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)

It appears that micky <[email protected]> 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, [email protected], 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)

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)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Fri, 21 Apr 2023 11:11:47 -0700 (PDT), "John Levine" <[email protected]> wrote:

It appears that micky <[email protected]> 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)

It appears that Roy <[email protected]> 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, [email protected], 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)

"Roy" wrote in message news:u1v4j1$2ucip$[email protected]...

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)

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)

RichD <[email protected]> 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)