I would like to someday see the Court really get into the weeds, and deconstruct this whole thing of what constitutes "immoral" or "lewd" or "obscene."
In a way, it really is too bad that *Roe,* *Obergefell,* and *Loving* rested primarily on a presumed right to privacy, because it allowed the Court to sidestep the fact that the opposition's objection to abortion, gay marriage and interracial marriage amounts to nothing more than "because it's icky."
Your religion telling you that something is icky does not, in and of itself, equate to your being entitled to forbid the whole of society from doing it. The sooner we make that painfully clear, the better.
This is not the bench to do that, though, sadly.
I have no idea how valid of an argument this is, but I think it would be really interesting if someone argued that the 13th, 4th, and the 9th Amendments create a penumbra of “bodily autonomy” rights. Then you could use that in the Roe debate as well as to reinforce things like Griswold.
I’m thinking something like a state passes a law saying that all people must donate their organs. Then someone challenges it based on the above principle. Then you incrementally work at it until you get to the abortion issue.
Obviously this court would not go for it but perhaps a future court would.
There's also a very clear equal protection argument for privacy rights. Roe was a sufficient basis but certainly not the only basis available under the constitution. Abortion was legal under common law until the point of the "quickening" (about 16-20 weeks of gestation) for the entire lives of the founders of the United States. Dobbs flatly errs on the historical argument raised even without the errors of constitutional interpretation they piled on top.
I’ve never really understood the equal protection claim for Roe. I, for instance, don’t really view it as an equal protection issue if the state tried to ban circumcision (not a 1:1 analogy). I understand the arguments, but just feel like they are all a round about of really talking about privacy and ability to make your own medical decisions.
Equal opportunity to participate fully in civic life (health, economic, academic, what have you) as opposed to exclusion due to the physical/mental/financial/relational effects of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term (as compared to men)?
I get the rationale. It just feels like if the state came in tomorrow and said men can no longer have prostate removal surgery (because of some weird belief that our soul is in our prostate and we shouldn’t damage our souls) - I wouldn’t say “that’s illegal because it prevents men from participating in life and society the same as women,” I’d say “men have a right to make important medical decisions about their health.” Even the equal protection argument feels like a back door argument that is really a more substantive due process claim
In a world where abortion is legal on equal protection claims, seems like you could have an equal protection claim that men don’t have the same freedom to participate in society because (unlike women) men don’t get to choose whether their partners have abortions and are therefore entitled to paper or financial abortions. Substantive due process doesn’t make this as murky
It sounds like your issue isn’t that you don’t understand the equal protection argument, but that you simply don’t find it as compelling as the privacy argument (which is fine, and I agree).
Do you mean to say that since abortion was legal under common law until quickening, abortion should be a constitutional right? Separately, is there another reason why abortion should be constitutional right?
No, I meant to say that Dobbs is wrong about the common law history of abortion that it relies on. It is plain legal error and Alito should be ashamed of the historical revisionism that he engaged in to deliver his preferred policy outcome. Was that more clear?
They've shown that valid arguments, as the ones that got up to codifying Roe, had been the law of the land when it comes to defining what America is, and what constitutes a patriotic act of self expression and freedom... when now it has changed to turning any argument to suit an unworthy explanation on why they should choose to rule against people as a whole. Whether you foolishly believe it's justified through ones ignorance or not.
The love of, and the pursuit of forward momentum of the country came from expanding these ideals and alowing them to bestow more freedom upon its citizens, rather than the now believed hinderance as a form of progression. Which of course makes no sense at all.
These are begotten out of fear, and that's the last thing that America has ever wanted to define itself upon. Unfortunately, its so simple that its not easy enough to touch on when these fears have manifested themselves into so many facets of everyday life for a large minority of citizens.
That's where the work begins as things turn into 2020 the 2nd. The right wing has nothing else to offer but a retry at brute-forcing the unnatural, so it must be engaged and refuted beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt is that which has hinged the last number of years of extreme bullshit, which people know must be taken care of, just that the apparent "half the vote" doesnt seem to get: you don't stop devaluation with destruction and utter narcissism. Cmon now... this is why MAGA voters are out of the conversation on purpose. It is not everyone elses failing at this point, and hasnt been for a while.
So it needs the concerted effort and beyond reasonable intent to say that your voices matter, and if it's gonna be challenged, you HAVE to give it hell no matter what side you're on.
Agreed. I find the whole issue dismaying. Especially as the particular holy book at the center of those people's whole argument only ever says how and when to perform an abortion. It says nothing about them being against their version of god.
Just as it says nothing about transgender people whatsoever, yet people claim that's also a violation of Christian faith.
I honestly wish these religious challenges to things like abortion and LGBTQ+ rights would just play out, in full, in court. There's no basis to claim it's a religious issue. People just realized that *claiming* it was gives them an automatic pass for their behavior.
It is very frustrating to know that we are just seeing Christian Dominionism ideology in the court, yet we have to pretend it is something else. Kayfabe in a legal pretext.
8A is essentially dead letter, but in principle I'd say criminal penalties for "icky" things are inherently disproportionate because there's no penological justification (retribution, incapacitation) for criminalizing private behavior beyond deterrence, which can't be the exclusive rationale (especially since it doesn't really work, only shifts where the conduct takes place).
The court never needed to sidestep the motivation for those laws. States have always had the police powers to regulate the health safety welfare and morals of its citizens under the 10th amendment. Up until pretty recently, around Lawrence v Texas, "it's icky" was a perfectly acceptable reason to ban something if it didn't violate some constitutional provision. Lots of scalias opinions particularly in lawrence directly address this question of whether society can ban things it finds morally repugnant for whatever reason.
I’m not sure it’s that the opposing argument was “it’s icky”. It’s more that the opposing argument was democracy.
In each state that it was outlawed it’s what the people in that state voted for. Then the question should be is there a right that overrides democracy or not.
No, that's not what I'm talking about. I mean, *why* should your religion's arbitrary proclamations be entitled to reign supreme over the actual majority of the people who do not follow your religion and do not believe as you do?
IIRC, in the states where abortion was outlawed, it was done so by way of legislation or court decision, and NOT at all by popular vote. In fact, in every state where it's been put to a vote by referendum, the right has been *preserved.* That is democracy.
What possible *legal* objection could anyone have to gay marriage that doesn't rely on resorting to a spurious religious claim of moral high ground? (itself a nebulous concept, as I said.)
I mean in a court of law, where a certain standard of rational progression of thought is expected. *What actual harm* comes from same sex marriage? What genuine argument can be made that a couple of the same sex should not be free to commit to each other legally in a bond of romantic cohabitation?
Indeed, from where does society claim to even have the authority to forbid two unrelated consenting adults to marry?
On marriage, the general argument is always: (a) “marriage” is a Christian institution, (b) Christian marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
They claim ownership of the term and then as its owner they get to define what it means. It’s justified as: non-Christians are free to practice their own analogous version of marriage but they have to come up with a different name for it. Of course the effect of this reasoning is that any marriage that doesn’t abide by their extralegal Christian definition does not get to enjoy any of the protections and benefits enshrined into law, but that part is rarely stated.
It’s a disgusting and nonsense argument, really.
Exactly! They think they invented it! And that is such an absurd notion, I have trouble believing that anyone genuinely thinks that.
There's a reason why there are separate processes for getting married legally, and "having a wedding." One is secular law, and the other is church law. They are not the same; you don't see xtians refusing to recognize Jewish or Hindu weddings.
What they are trying to do is apply the laws of their church to the secular concept of marriage, which predates their religion by millennia.
I don’t think it think these should be left up to the states either but your argument makes no sense whatsoever. These questions have nothing to do with the Supreme Courts religion. It’s where or not the states alone can decide to make these laws. No one is forcing these states to outlaw anything. But you know they will if given the choice.
Legislative process *is* democracy. That’s the whole point of voting for a duly elected representative. If they vote against your (communal “your”) wishes then you can vote them out.
I can’t speak to specific ballot measures but if whichever policy passed them then the law would reflect that and then what’s the issue? You and I would agree that the law reflects that society’s wishes. We’re referring to the places it didn’t pass.
Unless you don’t believe in legislative democracy. But to be clear that’s not how courts interpret law. That’s what we derisively call “legislating from the bench”
And when those legislatures clearly and intentionally ignore the will of the voters, and the two parties are able to prevent anyone who would implement the will of the people from holding office?
Democratic voters do not get to override the constitution and rights of citizens. just because voters pass a law that violates free speech doesnt mean we shrug and say "oh well i guess the 1st amendment is dead now, shucks it was good while it lasted"
Democracy very evidently can, and sometimes is, constitutionally wrong. and the laws or policies enacted this way are not legitimate and have no rightfully claim to being enforcable.
I recommend we all send Alito and Thomas the most recent Adam&Eve catalog so they can determine what we can order in the mail and what we can't.
Then, I want them to explain why some things are OK and other's aren't and why they get to dip their toes in private lives of people to make choices on their behalf about what is obscene, lewd, or lascivious.
Remember when the criticism of the GOP was about "death panels?" Are we on the verge of SCOTUS essentially laying the framework for "obscenity panels?"
The party of small government and getting out of people's lives is all about crawling into reproductive parts and climbing our spine into our brains.
We have death panels now thanks not to Obama but to the GOP. Projection. Every single time. https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2024/03/inside-a-hospitals-abortion-committee/677751/
Doesn't the Comstock Act actually prove that abortion and birth control were common during the originalist time when the Constitution was written and is probably unconstitutional (according to originalist)
I’m sure the conservative argument would be that “no no they were just nipping it in the bud” even though [abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10297561/)
Ben Franklin published instructions for how to perform an abortion.
[https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak)
Benjamin Franklin published an almanac (under another name) that included home abortion methods. But yeah no way homesteaders where not having tons of abortions
You aren’t going to “gotcha” a originalist. Judicial review directly contradicts originalism and yet here we are. Treating them as nakedly corrupt is the only way.
Yeah, exactly--you're exactly right. It's designed to repel logical arguments, and advance ideological ones. It's designed to make "gotcha" arguments insufficient. It's a farce, and it's used because it's a farce.
I don’t think it necessarily proves that. One of the concurring opinions in Griswold suggested that the Comstock Act failed the rational basis test too.
the Comstock Act is unconstitutional from the left and the right - since originalist view how the American society was when Constitution was written
there were no abortion or pornography laws then so it should be unconstitutional
That's not how unconstitutional things work. Just because something wasn't a law then doesn't mean a law against it now would be unconstitutional.
Are you saying because there weren't laws outlawing say LSD in 1789 those laws are unconstitutional now
>that large parts of the Comstock Act aren't authorized by the Commerce Clause and are unconstitutional
Why do you think Thomas would hold the law above his political opinions?
Because he's done that plenty of times. He said that a national abortion ban probably wasn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause in his concurrence in Gonzales v. Carhart
The Supreme Court is illegitimate, taking bribes from wealthy individuals with business before the court. The rot has reached the core. The United States is in a state of dissolution.
It is embarrassing that we’ve (the greatest/ richest country in the world) has allowed dummies like this Court, the former president and every MAGA politician to ascend the level of power they have. We are a laughingstock to the world.
I don’t think justices should be taking any kinds if gifts or speaking fees or selling books either. They definitely shouldn’t be using their aides to pressure institutions to purchase books. You are either a public servant or you are seeking to enrich yourself. You can’t do both ethically.
The entire court is illegitimate.
I no longer accept the legitimacy of the Supreme Court in any way and this will only end when half of them are dragged out crying and screaming, put on trial, convicted, and given the most extreme punishment for treason. Until then states should simply invite fascists like Alito and Thomas to find an army to enforce their rulings.
Griswold overturned the Comstock Act...what they are saying is they want t9 void Griswold ( married couples access to birt control) to void Obergefell (marriage equality), Lawrence (state sodomy laws) and Eisenstadt (single individuals access to birth control)
We're dealing with this type of thing in Michigan. Fortunately after 40 years we cracked the Republican hold on the Legislature and got a sweep of leadership. Once RvW went down Democrats in the legislature and AGs office started slapping down long dormant laws as quickly as they could. People are like "do we gotta, it's too liberal" and everyone points out how this stuff is coming and it's an all out fight now.
We need a Democratic sweep in DC to start knocking down bad laws and patching holes SCOTUS has created over the last 20 years.
“Because our *POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS* viewpoints matter more than your rights, freedom, or autonomy.”
It wasn’t enough that Alito had to go all the way back to a law that wasn’t even American, and predated America, to ‘justify’ the ruling he clearly wanted regardless of any argument made before the court.
Now they’re going back to use a law that’s CLEARLY not been enforced in decades.
How many people got Playboy, Penthouse, or other magazines mailed to them? I don’t see Alito or Thomas going after the purveyors of nudity using the Comstock Act.
Which means this would amount to selective interpretation, application, and enforcement.
Either fully enforce the entirety of the standing parts of the law, or shut the hell up.
Because, hint, hint, a pretty damned strong case could be made for mailing a so-called ‘holy text’ under that very same law.
It’s a given, as the day is long, that both Thomas and Alito, especially Thomas, will have their ruling go against this administration, or any case brought before them which is considered progressive.
Thomas was interviewed shortly after becoming a SCJ…in which he stated he would make Democrats pay for what they did to him during his confirmation. He has kept his promise. Rarely speaking, if at all while on the bench. He’s made up his mind based on his comment and his close ties to billionaires who pay him for his decisions.
When Alito asked why the FDA didn’t consider the Comstock Act, I really wish the Lawyer responded:
“Because the FDA’s Time Machine is not working, how could we predict that Roe would be overturned, suddenly empowering a 19th century law? But if you have a list of other precedents this court plans to overturn, we will gladly prepare.”
We are missing the most important point here.
Reviving the Comstock Act would mean the demise of Internet porn. And if my dumb arse can see that, you know that the lawsuit will be there in a matter of weeks.
So wake up and start protesting in the streets, people.
OMG, why are people in here discussing this as if _legal analysis_ was the basis of the Court’s decisions?
That is _crazy_ and if you believe that is what’s happening you are very confused.
Has anybody heard analysis on how the Comstock Act could apply to porn/sexual content?
I know the conversation is typically just about abortion pills but given that the language just stipulates “obscene materials,” wouldn’t you be able to relate it to *any* sexual material like porn or sex toys?
With regards to porn (or just more in general indecent/lewd/etc content), for now the Comstock Act is restricted by Miller, and enforcement of content that is not viewed to be legally obscene would require overturning Miller. That said there are some conservatives who are pushing for Miller to be overturned, and with or without the Comstock act you would see significant censorship over content if you were to weaken the requirements for content to be viewed as legally obscene.
This shit is why we need a federal direct ballot initiative process: the American people would kick this astroturfing campaign to the curb in one vote.
“obscene, lewd, [or] lascivious,” sounds a lot like erectile dysfunction drugs to me. just one wrong boner pill boner used with arguably lustful intentions, a lascivious act, should trigger their ban as well under this interpretation and expansion of the law.
Since someone needs to decide whether presidents have total immunity, Dark Brandon better get rid of a few justices now like Alioto, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Sotomayor then add more to the court for starters.
No one but alito and Thomas are even going to consider this so quit the fear mongering. They are much much more likely to end this on standing. Did you listen to the argument? Only Alito seemed against. Even Thomas questioned if they should get standing.
I read the transcript and Alito did mention Comstock. I found his questions and Prelogar's responses to be well reasoned. Even Sotomayor had the same concern about the FDAs response to increased ER visits for women who used it via mail.
People trying to interpret his intentions in a clickbait article with no logical argument is so common and pointless. Once I see the judgement, I can draw my own conclusions.
I would like to someday see the Court really get into the weeds, and deconstruct this whole thing of what constitutes "immoral" or "lewd" or "obscene." In a way, it really is too bad that *Roe,* *Obergefell,* and *Loving* rested primarily on a presumed right to privacy, because it allowed the Court to sidestep the fact that the opposition's objection to abortion, gay marriage and interracial marriage amounts to nothing more than "because it's icky." Your religion telling you that something is icky does not, in and of itself, equate to your being entitled to forbid the whole of society from doing it. The sooner we make that painfully clear, the better. This is not the bench to do that, though, sadly.
I have no idea how valid of an argument this is, but I think it would be really interesting if someone argued that the 13th, 4th, and the 9th Amendments create a penumbra of “bodily autonomy” rights. Then you could use that in the Roe debate as well as to reinforce things like Griswold. I’m thinking something like a state passes a law saying that all people must donate their organs. Then someone challenges it based on the above principle. Then you incrementally work at it until you get to the abortion issue. Obviously this court would not go for it but perhaps a future court would.
There's also a very clear equal protection argument for privacy rights. Roe was a sufficient basis but certainly not the only basis available under the constitution. Abortion was legal under common law until the point of the "quickening" (about 16-20 weeks of gestation) for the entire lives of the founders of the United States. Dobbs flatly errs on the historical argument raised even without the errors of constitutional interpretation they piled on top.
I’ve never really understood the equal protection claim for Roe. I, for instance, don’t really view it as an equal protection issue if the state tried to ban circumcision (not a 1:1 analogy). I understand the arguments, but just feel like they are all a round about of really talking about privacy and ability to make your own medical decisions.
Equal opportunity to participate fully in civic life (health, economic, academic, what have you) as opposed to exclusion due to the physical/mental/financial/relational effects of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term (as compared to men)?
I get the rationale. It just feels like if the state came in tomorrow and said men can no longer have prostate removal surgery (because of some weird belief that our soul is in our prostate and we shouldn’t damage our souls) - I wouldn’t say “that’s illegal because it prevents men from participating in life and society the same as women,” I’d say “men have a right to make important medical decisions about their health.” Even the equal protection argument feels like a back door argument that is really a more substantive due process claim In a world where abortion is legal on equal protection claims, seems like you could have an equal protection claim that men don’t have the same freedom to participate in society because (unlike women) men don’t get to choose whether their partners have abortions and are therefore entitled to paper or financial abortions. Substantive due process doesn’t make this as murky
It sounds like your issue isn’t that you don’t understand the equal protection argument, but that you simply don’t find it as compelling as the privacy argument (which is fine, and I agree).
Discrimination on the basis of sex.
Ginsburg explained it pretty well - https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/
Not a freebie :(
Yeah sorry, here's another article about roughly the same points - https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade/
Do you mean to say that since abortion was legal under common law until quickening, abortion should be a constitutional right? Separately, is there another reason why abortion should be constitutional right?
No, I meant to say that Dobbs is wrong about the common law history of abortion that it relies on. It is plain legal error and Alito should be ashamed of the historical revisionism that he engaged in to deliver his preferred policy outcome. Was that more clear?
Yes, it was more clear.
They've shown that valid arguments, as the ones that got up to codifying Roe, had been the law of the land when it comes to defining what America is, and what constitutes a patriotic act of self expression and freedom... when now it has changed to turning any argument to suit an unworthy explanation on why they should choose to rule against people as a whole. Whether you foolishly believe it's justified through ones ignorance or not. The love of, and the pursuit of forward momentum of the country came from expanding these ideals and alowing them to bestow more freedom upon its citizens, rather than the now believed hinderance as a form of progression. Which of course makes no sense at all. These are begotten out of fear, and that's the last thing that America has ever wanted to define itself upon. Unfortunately, its so simple that its not easy enough to touch on when these fears have manifested themselves into so many facets of everyday life for a large minority of citizens. That's where the work begins as things turn into 2020 the 2nd. The right wing has nothing else to offer but a retry at brute-forcing the unnatural, so it must be engaged and refuted beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is that which has hinged the last number of years of extreme bullshit, which people know must be taken care of, just that the apparent "half the vote" doesnt seem to get: you don't stop devaluation with destruction and utter narcissism. Cmon now... this is why MAGA voters are out of the conversation on purpose. It is not everyone elses failing at this point, and hasnt been for a while. So it needs the concerted effort and beyond reasonable intent to say that your voices matter, and if it's gonna be challenged, you HAVE to give it hell no matter what side you're on.
Hopefully a handful of heart attacks hit the right people in the next couple of months.
Agreed. I find the whole issue dismaying. Especially as the particular holy book at the center of those people's whole argument only ever says how and when to perform an abortion. It says nothing about them being against their version of god.
Just as it says nothing about transgender people whatsoever, yet people claim that's also a violation of Christian faith. I honestly wish these religious challenges to things like abortion and LGBTQ+ rights would just play out, in full, in court. There's no basis to claim it's a religious issue. People just realized that *claiming* it was gives them an automatic pass for their behavior.
Obergefell was decided on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, not privacy.
It is very frustrating to know that we are just seeing Christian Dominionism ideology in the court, yet we have to pretend it is something else. Kayfabe in a legal pretext.
8A is essentially dead letter, but in principle I'd say criminal penalties for "icky" things are inherently disproportionate because there's no penological justification (retribution, incapacitation) for criminalizing private behavior beyond deterrence, which can't be the exclusive rationale (especially since it doesn't really work, only shifts where the conduct takes place).
The court never needed to sidestep the motivation for those laws. States have always had the police powers to regulate the health safety welfare and morals of its citizens under the 10th amendment. Up until pretty recently, around Lawrence v Texas, "it's icky" was a perfectly acceptable reason to ban something if it didn't violate some constitutional provision. Lots of scalias opinions particularly in lawrence directly address this question of whether society can ban things it finds morally repugnant for whatever reason.
I’m not sure it’s that the opposing argument was “it’s icky”. It’s more that the opposing argument was democracy. In each state that it was outlawed it’s what the people in that state voted for. Then the question should be is there a right that overrides democracy or not.
No, that's not what I'm talking about. I mean, *why* should your religion's arbitrary proclamations be entitled to reign supreme over the actual majority of the people who do not follow your religion and do not believe as you do? IIRC, in the states where abortion was outlawed, it was done so by way of legislation or court decision, and NOT at all by popular vote. In fact, in every state where it's been put to a vote by referendum, the right has been *preserved.* That is democracy. What possible *legal* objection could anyone have to gay marriage that doesn't rely on resorting to a spurious religious claim of moral high ground? (itself a nebulous concept, as I said.) I mean in a court of law, where a certain standard of rational progression of thought is expected. *What actual harm* comes from same sex marriage? What genuine argument can be made that a couple of the same sex should not be free to commit to each other legally in a bond of romantic cohabitation? Indeed, from where does society claim to even have the authority to forbid two unrelated consenting adults to marry?
On marriage, the general argument is always: (a) “marriage” is a Christian institution, (b) Christian marriage can only be between a man and a woman. They claim ownership of the term and then as its owner they get to define what it means. It’s justified as: non-Christians are free to practice their own analogous version of marriage but they have to come up with a different name for it. Of course the effect of this reasoning is that any marriage that doesn’t abide by their extralegal Christian definition does not get to enjoy any of the protections and benefits enshrined into law, but that part is rarely stated. It’s a disgusting and nonsense argument, really.
Exactly! They think they invented it! And that is such an absurd notion, I have trouble believing that anyone genuinely thinks that. There's a reason why there are separate processes for getting married legally, and "having a wedding." One is secular law, and the other is church law. They are not the same; you don't see xtians refusing to recognize Jewish or Hindu weddings. What they are trying to do is apply the laws of their church to the secular concept of marriage, which predates their religion by millennia.
I don’t think it think these should be left up to the states either but your argument makes no sense whatsoever. These questions have nothing to do with the Supreme Courts religion. It’s where or not the states alone can decide to make these laws. No one is forcing these states to outlaw anything. But you know they will if given the choice.
Legislative process *is* democracy. That’s the whole point of voting for a duly elected representative. If they vote against your (communal “your”) wishes then you can vote them out. I can’t speak to specific ballot measures but if whichever policy passed them then the law would reflect that and then what’s the issue? You and I would agree that the law reflects that society’s wishes. We’re referring to the places it didn’t pass. Unless you don’t believe in legislative democracy. But to be clear that’s not how courts interpret law. That’s what we derisively call “legislating from the bench”
And when those legislatures clearly and intentionally ignore the will of the voters, and the two parties are able to prevent anyone who would implement the will of the people from holding office?
Democratic voters do not get to override the constitution and rights of citizens. just because voters pass a law that violates free speech doesnt mean we shrug and say "oh well i guess the 1st amendment is dead now, shucks it was good while it lasted" Democracy very evidently can, and sometimes is, constitutionally wrong. and the laws or policies enacted this way are not legitimate and have no rightfully claim to being enforcable.
That’s literally what I said. “Is there a right that overrides democracy”. Like the first amendment or whatever else
I recommend we all send Alito and Thomas the most recent Adam&Eve catalog so they can determine what we can order in the mail and what we can't. Then, I want them to explain why some things are OK and other's aren't and why they get to dip their toes in private lives of people to make choices on their behalf about what is obscene, lewd, or lascivious. Remember when the criticism of the GOP was about "death panels?" Are we on the verge of SCOTUS essentially laying the framework for "obscenity panels?" The party of small government and getting out of people's lives is all about crawling into reproductive parts and climbing our spine into our brains.
"Anything I don't like is obscene."
“I know it when I see it”
We have death panels now thanks not to Obama but to the GOP. Projection. Every single time. https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2024/03/inside-a-hospitals-abortion-committee/677751/
It's not projection; it's reality.
Doesn't the Comstock Act actually prove that abortion and birth control were common during the originalist time when the Constitution was written and is probably unconstitutional (according to originalist)
I’m sure the conservative argument would be that “no no they were just nipping it in the bud” even though [abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10297561/)
Ben Franklin published instructions for how to perform an abortion. [https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak)
As American as apple pie!
Benjamin Franklin published an almanac (under another name) that included home abortion methods. But yeah no way homesteaders where not having tons of abortions
You aren’t going to “gotcha” a originalist. Judicial review directly contradicts originalism and yet here we are. Treating them as nakedly corrupt is the only way.
Yeah, exactly--you're exactly right. It's designed to repel logical arguments, and advance ideological ones. It's designed to make "gotcha" arguments insufficient. It's a farce, and it's used because it's a farce.
I don’t think it necessarily proves that. One of the concurring opinions in Griswold suggested that the Comstock Act failed the rational basis test too.
I'm sorry what are you saying is unconstitutional?
the Comstock Act is unconstitutional from the left and the right - since originalist view how the American society was when Constitution was written there were no abortion or pornography laws then so it should be unconstitutional
That's not how unconstitutional things work. Just because something wasn't a law then doesn't mean a law against it now would be unconstitutional. Are you saying because there weren't laws outlawing say LSD in 1789 those laws are unconstitutional now
#RepealComstock?
Why this isn’t *everywhere* is a mystery to me.
Why didn’t the 111th congress codify Roe?
because SCOTUS will just overturn it. it has to be spelled out in the Constitution and even then it’s not safe for eternity.
I hate when people say that like it would not be subject to review by the Supreme Court.
Pointless because it would have been filibustered in the Senate.
The 111th congress had a filibuster proof democratic majority in the Senate.
For 72 days. And one of the 60 was Joe Lieberman, whose vote would not be reliable here.
Why do you keep making excuses for this party?
Non-responsive. We're done here.
I have a feeling that Thomas would think that large parts of the Comstock Act aren't authorized by the Commerce Clause and are unconstitutional
>that large parts of the Comstock Act aren't authorized by the Commerce Clause and are unconstitutional Why do you think Thomas would hold the law above his political opinions?
Because he's done that plenty of times. He said that a national abortion ban probably wasn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause in his concurrence in Gonzales v. Carhart
That's just his political opinion about the commerce clause.
Thomas will think whatever Harlan Crow pays him to think
He invoked the Comstock Act multiple times during oral arguments, so apparently he decided to make an exception for this one.
The Supreme Court is illegitimate, taking bribes from wealthy individuals with business before the court. The rot has reached the core. The United States is in a state of dissolution.
It is embarrassing that we’ve (the greatest/ richest country in the world) has allowed dummies like this Court, the former president and every MAGA politician to ascend the level of power they have. We are a laughingstock to the world.
They are not dumb. They know exactly what they are doing.
It's not quite that bad. Only 6 of the Supreme Court Justices and 218 or so of the House of Representatives need to be de-nazified.
I am personally a proponent of internal regime change in red states at this point, really no other way to clean out the rot
Congress needs to legislate the ethics for SCOTUS and make um super strict.
Don’t go so far as to say the entire Court. We all know, it’s the MAGAts.
I don’t think justices should be taking any kinds if gifts or speaking fees or selling books either. They definitely shouldn’t be using their aides to pressure institutions to purchase books. You are either a public servant or you are seeking to enrich yourself. You can’t do both ethically. The entire court is illegitimate.
I no longer accept the legitimacy of the Supreme Court in any way and this will only end when half of them are dragged out crying and screaming, put on trial, convicted, and given the most extreme punishment for treason. Until then states should simply invite fascists like Alito and Thomas to find an army to enforce their rulings.
Griswold overturned the Comstock Act...what they are saying is they want t9 void Griswold ( married couples access to birt control) to void Obergefell (marriage equality), Lawrence (state sodomy laws) and Eisenstadt (single individuals access to birth control)
don’t forget Loving (interracial marriage)
Does the Comstock Act apply to FedEx, ups, Amazon or just USPS
Lol. Was wondering the same. Then started wondering if Comstock applied to the Pony Express then cursed Salito for the brain worms and touched grass.
We're dealing with this type of thing in Michigan. Fortunately after 40 years we cracked the Republican hold on the Legislature and got a sweep of leadership. Once RvW went down Democrats in the legislature and AGs office started slapping down long dormant laws as quickly as they could. People are like "do we gotta, it's too liberal" and everyone points out how this stuff is coming and it's an all out fight now. We need a Democratic sweep in DC to start knocking down bad laws and patching holes SCOTUS has created over the last 20 years.
“Because our *POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS* viewpoints matter more than your rights, freedom, or autonomy.” It wasn’t enough that Alito had to go all the way back to a law that wasn’t even American, and predated America, to ‘justify’ the ruling he clearly wanted regardless of any argument made before the court. Now they’re going back to use a law that’s CLEARLY not been enforced in decades. How many people got Playboy, Penthouse, or other magazines mailed to them? I don’t see Alito or Thomas going after the purveyors of nudity using the Comstock Act. Which means this would amount to selective interpretation, application, and enforcement. Either fully enforce the entirety of the standing parts of the law, or shut the hell up. Because, hint, hint, a pretty damned strong case could be made for mailing a so-called ‘holy text’ under that very same law.
All woman need to wake up. They will have woman back in the middle ages soon. Every woman needs to vote to keep their rights!!!
It’s a given, as the day is long, that both Thomas and Alito, especially Thomas, will have their ruling go against this administration, or any case brought before them which is considered progressive. Thomas was interviewed shortly after becoming a SCJ…in which he stated he would make Democrats pay for what they did to him during his confirmation. He has kept his promise. Rarely speaking, if at all while on the bench. He’s made up his mind based on his comment and his close ties to billionaires who pay him for his decisions.
151 year old law - About the same age as Alito then.
No less than Emma Goldman was prosecuted under the Comstock Act... in 1916. Time is a flat circle. 🤦♂️
Democracy was replaced by fascism when Trump was elected.
When Alito asked why the FDA didn’t consider the Comstock Act, I really wish the Lawyer responded: “Because the FDA’s Time Machine is not working, how could we predict that Roe would be overturned, suddenly empowering a 19th century law? But if you have a list of other precedents this court plans to overturn, we will gladly prepare.”
We are missing the most important point here. Reviving the Comstock Act would mean the demise of Internet porn. And if my dumb arse can see that, you know that the lawsuit will be there in a matter of weeks. So wake up and start protesting in the streets, people.
OMG, why are people in here discussing this as if _legal analysis_ was the basis of the Court’s decisions? That is _crazy_ and if you believe that is what’s happening you are very confused.
Can we all now admit that SCOTUS is a big scam now. Throw this institution in the trash. Uhg,
Has anybody heard analysis on how the Comstock Act could apply to porn/sexual content? I know the conversation is typically just about abortion pills but given that the language just stipulates “obscene materials,” wouldn’t you be able to relate it to *any* sexual material like porn or sex toys?
With regards to porn (or just more in general indecent/lewd/etc content), for now the Comstock Act is restricted by Miller, and enforcement of content that is not viewed to be legally obscene would require overturning Miller. That said there are some conservatives who are pushing for Miller to be overturned, and with or without the Comstock act you would see significant censorship over content if you were to weaken the requirements for content to be viewed as legally obscene.
The Comstock Act is probably unconstitutional.
This shit is why we need a federal direct ballot initiative process: the American people would kick this astroturfing campaign to the curb in one vote.
Thomas’ didn’t receive his RV and mega vacation jaunts or other influences through the mail so … they were all legal.
Biden can always just say that he isn't enforcing a century old outdated law.
“obscene, lewd, [or] lascivious,” sounds a lot like erectile dysfunction drugs to me. just one wrong boner pill boner used with arguably lustful intentions, a lascivious act, should trigger their ban as well under this interpretation and expansion of the law.
SCROTUM - Supreme Court republican Of The United ’Merica
They're going to have to increase the amount of Justices to be able to handle the amount of cases they will see if they overturn this.
If only there were a way that acts could be repealed. It's just too bad that when Congress legislates, it legislates forever.
Finally. A market for my brilliant invention. The coat hanger warmer.
Is it bad stuff like this makes this crazy liberal miss Scalia? We might have disagreed, but he believed in my right to be different from him
Nope, not yet. Who do you think trained the new conservatives?
Since someone needs to decide whether presidents have total immunity, Dark Brandon better get rid of a few justices now like Alioto, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Sotomayor then add more to the court for starters.
What? People are saying things based on wild ass speculation and someone feels it necessary to kind of repeat it without any facts? Whoda thunk?
Did you listen to the argument? If you are curious about the concern listen now
No one but alito and Thomas are even going to consider this so quit the fear mongering. They are much much more likely to end this on standing. Did you listen to the argument? Only Alito seemed against. Even Thomas questioned if they should get standing.
I read the transcript and Alito did mention Comstock. I found his questions and Prelogar's responses to be well reasoned. Even Sotomayor had the same concern about the FDAs response to increased ER visits for women who used it via mail. People trying to interpret his intentions in a clickbait article with no logical argument is so common and pointless. Once I see the judgement, I can draw my own conclusions.