Skip to main content

View Diary: The Supreme Court won't uphold Prop 8, but ... (207 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sotomayor and Ginsburg made the point (5+ / 0-)

    That they did not address segregation again for over 50 years after Plessy, and instead let the issue percolate.  That's as momentous, if not more, based on the numbers of people who would be affected by a decision.

    SSM has only been "live" for about 10 years.

    So, no, I don't think there would be anything unusual or fishy about the Supreme Court just dismissing as improvidently granted.  The California case was decided on narrow grounds, specific to the sequence of events in California (SSM, then taking away SSM) that has not happened in any other jurisdiction.

    That said, there's nothing fishy about the justices who voted to grant the case.  Often, even without a circuit split, the Supreme Court will hear a case where a state law is found unconstitutional under the federal constitution (and usually always if a federal law is found unconstitutional).

    •  Ginsburg has made the same point (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright, MPociask

      with regards to abortion rights -- and the question of whether the political process behind increasing public acceptance of abortion -- should have been allowed to develop without judicial intervention.  (Some blame this for why abortion is not so broadly accepted even today.)  I think that this argument is inane -- and it's one of the things I like least about Ginsburg.

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 02:18:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Respectfully disagree with you (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright, Rieux, Gator Keyfitz

        I don't think this is inane.  It's certainly a 20/20 hindsight issue, and I can't imagine Ginsburg having felt that way in 1973 (nor I, if I'd been alive) but there's a case to be made.  Abortion laws were unquestionably becoming more liberal in the decade leading up to Roe.  On paper, Roe made abortion legal everywhere, but as people discuss here time and time again, in practice that promise is not fulfilled.  

        One could also argue that, in exchange for speeding up that process, we got the rise of the religious right, Reagan's election, W., the absolute batshit insanity of our judicial selection process, the loss of rural voters to the Republicans (who vote time and time again for a party that fucks them at every turn, solely because Republicans are anti-abortion).

        I certainly think it's fair to say "so fucking what, it's a woman's health issue and that's more important than the consequences," but I certainly don't think it's inane to posit that, in a counter-factual world where Roe left abortion laws to be decided state-by-state, that 40 years later women would have more rationale health care access (including access to abortion) than they do now.

        That said, the die is cast, there's no putting the genie in the bottle, and so piss on the Republican anti-choice brigade.

        •  The argument that Roe is even primarily (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rieux, MPociask

          what led to the rise of the religious right is pretty weak.  The facts that churches are exempt from tax laws (a feature of our system that could be abused to get tax free money into politics -- and so was thus used) and that the Carter Administration tried to do the right thing and rein in that practice were more critical.

          I see no reason to think that abortion rights would have proceeded legislatively to anywhere near an acceptable degree without Roe.    It's an academically interesting argument, but tell me how, in that counterfactual universe, Mississippi and North Dakota and even Michigan and Missouri became pro-choice states.

          Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
          -- Saul Alinsky

          by Seneca Doane on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:20:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (142)
  • Community (61)
  • Baltimore (45)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Civil Rights (35)
  • Culture (28)
  • Elections (21)
  • Freddie Gray (21)
  • Racism (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Economy (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Hillary Clinton (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Politics (17)
  • Media (16)
  • Texas (16)
  • Environment (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site