Makes sense.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
Overturn Griswold v. Connecticut?

Conceivable on the merits but no state in 2022 would pass a law putting it to the test.

TEXAS: “Hold my beer”

Actually some states will outlaw IUDs and the morning after pill. But I don’t think it will be subject to a challenge under griswold since it’s just a particular method, not a ban on birth control generally.

They start by chipping away at it.

Parental notification and consent for anyone under 18. Then what? Make it illegal to provide BC to unmarried people? They’ll think of somewhere else to start chipping.

The structural problem with all this is the unequal treatment of men and women. They rejoice in guys doing anything (eg: I-1, Roy Moore) but shame any woman who has sex outside of marriage and for any purpose other than making babies ( https://www.nbcnews.com/news/u...-complaint-rcna26418 ). But most forms of BC are used by women, so they probably won’t have any problem banning them.

These people don’t seem to have any problem with double-standards as long as it is they themselves who are holding them.

It’s a crock.

Ditch the exclusionary rule for evidence obtained unlawfully.

Ditch the Miranda rights. Everyone knows them by now, right?

End the right to counsel for everything other than capital crimes, and maybe not even then.

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
Ditch the exclusionary rule for evidence obtained unlawfully.

Ditch the Miranda rights. Everyone knows them by now, right?

End the right to counsel for everything other than capital crimes, and maybe not even then.

My dad used to complain heavily about #1, saying “two wrongs don’t make a right”. But his view was shaped by movies where the obviously guilty guy was getting off because Callahan didn’t have a warrant.

#2 seems extreme if you mean eliminating the rights. But do you just mean removing the requirement to read them?

#3 is hard to imagine getting 5 votes even in this court.

Ooh! Ooh! Death penalty! They'll do something with the death penalty. Like nothing can be considered "cruel or unusual". Heck, it's a criminal, so if they squirm and gasp for a few minutes while the lethal injection takes its course, that's probably a lot less than what their victims experienced. An eye for an eye, and all that.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
What else do you think they’ll do after overruling Roe/Casey?

My predictions:

1). end affirmative action, perhaps in a sweeping way prohibiting any race based preferences such as those creeping into medicine.

2) end ‘Chevron deference’, and perhaps other restrictions of the power of the administrative state.

3) chip away at gun control measures

4) allow limited religious exceptions to LGBT inclusion (eg wedding cake guy)

Less likely but possible:

5) end birthright citizenship


What they won’t do:

1) reverse oberfell or bostock



Anyone else care to make predictions?

Scotus granted cert on Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo last week. As one commentator put it, “Chevron deference should start thinking about what its last meal is going to be.”

I don't know what THIS court is gonna do, but the next time we have a solid liberal majority I would think it might consider a full review of the decisions made by the current current court under some form of "poisonous fruit" doctrine.

The court is broken. It is well past time to break it the rest of the way by packing the court...

Get rid of special "hate crimes" sentencing laws.

quote:

Originally posted by rontuner:
The court is broken. It is well past time to break it the rest of the way by packing the court...

It sure seems like playing dirty "like them", but I guess I too don't see any other way out of the present impasse with its catastrophic consequences.

But before anybody agrees with me or ron, it requires a very very deep analysis (ala AI futurism) of what the risks of so doing could be.

Along with probabilities affixed.

quote:

Originally posted by Nina:
Get rid of special "hate crimes" sentencing laws.

How come, Nina? Not that I'm in love with them, but why are you singling that out for changing?

She’s not advocating for that, she’s making a prediction about what the court might do.

Thanks, jon. I'll admit it was weird to leave that comment just hanging out there with no explanation. Yes, that's my prediction, not what I want.