I want to address a question I’ve seen pop up a few times about the draft opinion in Dobbs that overrules Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. One of the key questions in determining how courts should review challenges to laws (such as those restricting abortions) is what “standard of review” to apply. There are essentially three: strict scrutiny (applied for laws that appear to target certain traditionally disadvantaged minorities, e.g.), heightened scrutiny or undue burden standard (often applied in sex discrimination cases or previously in abortion cases, e.g.) and what’s called “rational basis” review, which applies to just about everything else. Laws rarely survive strict scrutiny by the Court; the approval by the Court of the internment of Japanese Americans in the
Yet another calm, clear analysis; thank you again Jay. During my law school years, I was able to witness US Northern District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel grant a Writ of Coram Nobis overturning Korematsu's manipulated conviction finding specifically that U.S. Naval Intelligence evidence was intentionally withheld from the SCOTUS record. The legal team briefing Judge Patel demonstrated diligent legal work that I never forgot.Years later, I had a procedural case before then Presiding Judge Patel, my opponent & I sat quietly at a court hearing as Judge Patel summarized both of our arguments far better than we could. I think, I did manage a few weak voiced, "That's right your honor". Calm Judicial temperament & skill while simultaneously creating a perfect record, seems fo be in short supply these days.
If memory serves a candidate for the United States Senate once asked: “Can we, as a nation, continue together permanently—forever—half slave, and half free?
So, how is the review standard determined? If five justices agree with this rational basis review, is this an indication that they know their arguments are weak and can’t pass further scrutiny?
Can someone sue the Supreme Court to stop this egregious attempt to strike down RvW? A class action suit, maybe? Tie it up in the courts indefinitely, based on the fact that women are now (supposedly) equally protected under law?
It really doesn’t matter what excuse the illegitimate SCOTUS “justices” use to make this ruling, it CAN NOT STAND. I am more than the sum of my parts, I am not just a vessel in which a male can deposit his seed against my will. Just because I can carry a child doesn’t mean I should be forced to. The ability of someone to forcibly impregnate me does not overrule my right to the sovereignty over my own body. Where does it end? Does bacteria have a greater right to infect our bodies than we do over keeping ourselves healthy? What about parasites? Parasites, viruses & bacteria all invade our bodies, is it really too much of a stretch to consider forcibly implanted semen as more important or more deserving of life, liberty or the ability to survive than me?
Thank you, Jay. How to interpret / understand the concept of 'rational basis' review was one of my (many) unasked questions, so I appreciate that you chose to focus on it today, further disheartening as the explanation is.
Yet another calm, clear analysis; thank you again Jay. During my law school years, I was able to witness US Northern District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel grant a Writ of Coram Nobis overturning Korematsu's manipulated conviction finding specifically that U.S. Naval Intelligence evidence was intentionally withheld from the SCOTUS record. The legal team briefing Judge Patel demonstrated diligent legal work that I never forgot.Years later, I had a procedural case before then Presiding Judge Patel, my opponent & I sat quietly at a court hearing as Judge Patel summarized both of our arguments far better than we could. I think, I did manage a few weak voiced, "That's right your honor". Calm Judicial temperament & skill while simultaneously creating a perfect record, seems fo be in short supply these days.
If memory serves a candidate for the United States Senate once asked: “Can we, as a nation, continue together permanently—forever—half slave, and half free?
So, how is the review standard determined? If five justices agree with this rational basis review, is this an indication that they know their arguments are weak and can’t pass further scrutiny?
Can someone sue the Supreme Court to stop this egregious attempt to strike down RvW? A class action suit, maybe? Tie it up in the courts indefinitely, based on the fact that women are now (supposedly) equally protected under law?
It really doesn’t matter what excuse the illegitimate SCOTUS “justices” use to make this ruling, it CAN NOT STAND. I am more than the sum of my parts, I am not just a vessel in which a male can deposit his seed against my will. Just because I can carry a child doesn’t mean I should be forced to. The ability of someone to forcibly impregnate me does not overrule my right to the sovereignty over my own body. Where does it end? Does bacteria have a greater right to infect our bodies than we do over keeping ourselves healthy? What about parasites? Parasites, viruses & bacteria all invade our bodies, is it really too much of a stretch to consider forcibly implanted semen as more important or more deserving of life, liberty or the ability to survive than me?
Thank you, Jay. How to interpret / understand the concept of 'rational basis' review was one of my (many) unasked questions, so I appreciate that you chose to focus on it today, further disheartening as the explanation is.
Are justices really immune from accountability? Like there is nothing the people can do?