Heather, your writing here is exceptional! I especially appreciate the detailed research you've judiciously set forth regarding the background of these primitive "laws." How the highest court in Arizona could hold that these "laws" could in any way be relevant to or representative of the wishes of the people of Arizona is beyond my comprehension.
Heather, your writing here is exceptional! I especially appreciate the detailed research you've judiciously set forth regarding the background of these primitive "laws." How the highest court in Arizona could hold that these "laws" could in any way be relevant to or representative of the wishes of the people of Arizona is beyond my comprehension.
The USA suffers from chronic racism, bigotry, misogyny, xenophobia and a founding document (our amazing, venerable and oft misinterpreted Constitution) in serious need of modernization.
Change and improvement has happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations, but our chronic social ills keep returning, like untreated malaria, to screw us up just as it seems the time is finally right for us to do the right things and secure both freedom and justice for all Americans, save ourselves from endless war and eco-degradation, and live up to our as yet unjustified sense of "specialness".
Trump and the zillionaires have helped us see all this more clearly, and the coming elections give us one last chance to do the right thing. Arizona's choice of resuscitating their ancient and barbaric anti-abortion law could finally get us over the hump with a landslide Democratic victory.
David -- The Florida Supreme Court upholding the 6 week abortion ban also was a "getting us over the hump" moment. Yesterday, Kari Lake even came out against the AZ SC decision and she'e as far right as MTG.
The Republicans are 0-10 in abortion ballot initiatives and many of those losses have been in Red states.
In the Dodd decision Alito quoted laws from England like those were pertinent to US abortion law. He didn't quote any law written by a single woman either. The Republicans on SCOTUS are totally above the law and they know it. Leonard Leo knows it. Donald Trump knows it. That's why the Republicans go to SCOTUS as often as they possibly can. And SCOTUS obliges by hearing every case they can ASAP.
On the other hand, no matter the severity or urgency of the case, if the Democrats bring a case, it is NEVER considered an emergency--e.g. Presidential Immunity.
Too much law is being made from the bench in the US.
Thomas and Alito have broken laws since being in SCOTUS with totally immunity. They need to tread very lightly with their decision on Presidential immunity especially if Biden wins.
Thomas and Alito need to be impeached and removed for bribery. Scalia, who died on a fancy hunting trip, should have been included in that group. Roberts and Kavanaugh need to be thoroughly investigated to bring their actions into the light of day and see if they can withstand scrutiny. But that won't happen.
Kari Lake only came out against the Supreme Court ruling for political advantage. In the past she supported that position. Following Trump's lead, she's been all over the place with her stance on abortion, depending on the political winds.
They are not "above the law". They are outlaws, every one, and have earned and so deserve our contempt and disdain for their wrongful, disruptive, and deadly attempts to pervert our democracy. And, FGS, it's their democracy, too, which makes their actions even more incomprehensible. Emphatically NOT above the law.
"The USA suffers from chronic racism, bigotry, misogyny, xenophobia and a founding document (our amazing, venerable and oft misinterpreted Constitution) in serious need of modernization."
Many in the USA embrace racism, bigotry, misogyny, and xenophobia. Some, including the Founders, have used the Constitution to institute their prejudices and perpetuate inequality. However, the Founders also wrote into the Constitution procedures by which we can make progress towards establishing their revolutionary declaration of radical equality. And invited us to do so.
". . . . our as yet unjustified sense of "specialness". That phrase lands with huge discomfort in me and may also signal a fear in others that's a driving force that stands in the way of progress. We humans have a lot to learn about power and participation (not domination) and that can be a daily practice. How 'special' am I, how 'special' are we? Here, the power of words and ideas are influencers, I find hope in that.
4 hours ago I apparently suffered a "senior moment" and wrote "resuscitating their ancient and barbaric VOTING LAW", meaning to say "ANTI-ABORTION LAW". I have corrected my original comment, assuming anyone cares. Not sure if Arizona has a voting law problem or not. Hope it swings left this time in any case.
Can you say originalist? Judicial decisions can be made either by strict interpretation of the law as written or with an understanding of the time it was written and whether it would apply given the changes in society. A perfect example is how the 2nd Amendment is misinterpreted.
B. "with an understanding of the time it was written and whether it would apply given the changes in society"
Harvey, I queried the term "originalist" online and it seems to have a meaning not quite captured by either of your choices for judicial decisions. Wikipedia says "Originalists assert that legal text should be interpreted based on the original understanding at the time of adoption. Originalists object to the idea of the significant legal evolution being driven by judges in a common law framework and instead favor modifications of laws through the Legislature or through Constitutional amendment."
A. Your "as written" option misses the requirement of "the original understanding at the time of adoption".
B. Your "and whether it would apply given the changes in society" option allows a rational flexibility that seems to be explicitly rejected by originalism.
Unless, Vincent, their high court was thereby rebuking their legislature for taking so little action toward updating their laws to reflect a new millenium! ...nahhh...
IтАЩm wondering how the AZ SC could legitimately find that 19th century law written before AZ was a state would supercede over a more recently passed law in the state of Arizona.
Heather, your writing here is exceptional! I especially appreciate the detailed research you've judiciously set forth regarding the background of these primitive "laws." How the highest court in Arizona could hold that these "laws" could in any way be relevant to or representative of the wishes of the people of Arizona is beyond my comprehension.
The USA suffers from chronic racism, bigotry, misogyny, xenophobia and a founding document (our amazing, venerable and oft misinterpreted Constitution) in serious need of modernization.
Change and improvement has happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations, but our chronic social ills keep returning, like untreated malaria, to screw us up just as it seems the time is finally right for us to do the right things and secure both freedom and justice for all Americans, save ourselves from endless war and eco-degradation, and live up to our as yet unjustified sense of "specialness".
Trump and the zillionaires have helped us see all this more clearly, and the coming elections give us one last chance to do the right thing. Arizona's choice of resuscitating their ancient and barbaric anti-abortion law could finally get us over the hump with a landslide Democratic victory.
Anything less may not suffice.
I have waited my entire life for this moment.
David -- The Florida Supreme Court upholding the 6 week abortion ban also was a "getting us over the hump" moment. Yesterday, Kari Lake even came out against the AZ SC decision and she'e as far right as MTG.
The Republicans are 0-10 in abortion ballot initiatives and many of those losses have been in Red states.
In the Dodd decision Alito quoted laws from England like those were pertinent to US abortion law. He didn't quote any law written by a single woman either. The Republicans on SCOTUS are totally above the law and they know it. Leonard Leo knows it. Donald Trump knows it. That's why the Republicans go to SCOTUS as often as they possibly can. And SCOTUS obliges by hearing every case they can ASAP.
On the other hand, no matter the severity or urgency of the case, if the Democrats bring a case, it is NEVER considered an emergency--e.g. Presidential Immunity.
Too much law is being made from the bench in the US.
Thomas and Alito have broken laws since being in SCOTUS with totally immunity. They need to tread very lightly with their decision on Presidential immunity especially if Biden wins.
Thomas and Alito need to be impeached and removed for bribery. Scalia, who died on a fancy hunting trip, should have been included in that group. Roberts and Kavanaugh need to be thoroughly investigated to bring their actions into the light of day and see if they can withstand scrutiny. But that won't happen.
And like a reader here regularly asks 'Who paid Kavanaugh's credit card debt'?
And why did Kennedy suddenly retire?
Kari Lake only came out against the Supreme Court ruling for political advantage. In the past she supported that position. Following Trump's lead, she's been all over the place with her stance on abortion, depending on the political winds.
Guillotines were very effective
They are not "above the law". They are outlaws, every one, and have earned and so deserve our contempt and disdain for their wrongful, disruptive, and deadly attempts to pervert our democracy. And, FGS, it's their democracy, too, which makes their actions even more incomprehensible. Emphatically NOT above the law.
"The USA suffers from chronic racism, bigotry, misogyny, xenophobia and a founding document (our amazing, venerable and oft misinterpreted Constitution) in serious need of modernization."
Many in the USA embrace racism, bigotry, misogyny, and xenophobia. Some, including the Founders, have used the Constitution to institute their prejudices and perpetuate inequality. However, the Founders also wrote into the Constitution procedures by which we can make progress towards establishing their revolutionary declaration of radical equality. And invited us to do so.
And so we should accept the invitation.
Until Scalia, Leonard Leo et al came on the scene, we had.
Now even some others who should know better have gotten sucked into asserting we are all originalists.
". . . . our as yet unjustified sense of "specialness". That phrase lands with huge discomfort in me and may also signal a fear in others that's a driving force that stands in the way of progress. We humans have a lot to learn about power and participation (not domination) and that can be a daily practice. How 'special' am I, how 'special' are we? Here, the power of words and ideas are influencers, I find hope in that.
4 hours ago I apparently suffered a "senior moment" and wrote "resuscitating their ancient and barbaric VOTING LAW", meaning to say "ANTI-ABORTION LAW". I have corrected my original comment, assuming anyone cares. Not sure if Arizona has a voting law problem or not. Hope it swings left this time in any case.
Donate to Gallego's campaign.
Can you say originalist? Judicial decisions can be made either by strict interpretation of the law as written or with an understanding of the time it was written and whether it would apply given the changes in society. A perfect example is how the 2nd Amendment is misinterpreted.
A. "strict interpretation of the law as written"
B. "with an understanding of the time it was written and whether it would apply given the changes in society"
Harvey, I queried the term "originalist" online and it seems to have a meaning not quite captured by either of your choices for judicial decisions. Wikipedia says "Originalists assert that legal text should be interpreted based on the original understanding at the time of adoption. Originalists object to the idea of the significant legal evolution being driven by judges in a common law framework and instead favor modifications of laws through the Legislature or through Constitutional amendment."
A. Your "as written" option misses the requirement of "the original understanding at the time of adoption".
B. Your "and whether it would apply given the changes in society" option allows a rational flexibility that seems to be explicitly rejected by originalism.
You forget that some of the judges on today's Arizona Supreme Court were probably practicing lawyers in 1864. :)
Unless, Vincent, their high court was thereby rebuking their legislature for taking so little action toward updating their laws to reflect a new millenium! ...nahhh...
IтАЩm wondering how the AZ SC could legitimately find that 19th century law written before AZ was a state would supercede over a more recently passed law in the state of Arizona.