The Supreme Court isn’t the problem. More justices and fixed terms cut both ways.
The real problems are:
70% of Americans support abortion rights and are ignored
After fifty years, Congress has done NOTHING to assure basic rights.
This is a failure of Congress, not the Courts.
fredrichlaricciasays
It’s a failure of BOTH Congress and the Courts so REFORM them both while we are in the majority to do so.
SomervilleTomsays
Easier said than done.
At the moment, Democrats do not have the votes to reform the filibuster in the Senate. That is certainly painful — yet it IS a reality. So far as I know, there is no mechanism for changing the filibuster rules without 50 votes and the Vice President.
The current problem in the Supreme Court is the direct result of the aforementioned failure(s) in the Senate. Barack Obama successfully appointed two justices — Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — in his eight-year administration. Ms. Sotomayor replaced David Souter. Mr. Souter was thought to be a “conservative” justice when nominated by George H. Bush. He was viewed as “liberal” by the time he retired. Ms. Kagan replaced John Paul Stevens. Mr. Stevens was nominated by Gerald Ford. Mr. Stevens was also thought to be a conservative justice when appointed. He usually voted with the liberal bloc when he retired.
Donald Trump appointed three justices — Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barret, and Neil Gorsuch — in his four-year single-term (so far) administration. Mr. Gorsuch replaced Antonin Scalia after his death. Brett Kavanaugh replaced Anthony Kennedy upon the latter’s retirement. Ms. Barrett famously replaced Ruth Bader-Ginsburg.
The latter is a particularly egregious abuse of the Senate — Mitch McConnell pushed through Ms. Barrett’s nomination just before the 2020 election after blocking Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016.
The Democrats have had fifty years to protect the right to abortion. Too many Democrats spent too much time pandering to “right-to-life” allegedly-Democratic voters.
Nobody should assume that the assault on privacy and choice stops with abortion. The same forces have already promised to reverse:
Access to artificial contraception
Gay marriage
Protection from sodomy laws
We should not forget that pretty much every sexual act outside of traditional marriage was illegal in many states (including MA). Even within marriage, so-called “sodomy” — consensual oral and anal sex — was illegal in many states.
The last time I checked, the MA laws against sodomy are still on the books — elected Democrats repeatedly said there was no issue with them because the Supreme Court had ruled that such laws are unconstitutional.
Over the next few months, I think we’ll see THAT change.
Elections have consequences.
Christophersays
I also think sodomy laws are moot in MA given the Goodrich decision and other pro-gay rights legislation. There may never have been a bill saying explicitly that section x of MGL (relative to criminalizing sodomy) is hereby repealed, but the rest of what I mentioned has the same practical effect.
Regarding abortion, the mistake I think the pro-choice side has long made is to simply hide behind the Court and Roe’s interpretation of the Constitution’s “emanations and penumbras”. They pound the table and insist abortion is obviously a constitutionally protected right because, darn it, the Court said so almost 50 years ago. However, despite being pro-choice on the merits, I have long found the constitutional reasoning shaky. I tend to be a loose constructionist and find legislation not prohibited to be allowed, and I see nothing in the text of the Constitution that absolutely requires reproductive rights to be protected.
Christophersays
I have long thought that one Justice per circuit makes sense. I am absolutely opposed to modifying life tenure since I don’t want Justices keeping one eye on their next gig, though I would be open to mandatory senior status at a certain age.
The Supreme Court isn’t the problem. More justices and fixed terms cut both ways.
The real problems are:
This is a failure of Congress, not the Courts.
It’s a failure of BOTH Congress and the Courts so REFORM them both while we are in the majority to do so.
Easier said than done.
At the moment, Democrats do not have the votes to reform the filibuster in the Senate. That is certainly painful — yet it IS a reality. So far as I know, there is no mechanism for changing the filibuster rules without 50 votes and the Vice President.
The current problem in the Supreme Court is the direct result of the aforementioned failure(s) in the Senate. Barack Obama successfully appointed two justices — Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — in his eight-year administration. Ms. Sotomayor replaced David Souter. Mr. Souter was thought to be a “conservative” justice when nominated by George H. Bush. He was viewed as “liberal” by the time he retired. Ms. Kagan replaced John Paul Stevens. Mr. Stevens was nominated by Gerald Ford. Mr. Stevens was also thought to be a conservative justice when appointed. He usually voted with the liberal bloc when he retired.
Donald Trump appointed three justices — Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barret, and Neil Gorsuch — in his four-year single-term (so far) administration. Mr. Gorsuch replaced Antonin Scalia after his death. Brett Kavanaugh replaced Anthony Kennedy upon the latter’s retirement. Ms. Barrett famously replaced Ruth Bader-Ginsburg.
The latter is a particularly egregious abuse of the Senate — Mitch McConnell pushed through Ms. Barrett’s nomination just before the 2020 election after blocking Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016.
The Democrats have had fifty years to protect the right to abortion. Too many Democrats spent too much time pandering to “right-to-life” allegedly-Democratic voters.
Nobody should assume that the assault on privacy and choice stops with abortion. The same forces have already promised to reverse:
We should not forget that pretty much every sexual act outside of traditional marriage was illegal in many states (including MA). Even within marriage, so-called “sodomy” — consensual oral and anal sex — was illegal in many states.
The last time I checked, the MA laws against sodomy are still on the books — elected Democrats repeatedly said there was no issue with them because the Supreme Court had ruled that such laws are unconstitutional.
Over the next few months, I think we’ll see THAT change.
Elections have consequences.
I also think sodomy laws are moot in MA given the Goodrich decision and other pro-gay rights legislation. There may never have been a bill saying explicitly that section x of MGL (relative to criminalizing sodomy) is hereby repealed, but the rest of what I mentioned has the same practical effect.
Regarding abortion, the mistake I think the pro-choice side has long made is to simply hide behind the Court and Roe’s interpretation of the Constitution’s “emanations and penumbras”. They pound the table and insist abortion is obviously a constitutionally protected right because, darn it, the Court said so almost 50 years ago. However, despite being pro-choice on the merits, I have long found the constitutional reasoning shaky. I tend to be a loose constructionist and find legislation not prohibited to be allowed, and I see nothing in the text of the Constitution that absolutely requires reproductive rights to be protected.
I have long thought that one Justice per circuit makes sense. I am absolutely opposed to modifying life tenure since I don’t want Justices keeping one eye on their next gig, though I would be open to mandatory senior status at a certain age.