THIS ARGUMENT CONVINCED ME - Destiny Revises His Take On Roe V Wade Controversy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 พ.ค. 2022
- Destiny talks to Pisco95 again and why he has revised his take on Roe v Wade...
Date: 9 May, 2022
Follow Destiny
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/bigscreen
►DISCORD - discordapp.com/invite/destiny
►REDDIT - / destiny
►INSTAGRAM - / destiny
►MERCH - shop.destiny.gg/
Pisco95
► / pisco95
► / pisco_95_
Check Out My Amazon: www.amazon.com/shop/destiny
Buy My Merch: shop.destiny.gg/
#Destiny
YOU ARE WRONG - Destiny Debates A Lawyer On Roe V Wade ►th-cam.com/video/NfotnH4dKWs/w-d-xo.html (Context)
Timestamps and chapters are still not fixed yet...
Augoooooost
Did someone killed August?!
Cause this is very unlike him.
I understand the chapters dont work properly but why cant you put the timestamps in the description or comments? They are still useful
Imagine saying with a straight face.. a conservative probably leaked the document when Democrats are focusing on this issue instead of inflation
That’s the worst argument out of all of them. Are u insane
Imma dislike every video until the manifesto comes out
Godspeed solider
Are you implying he’s a white supremacist?
o7
great idea
We still waiting for defending prime part 2 out here
Wait, the supreme court shouldn't override old decisions? Plessy V Ferguson was precedent for 50+ years before it was overturned. That just seems like a really weak argument.
Sure, let me Google it for you: “When a supreme court makes the decision not to apply a previously set precedent, it is generally because a prior decision has been found to be unworkable in a specific instance or because significant social changes have occurred. Such decisions are relatively rare and the overturning of precedent is exercised with caution.”
Because the ruling of Plessy v Ferguson was based on premises that black people were not protected by the 14th Amendment from social discrimination. The lone dissent in the case was Justice John Marshall Harlan, who made the point that the Constitution was color-blind in the view of the law and that in the Plessy case, the Louisianna law that was being argued had exceptions for social discrimination if the black person in question was a "social subordinate" or "domestic" (i.e. implying that they were only allowed in the white only areas because they "served" a race that deemed it allowable). I would strongly recommend people spend some time reading up on these arguments rather than just going off the superficial understanding that stare decisis was 'overruled once, why not overrule it again.'
Supreme court justices are only slightly less political than your average elected official. Clarence Thomas is probably full blown Qanon. Trump's three judges were brought on specifically to rule on wedge issues. When it comes to abortion, they are going to come to a conclusion first, then work on the reasoning for it.
@@ShuffleboardJerk could that not apply here? There has been significant social change, and the premise of roe v wade seems widely opposed by many states, thus the solution presented seems unworkable to an extent.
We should probably be weighing the consequences of these decisions individually, if you defend eliminating abortion rights by saying , “it’s bad legislation” who cares what you think.
The argument that overturning Roe sets a bad precident because then the Supreme Court is in teh business of overturning past rulings is only valid if you ignore every other time the Supreme Court has already done this lol.
If Stare Decisis is the most important thing, then please give me your takes on Dred Scott v Sanford, or Plessy v Ferguson. Sometimes the Supreme Court messes up, sometimes big time, and they have the tools to correct themselves by reversing previous bad rulings.
yes but in those cases there was new evidence and new perspectives that opened the door to revision.
in this case its just the court yelling mulligan
Well vis a vis Scott v Sanford, the ruling and logic provided to justify it literally lacked a factual basis, and one will note even it wasn't actually overturned or destroyed by the courts - it was overruled by the reconstruction amendments.
I would say it’s probably two fold. One, just because exceptions have been made in the past doesn’t mean it should be easier to make exceptions in the future. Two, and this builds on the prior point. I would say the civil and social unrest surrounding desegregation and civil rights far outweigh what’s been happening with abortion. Whereas one was a historic moment of coordinated widespread civil protest, and the other amounts to civil grumblings at best.
Stare Decisis is a good argument for Plessy. In regards to Scott, the law subsequently changed. When laws subsequently change then holdings are able to change even under sd
No one is trying to say that they never mess up but why don’t you list all the ones that they got right? you see how lopsided that is? Policies aren’t usually set by outliers
the argument of "overturning roe v wade would set a bad precedent bc then the supreme court could relitigate every old rule" is such a brain dead take. 1) that is literally what the supreme court's job is, to review laws and rulings. 2) thats like saying if slavery still existed you wouldn't be okay with them overturning a previous ruling that allowed slavery because "it would set a bad precedent". the supreme court has also overturned over 250 previous rulings, this is nothing new and no precedent is being set this is a standard thing.
The problem is more that a lot of people really dont seem to trust the current supreme court, they feel its been taken over by conservative and hence it might turn over a lot of follow-up rulings in the conservative favour.
One might not agree with that fear, but its one nontheless.
No one on left says this though, over turning crap in the supreme court is fairly normal. What everyone has a problem with is the fact that republicans are essentially destroying a fundamental right of bodily autonomy in the name of Judeo-Christian values (historical roots), it would be different if republicans desired to revise Roe v Wade to fit said values, but they want to leave up to the states to decide, and already several Republicans are considering abortion to be murder and contraception to be abortion.
**overrule, they have overruled over 250 previous rulings, there's a difference between overruling and overturning. When you Overrule something in this context, they're basically saying "we would like to hear cases discussing abortion again, as general opinion may have changed in the last few decades". To overturn a decision is to completely reverse a decision, in this context it would be saying "we've changed our mind, and so we've decided to see in favor of Wade", which they haven't done and won't do; because the SC has never once done in US history, and is generally accepted as something they have no intention of doing. Many politicians and news articles are saying they're overturning the decision when they're not.
Correct. Massive L cope and seethe.
Plessy v Ferguson
-Segregation being ruled as fine, as long as “equal”
Korematsu v US
-Japanese Internment was ruled as fine since military interest
Bowers v Hardwick
-Sodomy laws fine since no fundamental right to homosexual sodomy
All these cases were overturned, Bowers within 20 years and Korematsu took nearly 40 (for federal courts to overturn and SC giving dicta in 2018), and Plessy took over 50.
The stare decisis doesn’t apply to really bad decisions. Roe and Casey are being ruled as one of those decisions. If someone disagrees, then the issue is the cases and their logic, not the legal precedent status.
I dont know much about Roe V Wade. But to me the idea of saying "we should keep these laws because they have existed for a long time" is pretty absurd and a really weak argument imo. Just thinking about all the things that used to be legal for a long time like Slavery or the criminalization of gay people, it feels weird that we would allow "well weve done it this way for so long, we have to keep this law the way it is" as a viable reason. Isnt that basically an appeal to tradition?
nonononono this is only talking about judicial rulings.. u can legislatively change age old laws to keep them up to date with ppl's current opinions. But laws, especially politically relevant ones, that have existed for ages play such a quintessential role in determining so many cases that the (non completely apolitical) judiciary SHOULDN'T upturn them for the sake of legal consistency
so basically, for ur example, de criminalise gayness by passing a new law, not by letting a liberal judiciary decide that the previous law criminalising gay ppl was somehow incorrect
@@DodoticsJ4 actually I think the way he said it was overturn old, wrong or outdated laws INSTEAD of just writing new ones. Besides, if an argument is BAD it shouldn't apply.
If a LAW doesnt make sense, dont enforce it.
If a law is wrong, then overturn it.
Writing news laws without ever overturning old laws is how we got here in the first place.
@@DodoticsJ4 Should the dred scott decision still be the law today?
@@DodoticsJ4 How has Roe been around "for ages?" It The Exorcist some ancient story? Is OJ Simpson some herculean figure shrouded in the sands of time? Roe was decided in 1973 and has pretty much been a contentious issue since.
Imagine your strongest argument for Roe v Wade being a position that essentially says the Dredd Scott case should still be law of the land
Ha! Exactly!
"Here's what changed my mind: Boy, that seals it for me!"
Dred* Scott was overturned by a constitutional amendment... Literally admitting that the decision was correct, but we didn't like that in our constitution, so we changed it, right?
Came here to say just that.
@@jamesthompson424 if you think that stare decisis means that dred scott should be the law of the land, you're just wrong
It’s so basic b and it’s literally the thread that Roe has been hanging on for over a decade. If you listen to the oral arguments, it always always always always circles the drain around stare decisis. It makes sense that it should be a difficult burden to overcome but geeze
The stare decisis argument is pretty bad imo, Roe has been precedent for about as long as Plessy v. Ferguson was before that was overruled by Brown v. Board of Education. I absolutely think that wrongly decided decisions should be overturned.
If that's the case then stare decisis shouldn't exist, because there is no point of it.
I think the argument that could be brought up against this is that Roe was reaffirmed by Casey, so it has like, double-precedent
@@Edandar If the Supreme Court has made what's agreed upon as a "wrong" decision then its time congress to change the laws that get interpreted. Blatantly playing the courts like they're a political football erodes the publics faith in the institution.
@@ThxIWorkout The point of stare decisis is for them to not have to do extra work in cases they already have seen and know they won't change. It shouldn't be for controversial issues with limited prior history of cultural acceptance AND tenuous Constitutional backing , especially if the argument was framed differently.
@@SIRslipperyasp91 But there is no law that was misinterpreted. Roe cannot even decide which combination of amendments they found the law within.
My standard for legal stuff like this is that you never want to use a legal power you wouldn't want the opposing party to use against you. For example the stare decisis, if there was a bad ruling that for example made divorce illegal, we as progressive would never take the tradition of stare decisis as a legitimate argument as why that ruling shouldn't be changed.
Thank you for this amazing legal analysis.
@@ShuffleboardJerk
Thank you for that amazing rebuttal..
@@falseprophet1024 Ok, here’s the rebuttal: Using long standing legal principles as pawns to push a political agenda is ridiculous. These principles are there for a reason. Stare decisis is extremely important in maintaining stability and in affirming the legitimacy of the court. We shouldn’t decide which of these principles are good or bad based on our own political views and in the fear of the other party retaliating.
@@ShuffleboardJerk
Thats a dumb rebuttal. The OP is obviously talking about adhering strictly to stare decisis, where you affirm shit rulings out of deference to precedent.. which is a horrible idea.
Stare Decisis was respected, as explained in the draft, but roe failed the test.
@@falseprophet1024 How did it fail the test
The supreme court shouldn't go back on previous decisions as to not cause any instability or public unrest? I am genuinely surprised Destiny would change his view to such a weak argument.
He did so because deep down he simply wants abortion to be legal. He's pretty far left on most subjects out there and so he feels really uncomfortable to side with conservatives on abortion. He's been looking for a justification to change his mind and he couldn't find one. So he just went with this one.
I swear to god these legal convos are like language calculus to me my smooth monkey brain can only absorb so much
Same
They do that so that average people can't get into the business of being a lawyer much like when your financial real estate holder something like that you're going to be using tranches and weird terms
@@jumpkickman1993 you know you can request time to read through those, and the internet exists, so there isn't an excuse to not know terms.
@@jumpkickman1993 My dude, just about every profession or career involves some level of technical jargon.
Thanks for the good laugh just sit back and enjoy your crayons brother 😂
Saying a ruling has to stay, even if it's a bad ruling due to stare decisis is just saying "Better to double down on aa mistake than ever admit you're wrong."
Precedent is to help establish consistency with all the laws of the land. It's part of making sure everyone gets equal justice because the courts can't use different logic for similar cases. It says "Well if I did X then, and nothing has changed I should do X now."
Precedent does not validate bad decisions. An argument does not become better because it is old. You can't simply say "Well maybe X was wrong, but I just have to commit."
Well said!!
Exactly. In the higher courts, you can overturn via appeal a "bad court decision". Our legal system is built to retroactively correct incorrect decisions made. By principle, it's kind of consistent.
Related cases also count as precedent, which somehow is being ignored. The ruling before isn't the only thing that would be taken into account.
That’s ironic. “Well maybe the Constitution was wrong, but I just have to commit”
SC justices be like “It doesn’t explicitly say abortion in this 230 year old document. Abortion, overturned! Gay rights, overturned! Interracial marriage, up to the states!”
You seemed very concerned with the argument and not at all with the consequences.
Just because a previous ruling has a favorable outcome doesn't mean that outcome should be assumed to stay forever. This issue should ultimately be solved in the legislature. The court's job is to interpret the law within the context of the Constitution, not to create them via judicial precedent. In my view, the only entity not fulfilling their duty here is the legislature by never bringing the issue to the floor (as far as I am aware) for cynically self-serving reasons.
@@DabroodThompson I don't think you can really put that on the court though. The legislature had what, 50 years? how long should they have? Hopefully it'll force them to do something.
@@DabroodThompson Overturning the decision changes no states laws presently on the books. Personally I don't support any Federal law weighing in on the issue.
Maybe I am just a big stupid idiot, but I dont understand how the "stare decisis" thing makes sense at all. If we follow that rule, how do we ever overcome a bad decision? Does it just take 1 person to stack the court and ram through crazy shit for us to be unable to overturn blatantly incorrect rulings?
Stare decisis isn’t a binding rule, it’s a more along the lines of a Taboo. Only to be violated in extreme circumstances. It’s a “should” not “must”. Technically a SCOTUS justice can rule however the fuck they want on anything brought before them
@@erichooper2794 ohhh so its irrelevant garbage used to defend decisions that are bad but would be unpopular to overturn? I dont see any other point to making it taboo to rule objectively.
@@erichooper2794 Stare decisis is binding in US common law unlike in civil law.
I dont think its a good argument that it's inconvenient. If there are rulings that could be better then they should be better.
rulings that are this old and this politically charged? probably not. If the laws could be better change them legislatively
>rulings that could be better than they should be better
what
@@DodoticsJ4 dems in congress had 50 years. They played themselves. The deserve for the court to give more rights back to the states.
@@jdelgado243 I think the dems did a decent job but that shudnt matter in whether the court shud overturn rvw rn
@@DodoticsJ4 wait I thought that was the idea though. We can’t legislate on these hot topic issues thanks to a Supreme Court ruling.
It is pretty funny that Destiny was wrong about this subject from the beginning but the only arguement that convinced him of that was the absolutely worst one, Stare Decisis lol
It's a literal baby's first court discussion thing. You'll be convinced by the first arguments of an actual lawyer when you don't regularly talk to lawyers. Happens all the time and it's why there are so many lawyers that have really embarrassing trails where they've legitimately never properly heard any other arguments outside of law school
I would still have to disagree with your opening statement. The reason is if the court had some super racist law that was made 100 years ago and wasn't uprooted then what we should keep the law that is in blatant hypocrisy with the constitution?
You could've also had a history where nothing changed in those 100 years and nobody saw it as hypocritical. The law should represent the time and people subject to it.
What's different, as far as abortion goes, now than it was right after the court's decision?
@@Hyperllam4 I am a little confused with the wording wasn't roe v wade decided in 73?
@@Hyperllam4 The law should also internally make sense and should be created and handled by the rightful branches a of govt. In many ways the current Supreme Court decision should have been the one then, and that the legislature(s) should have enacted laws
@@Hyperllam4 nothing's different. The most sensible thing was for Roe to always be a state issue. Should never have been an issue for the federal court.
@@Crazymachin3gun I'm talking about your hypothetical?
This conversation would be so much better if you invited rekeita to explain to pisco why he is wrong..
Trivia: Umbra - A shadow. Penumbra - The faded outer edge of a shadow.
@@gregutz4284 I just looked it up. Thanks for bringing it to my attention :)
destiny a lil 2 hard headed on this debate abt abortion
My understanding of Stare Deci... deci... decibo is that it's intended for precedents that have a logical throughline that stays accurate to today, but the social agreement or framework has fallen apart or is not agreed with.
The issue with Roe is when applying this idea is that their logical throughline is scientifically outdated, as we have better tech and more info about the topic.
As for the legal side- it still never should've happened: the court is supposed to interpret the law, not make up faux clauses.
Suffice to say, if the best argument amounts to "but we already did it tho" ... it really should go lol. I don't think that concept would hold up in any realm.
This isn't happening because of an honest audit of prior rulings done by the Supreme court. RvW is being overturned because activists judges appointed by the trump administration have an ideological agenda.
What about Roe’s “logical throughline” is scientifically outdated exactly? Notions of viability still apply, and just because you could raise a zygote in a jar until it is harvested doesn’t mean the woman doesn’t have a right to get rid of it from inside her own body. If you developed a technique where it is possible to pluck the fetus from the womb and put it in an artificial womb, by all means go ahead and make that procedure mandatory-although that creates a few more huge moral and legal and practical issues that don’t really need to exist.
Arguing against abortion rights in 2022 is frankly idiotic because Americans don’t care about actual results or consequences anymore. It’s all personal ideology and “best presented arguments.” Weak and dumb.
False. This isn't a scientific question, nothing a high resolution ultrasound would shed light on. Just look at public opinion.
@@davidwilliams6966 if public opinion was discussing whether or not thermal radiation would actually cause human death at X amount, the fact that people disagree would have *nothing* to do with the original scientific answer being incorrect, or different.
Viability has changed. That alone turns the decision's logic on its head, given that was a major part of the basis on their "guidelines" about the topic.
@@shortafroman4 viability is around 24 weeks so you'd agree with me that Mississippi 15wk can't stand?
Is there a video where Destiny talks more about Everything Everywhere All at Once?
Found it th-cam.com/video/Z8t6ZOJjm4c/w-d-xo.html
Doesn't plan B not work like that? I thought it prevents an egg from releasing from the ovary? How would the egg get fertilized on the way out if it isn't allowed to get out?
No I believe plan B makes you shed your uteran lining so that the egg (fertilized or not) cannot survive. Could be wrong though fortunately its been about 15 years since anyone I was close with had to take one
It's not like the court said 'hey, let's go back and look at r v. w and see if we can change it'. The review process was a consequence of other rulings. It's precisely what their job is. The fact that they didn't just assume it wasn't worth reviewing (like they did in the Casey ruling) is the standard the needs to be upheld.
@Russian Waifu Based on retardation? You sure got that right
@@KnoxBoxArt no its not. Texas (or Alabama, not sure) is banning abortions completely and are being challenged in court. If the SC didn't take it, it would just go back to the state.
@Russian Waifu based on retardation maybe
@Russian Waifu Those rubles you’re getting paid with aren’t worth all that much these days, eh?
@Russian Waifu Based on what?
5:11
Doing a political resignation is like what now?
23:00 the way he says "SOME" here sounds almost exactly like the opening to all star
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
The activist clerk is married to a journalist that shares multiple bylines with the journalist who released the draft.
I would love Nick from Rekieta Law to debate Pisco, and/or others. Great content.
What would happen to hipaa laws if the right to privacy doesn’t exist they have to be built under that premise it’s only been a thing since 96
What? Who said the right to privacy doesn’t exist?
@@vanessaspeaks isn’t that what the court is attacking with this ruling
@@temporaryusername11 The opinion specified that it made no ruling on any right except abortion. While they made arguments against the idea of the right to privacy, the argument seemed tailored towards abortion. It seemed to allude to there being a difference between things like abortion and same-sex marriage. I think the right to privacy was certainly questioned in this opinion, but it did not make any firm ruling that it doesn't exist.
@@temporaryusername11 No. Right to privacy is a guaranteed right, a right protected by fed government, written specifically in the constitution. The question is “does abortion fall under your right to privacy?” In 1973 the SC rules that it did. But that’s just an opinion. The next step should have been to get Congress vote on a law specifically for abortion because as everyone now knows, rulings are just opinions UNTIL congress makes it into a law.
HIPAA is a federal law that requires medical organizations to keep your patient info protected. Not connected to Roe v Wade. The only way that gets repealed is if Congress passed another law with 60 votes (to make it filibuster proof)
Can someone tl;dr around the clickbait title? In what way does destiny revise his take in this video?
does anyone have the sauce for the intro music?
Relying on a tenuous court ruling with respect to privacy protections to be the bulwark from which to derive that supposed right which lacks clarity specifically as it pertains to viability always meant it was at real risk of being overturned.
Democrats themselves acknowledged that risk and used that threat to drive votes rather than get something on the books that shored it up specifically the years when they had complete control.
When the states made their legal challenges it gave the court the justification to kick this back to the states. The other option was to continue to kick the can and wait for legislation from Congress to fill the holes which has thus far proven to be futile.
Arguing that just because something is convenient and or popular then it should remain doesn't address its legal shortcomings.
I don't understand the importance of stare decisis. If the court makes a bad decision, the country shouldn't be stuck with it forever. Also, the whole power of the Supreme Court comes from the fact that they are not 100% bound to precedent, unlike every lower court.
I listened to this live and didn't understand a word of it. Let's try this again.
pisco looks like the lawyer version of rem
Appreciate this conversation guys. Thanks.
I believe that when it comws to sex the main principle we have agree upon as a society is 'consent'. So since an animal will never be able to consent beastiality would be outlawed on that principle alone no?
Whilst I agree that some forms of contraception would be deemed illegal not all would be.
We care about consent with humans but we don't seem to care about consent with animals. For example it would be wrong of you to put a lead on your flatmate and force them out of the house for a walk around town if they did not consent to it. However, if you did the same to a dog, no one really cares. I am also pretty sure that an animal isn't all that happy to be slaughtered for food either and we don't seem to care that much.
@@theKStocky Yes but the point is that we 'could' say that killing an animal for food is ok (id be ok with a ban on hunting btw) but not for sex because that would fall under 'animal cruel'y laws (which we also already have btw despite being able to kill them for food) because it is a sexual act an non concentual. This does not conflict with other positions we currently leislate for.
Stare decisis is an important concept, but its not like overturning previous rulings is an unprecedented (irony!) move. Since 1810 there have been well over 200 court cases that were reviewed and overturned. Some of our most important and most revered legal decisions have come from ignoring stare decisis and changing bad law.
Hell, I can think of several cases that I absolutely think should be overturned. One that immediately comes to mind is the famous eminent domain case Kelo v. New London, which was a monumentally terrible decision. Its probably moot now, since I think most states have passed laws that pretty much negate the court's ruling in that case, but its so crazy to me that the court decided the way it did in that case.
Just reading about that case... seriously HOW THE FUCK is that possibly ok. I can't believe they ruled in favor of the city.
@@fjordan2345 I remember doing a 10 page paper on Kelo during my undergrad, and my sentiments were exactly that for almost 10 pages. It was a bizarrely awful decision to me.
Holy shit, the noise from the game was a high pitch tone for the entire discussion. Jeezus
The founders also didn't forsee corporations being considered people and having protected speech in Citizen's United. Does anyone know if Allito voted against Citizen's United or did he vote for it? It really seems like constitutional originalists are hyper focused on the things they don't like being not present in the text of the constitution, but completely ignore the things they do not being present.
this is hilarious. we can only hope that this is the beginning of the end of the living constitution. no one voted for a constitutional right beyond the bill of rights and the original constitution. if you want to create more rights, pass an amendment for the federal constitution, or push your state legislators to create them as rights at the state level.
The problem with "its been around for over 40 years its settled law" or any similar argument is that in 1776 when the USA was founded slavery was legal it wasnt until 1865 that slavery was abolished. That was law for 89 years. Society changes over the course of decades not weeks. This idea that any ruling or law holds just because its old removes a vital part of a democratic republic. The ability to address and re-address issues. This is required no matter what. Without this you have only a revolution as the ability to enact change. The ability to address issues is required for any nation to thrive.
Slavery was abolished because of an amendment to the Constitution.
@@Dragonite43 You are correct. It absolutely was.
The constitution was literally changed to address this. These things are not the same.
The fundamental right to contract is based off the liberty to contract your own services at a rate you would consider competitive rates. Funnily enough it was followed by Adkins, which was a minimum wage law targeting woman. The reason why these laws were ignored, and finally overuled in West Coast Ho V. Parrish was because Rational Basis was applied, and the court decided that application of Police Powers over that subject were rational in application.
However, you could argue that it was the court attempting to avoid Roosevelt from stacking more Justices.
this argument reminds of the muellers argument of why he wouldnt prosecute trump.
The ultimate truth is that this should have been protected through legislation during the times that there were opportunities to do so. Current legal frameworks don't make it clear that there is a right to abortion. I think there should be and it can be inferred.
Instead of making that inference, legislators should have done their jobs and taken it from inference and codified it into law.
THIS! Literally my argument!! Everyone is arguing amongst themselves rather than holding these incompetent politicians responsible. And I don’t even care about the ruling either way.
Its not up to the feds to pass legislation, though. All authorites not expressly granted to the feds are reserved to the states. The right to regulate abortion is not granted to the feds and is part of the states general police powers..
@@falseprophet1024 shhh dont tell them that. They think what works in New York, LA, or Chicago works in west Virginia, west Texas, and Idaho.
Even Joe Biden said this very thing back in 2019… what has he done though…….. yeah… 🫠
@@barneystinson2781 More accurately they just don't care whether it works in those places, because they don't think the people who live there are human
oof, never thought Destiny would say historical rulings should be upheld as the rule just to keep roe v wade. Guess we can go back to seperate but equal bois because you shouldn't overturn precedent. This is legit the worst argument because it means we can never change as a nation because however we felt years ago must stick forever.
Ignoring the role of Congress
@@onlyeveryone2253 ignoring the historical fact that most of the civil rights steps were first won on battle fields or court rooms. Congress rarely passes anything that isn't overwhelmingly popular. Case in point, did Congress give gay marriage legality, or did the Supreme Court do it when they made the case clear cut to be legal. If it was just Congress, there would be no need for such courts as the law woud always be clear cut.
@@wvance0316 I admit I know to little to argue this point. The important part is that the law should not be changed willy nilly such that it can be used for destructive political decisions. We do live in a democracy and some things must change slowly to uphold the system
If its important for precedents to be held to conserve stability than it is also important to revisit precedent when they are poorly constructed, incorrectly reasoned, or perspective towards them shifts so our legal interpretations reflect our society. I dont really like stare decisis cus stare decisis.
Damn Destiny really shit the bed with this one. Can't wait for him to change his mind again.
50 minutes of admitting bad faith
Oh no, not this guy again.
Stare Decisis is important for stability in ruling but is more harmful for positive change on the margins that the law doesn't address because of how arbitrary some rulings can be for the simple fact that some laws are just incomplete on matters they choose not to address where the SC starts to become legislative instead of being interpretative of the law. Re-litigating long standing rulings are part of the process of how the system evolves over time. And part of why the Supreme Court exists is to be the body of government that is able to re-litigate these rulings that have become legal precedent so yes its a natural function of the court to do this.
Just a reminder, if you want to help elevate the discussion further, shoot him an email, write up an effort post r/destiny subreddit or even better, schedule a talk. TH-cam comment section sucks ass.
This has to be by far the dumbest take Ive seen destiny agree with
I wouldn't call something an abortion until the fertilized egg is implanted in a place where the implantation is most likely to lead to the egg developing healthily.
I think people who consider stuff like the termination of ectopic pregnancies and stuff abortion are wild.
I don't know any person who believes that ending an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion. In my mind an abortion is that of a woman who can carry a baby with 0 health problems terminating her pregnancy because she is ready for a baby.
Not a surprise when people use religious definitions of life. Funny how that stuff conflicts with reality.
@@termitreter6545 are you high? That has to be the stupidest thing I've read in a while
Stare decisis being fully respected should be considered in light of Katz and Korematsu
And in the case of say, Heller, Kelo, or Citizens United. Those are all settled law, should they not be overturned?
@@andrewpelham1269 the problem with the average person and SCOTUS is they keep forgetting that they are supposed to watch over legislation to make sure it operates within it's boundaries.
They aren't supposed to be creating the outcomes people want, simply to make sure everything is logically consistent in the law. The legislature is supposed to be actually passing laws.
@@thedanieltan Roe was bad law. Even Pro choice lawyers agreed it was bad law, and you had Justices like RGB saying the government, states or otherwise, should do something about it.
Legislatures had 50 years to do something about Roe, and they didn't.
If a law isn't logically consistent, how can it be considered good law, and why should logically inconsistent law be enforcable?
@@andrewpelham1269
1) Not sure what position you think I took on Roe, but your points do not seem to be addressing me.
2) I never said Roe was good law. Frankly speaking I strongly dislike SCOTUS being used as a makeshift legislature.
3) I don't think stare decisis applies when the reasoning isn't sound or when times change such that the interpretation should as well.
4) I am not a purposivist in any way. I am halfway between a textualist and an intentionalist. Laws should be constructed such that there is minimal room for interpretation. Where the law is constucted with room for interpretation, it should be read as written up and until it doesn't make sense to do so.
If it were up to me, I would strike down every law that isn't constructed properly and tell the legislature to do it's job.
The real question is, does Alito provide or even hust hint at any arguments for WHY the other rights are fundamentally different (I legitimately don't know). Otherwise these affirmations are worth nothing, less than any footnote, since the statement will simply be ignored as unsubstantiated.
He doesn't have to. The case needs to be made for why these rights are fundamentally the same, and it has not, to my knowledge.
You're the one making the positive claim, you're the one who needs to provide proof.
Bad argument. Others have enumerated why in detail, but in brief: The Court need to be able to overrule bad decisions, even if they're old.
There is a huge difference between examining a couple of cases that people feel was never settled and overturning a bunch of old cases. I don't find the argument "it's always been that way" opens the door for slavery and gay rights. You just agree with those . So what your really saying is "I don't like this one "....
Not a convincing argument at all.
What is the difference then?
@@MisterSarcasticThe difference is we may not have the tools at the time to make a proper decision. Instead we make the best decision at the time. Some things may be poorly understood scientifically at the time and new information may be transformative to the issue. By thinking about in the frame destiny has now, slavery would never be undone.
@@briangueringer3673 are you saying we didn’t have the tools or information at the time to make a correct ruling on slavery or gay rights before?
@@briangueringer3673 dred Scott wasn’t reversed by the court. It was overturned legislatively using an amendment. Your example doesn’t work. SC never goes back and arbitrarily undoes ruling from the past. Sorry you’re wrong
@@JayD73 Yes thats why slavery was legal for so long. Then later was outlawed.
The problem with Stare Decisis is that there are plenty of cases in which the Supreme Court has overturned a previously held opinion even though said previous opinions had been watershed decisions. A fantastic example would be Plessy v Furgeson which upheld the “separate but equal” doctrine of segregation across the US for decades until Brown v. Board of Education overturned that ruling. If you will recall Brown V Board was met with plenty of bitter pushback from the Southern whites and politicians who supported segregation.
Is there a fire alarm in the background first half of this video? Very annoying. Had to stop listening
This is incredibly unconvincing to me. If the ONLY thing holding a certain precedent is a supreme court ruling, and there is no law about it... the court should absolutely have the ability to look back at those rulings. Make a law about it.
Why have a constitution, laws, courts etc if they are just ignored when inconvenient. Just follow the CPP in China. One part demagogues just make new rules whenever.
I love referring back to history to inform others and myself of my Implied fundamental rights. It feels so much easier and true to the founding fathers vision of my black ass.
The 3/5ths compromise was the founders first step towards ending slavery
What no one is talking about is the original roe v wade decision is based on interpretation of the 4th amendment. That it gives us all bodily autonomy from gov. I hope I don't need to explain why setting a precedent to the contrary is bad...
This thinking that a decision needs to be respected even when wrongly decided would’ve had us not overturn separate but equal for the 60 years it lasted in brown v. Board. Pisco has obviously been post hawk rationalizing why Roe being overturned is a bad legal decision.
Post hoc
It just betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of stare decisis, or at least exposes that Pisco is just another slave to motivated reasoning. The Supreme Court does not bind itself by precedent and it certainly has the tools needed to overturn its previous decisions. The fight is clearly between schools of thought on constitutional interpretation and Roe showed that even though the originalist view is stronger, the court will reason itself into a pretzel if you have enough justices who don’t share the originalist view, EVEN IF their ratio is spotty. I get the sad reality of Pisco’s view in that the law of the land is really going to depend on the political games of how these justices are appointed but that is no way to adjudicate contentious issues, especially ones as controversial as abortion.
A sudden wave of "new" judges is overturning a major precedent, so we're talking about long waves of stupidity.
Akshewally, it’s “post hoc.” It’s a Latin phrase.
What if we made a dual-legality solution where the legality of abortion comes down to your personal views on it. So, if you’re against it’s it’s illegal for you, but if you’re for it, the abortion is legal.
Something tells me, this is a bad idea.
@@vanessaspeaks It’s a bad idea for you, but a good idea for me. That’s the genius of it.
I love that idea, we give people who dont want abortion the choice to not get one, we can even call it "pro-choice"
@@TonyCox1351 Yes, but either way, a choice still has, however, been made.
The baby bottle is still a good mic 🎙 ,i have one myself
I didn't hear a lot about an arguement of Abortion being a state right vs. a Government right. Just talking as if the right doesn't exist at all anymore.
Urine LLC
I'm 100% sure you would be arguing the reverse position had the activist court been dominated by rightwing justices rather than leftwing.
PISS CO LOL
Life or potential life doesn’t really mean much except in the basis of morality. The 14th amendment only guarantees protections to those who are born. That being said, why don’t we push to make incubators cheaper and widely available? It is the pro-choice and pro life thing to do
I feel as though Destiny started with a conclusion and is arguing towards it, rather than starting with a clean slate and finding the best side or the most reasonable argument
In the first video, it seemed he came to his conclusion that it was indefensible by reading the argument presented by the legal scholar code named Alito of the SCOTUS ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@zeik101 you're proving my point.
@@coolmike1538 go on?
@@zeik101 you deleted your comment or I'd be happy to explain.
@@coolmike1538 my comment is still there on my screen?
Sex with a partner in your home is consensual and bestiality isn't consensual lol. It's really that simple. You don't get to commit animal cruelty just because you're in the privacy of your home. This is so dumb. It's so cringe to hear.
I eat animals.
Literally eat them... pretty hard to invent a bigger cruelty than just eating you on the spot.
And it is legal.
We legally eat, murder, and enslave them. If you own a pet or eat meat you frankly need to sit down and shut up because you’re a massive hypocrite.
Get your shit together and get a logically consistent position.
@@vanessaspeaks if it’s truly consensual and if no chance of birth like anal or oral, I️ really don’t see any plausible argument against it.
@@JM-mh1pp it would then make sense to maybe reevaluate such laws then. Currently we have laws against animal cruelty yet we have factory farms. Seems like our laws should be more consistent. And I’m leaning towards the one with less cruelty not more.
@@hatimmansori4875 We have laws against animal cruelty, but we can legally kill humans cause they are not fully developed... I will take moral inconsistency for 500$ Alex.
Can we stop talking about Stare Decisis though? Yes, it is bad that the court is overturning a long established precedent. But do you know what's way worse than them overturning precedent, there actual stated reason for doing so.
This was boring yesterday and it's still boring now.
Perhaps stare decisis should apply to Dred Scott v. Sandford
It can’t, only because the constitution itself was updated to invalidate Dred Scott.
@@ChipCheerio exactly. So update the constitution to invalidate Roe V Wade. Blaming SCOTUS for the shortcomings of the congress and the Presidency is ridiculous.
The mobile TH-cam app says there are 2 replies but the mobile web version shows none. Frickin cringe.
@@BB-cf9gx Update the constitution to invalidate Roe? That’s the most insane of nuclear options to have ever existed, I mean it’s basically backwards. Seems to me a better route I’d have the court “correct” it’s decision, and then have the legislature deal with it.
@@ChipCheerio so all the other constitutional amendments were "nuclear"? The SCOTUS shouldn't be making law. The people should through Congress and the Presidency.
This whole conversation started off by basically admitting that Roe v. Wade was an incorrect decision but lets use any rationale we can to keep it. Very hard to make a compelling argument defending this.
He watched Breyer BS-ing too much to justify the same sort of nonsense reasoning.
He specifically said that it was correct and that is why he didn't use this argument to begin with.
I love law. When people not willing to take a life act like they have all the power.
Precedent matters until it doesn't.
If stare decisis is argued to be too important to change law then it was wrong to overturn Plessy vs. Ferguson.
“Jim Crow laws were upheld in 1896 in the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson, in which the U.S. Supreme Court laid out its "separate but equal" legal doctrine concerning facilities for African Americans.”
Yeeeah, this is a stupid argument. If a decision was made that is unjust or not within the purview of the court, then it needs to be overturned.
Do we want a court that’s in the position of relitigating…”?
Yes Destiny, we do. Don’t fall for the crazy lefty propaganda. If you do, you are then saying this is wrong:
“On May 18, 1896, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson that "separate but equal" facilities were considered sufficient to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision established a pattern in American society, until May 17, 1954 when the Court reversed the Plessy decision.”
That’s 60 years of bad law before it was changed. But hey, Stare Decisis is important, right…?
Stare decisis is a more complicated and nuanced topic yes we want to have bad decisions overturned but we also need consistency in the courts or they will be seen as political.lets say it takes 30 years for the supreme court to lean more liberal should they be able to overturn alito's decision....or should they take stare decisis into consideration...
@@aaroncarl2493 I completely agree, Especially when using apples to compare oranges to (PvF vs RvW)
Also to @Mister Alias, How is racism in the same boat as a Woman's right to choose?
In due time people come to conclusions based on societal standards.
A perfect example is LITERALLY WHAT YOU SAID!
"If a decision was made that is unjust or not within the purview of the court, then it needs to be overturned."
Is Roe V Wade unjust?
Not within the purview of the court? why is it even in purview of the court? What happened to even be in the courts radar?
I feel like we are stuck in jargon instead of focusing on the why....
@@aaroncarl2493 , unfortunately, the Court is already politicized and it shouldn’t be. To be completely clear, Roe vs. Wade is the attempt to usurp power from the legislature to push partisan ideology. Consistency in the court is interpreting from the founding documents and overturning laws that were voted in on activism, rather than genuine interpretation. The thing you are advocating for is what this decision represents. The consistency of the court is only judging on the merits when referenced to a set material. Wandering outside of that purview is the very definition of inconsistency in respect to the Supreme Court’s duties.
We CANNOT allow the usurping of power because we got used to corruption. It doesn’t even matter if I don’t like what will happen after. If we let power structures be circumvented, what happens when the opposition finally decides to do the same? As it stands, only our side has been really pushing activism on the Supreme Court. Abortion and other related ideas really aren’t covered under the founding documents. We have to legislate it. As painful as it may be to hear, or side is currently the baddies trying to destroy the system, rather than do the work and get legislation passed.
@@misteralias2850 well I might disagree I think we have to look at the actions of the court honestly and not have knee jerk reactions.. but it is in my opinion this current supreme court would not allow such legislative laws on abortion to be up held...
@@aaroncarl2493 , This is a position I have held for about 2 decades in regard to the court. I really have noticed an activist bent from our side that I haven't seen on the opposing side. This is less a knee jerk reaction and more a frustration on the part of people that just started paying attention and are playing fast and loose with the interpretations of the purpose of the courts and the purpose behind Stare Decisis.
Stare Decisis is supposed to aid in the ease of classification, yes, but if the classification comes from a set of decisions that were not made from a position of correct interpretation methodology (we have to assume there is a spectrum of acceptable interpretations) or were made to circumvent the legislative process, it is a form of power usurpation and must be overturned. There is no way around this. We wouldn't use the argument of Stare Decisis to keep the decisions for Jim Crow laws that infringes on rights, but we will to circumvent the legislature? This is one of the best slippery slope arguments that we can make AND see how the process can continue to erode the legislature's power, effectively giving the courts the power to make quasi-legislation.
Am I the only one that sees what happens if we continue this behavior? This isn't limited the left obviously. The left is simply the side currently trying to control the courts through activism.
buck v bell ruled that states have the right to forcibly sterilize who they want.
it hasn't been overuled for longer than roe v wade. does that mean we should it should never be overuled
That's what I'm hearing in this logic. Like... We can't overturn stupid court decisions because... Then the court can overturn past stupid decisions?
Interesting discussion.
Stare decisis is trash, and the time period Destiny gave would mean Plessy v. Ferguson would not have been overruled.
I'm pretty sure there's a very big difference between having the right to terminate an independent entity that isnt yourself and being forced against your will to have a medical procedure.
Sure if you're framing it that way...
@@JoseVelazquez-su5nm there is no other way go frame its two completely different things that can't be used as an excuse for the other and if you think they can youre just trying to justify your own beliefs
@@arthurgoonie4596 a baby isn't "another person"?
@@JoseVelazquez-su5nm oh yea I forget silly me babies are apples.
@@arthurgoonie4596 I think maybe I misunderstood your initial post and reflexively went into action. Apologies
15:37 " 'Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom fo speak,' But it doesn't mean that"
Hahaha, thanks that was a funny one. Appreciate the bad take it made me laugh. Thanks, Pisco!
I'm confused why this quote is funny? That is what the first amendment says.
@@Fematika Ah had to edit the comment for some reason I deleted the part Pisco says that is hilarious. After quoting the first amendment the then says but it doesn't mean that. That's the hilarious part.
@@althesilly he goes on to cite how it doesn't apply in eg. public schools. can you explain why the take is bad?
@@MossyQualia Ok think of the counterargument to that statement, of "but it does say that. We can discuss exceptions or contrasting rights but it does say that." It's a terrible argument built on sand. It's rhetorically bad, and refutable argument just on the noted fact of level of scrutiny the supreme court uses. What he is trying to do is say, 'well we have made exceptions to something with a fundamental right, therefore, everything can be thrown out,' ignoring how the court views fundamental rights vs legitimate governmental interests. This is taken directly from the levels of scrutiny used by the SCOTUS he talks about during the discussion so he is playing cherry-picking with someone that knows less about the law than him.
It's almost as bad as his stare decisis argument he is admittedly used just because Destiny says he likes institutional consistency. See every comment below about Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education, for more laughter!
"Someone who was never pregnant can have an abortion by killing the egg. That's super werid."
I mean not really, at that point its just semantics is it not? The point being made is that you're killing the zygote, whether or not its an abortion in of itself isn't really relevant in regards to whether or not you're ending a human life.
Wonder if destiny will realise how much copium he chugged down to hold this position after he reads some comments 🤔
The chat's reaction during Pisco's first convo about Roe v Wade was insane. Some real 2 energy. Literally nobody understood what he was saying
Because Destiny’s chatters are not super educated.
@@Tavat I think there's usually SOME attempt to understand what the other side is saying
@@MrMctastics He didn't say they don't try to understand. He said they aren't educated
@@MrMctastics That sort of effort is reserved for people making honest arguments. "Idk I just can't find any difference between abortion and masturbation" is not an honest argument. It's unbelievable that Destiny feels this dude is deserving of good faith.
@@NoCommentaryLife Yeah, saying chatters aren’t educated isn’t a coherent explanation of why they weren’t being charitable or aren't charitable in general
One of the things that is missing from this convo is the fact that the court didn’t overturn Roe v Wade for one specific reason. There are many things that a justice considers when overturning a decision. ONE OF WHICH is stare decisis. Justice Alito explained it very plainly. There are four things to look at when examining stare decisis. The workability of the precedent, which in this case is “undue burden” which is extremely ambiguous. The second is whether the precedent was well reasoned, which in this case seems like it wasn’t. The trimester system was garbage from the beginning which is why kasey threw it out and made a new system. The third is the age of the precedent, which is something this case actually has going for it being 50 years old. The fourth is the reliant interest at stake. This means that overturning the decision would affect things that people have already planned for. If nobody is using abortion as birth control, then nobody is planning on getting an abortion which means overturning the rule wouldn’t affect the plans for someone’s future. The justices weigh the answers to all of these questions to decide if stare decisis is a good enough reason to not overturn a decision. Nobody wants to ignore stare decisis completely, then we’d be starting from scratch every time. But you also can’t let stare decisis be a binding principle that prohibits changing old rulings that should be changed.
"changing old rulings that should be changed."
That's subjective. What should be changed? There's no standard for that.
@@drg8687 Well... thats their job. They're looking at it and determining whether it should be kept. There were always going to be people unhappy with the outcome.
@@drg8687 The standard is the constitution, and more broadly, if the ruling is in keeping with "ordered liberty".
This is what allows judges to be fairly impartial going back and seeing that slavery was incompatible with the constitution as originally written.
@@SuperNeospace who's job? It''s the court's job to decide which aspects of history we are going to continually revisit because a minority of people are afraid they are losing power they never should of had to begin with? Why?
@@drg8687 of course it's subjective. But isn't everything the court does subjective to some degree? That's why it's very rare that all of the justices unanimously agree on a given case. I would argue that it's actually a good thing that the justices don't have a set standard. What if the standard had been made by the court in 1900, when they thought separate but equal was fine and they decided that their standard was that things that had existed when the country was founded were things that couldn't have been changed? Schools would never have been integrated. While people might not like that in this case that the court can go back and change previous rulings, I don't think anybody wants a system where the justices are unable to go back and change things.
Who is Decisis and why should I stare at him/her?
That's not even what stare decisis is about
I disagree that just cuz something is long standing, it shouldn't be touched. It depends on how much people care about it, if the people care about it enough, it should absolutely be relooked at.
One of the biggest purposes of laws is suppose to be making people's lives better, so if people care about a topic enough, it obviously matters to them.
Agreed a bad argument for the left and the right to never change anything tho I imagine the right would favor it in theory but never practice it because they love changing things to fit their new dogma.
Sure and the majority of Americans support abortion rights so why is it being looked at again
I have a slightly different opinion on whether long standing precedent should ever be reversed. I think it can be reversed, but only if it's an overwhelming decision to do so. Like at least 7-2, but preferably 8-1 or 9-0. The classic example being that Brown V Board reversed Plessey vs Ferguson, but it was 9-0. And Warren went out of his way to make it 9-0, spending time to convince every holdout to go with it, so that the segregationists wouldn't have a leg to stand on by saying, "Look, such and such justices agree with segregation!" Warren wanted 9-0 to deny the segregationists that argument.
Overturning Roe 5-4, is whack. But I don't like 5-4 decisions generally speaking (so not just Roe), because it's 5-4 is not a clear statement of what is constitutional or not. 5-4 merely is a difference of opinion among 9 people one way or the other.
I don't think that makes sense. What if there were people sympathetic to the South on the SC? Would you wait for them to die before overruling Plessy? I kind of agree with Alito when he said that you can overrule something when it's that egregiously wrong and the case presents itself. Roe was probably wrongly decided and people feel so passionate about it that they march on DC literally every year. There was a strong will to remove it by some people and that presented the opportunity needed for the court to overrule a bad decision.
Gay marriage (don't remember the case) was also, debatably, poorly decided. But the political will to correct the courts is weak, and if an opportunity does not arise, it's best to leave precedent precedent
This is a very interesting idea imo, the idea that stare decisis needs a supermajority to overturn is likely a good thing twofold.
One, it makes sure that a prior case isn't just overturned on an ideological basis which is not how the Supreme Court should function. Essentially, this could just kick the can down the road with a court swinging whichever ideological direction retrying cases and continually overturning. There should be a very strict reason the court would overturn one of its own decisions, such as Brown v. Board as you cited. And like you said, 5-4 seems to be a split on the court on an ideological basis, which does not seem a valid reason to overturn a prior decision.
Two, it means that presidential appointments for the Supreme Court also won't be as ideologically centered. It is bullshit that the executive would try to load the Supreme Court with certain judges to push their own agenda. Yes, this has always been the case, but whether or not the actor was liberal or conservative, the whole point of the Court is to be an independent body, and such an outlook on the Supreme Court (being a tool to push an ideological agenda) and I really don't think it is okay for either party or ideology to view the Court in this manner, as it diminishes the credibility of them in the eyes of the public which undermines the people's trust in the government.
@@cheeseman0125 and too be fair, Alito specifically mentions Obergefell and other cases decided by similar means as not remotely on the table. He specifically states 3 times that this ruling pertains only to Roe.
@@cheeseman0125 so what, people March in opposite direction and pro choice is clear majority in AMERICA
@@Baconmonster723 u believe him why? He said Roe was settled in confirmation hearing
What abt brown v board overturning plessy v Ferguson
If we never overturned a scotus ruling, we would still be living with segregation.
Okay I don’t know how many times this PSA needs to be given: Pisco is as much of a lawyer as a first year law student.
This guy just passed the bar. He is not a constitutional lawyer nor does he have the background and experience of a lawyer who can actually comment on constitutional issues with any merit. He is pontificating just as any law student is right now; do not treat what he says as anything otherwise.
(1) Stare decisis is most definitely not the most important thing. It isn’t even close to the most important thing. The most important thing is to do good. The best way to do the most good is through originalism. Specifically, complexity originalism and not this faux originalism that is common among conservatives and has been popularized to the point where the concept is being almost ubiquitously used (at least in appearance). Words having meaning is the best way to do the most good. If a case is incorrectly decided it should be yeeted.
(2) By definition, the Supreme Court is political. A legitimate definition of politics is activities associated with the governance of an area. A court literally does that. It is just (edit: the) job of courts.
(3) Roe is still not based on good law. There is still no legitimate argument for anti-abortion laws/government policies that tie out logically.
“The best way to do the most good is originalism.” You literally sound like a Greek sophist. This position seems wrong on its face and wrong through analysis of practical change and actual good that has been done through “penumbra” arguments. You need to do a LOT more work to justify this position.
@@Tavat
It is so wrong through analysis that you are unable to saliently analyze the position in a way that demonstrates how it is wrong
@@jloiben12 The burden is on you to show why it “does the most good.”
That’s not even slightly intuitive, so you need to show why you would make such a weird declaration.
But I’ll bite-Originalism is clearly not the best path to follow to “do the most good” because it is inflexible to changing mores and morality, not to mention material existences that the writers of the Constitution couldn’t fathom and which are absolutely not enumerated in the original language or conceptual outlines.
Originalism is clearly the most DOGMATIC way to apply law. But its inflexibility renders it rigid and necessarily backward-looking. Heuristically, nearly every time a n originalism argument is invoked, it supports the most powerful party and creates worse outcomes for society. The unmitigated gun rights in this country are a good example. What a shitty way to see the world and to apply law. Backwards.
@@Tavat
(1) “The burden is on you.” Well, no. It would be on me if you actually engaged with what I said instead of this performative nonsense you did. You are the one who said it is analytically wrong. By declaring it analytically wrong, not just asking about the position, you shifted the burden onto you. You shouldn’t have postured if you wanted to be taken seriously.
(2) Sure. Lets start from the top. When I say something is good, I am saying that it maximizes human wellbeing on the meso-level. Another way of saying that is that I maximize human wellbeing on the level in which emergence phenomena exists. The meso-level is one that is inherently a “net impact” analysis. When I say the most good, I am talking about the highest level of human wellbeing that can be achieved with any given conditions/inputs/insert preferred word. When I say the best way I mean the most effective and efficient way. I do this analysis through rule utilitarianism because that’s the best way to do the most good.
Are you following me so far? This is just some theoretical stuff we need to get out of the way first before we get into the more interesting part of the conversation so if you aren’t following please let me know and we can circle back.
@@Tavat Jared isn't worth engaging with. He is clearly well read, however he only extracts information that fits his world view. I believe there is a clinical term for that: delusion.
Plessy v Ferguson
-Segregation being ruled as fine, as long as “equal”
Korematsu v US
-Japanese Internment was ruled as fine since military interest
Bowers v Hardwick
-Sodomy laws fine since no fundamental right to homosexual sodomy
All these cases were overturned, Bowers within 20 years and Korematsu took nearly 40 (for federal courts to overturn and SC giving dicta in 2018), and Plessy took over 50.
The stare decisis doesn’t apply to really bad decisions. Roe and Casey are being ruled as one of those decisions. If someone disagrees, then the issue is the cases and their logic, not the legal precedent status.
Pisco the good leftoid is back woo