I enjoyed you breaking things down into 5 core pillars. In regards to the "judiciary pillar" what are some example of cases that Scotus ruled on lately that exemplify the agenda mentioned in your article?
Thanks Kyle, I think that framework of the 5 core pillars is quite useful because different countries are likely to exhibit varying degrees of incursion or erosion of each domain.
With regard to SCOTUS specifically, I actually wrote an essay on this last year; it is now just over a year old but serves to highlight some of the recent decisions (it was written before Roe was overturned).
Have a read here, and I'll look forward to your thoughts by return:
I agree, and not all countries that purportedly functions in a democracy affirms all 5 pillars as a starting point.
Thanks for the link and I appreciate the discussion points regarding specific cases mentioned.
However, I think it's a little disingenuous to say that, Dredd Scott v Sanford, Plessy v Ferguson ,to an extent Korematsu v USA reflect "Republican political policy" since a majority of the Justices that uphold those decisions were affiliated to the Democratic Party.
As for Roe and Casey which was recently overturned by the Dobbs case, one can both be pro-choice and yet affirm that the original Roe decision was made on shaky legal grounds.
Disclaimer: I've not gone through all the cases in the linked article but wanted to share my thoughts that pertain to your main points on "Republican Party policy" and of course the 3 cases I draw attention to were "hot cases" that are more well known.
Oh, I'm sorry I should be very clear on terms here. Those historic cases are not at all Republican policy; that essay was not necessarily specific to the GOP (although they take a major focus), and the aim of that particular section was to highlight how SCOTUS itself, independent of political composition, has in fact been a barrier to progress over the years.
However, what I was referring to include in this present essay does indeed reflect GOP policy; the Shelby County and other decisions that have dismantled the Voting Rights Act; the coddling of the Christian Right lobby with abortion/Roe; and the tacit support for the "unitary executive" theory.
I understand the argument that Roe was made on shaky legal grounds, but the ultimate irony is that the reasoning Dobbs is far more egregious. I'm not sure how that rectified the question. This present SCOTUS, as it has with voting rights and the EPA decisions, is just using whatever reasoning it wants to come to a conclusion, and that conclusion has almost always lined up with Republican political agendas.
I enjoyed you breaking things down into 5 core pillars. In regards to the "judiciary pillar" what are some example of cases that Scotus ruled on lately that exemplify the agenda mentioned in your article?
Thanks Kyle, I think that framework of the 5 core pillars is quite useful because different countries are likely to exhibit varying degrees of incursion or erosion of each domain.
With regard to SCOTUS specifically, I actually wrote an essay on this last year; it is now just over a year old but serves to highlight some of the recent decisions (it was written before Roe was overturned).
Have a read here, and I'll look forward to your thoughts by return:
https://3amthoughts.substack.com/p/the-deliberate-dismantling-of-accountability
I agree, and not all countries that purportedly functions in a democracy affirms all 5 pillars as a starting point.
Thanks for the link and I appreciate the discussion points regarding specific cases mentioned.
However, I think it's a little disingenuous to say that, Dredd Scott v Sanford, Plessy v Ferguson ,to an extent Korematsu v USA reflect "Republican political policy" since a majority of the Justices that uphold those decisions were affiliated to the Democratic Party.
As for Roe and Casey which was recently overturned by the Dobbs case, one can both be pro-choice and yet affirm that the original Roe decision was made on shaky legal grounds.
Disclaimer: I've not gone through all the cases in the linked article but wanted to share my thoughts that pertain to your main points on "Republican Party policy" and of course the 3 cases I draw attention to were "hot cases" that are more well known.
Oh, I'm sorry I should be very clear on terms here. Those historic cases are not at all Republican policy; that essay was not necessarily specific to the GOP (although they take a major focus), and the aim of that particular section was to highlight how SCOTUS itself, independent of political composition, has in fact been a barrier to progress over the years.
However, what I was referring to include in this present essay does indeed reflect GOP policy; the Shelby County and other decisions that have dismantled the Voting Rights Act; the coddling of the Christian Right lobby with abortion/Roe; and the tacit support for the "unitary executive" theory.
I understand the argument that Roe was made on shaky legal grounds, but the ultimate irony is that the reasoning Dobbs is far more egregious. I'm not sure how that rectified the question. This present SCOTUS, as it has with voting rights and the EPA decisions, is just using whatever reasoning it wants to come to a conclusion, and that conclusion has almost always lined up with Republican political agendas.