doing nothing...
And the good news, Ann, - - at least temporarily, this stay/delay from SCOTUS also provides time for the entire legal community, augmented by an unpredictable breadth of businesses working under the direction of all the bureaus and regulatory systems, - - whether Federal or State, - - will defend the dismemberment of the enormous number of regulatory agencies that are behind almost every 'thing' we do or live with. For the Far Right, (think Trump's attacks on 'the 'unelected bureaucrats'), has taken aim on the entirety of our regulatory system. And that is the BAAAD news! Thanks for your thoughts, Ann
SCOTUS has had issues with its rulings in our history ( Dred Scott, Plessy, Citizens United etc.) but todays court is in a difficult position. Designed not to be political in nature, they’ve crossed the Rubicon of politics and their “ street cred” is infamously low. And their wounds are self-inflicted. Unfortunately this decline in trust is just beginning. They can glance over their shoulder on the way to work in the morning and see what politics has done to Congress’ trust factor (18% approval rating) or look to the White House ( 40% approval) and see where they’re headed. They still have the highest approval rate (45%?) of the three branches of government. But I fear they are determined to blunder their way into further deterioration of the public’s trust. The two “old cronies” on the far right are determined to reshape America into a Christian, Nationalist, Conservative, semi/fascist vision they embrace. The court today is the best example of the ideal that “elections matter.” The election of 2016 is what brought most of the terror to the SC, Congress, and White House. Need one day the importance of 2024?
Exactly. There is a reason past Courts seldom overturned rulings except in very extreme cases. A Court that willy nilly overrules precedent upends the law across the county and creates uncertainty, distrust and chaos.
In many states judges are elected and the public can remove them at election time or push officials to have them be disciplined, even removed for the bench for egregious behavior. reasons. Those courts can compel compliance. SCOTUS relies on nothing but the confidence and trust of the American people. There is no mechanism to compel compliance. They are pushing the country into very unfortunate territory.
Steve: Yes. Though I can't cite the precise (sitting) Justice as I sit here, nor provide the exact quote, I read, within the past 2 days, a quote from a sitting Justice to the effect that "We" must neither get too far ahead of the people, nor lag behind them too far. That would/should include their paying attention to the national mood, as well as to the election returns. Please let me say, re my initial response to Dan and Elliot, that the very possible 'path' that I laid out that the Supremes might follow, would be a path of deep and reprehensible cynicism. And if it comes to pass, would be the basis for public revulsion and perhaps an investigation. Best wishes, Steve!
Steve O'Cally: I hesitate to respond or say more, so I'll just ask: if your 5-word response refers to what I've said as "unacceptable", I'll irritate you no more; but if you're referring to my 'take' on a possible sequence of actions by The Court as being "political" and "unacceptable", then I'd agree. Could you please respond? Thank you. Tim Hay
Barry Popik reminds us that “"No matther whether th’ constitution follows h’ flag or not, th’ Supreme Coort follows th’ election returns” wrote Finley Peter Dunne (1867-1936) in 1901, through his comic character Mr. Dooley. The language has often been cleaned up to say “the Supreme Court follows the election returns” or “judges follow the election returns” or “the Supreme Court reads the elections returns.” The statement means that judges often tailor their decisions to currently popular social and political trends, sometimes without proper regard for the Constitution. “ Anoy can’t say it clearer me self.
I realize this is a late comment, but somehow it just seemed so relevant. From a newsletter I received today from the NY Times, here is the appearance of impropriety judges should so carefully avoid -
"Justice Clarence Thomas didn’t recuse himself from discussions about a potential case tied to Harlan Crow, his friend and benefactor. (Bloomberg)." Of course he didn’t. Why would he insult someone to whom is so beholding. [Here is the link to the Bloomberg article - https://nl.nytimes.com/f/a/QXMmc6ZDS9zXn-x5Mh8GoQ~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRmKkTfP4QNAWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJsb29tYmVyZy5jb20vbmV3cy9hcnRpY2xlcy8yMDIzLTA0LTI0L2NsYXJlbmNlLXRob21hcy1mcmllbmQtaGFybGFuLWNyb3ctaGFkLWJ1c2luZXNzLWJlZm9yZS10aGUtc3VwcmVtZS1jb3VydD9jYW1wYWlnbl9pZD00JmVtYz1lZGl0X2RrXzIwMjMwNDI1Jmluc3RhbmNlX2lkPTkxMDEwJm5sPWRlYWxib29rJnJlZ2lfaWQ9NDIyMTMwNDkmc2VnbWVudF9pZD0xMzEyOTcmdGU9MSZ1c2VyX2lkPWEyNDI0NjU1MjE4MWRkMzM1ZDk1OGEyMzNhNDZlNmU0VwNueXRCCmQ-379HZNsxkIZSDm1kc0B1YWtyb24uZWR1WAQAAAAA]
Just remember, if this drug is unsafe after more than 20years of safety- what next? Maybe anticoagulants that save strokes for A-Fib or preventing deep vein thrombosis will be declared unsafe. What about fungal drugs which require close monitoring of kidney function are taken off
the market. This is a very slippery slope. Are we ready to see the coffins fill? Do not forget these measures are made not by medical experts but by elected politicians.
They opened the flood gates with the overturning of Roe and now the river is flooding and drowning women who may need this medical procedure. “My body, my choice” comes from the 14th amendment which was meant to prevent forced breeding and rape that was used in slavery.
They overturned Roe using a basis from 1100-1200s and William Hale who prosecuted witches in Salem prior to the actual constitution but claimed to be strict constitutionalists in overturning Roe. So they opened the door back to 11-12th century law and now have to decide if every modern medicine is legal based on I guess if a woman can float or not or if it existed in the 1200s?
Dan should team up with Tucker Carlson and do a program called "Disinformation/Counterdisindormation".
But seriously, seeing those two go at it would be bigger than the MMA. I nominate Elon Musk as referee. :-]
I don’t support it any time on demand, but I think 12 weeks should be the norm for legal abortion. I have three loving grown children and believe this is a women’s decision not a govt decision.
Bottom line, the decision was based on politics and not law, the very definition of an activist court.
The medical abortion matter is scientifically futile. The absence of misoprostol from the pharmacopoeia does not end medical abortion. Methotrexate, another drug with other uses besides abortion, works fine. If Doctor Kaz prefers it banned, then other drugs work. The chemotherapy treatment for acute leukemia is a guaranteed abortifacient. Should a 21 year old sick woman have to prove to a judge that she really has leukemia and is also not pregnant? Or just let nature take its course, and give her blessing for the dying instead?
And abortion can never be banned until suicide is prevented.
According to the CDC, "Among those pregnancy-related deaths with a determination, 82 (8.4%) were determined to be a suicide, and 29 (2.9%) were determined to be a homicide." [Pregnancy-Related Deaths: Data from Maternal Mortality Review Committees in 36 US States, 2017–2019]
"The maternal mortality rate for 2020 was 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births compared with a rate of 20.1 in 2019" [Maternal Mortality Rates in the United States, 2020]
So for 100,000 pregnancies that end in live birth, there is also 4 suicides and 1 homicide. The current birth rate for U.S. in 2023 is 12,023 births per 1,000,000 people. And our population is about 333 million - that's showing four million live births, or about a hundred or so suicides while pregnant, in a country with some access to abortion.
These are ugly facts, but very real questions. The implications are sobering.
You are far more optimistic. The 6 right wing members of it are radicals and flouting the established precedents, will of the people and constitution to dictate their ideologies to all Americans. They are the stooges of far right who are trying to impose their will on people and supplanting the legislature that has failed to do it. The case to have term limits and stronger accountability to their sworn statements has never been stronger.
This SC is determined to upend the access to abortion in any form because of personal viewpoint. The inevitable consequences if this continues will be an upheaval of the entire structure of the medical/prescription drug approval process, not just mife. They have also 'decided' to 'shadow' many other decisions and it's a hazy, lazy way to keep us in the dark, while it obliterates the reason for our trust in the third branch. But we see! Why don't they know that? I keep saying 'they', but it must rankle the other justices who are stuck with these self righteous egotists, some who are scamming the very system they are meant to uphold, using very naive reasons as their defense. C'mon! They used to call themselves Originalists. But we all knew they were Federalist Society buy-ins. Because why? The GOP had a long-term strategy that needed SCOTUS to implement their big money plan to take over our democratic government. Like a spider web. I wish I had paid more attention 40 years ago. Truly, did not think GOP would be so devious as to destroy Our America for the benefit of big money and religious racists. But it's apparent that the unscrupulous ones are now brazenly pushing for the 'freedoms' they want rather than the well being of our citizens.
I ask, what future decisions will SCOTUS decide? With climate change affecting the world, will they still be focusing on their originalist ideology? Disgusting how power/wealth has become the override to law and justice in our supreme court and the GOP.
The second paragraph just about says it all, better than anyone can say it, and thank you again, dear Dan Rather, if it was you who penned those words, as you are a gift to us, truth and wisdom, always.
Calling this court an activist court is very mild... In reality this court is an Autocratic Takeover of our Democracy... I am shocked that our legislators who are elected to represent we-the-people are doing nothing...
It is very sad indeed and sonetines frightening, wondering what will they try next, having gotten away with so much garbage.
And the good news, Ann, - - at least temporarily, this stay/delay from SCOTUS also provides time for the entire legal community, augmented by an unpredictable breadth of businesses working under the direction of all the bureaus and regulatory systems, - - whether Federal or State, - - will defend the dismemberment of the enormous number of regulatory agencies that are behind almost every 'thing' we do or live with. For the Far Right, (think Trump's attacks on 'the 'unelected bureaucrats'), has taken aim on the entirety of our regulatory system. And that is the BAAAD news! Thanks for your thoughts, Ann
SCOTUS has had issues with its rulings in our history ( Dred Scott, Plessy, Citizens United etc.) but todays court is in a difficult position. Designed not to be political in nature, they’ve crossed the Rubicon of politics and their “ street cred” is infamously low. And their wounds are self-inflicted. Unfortunately this decline in trust is just beginning. They can glance over their shoulder on the way to work in the morning and see what politics has done to Congress’ trust factor (18% approval rating) or look to the White House ( 40% approval) and see where they’re headed. They still have the highest approval rate (45%?) of the three branches of government. But I fear they are determined to blunder their way into further deterioration of the public’s trust. The two “old cronies” on the far right are determined to reshape America into a Christian, Nationalist, Conservative, semi/fascist vision they embrace. The court today is the best example of the ideal that “elections matter.” The election of 2016 is what brought most of the terror to the SC, Congress, and White House. Need one day the importance of 2024?
Exactly. There is a reason past Courts seldom overturned rulings except in very extreme cases. A Court that willy nilly overrules precedent upends the law across the county and creates uncertainty, distrust and chaos.
In many states judges are elected and the public can remove them at election time or push officials to have them be disciplined, even removed for the bench for egregious behavior. reasons. Those courts can compel compliance. SCOTUS relies on nothing but the confidence and trust of the American people. There is no mechanism to compel compliance. They are pushing the country into very unfortunate territory.
Steve: Yes. Though I can't cite the precise (sitting) Justice as I sit here, nor provide the exact quote, I read, within the past 2 days, a quote from a sitting Justice to the effect that "We" must neither get too far ahead of the people, nor lag behind them too far. That would/should include their paying attention to the national mood, as well as to the election returns. Please let me say, re my initial response to Dan and Elliot, that the very possible 'path' that I laid out that the Supremes might follow, would be a path of deep and reprehensible cynicism. And if it comes to pass, would be the basis for public revulsion and perhaps an investigation. Best wishes, Steve!
Steve O'Cally: I hesitate to respond or say more, so I'll just ask: if your 5-word response refers to what I've said as "unacceptable", I'll irritate you no more; but if you're referring to my 'take' on a possible sequence of actions by The Court as being "political" and "unacceptable", then I'd agree. Could you please respond? Thank you. Tim Hay
Barry Popik reminds us that “"No matther whether th’ constitution follows h’ flag or not, th’ Supreme Coort follows th’ election returns” wrote Finley Peter Dunne (1867-1936) in 1901, through his comic character Mr. Dooley. The language has often been cleaned up to say “the Supreme Court follows the election returns” or “judges follow the election returns” or “the Supreme Court reads the elections returns.” The statement means that judges often tailor their decisions to currently popular social and political trends, sometimes without proper regard for the Constitution. “ Anoy can’t say it clearer me self.
As a progressive, I certainly hope you are right in that we will stand up and shout!