• Does the USSC overturn its own rulings.

    From micky@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 21 07:59:12 2023
    People who have complained about the Dobbs decision, overturning Roe v.
    Wade, have said that a remarkable (outrageous) thing about it is that it overturns a prior USSC decision.

    What abot Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson? Were those overturned by
    a later USSC decision, or by Constituational amendment, or by statute,
    or even something else.

    If not those two, what about others. Surely there are other cases where
    the USSC overturned its own holding, and the Dobbs opponents are
    ignoring or minimizing that.

    Even right now, for example, what about TWA v. Hardison (1977) in which
    the high court ruled that the amended Civil Rights Act does not require
    an employer to make any accommodations for an employee's practice of
    religion if doing so would impose more than a 'de minimis' burden on the employer.

    A case was argued before the USSC earlier this week, Groff v. Dejoy, in
    which even the defense, the govt., didn't argue that de minimis is the
    right standard (since the statute said no "undue burden", which to most
    people is significanly more than de minimis). They are very likely to
    change the standard to some extent or another. Should that make the
    opponents of Dobbs no longer feel so alone?


    ----
    Included just for completeness for anyone who's curious file:///C:/Users/mmm/AppData/Local/Temp/eud27.htm which matters only
    because it intruduces the video, a light-hearted, somewhat informative description of the USSC hearing, but not really worth your time.

    The plaintiff Grof is a Sunday-sabbath observant Christian working for
    the USPS, which accomodated him (easy enough I would think since they
    don't deliver mail on Sunday) until they contracted with Amazon to
    deliver packages on Sunday. Then they disciplined him for refusing to
    work on Sunday and eventually he quit and sued. I don't get it. The
    USPS is a big business with hundreds of delivery drivers in any big
    city. Can't they just look on their list and assign someone else? Is he
    that important? I would think even using the de minimis standard they
    could have accomomodated him.

    (When I was a mailman in the summer of 1967, they woudln't even tell me
    what time I was to be at work until the day before. Sometimes it was
    7AM, so I coudln't go out the night before. Sometimes it was 10, so I'd
    get off too late to hae a date that night. And iirc they wouldn't tell
    me what days I was to work until a day or two in advance. So I find it
    hard to believe they can't just look on their list and tell some other
    guy to work on Sunday. )

    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to misc07@fmguy.com on Fri Apr 21 11:11:47 2023
    It appears that micky <misc07@fmguy.com> said:
    People who have complained about the Dobbs decision, overturning Roe v.
    Wade, have said that a remarkable (outrageous) thing about it is that it >overturns a prior USSC decision.

    No, that's not why it is outrageous.

    What abot Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson? Were those overturned by
    a later USSC decision, or by Constituational amendment, or by statute,
    or even something else.

    I presume these are rhetorical questions and you know the answer.

    Dred Scot was reversed after the Civil War by the 13th and 14th amendments.

    Plessy was reversed 50 years later by Brown vs Board. Even at the time
    Plessy was decided, everyone knew that separate-but-equal was
    nonsense, but it eas excused by the country's pervasive racism.
    Justice Harlan said as much in the dissent. When the court decided
    Brown, CJ Warren was a skilled politician and he spent a lot of time
    cajoling the rest of the court to get a unanimous decision because he
    knew what a big deal it was and that the court's reputation depended
    on it being respected.

    There have been plenty of other cases that reversed previous ones. For
    example the "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" rule
    in the 1919 Schenck case was discredited by dicta soon afterward and
    was finally overruled by Brandenburg in 1969. Lochner vs New York which forbade minimum wage laws in 1905 was partly reversed in the 1920s and
    reversed by Nebbia in 1934. That's not the problem.

    What is outrageous about Dobbs is that it simultaneously reversed long
    settled law and that it was so obviously nakedly political. While the
    politics of abortion have gotten a lot more strident in the 50 years
    since Roe, nobody seriously argues that there is anny sort of national consensus against abortion rights. If Ginsburg had retired and allowed
    Obama to appoint her successor, or if McConnell had followed two
    centuries of precedent and let the Senate approve Merrick Garland,
    does anyone think Dobbs would have been decided the way it was, or
    that the court would even have heard it?
    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to John Levine on Fri Apr 21 16:01:33 2023
    On 4/21/2023 11:11 AM, John Levine wrote:
    ...
    While the
    politics of abortion have gotten a lot more strident in the 50 years
    since Roe, nobody seriously argues that there is anny sort of national consensus against abortion rights.
    ...

    Any statement that the public is for or against something should be
    taken with a grain of salt.

    Examples for very liberal California

    Passed Prop 8 banning gay marriage in 2008

    Prop 16 and 290 voted against affirmative action in the State
    college admissions

    Prop 62, 66, and 34 voted to allow the death penalty

    One would have expected the opposite result.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to Levine" on Sat Apr 22 13:14:23 2023
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Fri, 21 Apr 2023 11:11:47 -0700 (PDT), "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

    It appears that micky <misc07@fmguy.com> said:
    People who have complained about the Dobbs decision, overturning Roe v. >>Wade, have said that a remarkable (outrageous) thing about it is that it >>overturns a prior USSC decision.

    No, that's not why it is outrageous.

    It's one of several things that the hosts of MSNBC list, seeming to rate
    them pretty evenly. I don't watch, I only listen to it, so I don't
    see their faces, but I think several of them say the same thing, not
    just one of them.

    MSNBC overdoes it sometimes, pretty often actually. They use adjectives
    that overdo it (like in this case more than one of them said or implied "outrageous"), but I haven't heard them lie. When the topic is trump,
    it's like candy, so I still listen.

    What abot Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson? Were those overturned by
    a later USSC decision, or by Constituational amendment, or by statute,
    or even something else.

    I presume these are rhetorical questions and you know the answer.

    No. Once I might have but I can't keep track anymore.

    Dred Scot was reversed after the Civil War by the 13th and 14th amendments.

    Plessy was reversed 50 years later by Brown vs Board. Even at the time

    Oh, yeah. Just the sort of thing I've lost track of. (Not senility,
    but since the web I've been stuffing my head full of stuff and some
    stuff is being forced out, it seems.)

    Plessy was decided, everyone knew that separate-but-equal was
    nonsense, but it eas excused by the country's pervasive racism.
    Justice Harlan said as much in the dissent. When the court decided
    Brown, CJ Warren was a skilled politician and he spent a lot of time
    cajoling the rest of the court to get a unanimous decision because he
    knew what a big deal it was and that the court's reputation depended
    on it being respected.

    There have been plenty of other cases that reversed previous ones. For >example the "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" rule
    in the 1919 Schenck case was discredited by dicta soon afterward and
    was finally overruled by Brandenburg in 1969.

    I certainly see how part of Schenck was reversed by Brandenburg, but are
    you saying if I falsely shout fire ia a crowded theatre and everyone
    gets out without injuring anyone, I'm off the hook?

    Lochner vs New York which
    forbade minimum wage laws in 1905 was partly reversed in the 1920s and >reversed by Nebbia in 1934. That's not the problem.

    What is outrageous about Dobbs is that it simultaneously reversed long >settled law and that it was so obviously nakedly political. While the >politics of abortion have gotten a lot more strident in the 50 years
    since Roe, nobody seriously argues that there is anny sort of national >consensus against abortion rights.

    If Ginsburg had retired and allowed
    Obama to appoint her successor,

    I'm disappointed she didn't resign too, but when I once brought this up,
    the answer I got was ironic, that even she had, the Senate, Republican
    at the time iirc, made have refused to name her successor, ala Merrick
    Garland.

    or if McConnell had followed two
    centuries of precedent and let the Senate approve Merrick Garland,

    There's nothing he can do to restore his reputation after that.

    does anyone think Dobbs would have been decided the way it was, or
    that the court would even have heard it?

    This mifeprestone case has been going on for weeks now, and I haven't
    read the origianal lawfuit but the plaintiff must have alleged some
    deficiency in the original approval. That both Alito and Thomas wouldn't
    even vote for a stay means that the USSC is only 3 votes from upholding
    the lower court ban. Yet I haven't heard a word about the FDA
    re-examining and if need be redoing the original approval. Are they
    afraid that would look like an admission that maybe it wasn't done
    correctly in the first place?

    Either way, they could be done with re-approving it before the courts
    can finish ruling on the current version of approval.

    --
    I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
    I am not a lawyer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to montanawolf@outlook.com on Sat Apr 22 13:00:17 2023
    It appears that Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> said:
    On 4/21/2023 11:11 AM, John Levine wrote:
    ...
    While the
    politics of abortion have gotten a lot more strident in the 50 years
    since Roe, nobody seriously argues that there is anny sort of national
    consensus against abortion rights.
    ...

    Any statement that the public is for or against something should be
    taken with a grain of salt.

    In case it wasn't clear, I was saying that there is no consensus
    either for or against abortion rights, A few people are stridently for
    and stridently against, but most people are in the middle, often with
    rather contradictory opinions depending on how you phrase the
    questions.

    Compare this to Brown vs Board or Loving vs Virginia. In both cases
    there were certainly loud objections but the country as a whole was
    sympathetic to the court's decision.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to Roy on Sat Apr 22 13:13:34 2023
    "Roy" wrote in message news:u1v4j1$2ucip$1@dont-email.me...

    On 4/21/2023 11:11 AM, John Levine wrote:
    ...
    While the
    politics of abortion have gotten a lot more strident in the 50 years
    since Roe, nobody seriously argues that there is anny sort of national
    consensus against abortion rights.
    ...

    Any statement that the public is for or against something should be taken >with a grain of salt.



    Also, the phrase "abortion rights" is way too general to be talking about a consensus or lack thereof. "Abortion rights" could mean the right to
    obtain an abortion within 6 weeks of conception, within 12 weeks of
    conception, within 15 weeks of conception or any time during the pregnancy.
    For that matter "abortion rights" could also refer to the right to obtain an abortion only in the event of rape, incest or threat to the mother's health.
    So saying that most people favor some form of abortion rights is kind of obvious.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to John Levine on Sat Apr 22 17:14:42 2023
    On April 21, John Levine wrote:
    People who have complained about the Dobbs decision, overturning Roe v.
    Wade, have said that a remarkable (outrageous) thing about it is that it
    overturns a prior USSC decision.

    There have been plenty of other cases that reversed previous ones.

    1% ... unusual classification of "plenty"

    What is outrageous about Dobbs is that it simultaneously reversed
    long settled law and that it was so obviously nakedly political.

    As opposed to Roe vs. Wade -

    ... nobody seriously argues that there is any sort of national
    consensus against abortion rights.

    Good point. Courts rightly ought to decide based on
    "consensus" - reading the prevailing wind direction.

    'consensus' isn't the purview of elected legislatures, which
    might - horror - make different policies in different places,
    and - double horror - the WRONG policy (disapproved by the
    Party), in some places.

    If Ginsburg had retired and allowed Obama to appoint her
    successor, or if McConnell had followed two centuries of
    precedent

    Precedent uber alles!
    McConnell's action was outrageous, much like Brown vs.
    Board, which simultaneously reversed long settled law
    and was so obviously nakedly political.

    and let the Senate approve Merrick Garland,
    does anyone think Dobbs would have been decided the way it was, or
    that the court would even have heard it?

    Nobody would dream of asking the same question of
    every other case that ever reached their desks -

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to RichD on Sat Apr 22 23:41:05 2023
    RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
    John Levine wrote:

    People who have complained about the Dobbs decision, overturning
    Roe v. Wade, have said that a remarkable (outrageous) thing
    about it is that it overturns a prior USSC decision.

    There have been plenty of other cases that reversed previous
    ones.

    1% ... unusual classification of "plenty"

    What is outrageous about Dobbs is that it simultaneously reversed
    long settled law and that it was so obviously nakedly political.

    As opposed to Roe vs. Wade -

    Roe v. Wade was an opinion written by a Republican justice considered
    to be conservative, and other conservative justices (like the then
    chief justice) went along. Blackman, when in private practice,
    represented the Mayo Clinic among others, and the opinion was based on
    medical and scientific knowledge. It was also not considered
    particularly political or controversial at the time. It became
    controversial when Republicans thought they could turn it into a
    winning issue for them.

    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)