This Supreme Court Flunks History

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Both the Organization of American Historians and the American Historical Association, the flagship organizations of professional historians in the U.S., along with eight other U.S. historical associations (so far), yesterday issued a joint statement expressing dismay that the six Supreme Court justices in the majority in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision that overturned Roe v. Wade ignored the actual history those organizations provided the court and instead “adopted a flawed interpretation of abortion criminalization that has been pressed by anti-abortion advocates for more than thirty years.” Although the decision mentioned “history” 67 times, they note, it ignored “the long legal tradition, extending from the common law to the mid-1800s (and far longer in some states, including Mississippi), of tolerating termination of pregnancy before occurrence of ‘quickening,’ the time when a woman first felt fetal movement.”

The statement focuses less on politics than on the perversion of history, noting that “[t]hese misrepresentations are now enshrined in a text that becomes authoritative for legal reference and citation in the future,” an undermining of the “imperative that historical evidence and argument be presented according to high standards of historical scholarship. The Court’s majority opinion…does not meet those standards.”

July 6, 2022

Eighteen months ago today, rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to stop Congress from counting the electoral votes that would make Democrat Joe Biden president. Thanks to the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, we are learning more about...

heathercoxrichardson.substack.com

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

So this doesn't bother anyone?

SCOTUS deliberately puts bad history into new, disruptive law of the land, and nobody cares?

 

[abby97]

Both the Organization of American Historians and the American Historical Association, the flagship organizations of professional historians in the U.S., along with eight other U.S. historical associations (so far), yesterday issued a joint statement expressing dismay that the six Supreme Court justices in the majority in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision that overturned Roe v. Wade ignored the actual history those organizations provided the court and instead “adopted a flawed interpretation of abortion criminalization that has been pressed by anti-abortion advocates for more than thirty years.” Although the decision mentioned “history” 67 times, they note, it ignored “the long legal tradition, extending from the common law to the mid-1800s (and far longer in some states, including Mississippi), of tolerating termination of pregnancy before occurrence of ‘quickening,’ the time when a woman first felt fetal movement.”

The statement focuses less on politics than on the perversion of history, noting that “[t]hese misrepresentations are now enshrined in a text that becomes authoritative for legal reference and citation in the future,” an undermining of the “imperative that historical evidence and argument be presented according to high standards of historical scholarship. The Court’s majority opinion…does not meet those standards.”

July 6, 2022

Eighteen months ago today, rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to stop Congress from counting the electoral votes that would make Democrat Joe Biden president. Thanks to the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, we are learning more about...

heathercoxrichardson.substack.com

Let it go.

 

[Joes Place]

So this doesn't bother anyone?

SCOTUS deliberately puts bad history into new, disruptive law of the land, and nobody cares?

Clarence Thomas claimed that Covid vaccines used "fetal tissues" in his argument against vaccination requirements.

So, is this really a surprise? These "conservative" justices just make shit up to support their positions.

 

[mnole03]

So this doesn't bother anyone?

SCOTUS deliberately puts bad history into new, disruptive law of the land, and nobody cares?

Originalism is 90% selective history and framing things to reach the desired outcome.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Clarence Thomas claimed that Covid vaccines used "fetal tissues" in his argument against vaccination requirements.

So, is this really a surprise? These "conservative" justices just make shit up to support their positions.

Yeah, but we should be more vocal in our outrage.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originalism is 90% selective history and framing things to reach the desired outcome.

Sometimes I call this version of SCOTUS "The Confirmation Bias Court."

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Let it go.

That's always what the fascists and theocrats say when caught red-handed.

And the rest of us too often let them get away with it.

 

[86Hawkeye]

Both the Organization of American Historians and the American Historical Association, the flagship organizations of professional historians in the U.S., along with eight other U.S. historical associations (so far), yesterday issued a joint statement expressing dismay that the six Supreme Court justices in the majority in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision that overturned Roe v. Wade ignored the actual history those organizations provided the court and instead “adopted a flawed interpretation of abortion criminalization that has been pressed by anti-abortion advocates for more than thirty years.” Although the decision mentioned “history” 67 times, they note, it ignored “the long legal tradition, extending from the common law to the mid-1800s (and far longer in some states, including Mississippi), of tolerating termination of pregnancy before occurrence of ‘quickening,’ the time when a woman first felt fetal movement.”

The statement focuses less on politics than on the perversion of history, noting that “[t]hese misrepresentations are now enshrined in a text that becomes authoritative for legal reference and citation in the future,” an undermining of the “imperative that historical evidence and argument be presented according to high standards of historical scholarship. The Court’s majority opinion…does not meet those standards.”

July 6, 2022

Eighteen months ago today, rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to stop Congress from counting the electoral votes that would make Democrat Joe Biden president. Thanks to the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, we are learning more about...

heathercoxrichardson.substack.com

I’ll bet they’re all eminent legal scholars.

 

[BelemNole]

So this doesn't bother anyone?

SCOTUS deliberately puts bad history into new, disruptive law of the land, and nobody cares?

It bothers me but it does not surprise me. These justices were raised up for this very purpose. They were 'educated' and their careers guided for this one job. That they are wrong was never the point.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

It bothers me but it does not surprise me. These justices were raised up for this very purpose. They were 'educated' and their careers guided for this one job. That they are wrong was never the point.

We need to make it the point.

How can we fix this, short of violence?

 

[BelemNole]

We need to make it the point.

How can we fix this, short of violence?

Honestly? I don't think we can.
The right way to fix it is by voting the bastards that did this out. But the Supreme Court is about to allow the states to rig it so that can never happen again.
I think our system is about to die and the only way to save it will be people in the streets. But I don't think enough people care.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Honestly? I don't think we can.
The right way to fix it is by voting the bastards that did this out. But the Supreme Court is about to allow the states to rig it so that can never happen again.
I think our system is about to die and the only way to save it will be people in the streets. But I don't think enough people care.

If the Dems win Congress by enough, they could expand the Court.

Not only is it unlikely that the Dems will win Congress - not to mention by enough - but even if they did and set the Court back on track, can you imagine the furor?

Dems may not care enough to try to fix this, but there would be armed mobs in the streets if the Court got "packed."

Packing the Court is something we were all taught was wrong in grade school and have never questioned it since. Sort of like we were all taught that tariffs were wrong and never questioned it - until Trump came along and threw that conventional wisdom out the window.

 

[BelemNole]

If the Dems win Congress by enough, they could expand the Court.

Not only is it unlikely that the Dems will win Congress - not to mention by enough - but even if they did and set the Court back on track, can you imagine the furor?

Dems may not care enough to try to fix this, but there would be armed mobs in the streets if the Court got "packed."

Packing the Court is something we were all taught was wrong in grade school and have never questioned it since. Sort of like we were all taught that tariffs were wrong and never questioned it - until Trump came along and threw that conventional wisdom out the window.

Agreed. We're heading off a cliff and I don't see any off ramp.

 

[Titanhawk2]

"high standards of historical scholarship" - Does that mean strict constitutionalism?

 

[Aardvark86]

The funny thing about groups of professional historians is that they tend to be groups of people dedicated to the fundamental principle that meaning cannot actually be derived from history. Yet, in the context of the drafting of our constitution, there really can be little doubt that the nitty-gritty of the governmental design was created with some fairly specific reasons in mind. Three fellas actually wrote about 85 or so pretty thoughtful contemporaneous essays on the topic, and that was just the tip of the iceberg. Sure, there's winners and there's losers along the way, along with half winners and half losers, but the funny thing is all of them are pretty intentional in their advocacy.

 

[Joes Place]

Meanwhile....
...Filed under Inappropriate Conflicts Of Interest....

 

[abby97]

It bothers me but it does not surprise me. These justices were raised up for this very purpose. They were 'educated' and their careers guided for this one job. That they are wrong was never the point.

It must kill you that we now have a qualified Supreme Court, that's not how it is supposed to work, right BelemNole?

 

[Joes Place]

When will folks realize, that all this "protesting" does very very little.

Quit this nonsense and get people registered to VOTE. In your State and Local elections as well. THAT is what will make a difference and shift things back to what the people want.

 

[Joes Place]

It must kill you that we now have a qualified Supreme Court

LOLWUT?

Folks who are citing conspiracy theories from their QAnon wives in their decisions?
That's hardly "qualified". That's Twilight-Zone level stuff.