Unable to agree on what a woman is, the Supreme court ends right to an abortion

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Milo
Posts: 3904
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Unable to agree on what a woman is, the Supreme court ends right to an abortion

Post by Milo » Wed May 11, 2022 3:33 pm

Repealing Roe v Wade will be a huge boon to Democrat support, right when they need it the most.

User avatar
neverfail
Posts: 8413
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Unable to agree on what a woman is, the Supreme court ends right to an abortion

Post by neverfail » Wed May 11, 2022 7:16 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Wed May 11, 2022 7:56 am


in Australia, the PM de facto appoints judges to the High Court, right? That doesn't seem all that different. That proces may not be as politicised there than as in the US, but that would seem to be a cultural difference, not a structural one.
Absolutely wrong, Steve!
High Court judges are appointed by the Governor-General in Council;

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament ... %2DGeneral.
One reason I gave up on the ideal of Australia becoming a republic.
Although it helps that Australia has a mandatory retirement age to maintain turnover. The US doesn't have that, and at one point the Supreme Court comprised the same nine individuals for over a decade.
neverfail wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 8:51 pm
You see, if a vacancy comes up due to death or retirement during the incumbency of a Republican Administration they will always appoint a "conservative" judge. If the vacancy comes up during a Democrats incumbency they will normally appoint a "progressive".
SteveFoerster wrote:
Wed May 11, 2022 7:56 am
The Supreme Court is a constitutional court, among other things, and yes, if a relevant case is before them they can determine that legislation or executive orders are unconstitutional. That's on purpose, as it's meant to be a check on the power of both Congress and the president.
Conceded, that it a sensible provision within the context of your constitution yet it can be, and has been, misused.
neverfail wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 8:51 pm
During the four years that Trump was incumbent he had the good fortune that no less than three judges on the S C bench passed away and Trump gleefully appointed conservative replacements to give this faction an unassailable majority - thereby as much as planting a time bomb to explode in the face of any subsequent Democrats presidency.

SteveFoerster wrote:
Wed May 11, 2022 7:56 am
That's the politicisation you should be pointing out. It was unprecedented, and remains highly controversial.
Is that so? Then I stand corrected!
neverfail wrote:
Tue May 10, 2022 8:51 pm
You are unduly optimistic if you believe that freely and fairly elected government always reflects "the will of the people" Cass. Indeed, I consider this will of the people doctrine to be in practice nothing other than a myth and a fantasy. But having had my say on the US Supreme Court above I do not want to delve into the complexities of democratic government now. Cheers!
SteveFoerster wrote:
Wed May 11, 2022 7:56 am
Indeed, even when democratic processes serendipitously reflect majority opinion, that's still not the same thing as preserving the rights of individuals. And so it goes....
Since our rights are protected by the accumulated weight of our inherited English Common Law I see no particular reason to add a single clause to our constitution guaranteeing it. But that digresses from my point.

Where Cassowary perceives wrongly is that he believes that elected government's spend their time in between elections pandering to public misconceptions and prejudices. They can't afford to as any elected government with the finite time allowed it until election time comes around is on probation. It it therefore in its best interests to govern as well as it knows how; even though at times their policy decisions might ostensibly go counter to public hopes and expectations. (i.e. the general public is neither all seeing nor entirely wise.)

As I see it "democracy" is only the means to an end: the facilitated end itself being the provision of good government.

Democracy is imperfect. It does not provide a gilt-edged guarantee that good government policy will always ensue. But compared to non-accountable tyrannies it is in practice a vast improvement in that regard.

I need only quote Winston Churchill. "Democracy is NOT a good form of government. It is the worst form there is - except for all of the others."

Post Reply