And now today the Six Traitor Injustices in the Supreme Court are doing the Confederacy's bidding by declaring war on all the "substantive due process" cases giving rights through the Fourteenth Amendment.
And now today the Six Traitor Injustices in the Supreme Court are doing the Confederacy's bidding by declaring war on all the "substantive due process" cases giving rights through the Fourteenth Amendment.
I disagree. The women of America can stand up, get loud, refuse to recognize the legitimacy of a gender in bondage and considered less than in all things. However, if the outcome of this issue does not go the way of justice, then will women be blamed for the failure? Because we rolled over and did not vote or protest in numbers desired?
I expect and demand from my equal partners of a different gender that survival will be ensured when men also loudly and soundly stand up and crush white machismo that has gotten out of control in America. Once again. And for every man that respects his own personal power to vote for equal recognition for other genders or non genders.
This is NOT a “woman’s issue”. This is a grievous threat to a human condition of equality and equity that must, once again, roar its call to the ramparts and demand not just survival, but conditions in which to flourish.
In other words, as the character Slim Hiller said…. “ENOUGH”. All of us this time. Perhaps that will enact the inherent human condition intended, not invented.
Well said, Christina. Those who would divide us by calling this a women's issue are not doing us any favors. This is, palm down, as you said, a human rights issue. It affects people of all genders, because it puts state governments right smack in the middle of our personal lives and decisions.
I never saw myself as being divisive, on the contrary, but it is fairly plain that I lack confidence in many, many people -- hell, just consider the bottom-of-the-barrel politicians they've chosen to represent them, in America, in Britain, in so many countries; when it wasn't the kind of devil's spawn they allowed to take power -- and it is even clearer that I lack even more confidence in males. If the world is left to their tender mercies, heaven help us...
This isn't a matter of gender in fact but of the crazy over-dominance of the masculine principle, so much so that even many feminists are enthralled by its brutal, stupid, superficial, aggressive zap-it-if-it-moves approach to every problem...
We need balanced human beings, not Action Man and Barbie! And that will take a lot of goading...
And old people like me will clamor for justice for everyone, but especially for the children -- all children, now and to come!
Just as our parents suffered and fought to bring us a better world.
What brought Americans' ancestors to the continent if not to build a better future for their posterity?
Those who have no care for others bring down a curse on all heads, beginning with their own. And, in one way or another, it is plain that our generations and too many of our forefathers have failed in this essential respect.
Yet it is never too late to turn around and do what must be done!
Hope my comment puts a final end to the defeatism promoted in this news letter...
I Hope and pray everyone commenting in this news letter reads and monthly financially supports as many of these following Democrats as financially possible thus converting defeatism into comforting joy!
I also include US Senator race in Florida. The support for Val Demings (D) to unseat incumbent Rubio is meteoric in this past month. His tendency to be cautious, rarely espouse an original idea except supporting Daylight Savings Time, crouch in Voldemort Scott’s shadow is spurring on Demings’s support in addition to her excellent legislative abilities.
Please support! Florida is in demanding need for a reset.
Plainly, Christine, I did not (nor did the President) intend any kind of single-gender campaign. That would, after all, make no sense and be doomed to failure.
Rather, that women should take the lead and use their not inconsiderable powers of persuasion to full effect, arousing the couch potatoes, playing Lysistrata, campaigning not only for themselves but for the human race.
I understand, Peter. A single gender campaign is not what I am calling for either. As a woman, I can say we do take the lead on this issue and others. We do campaign for all. We do nurture. However, we also recognize the power of the pronoun “our”.
In this moment, I want to see full on a co-lead. We can not call on women “especially” anymore to to fix the inequities in the laws of white men in this country. Or a previous comment earlier stating the ball to be now in “your” court, meaning women.
No. This is either all of us side by side or nothing.
Excellent, Christine. Any man who doesn't enter this fray with force and passion doesn't deserve and shouldn't receive the pleasure that women bring them. And I don't just mean sex. I'm talking about the enjoyment — and mystery — that women provide in their company. Their way of seeing and interpreting the world. And then there's the issue of the benefits many men receive from an unequal workload at home.
Applying RESIST to the home front will yield dividends.
Yes, Michael. The mystery of women (heart) and the certainty of men (mind) is a dynamic synergy, yet easily imbalanced by unequal participation in recognizing and acting on each other’s deepest psychological need.
Such an easy fix really. But isn’t that true of some of our most profound battles.
We cannot forget that there are many women out there actively working to stay second-class citizens/ thwarting the choice to be pregnant or not. So this is most importantly on EVERYONE who believes that “We The People” have a Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. EVERYONE who believes that sex between consenting adults is private and should stay that way. EVERYONE who believes that access to healthcare is NOT a privilege, but a Right. EVERYONE who believes the State cannot commandeer your body for PARTS that serve their end.
Peter, Many Americans have never heard of 'substantive due process', let alone what it means. It covers rights that are not listed (or “enumerated”) in the Constitution. The idea is that certain liberties are so important that they cannot be infringed without a compelling reason no matter how much process is given.'
How such 'rights' are interpreted by the Justices on the current Supreme Court is at the heart of the controversies concerning the Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade; In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the court ruled that a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks is constitutional and overturned the constitutional right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade in 1973. In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, the court's ruling curtailed the E.P.A.'s ability to regulate the energy sector, limiting it to measures like emission controls at individual power plants. The implications of the ruling could extend well beyond environmental policy; In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the court ruled that a football coach at a public high school had a constitutional right to pray at the 50-yard line after his team’s games; Second Amendment
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court ruled that states with strict limits on carrying guns in public violate the Second Amendment.
If you would like to understand the meaning of 'substantive due process', I have provided definitions in comments on the forum today. Political ideology may influence the Justices' interpretation of 'substantive due process. To know a bit more about the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, I have gifted an article about the major Court decisions in 2022 from the New York Times. The link is below.
It is many years since I studied the US Constitution, so I may be mistaken in my understanding of that text.
That said, it is surely impossible for any constitution to enumerate the rights that may in time be established to meet the needs of future generations. It is difficult enough for enabling legislation to provide for all contingencies, which is why well-drafted laws make due provision for such updating.
The intention of those drafting the US Constitution was, however, to provide a firm basis for establishing, upholding and protecting the rights, responsibilities and freedoms of citizens, not to design a poke for future pigs.
Just as there were disagreements and tensions between those who wrote The Federalist, so the drafters of the Constitution strove to allow for a range of possible interpretations, precisely so that the United States could at future times make due provision for the as yet unknown and undefined needs of American society.
It is blatantly obvious that a legal text must be interpreted in such a way as to respect the understanding and intentions of those who drafted it, above all the principles underlying...
*
COMPLAINT
Regardless of attempts to edit my draft, it is a painful waste of my time (and so of any reader's time) for me to write directly in this thread... which persists in truncating what I write.
I take this, then, as a warning to stop wasting my time and yours and either find a better way of conversing and sharing ideas or fall silent.
FYI, 'substantive due process', Substantive due process is a principle in United States constitutional law that allows courts to establish and protect certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if procedural protections are present or the rights are unenumerated (not specifically mentioned) elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution.
NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE US CONSTITUTION, Peter.
The following is the second definition I have provided of 'Substantive due process'. It is from LII. 'The LII is an independently-funded project of the Cornell Law School.'
This definition does not reflect political differences with reference to interpretations, such as 'originalists'' view of 'substantive due process'.
'Substantive due process is the principle that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect fundamental rights from government interference. Specifically, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the government from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
'The Fifth Amendment applies to federal action, and the Fourteenth applies to state action. Compare with procedural due process. The Supreme Court’s first foray into defining which government actions violate substantive due process was during the Lochner Era. The Court determined that the freedom to contract and other economic rights were fundamental, and state efforts to control employee-employer relations, such as minimum wages, were struck down. In 1937, the Supreme Court rejected the Lochner Era’s interpretation of substantive due process in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937) by allowing Washington to implement a minimum wage for women and minors. One year later, in footnote 4 of U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938), the Supreme Court indicated that substantive due process would apply to: “rights enumerated in and derived from the first Eight Amendments to the Constitution, the right to participate in the political process, such as the rights of voting, association, and free speech, and the rights of ‘discrete and insular minorities.’”
'Following Carolene Products, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that fundamental rights protected by substantive due process are those deeply rooted in U.S. history and tradition, viewed in light of evolving social norms. These rights are not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights, but rather are the penumbra of certain amendments that refer to or assume the existence of such rights. This has led the Supreme Court to find that personal and relational rights, as opposed to economic rights, are fundamental and protected.'
'Specifically, the Supreme Court has interpreted substantive due process to include, among others, the following fundamental rights: The right to privacy, specifically a right to contraceptives. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) The right to pre-viability abortion. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, (1973) The right to marry a person of a different race. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) The right to marry an individual of the same sex. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) [Last updated in April of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]'
We may ask what is "substantive due process" ? The following is the definition with historical background from the National Constitution Center:
'The “substantive due process” jurisprudence has been among the most controversial areas of Supreme Court adjudication'
'Substantive Due Process'
'The Court has also deemed the due process guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to protect certain substantive rights that are not listed (or “enumerated”) in the Constitution. The idea is that certain liberties are so important that they cannot be infringed without a compelling reason no matter how much process is given.'
'The Court’s decision to protect unenumerated rights through the Due Process Clause is a little puzzling. The idea of unenumerated rights is not strange—the Ninth Amendment itself suggests that the rights enumerated in the Constitution do not exhaust “others retained by the people.”
The most natural textual source for those rights, however, is probably the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from denying any citizen the “privileges and immunities” of citizenship. When The Slaughter-House Cases (1873) foreclosed that interpretation, the Court turned to the Due Process Clause as a source of unenumerated rights.'
'The “substantive due process” jurisprudence has been among the most controversial areas of Supreme Court adjudication. The concern is that five unelected Justices of the Supreme Court can impose their policy preferences on the nation, given that, by definition, unenumerated rights do not flow directly from the text of the Constitution.'
'In the early decades of the twentieth century, the Court used the Due Process Clause to strike down economic regulations that sought to better the conditions of workers on the ground that they violated those workers’ “freedom of contract,” even though this freedom is not specifically guaranteed in the Constitution. The 1905 case of Lochner v. New York is a symbol of this “economic substantive due process,” and is now widely reviled as an instance of judicial activism. When the Court repudiated Lochner in 1937, the Justices signaled that they would tread carefully in the area of unenumerated rights. West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937).'
'Substantive due process, however, had a renaissance in the mid-twentieth century. In 1965, the Court struck down state bans on the use of contraception by married couples on the ground that it violated their “right to privacy.” Griswold v. Connecticut. Like the “freedom of contract,” the “right to privacy” is not explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution. However, the Court found that unlike the “freedom of contract,” the “right to privacy” may be inferred from the penumbras—or shadowy edges—of rights that are enumerated, such as the First Amendment’s right to assembly, the Third Amendment’s right to be free from quartering soldiers during peacetime, and the Fourth Amendment’s right to be free from unreasonable searches of the home. The “penumbra” theory allowed the Court to reinvigorate substantive due process jurisprudence.'
'In the wake of Griswold, the Court expanded substantive due process jurisprudence to protect a panoply of liberties, including the right of interracial couples to marry (1967), the right of unmarried individuals to use contraception (1972), the right to abortion (1973), the right to engage in intimate sexual conduct (2003), and the right of same-sex couples to marry (2015). The Court has also declined to extend substantive due process to some rights, such as the right to physician-assisted suicide (1997).'
'The proper methodology for determining which rights should be protected under substantive due process has been hotly contested. In 1961, Justice Harlan wrote an influential dissent in Poe v. Ullman, maintaining that the project of discerning such rights “has not been reduced to any formula,” but must be left to case-by-case adjudication. In 1997, the Court suggested an alternative methodology that was more restrictive: such rights would need to be “carefully descri[bed]” and, under that description, “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg (1997). However, in recognizing a right to same-sex marriage in 2015, the Court not only limited that methodology, but also positively cited the Poe dissent. Obergefell v. Hodges. The Court’s approach in future cases remains unclear.' (NationalConstitutionCenter)
Source: The National Constitution Center unites America’s leading scholars from diverse legal and philosophical perspectives to explore the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution.
The following is the second definition I have provided of 'Substantive due process'. It is from LII. 'The LII is an independently-funded project of the Cornell Law School.' This definition does not reflect political differences with reference to interpretations, such as 'originalists' view of 'substantive due process'.
'We are a small team of technologists who believe that everyone should be able to read and understand the laws that govern them'
'We employ technology to gather, process, and publish public legal information that is accurate and objective. Learn more about our operation here.;
Substantive due process is the principle that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect fundamental rights from government interference. Specifically, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the government from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The Fifth Amendment applies to federal action, and the Fourteenth applies to state action. Compare with procedural due process.
The Supreme Court’s first foray into defining which government actions violate substantive due process was during the Lochner Era. The Court determined that the freedom to contract and other economic rights were fundamental, and state efforts to control employee-employer relations, such as minimum wages, were struck down. In 1937, the Supreme Court rejected the Lochner Era’s interpretation of substantive due process in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937) by allowing Washington to implement a minimum wage for women and minors. One year later, in footnote 4 of U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938), the Supreme Court indicated that substantive due process would apply to: “rights enumerated in and derived from the first Eight Amendments to the Constitution, the right to participate in the political process, such as the rights of voting, association, and free speech, and the rights of ‘discrete and insular minorities.’”
Following Carolene Products, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that fundamental rights protected by substantive due process are those deeply rooted in U.S. history and tradition, viewed in light of evolving social norms. These rights are not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights, but rather are the penumbra of certain amendments that refer to or assume the existence of such rights. This has led the Supreme Court to find that personal and relational rights, as opposed to economic rights, are fundamental and protected. Specifically, the Supreme Court has interpreted substantive due process to include, among others, the following fundamental rights:
The right to privacy, specifically a right to contraceptives. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
The right to pre-viability abortion. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, (1973)
The right to marry a person of a different race. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
The right to marry an individual of the same sex. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)
[Last updated in April of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]
Please reread Bonnie. "Always" was quoted from B C's prolife. My 'often' disappointed with the DEMS is a subject that I do not have the time now to elaborate upon.
Were they all brainwashed by watching "Gone With the Wind" as kids — even Thomas?
Having mostly grown up in the South and, especially, spending six years in Georgia going to college and working my first newspaper job there, I met a lot of people who bought into the "Lost Cause" and "happy slaves" revisionist history.
Today, with all the pumped-up, beer-bellied good 'ol boys toting their AR-15s and spewing Civil War talk, have they ever considered how Black people might respond? Including the many who make up the ranks of the military?
SCOTUS, acting with religious-fueled arrogance and blindness, appears intent on lighting a spark. The ensuing conflagration likely wouldn't spare them.
Here's a refresher course on "Gone With the Wind." Excerpt from Washington Post:
The story of the “Gone With the Wind” movie begins, of course, with the novel that inspired it. Published in 1936, Margaret Mitchell’s best-selling book offered a classic “Lost Cause” tale of crushed but resilient white Southerners, devoted black slaves and evil-minded Yankees. It traded heavily in racist descriptions and plot lines, from the “black apes” committing “outrages on women” to Mitchell’s reference to the character Mammy, her face “puckered in the sad bewilderment of an old ape.”
Ku Kluxers are the book’s heroes, helping restore order in the wake of racial chaos.
Michael, Are you, perhaps, trivializing the issues regarding the judicial political differences among the Supreme Court Justices concerning the use of 'substantive due process'; in the Court's selection of cases and in the decisions made by it. The article on which you seem to base your argument was printed in WAPO two years ago and ended, to quote:
“Gone With the Wind” reveals how a romanticization of slavery in the past translated into concrete actions to perpetuate its legacy in the present. Today, in 2020, when hundreds of thousands of Americans have taken to the streets to demand racial justice, and when the U.S. Senate is on the verge of finally passing a federal anti-lynching law, and when dozens of Confederate monuments have come down, maybe it is time to treat the film as the Confederate monument that it is, and take it down, too.'
That wasn't my point. I thought of "Gone With the Wind" in the context of the how the radical justices are trying to undermine the rights granted under the 14th Amendment. Brown v. Board of Education may be in their sights, for example.
A lot of white people who don't consider themselves racists believe the false reality created by the book and movie. I linked to the article, without reading it in its entirety to explain how racist the story was.
Michael, While I failed to join you with relevance to your connection of "Gone With the Wind' with 'radical' Justices '...trying to undermine rights under the 14th Amendment; and that '...Brown v. Board of Education may be in their sights...', perhaps, subscribers will be interested in knowing public opinion of SCOTUS and recent polling results indicating how overturning Roe v. Wade may affect the midterm elections.
'Public approval of the Supreme Court is now at an all-time low. '
'According to a June Gallup poll, only 25% of Americans have confidence in the high court. That’s a dive of more than 10% compared to the same time last year.'
'That poll was taken in anticipation of Roe v. Wade being overturned. It’s an opinion most Americans do not support.'
'A Pew Research poll found that 57% of Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court’s decision. More than 60% say abortion should be legal in all or in most cases.'
'Analysts say the court has undeniably become more ideological and political.'
'Earlier this year, the scientific journal PNAS found that since 2020, the Supreme Court had become “much more conservative than the public and is now more similar to Republicans in its ideological position on key issues.”
'In its majority opinion to overturn Roe and Casey, justices cited that group's statements, "the Liberty Counsel brief argues abortion has ties to race-based eugenics."
'The allegations of a conflict of interest extend to the justices' political leanings.'
'Polling conducted in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade paints a consistent picture: Most Americans oppose the decision and lack confidence in the Supreme Court itself. What’s more, there is broad concern that the court’s decision to roll back the right to abortion is simply the first in a series of similar rollbacks, potentially targeting same-sex marriage and the availability of contraceptives.'
'Unsurprisingly, given all of that, one poll found that most Americans see the court’s anti-Roe decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization as rooted fundamentally in politics, not the law.'
'... in the polls released this weekend, one from CBS News, conducted by YouGov, and the other from NPR and PBS NewsHour, conducted by Marist College. In each, respondents were asked whether the ruling in Dobbs might affect their vote in November’s midterm elections. And, as you might expect, many Americans said that it would.
'This is a natural question to ask, since it addresses one aspect of the court’s decision that undoubtedly has piqued many people’s curiosity: What might the political response to Dobbs be? Unfortunately, asking this question in the immediate aftermath of the decision, four months before the election, probably doesn’t tell us very much. Many voters will be thinking about the court’s decision when they vote, certainly. But would they have voted anyway? Did the decision change who they planned to vote for? It’s murky, and these polls shed only a very small amount of light, so I’m setting those questions aside.'
'What we can say with confidence is that most Americans disagree with the decision. In the CBS-YouGov poll (henceforth, the CBS poll), 6 in 10 Americans expressed disapproval, including 6 in 10 independents. Women were more likely to disapprove than men (they did so by a 2-to-1 margin) but even half of men viewed the decision negatively.'
'In the NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist poll (henceforth, the NPR poll), those views were broken out to measure how strongly people felt about the decision. Nearly half of women strongly oppose it as do three-quarters of Democrats. More than half of Republicans strongly support it.'
'The NPR poll also broke out its data by the extent of support respondents had for access to abortion. Nearly three-quarters of those who said they mostly support abortion rights (55 percent of the total) said they strongly oppose the decision. Those who mostly oppose abortion rights (36 percent) mostly strongly supported it.]
'Perhaps the most telling response from either poll came from NPR’s. More than half of Americans view the decision as being mostly based on politics rather than the law. Most Republicans believe it was mostly based in the law — though even a fifth of Republicans see it as largely political.'
'Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has worked to defend his court against allegations that it is infected by politics. The Dobbs decision, it seems safe to say, did not help his case.'
'Both the CBS and NPR polls asked how much confidence people had in the court. NPR found that most respondents had little to no confidence, with Democrats being much more likely to say they had no confidence than Republicans were to say they had a great deal. (Gallup polling found a plunge in Democratic confidence in the court even before Dobbs.)'
I do not get your 'point'. Your comment read as a diversion to me, an aside, without a clear connection to understanding how a majority of the Justices are interpreting 'substantive due process'. Understanding what 'substantive due process' means and how it is variously interpreted by the Justices on the Court appears to be important lessons for us (subscribers).
I'm so glad Biden dressed them down with harsh language! Thomas has gotta go! He told a law clerk he wasn't going to retire until 2034: "The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years," a former clerk remembered Thomas – who was 43 years old when confirmed – saying, according to The New York Times. "And I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years."
TC, It is crucial for those concerned with the current Supreme Court and its decisions to understand interpretations of the meaning of 'substantive due process'. How do the Justices' political ideology affect their decision making? Not all cases divide cleanly along partisan lines. What’s equally important, they also set forth judicial reasoning, which offers vital clues to differences in how justices read the law and how they might rule in future cases.
'What does substantive due process mean in government?
'Substantive due process is a principle in United States constitutional law that allows courts to establish and protect certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if procedural protections are present or the rights are unenumerated (not specifically mentioned) elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution. Courts have asserted that such protections come from the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit the federal and state governments, respectively, from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
' Substantive due process demarks the line between those acts that courts hold to be subject to government regulation or legislation and those that courts place beyond the reach of governmental interference. Whether the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments were intended to serve that function continues to be a matter of scholarly as well as judicial discussion and dissent.[1]'
'Substantive due process is to be distinguished from procedural due process. The distinction arises from the words "of law" in the phrase "due process of law".[2] Procedural due process protects individuals from the coercive power of government by ensuring that adjudication processes, under valid laws, are fair and impartial. Such protections, for example, include sufficient and timely notice of why a party is required to appear before a court or other governmental body, the right to an impartial trier of fact and trier of law, and the right to give testimony and present relevant evidence at hearings.[2] In contrast, substantive due process protects individuals against majoritarian policy enactments that exceed the limits of governmental authority: courts may find that a majority's enactment is not law and cannot be enforced as such, regardless of whether the processes of enactment and enforcement were actually fair.[2]' (Wikipedia)
Fortunately, an Amendment is by definition "constitutional" in all cases and cannot be overturned. The court can mess with legal cases based on clauses of the amendment, but not the amendment itself. Thus, neither the Fourteenth or Nineteenth Amendments can be declared "unconstitutional," but cases based in them can be overturned. I don't think there are any cases like "substantive due process" involving the Nineteenth Amendment, which is pretty much declarative of one thing: women can vote. That cannot be denied. There would have to be another amendment overturning it, as with Prohibition.
I have never looked as closely at our constitution or case law as the past few years. Thank you TC for the clarification. Amazing the court can take away our right to decide for ourselves what our health care will be, but can’t deprive of us of the vote. Lucky us….
And now today the Six Traitor Injustices in the Supreme Court are doing the Confederacy's bidding by declaring war on all the "substantive due process" cases giving rights through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Suicide bombers sent in to blow up the Constitution, the rule of law and their own standing as jurists.
"(The) women of America can determine the outcome of this issue."
Is it not women that ultimately ensure survival when machismo gets out of hand?
I disagree. The women of America can stand up, get loud, refuse to recognize the legitimacy of a gender in bondage and considered less than in all things. However, if the outcome of this issue does not go the way of justice, then will women be blamed for the failure? Because we rolled over and did not vote or protest in numbers desired?
I expect and demand from my equal partners of a different gender that survival will be ensured when men also loudly and soundly stand up and crush white machismo that has gotten out of control in America. Once again. And for every man that respects his own personal power to vote for equal recognition for other genders or non genders.
This is NOT a “woman’s issue”. This is a grievous threat to a human condition of equality and equity that must, once again, roar its call to the ramparts and demand not just survival, but conditions in which to flourish.
In other words, as the character Slim Hiller said…. “ENOUGH”. All of us this time. Perhaps that will enact the inherent human condition intended, not invented.
Salud, Peter! 🗽
Well said, Christina. Those who would divide us by calling this a women's issue are not doing us any favors. This is, palm down, as you said, a human rights issue. It affects people of all genders, because it puts state governments right smack in the middle of our personal lives and decisions.
I never saw myself as being divisive, on the contrary, but it is fairly plain that I lack confidence in many, many people -- hell, just consider the bottom-of-the-barrel politicians they've chosen to represent them, in America, in Britain, in so many countries; when it wasn't the kind of devil's spawn they allowed to take power -- and it is even clearer that I lack even more confidence in males. If the world is left to their tender mercies, heaven help us...
This isn't a matter of gender in fact but of the crazy over-dominance of the masculine principle, so much so that even many feminists are enthralled by its brutal, stupid, superficial, aggressive zap-it-if-it-moves approach to every problem...
We need balanced human beings, not Action Man and Barbie! And that will take a lot of goading...
Yes, agree totally., Peter. We start with our children. In how they play, interact, and live with each other in congruous harmony.
Unita! 🗽
And old people like me will clamor for justice for everyone, but especially for the children -- all children, now and to come!
Just as our parents suffered and fought to bring us a better world.
What brought Americans' ancestors to the continent if not to build a better future for their posterity?
Those who have no care for others bring down a curse on all heads, beginning with their own. And, in one way or another, it is plain that our generations and too many of our forefathers have failed in this essential respect.
Yet it is never too late to turn around and do what must be done!
Bravo Christine
Hope my comment puts a final end to the defeatism promoted in this news letter...
I Hope and pray everyone commenting in this news letter reads and monthly financially supports as many of these following Democrats as financially possible thus converting defeatism into comforting joy!
See link
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3527999-the-seven-senate-seats-most-likely-to-flip-in-2022/
I also include US Senator race in Florida. The support for Val Demings (D) to unseat incumbent Rubio is meteoric in this past month. His tendency to be cautious, rarely espouse an original idea except supporting Daylight Savings Time, crouch in Voldemort Scott’s shadow is spurring on Demings’s support in addition to her excellent legislative abilities.
Please support! Florida is in demanding need for a reset.
Unita, George! 🗽
Thanks for that link!
Plainly, Christine, I did not (nor did the President) intend any kind of single-gender campaign. That would, after all, make no sense and be doomed to failure.
Rather, that women should take the lead and use their not inconsiderable powers of persuasion to full effect, arousing the couch potatoes, playing Lysistrata, campaigning not only for themselves but for the human race.
Avanti!
I understand, Peter. A single gender campaign is not what I am calling for either. As a woman, I can say we do take the lead on this issue and others. We do campaign for all. We do nurture. However, we also recognize the power of the pronoun “our”.
In this moment, I want to see full on a co-lead. We can not call on women “especially” anymore to to fix the inequities in the laws of white men in this country. Or a previous comment earlier stating the ball to be now in “your” court, meaning women.
No. This is either all of us side by side or nothing.
Unita, Peter! 🗽
Agreed 1000%, old, young, all, all of us!
Excellent, Christine. Any man who doesn't enter this fray with force and passion doesn't deserve and shouldn't receive the pleasure that women bring them. And I don't just mean sex. I'm talking about the enjoyment — and mystery — that women provide in their company. Their way of seeing and interpreting the world. And then there's the issue of the benefits many men receive from an unequal workload at home.
Applying RESIST to the home front will yield dividends.
Yes, Michael. The mystery of women (heart) and the certainty of men (mind) is a dynamic synergy, yet easily imbalanced by unequal participation in recognizing and acting on each other’s deepest psychological need.
Such an easy fix really. But isn’t that true of some of our most profound battles.
Unita! 🗽
Yes Christine!!
Well said, Christine. Thank you!
May I share this elsewhere?
Of course. Because sharing is in our natures.
Salud, Maia! 🗽
YES!
We cannot forget that there are many women out there actively working to stay second-class citizens/ thwarting the choice to be pregnant or not. So this is most importantly on EVERYONE who believes that “We The People” have a Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. EVERYONE who believes that sex between consenting adults is private and should stay that way. EVERYONE who believes that access to healthcare is NOT a privilege, but a Right. EVERYONE who believes the State cannot commandeer your body for PARTS that serve their end.
Does everything have to fall on the woman’s shoulders? The burdens could be shared, not shifted to the “weaker sex.”’ Snark
Yup.
Peter, Many Americans have never heard of 'substantive due process', let alone what it means. It covers rights that are not listed (or “enumerated”) in the Constitution. The idea is that certain liberties are so important that they cannot be infringed without a compelling reason no matter how much process is given.'
How such 'rights' are interpreted by the Justices on the current Supreme Court is at the heart of the controversies concerning the Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade; In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the court ruled that a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks is constitutional and overturned the constitutional right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade in 1973. In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, the court's ruling curtailed the E.P.A.'s ability to regulate the energy sector, limiting it to measures like emission controls at individual power plants. The implications of the ruling could extend well beyond environmental policy; In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the court ruled that a football coach at a public high school had a constitutional right to pray at the 50-yard line after his team’s games; Second Amendment
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court ruled that states with strict limits on carrying guns in public violate the Second Amendment.
If you would like to understand the meaning of 'substantive due process', I have provided definitions in comments on the forum today. Political ideology may influence the Justices' interpretation of 'substantive due process. To know a bit more about the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, I have gifted an article about the major Court decisions in 2022 from the New York Times. The link is below.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/21/us/major-supreme-court-cases-2022.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxfs9gGPzNiGeVTdcwqNPW9LavB-TIvA6IMYomDGSRthbdaQyXOZ_y-IaNEtwURXtqZKflY9AeX1v88SzQmYyldrrbIwPzAXLPCO_Ofstg_q-uQ6LKjG7HfybhWslcF5joJdhdkX7jHxc2qvAFOZqioJ52-MjBcwtR2wGbCeBt6T4Gl4pboX9GxLc4wYxXu5YXyiC3oLPruJdL3gBTA7OX3h94m0j6d1DOdNxPKr3LxYofcWWkqxGQyUzb9_vX8ttMtCSw7Z6srfNqgiOwd60zpg1EKZXvLDCtQWqJc7Kwz2XuHcYORtH4BgBQiE&smid=url-share
It is many years since I studied the US Constitution, so I may be mistaken in my understanding of that text.
That said, it is surely impossible for any constitution to enumerate the rights that may in time be established to meet the needs of future generations. It is difficult enough for enabling legislation to provide for all contingencies, which is why well-drafted laws make due provision for such updating.
The intention of those drafting the US Constitution was, however, to provide a firm basis for establishing, upholding and protecting the rights, responsibilities and freedoms of citizens, not to design a poke for future pigs.
Just as there were disagreements and tensions between those who wrote The Federalist, so the drafters of the Constitution strove to allow for a range of possible interpretations, precisely so that the United States could at future times make due provision for the as yet unknown and undefined needs of American society.
It is blatantly obvious that a legal text must be interpreted in such a way as to respect the understanding and intentions of those who drafted it, above all the principles underlying...
*
COMPLAINT
Regardless of attempts to edit my draft, it is a painful waste of my time (and so of any reader's time) for me to write directly in this thread... which persists in truncating what I write.
I take this, then, as a warning to stop wasting my time and yours and either find a better way of conversing and sharing ideas or fall silent.
FYI, 'substantive due process', Substantive due process is a principle in United States constitutional law that allows courts to establish and protect certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if procedural protections are present or the rights are unenumerated (not specifically mentioned) elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution.
NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE US CONSTITUTION, Peter.
The following is the second definition I have provided of 'Substantive due process'. It is from LII. 'The LII is an independently-funded project of the Cornell Law School.'
This definition does not reflect political differences with reference to interpretations, such as 'originalists'' view of 'substantive due process'.
'Substantive due process is the principle that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect fundamental rights from government interference. Specifically, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the government from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
'The Fifth Amendment applies to federal action, and the Fourteenth applies to state action. Compare with procedural due process. The Supreme Court’s first foray into defining which government actions violate substantive due process was during the Lochner Era. The Court determined that the freedom to contract and other economic rights were fundamental, and state efforts to control employee-employer relations, such as minimum wages, were struck down. In 1937, the Supreme Court rejected the Lochner Era’s interpretation of substantive due process in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937) by allowing Washington to implement a minimum wage for women and minors. One year later, in footnote 4 of U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938), the Supreme Court indicated that substantive due process would apply to: “rights enumerated in and derived from the first Eight Amendments to the Constitution, the right to participate in the political process, such as the rights of voting, association, and free speech, and the rights of ‘discrete and insular minorities.’”
'Following Carolene Products, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that fundamental rights protected by substantive due process are those deeply rooted in U.S. history and tradition, viewed in light of evolving social norms. These rights are not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights, but rather are the penumbra of certain amendments that refer to or assume the existence of such rights. This has led the Supreme Court to find that personal and relational rights, as opposed to economic rights, are fundamental and protected.'
'Specifically, the Supreme Court has interpreted substantive due process to include, among others, the following fundamental rights: The right to privacy, specifically a right to contraceptives. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) The right to pre-viability abortion. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, (1973) The right to marry a person of a different race. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) The right to marry an individual of the same sex. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) [Last updated in April of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]'
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/substantive_due_process
We may ask what is "substantive due process" ? The following is the definition with historical background from the National Constitution Center:
'The “substantive due process” jurisprudence has been among the most controversial areas of Supreme Court adjudication'
'Substantive Due Process'
'The Court has also deemed the due process guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to protect certain substantive rights that are not listed (or “enumerated”) in the Constitution. The idea is that certain liberties are so important that they cannot be infringed without a compelling reason no matter how much process is given.'
'The Court’s decision to protect unenumerated rights through the Due Process Clause is a little puzzling. The idea of unenumerated rights is not strange—the Ninth Amendment itself suggests that the rights enumerated in the Constitution do not exhaust “others retained by the people.”
The most natural textual source for those rights, however, is probably the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from denying any citizen the “privileges and immunities” of citizenship. When The Slaughter-House Cases (1873) foreclosed that interpretation, the Court turned to the Due Process Clause as a source of unenumerated rights.'
'The “substantive due process” jurisprudence has been among the most controversial areas of Supreme Court adjudication. The concern is that five unelected Justices of the Supreme Court can impose their policy preferences on the nation, given that, by definition, unenumerated rights do not flow directly from the text of the Constitution.'
'In the early decades of the twentieth century, the Court used the Due Process Clause to strike down economic regulations that sought to better the conditions of workers on the ground that they violated those workers’ “freedom of contract,” even though this freedom is not specifically guaranteed in the Constitution. The 1905 case of Lochner v. New York is a symbol of this “economic substantive due process,” and is now widely reviled as an instance of judicial activism. When the Court repudiated Lochner in 1937, the Justices signaled that they would tread carefully in the area of unenumerated rights. West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937).'
'Substantive due process, however, had a renaissance in the mid-twentieth century. In 1965, the Court struck down state bans on the use of contraception by married couples on the ground that it violated their “right to privacy.” Griswold v. Connecticut. Like the “freedom of contract,” the “right to privacy” is not explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution. However, the Court found that unlike the “freedom of contract,” the “right to privacy” may be inferred from the penumbras—or shadowy edges—of rights that are enumerated, such as the First Amendment’s right to assembly, the Third Amendment’s right to be free from quartering soldiers during peacetime, and the Fourth Amendment’s right to be free from unreasonable searches of the home. The “penumbra” theory allowed the Court to reinvigorate substantive due process jurisprudence.'
'In the wake of Griswold, the Court expanded substantive due process jurisprudence to protect a panoply of liberties, including the right of interracial couples to marry (1967), the right of unmarried individuals to use contraception (1972), the right to abortion (1973), the right to engage in intimate sexual conduct (2003), and the right of same-sex couples to marry (2015). The Court has also declined to extend substantive due process to some rights, such as the right to physician-assisted suicide (1997).'
'The proper methodology for determining which rights should be protected under substantive due process has been hotly contested. In 1961, Justice Harlan wrote an influential dissent in Poe v. Ullman, maintaining that the project of discerning such rights “has not been reduced to any formula,” but must be left to case-by-case adjudication. In 1997, the Court suggested an alternative methodology that was more restrictive: such rights would need to be “carefully descri[bed]” and, under that description, “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg (1997). However, in recognizing a right to same-sex marriage in 2015, the Court not only limited that methodology, but also positively cited the Poe dissent. Obergefell v. Hodges. The Court’s approach in future cases remains unclear.' (NationalConstitutionCenter)
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-xiv/clauses/701
Source: The National Constitution Center unites America’s leading scholars from diverse legal and philosophical perspectives to explore the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution.
'substantive due process'
The following is the second definition I have provided of 'Substantive due process'. It is from LII. 'The LII is an independently-funded project of the Cornell Law School.' This definition does not reflect political differences with reference to interpretations, such as 'originalists' view of 'substantive due process'.
'We are a small team of technologists who believe that everyone should be able to read and understand the laws that govern them'
'We employ technology to gather, process, and publish public legal information that is accurate and objective. Learn more about our operation here.;
Substantive due process is the principle that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect fundamental rights from government interference. Specifically, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the government from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The Fifth Amendment applies to federal action, and the Fourteenth applies to state action. Compare with procedural due process.
The Supreme Court’s first foray into defining which government actions violate substantive due process was during the Lochner Era. The Court determined that the freedom to contract and other economic rights were fundamental, and state efforts to control employee-employer relations, such as minimum wages, were struck down. In 1937, the Supreme Court rejected the Lochner Era’s interpretation of substantive due process in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937) by allowing Washington to implement a minimum wage for women and minors. One year later, in footnote 4 of U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938), the Supreme Court indicated that substantive due process would apply to: “rights enumerated in and derived from the first Eight Amendments to the Constitution, the right to participate in the political process, such as the rights of voting, association, and free speech, and the rights of ‘discrete and insular minorities.’”
Following Carolene Products, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that fundamental rights protected by substantive due process are those deeply rooted in U.S. history and tradition, viewed in light of evolving social norms. These rights are not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights, but rather are the penumbra of certain amendments that refer to or assume the existence of such rights. This has led the Supreme Court to find that personal and relational rights, as opposed to economic rights, are fundamental and protected. Specifically, the Supreme Court has interpreted substantive due process to include, among others, the following fundamental rights:
The right to privacy, specifically a right to contraceptives. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
The right to pre-viability abortion. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, (1973)
The right to marry a person of a different race. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
The right to marry an individual of the same sex. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)
[Last updated in April of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/substantive_due_process
Thanks for posting, Fern
Thank you, G. Zinn. I'm glad you read it. We're here to learn as we protect and strengthen democracy in the USA.
'For years when I taught campaigns and elections at Brown University, I defended
the Electoral College as an important part of American democracy. I said the
founders created the institution to make sure that large states did not dominate
small ones in presidential elections, that power between Congress and state
legislatures was balanced, and that there would be checks and balances in the
constitutional system.'
'In recent years, though, I have changed my view and concluded it is time to get
rid of the Electoral College.'
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Big-Ideas_West_Electoral-College.pdf
Thank you, B C.
PS 'Always disappointed by the DEMS....' I am mostly disappointed by the DEMs.
Fern. “Always disappointed. by the DEMS”….WHY?….or were they the DEMS before the Civil War? That turned
Sorry, Bonnie, I wrote 'mostly'. Perhaps, a tad too harsh but not that far away from what I often feel.
Please reread Bonnie. "Always" was quoted from B C's prolife. My 'often' disappointed with the DEMS is a subject that I do not have the time now to elaborate upon.
Thanks for these two pieces of reference material! I learned quite a bit from them.
Were they all brainwashed by watching "Gone With the Wind" as kids — even Thomas?
Having mostly grown up in the South and, especially, spending six years in Georgia going to college and working my first newspaper job there, I met a lot of people who bought into the "Lost Cause" and "happy slaves" revisionist history.
Today, with all the pumped-up, beer-bellied good 'ol boys toting their AR-15s and spewing Civil War talk, have they ever considered how Black people might respond? Including the many who make up the ranks of the military?
SCOTUS, acting with religious-fueled arrogance and blindness, appears intent on lighting a spark. The ensuing conflagration likely wouldn't spare them.
Here's a refresher course on "Gone With the Wind." Excerpt from Washington Post:
The story of the “Gone With the Wind” movie begins, of course, with the novel that inspired it. Published in 1936, Margaret Mitchell’s best-selling book offered a classic “Lost Cause” tale of crushed but resilient white Southerners, devoted black slaves and evil-minded Yankees. It traded heavily in racist descriptions and plot lines, from the “black apes” committing “outrages on women” to Mitchell’s reference to the character Mammy, her face “puckered in the sad bewilderment of an old ape.”
Ku Kluxers are the book’s heroes, helping restore order in the wake of racial chaos.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/12/gone-with-wind-is-also-confederate-monument-film-instead-stone/
Michael, Are you, perhaps, trivializing the issues regarding the judicial political differences among the Supreme Court Justices concerning the use of 'substantive due process'; in the Court's selection of cases and in the decisions made by it. The article on which you seem to base your argument was printed in WAPO two years ago and ended, to quote:
“Gone With the Wind” reveals how a romanticization of slavery in the past translated into concrete actions to perpetuate its legacy in the present. Today, in 2020, when hundreds of thousands of Americans have taken to the streets to demand racial justice, and when the U.S. Senate is on the verge of finally passing a federal anti-lynching law, and when dozens of Confederate monuments have come down, maybe it is time to treat the film as the Confederate monument that it is, and take it down, too.'
That wasn't my point. I thought of "Gone With the Wind" in the context of the how the radical justices are trying to undermine the rights granted under the 14th Amendment. Brown v. Board of Education may be in their sights, for example.
A lot of white people who don't consider themselves racists believe the false reality created by the book and movie. I linked to the article, without reading it in its entirety to explain how racist the story was.
Michael, While I failed to join you with relevance to your connection of "Gone With the Wind' with 'radical' Justices '...trying to undermine rights under the 14th Amendment; and that '...Brown v. Board of Education may be in their sights...', perhaps, subscribers will be interested in knowing public opinion of SCOTUS and recent polling results indicating how overturning Roe v. Wade may affect the midterm elections.
'Public approval of the Supreme Court is now at an all-time low. '
'According to a June Gallup poll, only 25% of Americans have confidence in the high court. That’s a dive of more than 10% compared to the same time last year.'
'That poll was taken in anticipation of Roe v. Wade being overturned. It’s an opinion most Americans do not support.'
'A Pew Research poll found that 57% of Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court’s decision. More than 60% say abortion should be legal in all or in most cases.'
'Analysts say the court has undeniably become more ideological and political.'
'Earlier this year, the scientific journal PNAS found that since 2020, the Supreme Court had become “much more conservative than the public and is now more similar to Republicans in its ideological position on key issues.”
'In its majority opinion to overturn Roe and Casey, justices cited that group's statements, "the Liberty Counsel brief argues abortion has ties to race-based eugenics."
'The allegations of a conflict of interest extend to the justices' political leanings.'
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3534955-confidence-in-supreme-court-is-at-lowest-level-in-50-year-recorded-history-gallup-poll-finds/
'Polling conducted in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade paints a consistent picture: Most Americans oppose the decision and lack confidence in the Supreme Court itself. What’s more, there is broad concern that the court’s decision to roll back the right to abortion is simply the first in a series of similar rollbacks, potentially targeting same-sex marriage and the availability of contraceptives.'
'Unsurprisingly, given all of that, one poll found that most Americans see the court’s anti-Roe decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization as rooted fundamentally in politics, not the law.'
'... in the polls released this weekend, one from CBS News, conducted by YouGov, and the other from NPR and PBS NewsHour, conducted by Marist College. In each, respondents were asked whether the ruling in Dobbs might affect their vote in November’s midterm elections. And, as you might expect, many Americans said that it would.
'This is a natural question to ask, since it addresses one aspect of the court’s decision that undoubtedly has piqued many people’s curiosity: What might the political response to Dobbs be? Unfortunately, asking this question in the immediate aftermath of the decision, four months before the election, probably doesn’t tell us very much. Many voters will be thinking about the court’s decision when they vote, certainly. But would they have voted anyway? Did the decision change who they planned to vote for? It’s murky, and these polls shed only a very small amount of light, so I’m setting those questions aside.'
'What we can say with confidence is that most Americans disagree with the decision. In the CBS-YouGov poll (henceforth, the CBS poll), 6 in 10 Americans expressed disapproval, including 6 in 10 independents. Women were more likely to disapprove than men (they did so by a 2-to-1 margin) but even half of men viewed the decision negatively.'
'In the NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist poll (henceforth, the NPR poll), those views were broken out to measure how strongly people felt about the decision. Nearly half of women strongly oppose it as do three-quarters of Democrats. More than half of Republicans strongly support it.'
'The NPR poll also broke out its data by the extent of support respondents had for access to abortion. Nearly three-quarters of those who said they mostly support abortion rights (55 percent of the total) said they strongly oppose the decision. Those who mostly oppose abortion rights (36 percent) mostly strongly supported it.]
'Perhaps the most telling response from either poll came from NPR’s. More than half of Americans view the decision as being mostly based on politics rather than the law. Most Republicans believe it was mostly based in the law — though even a fifth of Republicans see it as largely political.'
'Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has worked to defend his court against allegations that it is infected by politics. The Dobbs decision, it seems safe to say, did not help his case.'
'Both the CBS and NPR polls asked how much confidence people had in the court. NPR found that most respondents had little to no confidence, with Democrats being much more likely to say they had no confidence than Republicans were to say they had a great deal. (Gallup polling found a plunge in Democratic confidence in the court even before Dobbs.)'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/27/overturning-roe-is-unpopular-and-viewed-largely-political/
I do not get your 'point'. Your comment read as a diversion to me, an aside, without a clear connection to understanding how a majority of the Justices are interpreting 'substantive due process'. Understanding what 'substantive due process' means and how it is variously interpreted by the Justices on the Court appears to be important lessons for us (subscribers).
I'm so glad Biden dressed them down with harsh language! Thomas has gotta go! He told a law clerk he wasn't going to retire until 2034: "The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years," a former clerk remembered Thomas – who was 43 years old when confirmed – saying, according to The New York Times. "And I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years."
TC, It is crucial for those concerned with the current Supreme Court and its decisions to understand interpretations of the meaning of 'substantive due process'. How do the Justices' political ideology affect their decision making? Not all cases divide cleanly along partisan lines. What’s equally important, they also set forth judicial reasoning, which offers vital clues to differences in how justices read the law and how they might rule in future cases.
'What does substantive due process mean in government?
'Substantive due process is a principle in United States constitutional law that allows courts to establish and protect certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if procedural protections are present or the rights are unenumerated (not specifically mentioned) elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution. Courts have asserted that such protections come from the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit the federal and state governments, respectively, from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
' Substantive due process demarks the line between those acts that courts hold to be subject to government regulation or legislation and those that courts place beyond the reach of governmental interference. Whether the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments were intended to serve that function continues to be a matter of scholarly as well as judicial discussion and dissent.[1]'
'Substantive due process is to be distinguished from procedural due process. The distinction arises from the words "of law" in the phrase "due process of law".[2] Procedural due process protects individuals from the coercive power of government by ensuring that adjudication processes, under valid laws, are fair and impartial. Such protections, for example, include sufficient and timely notice of why a party is required to appear before a court or other governmental body, the right to an impartial trier of fact and trier of law, and the right to give testimony and present relevant evidence at hearings.[2] In contrast, substantive due process protects individuals against majoritarian policy enactments that exceed the limits of governmental authority: courts may find that a majority's enactment is not law and cannot be enforced as such, regardless of whether the processes of enactment and enforcement were actually fair.[2]' (Wikipedia)
Thank you, B C. I hope we have a chance to do this again on another crevice or cliff upon which the country faulted or just escaped the fall.
He couldn't rise above retaliation.
Kathy, Are you referring to Trump?
No. Thomas, 45 years. I must have put my reply in the wrong place but it certainly describes Trump also.
Which faith is that, funny person?
I couldn't put a ❤️ here because the truth you post is so angering, but I agree 100%
Would our response be different if the court had overturned the nineteenth amendment?
Fortunately, an Amendment is by definition "constitutional" in all cases and cannot be overturned. The court can mess with legal cases based on clauses of the amendment, but not the amendment itself. Thus, neither the Fourteenth or Nineteenth Amendments can be declared "unconstitutional," but cases based in them can be overturned. I don't think there are any cases like "substantive due process" involving the Nineteenth Amendment, which is pretty much declarative of one thing: women can vote. That cannot be denied. There would have to be another amendment overturning it, as with Prohibition.
I have never looked as closely at our constitution or case law as the past few years. Thank you TC for the clarification. Amazing the court can take away our right to decide for ourselves what our health care will be, but can’t deprive of us of the vote. Lucky us….