Monday, May 02, 2022

Not The Headline, Continued

I'm not going to keep updating the original. Let's continue. One problem with Amash's analysis is that the justices themselves are acting like legislators, and not in the sense usually used to criticize Supreme Court decisions: That's not the detached observation from an Olympian height. That's the language of a partisan. Suitable perhaps for a concurring (or better, dissenting) opinion; but not at all suitable for the opinion of the Court. Which is one reason to expect it to be blunted seriously if Alito finally publishes the Court's opinion. But the value of Alito leaking this in order to make the final official opinion more palatable is lost on me. People paying attention to the language will come it for the "bones" of this leaked document. The rest won't care: taking away a constitutional right will be the equivalent of gutting the Voting Rights Act; except this will affect middle-class and upper-class whites, and create two Americas: one run by Republicans, and one run by Democrats. And that's going to be a seriously ugly place to be.* It's really not too early. This will clear the board. The only issue that will matter is abortion, and that will probably break down by states: New York will allow abortions, Texas won't, and on and on. Polarization? Buddy, you ain't seen polarization yet! Which makes Alito's argument about the "deepend division" of Roe sound like what it is: a fool's argument because he doesn't have another one. He wants to overrule Roe because that's his raison d'etre. Now he can die in peace and sanctimony. Interestingly, that problem doesn't disturb Alito's sanctimony and concerns for the state of the nation, at all. The view from Olympus is always from too far above to see what's really going on. Yup. Which may be true, but a peek into the raw id of Alito is not something one can unsee. I don't care about the article (I've posted already). I just wanted the picture of Alito. After this leak, it's the way he deserves to be remembered.

This one may get updated tonight.  The first one is closed.

Jamie Raskin points out the Court is returning to status quo after the aberration of the Warren and, to some extent, Burger courts:

"If it does go forward with it, I believe that the court will have returned to its historic baseline, of being a reactionary conservative institution to the far-right of everything else at the federal level in the government," Raskin continued. "You know, it's still got this lingering fake halo around it from the rulings Brown vs. Board, and Roe v. Wade, Miranda vs. Arizona. But for most of our history —take it all the way up to the Civil War — the Supreme Court never did anything for enslaved Americans, other than to cement constitutionally the system of slavery in the Dred Scott decision, and declare that African Americans have no rights at [sic] the white man is bound to respect, and to declare that the constitution is indeed a white man's compacts."

He went on to say that the most important thing in 2022 will be that people come out and vote in such significant numbers that the House and Senate majorities hold so that Democrats can pass laws reaffirming the right for all Americans to have medical privacy.
I can't help but think:  "Wish in one hand, piss in the other; see which fills up faster.
This is not an argument, it's a statement of preference. The "clear answer" is the one Alito prefers, and has already decided on.  Ironically, the same reasoning that led to Lochner (per the published opinion) is guiding Alito in this case.  I don't know where in the 14th Amendment the word "Contract" appears, but the Lochner court held that Amendment guaranteed the individual right to freedom of contract.

Maybe he wants to re-write that section. With all due respect to lawyer Conway, that ship sailed out of harbor sometime during the 14th amendment cases (like Lochner) in the 19th and early 20th centuries. A reminder that the Chief Justice is like the Majority Leader of the Senate: in charge in title only. Will Roberts emulated Burger? If he does, will the other justices care? Most of them didn't think Trump would be POTUS, either. Life is full of unpleasant consequences. Again, because it's late and I'm tired and I'll stop soon: not really the most important issue; tonight, or tomorrow, or the day after that. Hadn't heard that one; but now that it's said, you know it must be out there. It's too true to be good.
Sort of like this one had to be out there, too: Oddly, this conclusion doesn't bother me at all (in the quote, not in the tweet frame): The reasons for that should be obvious by now.

Popehat is right; the leak is not the main issue here.  I want to thank Rich Lowry for providing an object lesson in how to elevate rules above people.  Let's all go to church on Sunday and hear about Jesus and the Pharisees:

Damn you, Pharisees! You pay tithes on mint and rue and every herb, but neglect justice and the love of God. You should have attended to the last without neglecting the first.

Damn you legal experts, too! You load people down with crushing burdens, but you yourselves don't life a finger to help carry them. Damn you! You erect monuments to the prophets whom your ancestors murdered. You are therefore witnesses to and approve of the deeds of your ancestors; they killed [the prophets] and you erect monuments to them

You legal experts, damn you! You have taken away the key of knowledge. You yourselves haven't entered, and you have locked the way of those trying to enter."

Luke 11:42, 46-48, 52 (SV)

Don't know why I suddenly thought of that.  Yessir, no idea at all.

*Yes, the death of the VRA has already created that; but voting is not the major event in most peoples' lives it should be, and most voting suppression laws are not aimed at whites.  My experience, brief as it is, with abortion clinics is that most of the people there are too poor to be noticed, too.  But abortion is a much more "hot button" issue, even among people who will never have one; and once you unravel Roe, you already call into question the validity of Griswold (Roe's legal basis rests largely on Griswold) and then somebody starts getting itchy to ban contraceptives.  And why not overturn Lawrence and Obergefell, huh?  States rights!, right?  This is gonna ripple out fast, and it's not just going to affect poor white women trying to get the abortion so they can go back to their minimum wage job.

Getting to a pre-Lochner state may not be that far away, given the opinions written in this leaked document.
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. The Thought Criminal10:11 AM

    I wouldn't be surprised if, eventually, they upheld the fugitive womb acts, making it illegal for women to travel to states that allow abortions or people who help them to. As you point out, this is a lot more dangerous than a lot of people take it to be on the surface.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)