Alliance for Justice’s Post

The Arizona Supreme Court just ruled 4-2 that an 1864 law that banned nearly all abortions with no exceptions was constitutional. This law had been dormant for decades since the US Supreme Court recognized abortion as a constitutional right in Roe v. Wade in 1972 but has now been revived since the same court reversed its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson (2022). The impetus behind the revival of this law stems from Mark Brnovich, a Republican politician and attorney who formerly served as Arizona's 26th Attorney General. Following the Dobbs ruling, Brnovich sought relief under the Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure to resurrect this antiquated law. Initially granted by a trial court, this motion was subsequently contested and overturned by Planned Parenthood in the court of appeal. Upon reaching the Arizona Supreme Court, it was determined that the legislature, both in 1864 and thereafter, never acknowledged a right to abortion at the state level. Instead, Arizona law explicitly recognizes rights for unborn children at all stages of development, akin to those of already-born individuals. Consequently, the majority opinion of the Arizona Supreme Court maintained that the abortion issue, laden with moral and public policy implications, engenders fervent debate and impassioned debate among citizens. Thus, they emphasized that such weighty policy matters should be resolved by the electorate through the legislature or the initiative process—not by the courts. Their role, they affirmed, was simply to interpret the law as written, adhering to their limited constitutional mandate. The key lesson to learn here is that in the absence of robust constitutional protections rights, women's lives will be left to the personal whims and fancies of politicians, who in this case, seem to care more about the rights of fetuses than actual women. #abortion #roevwade #humanrights #ArizonaLaw #MarkBrnovich #SupremeCourtRuling #ReproductiveRights #LegalSystem #ConstitutionalLaw #PolicyDebate #StateLegislation #JudicialRole #PublicHealth

Failures in the “Laboratories of Democracy” and Democratic Due Process as Constitutional Guardrails Process as Constitutional Guardrails  - PDF: https://lnkd.in/ghGafE4k In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court reversed decades of precedent supporting a substantive due process right to abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment, and purported to return the question of reproductive autonomy to the “democratic process” in the states. Justice Thomas, writing in concurrence, militated for reconsidering all of the Court’s substantive due process precedents. In today’s era of democratic backsliding, these are dangerous pronouncements with grave, if not existential, implications for democracy in the United States. The Dobbs majority hazardously asserted that state-level abortion legislation would, in fact, be the result of a democratic process. Further, because the law of democracy draws extensively from substantive due process, including where the Fourteenth Amendment “incorporates” textually enumerated constitutional rights against the states, the broader threat to substantive due process in the Dobbs majority opinion and Justice Thomas’s concurrence is also a direct threat to democracy itself. Although the literature on democracy and the literature on substantive due process are both individually voluminous, there is surprisingly limited scholarship focused specifically on both as interrelated topics. Building from democratic theory and John Hart Ely’s political process theory of judicial review, this Article seeks to begin elaborating on the important connections between democracy and substantive due process that help explain the legal and practical importance of each to the other. In doing so, it also attempts to lay the groundwork for an approach to substantive due process rooted in the Federal Constitution’s vision of democratic self-government for a diverse society. #Democracy #SubstantiveDueProcess #ProceduralDueProcess #staredecisis #democracticbacksliding

Over the last two years, the extreme right-wing majority on the Supreme Court ended affirmative action in higher education; overturned Roe v. Wade, allowing states to enact abortion bans; and created new legal doctrines to gut environmental protections. This year appears to continue the trend. The cases before the Supreme Court broadly threaten to undermine the rule of law, throw more power to corporations than ever, and treat presidents as kings—free to act with legal impunity.  These critical cases are being decided while the court is in the midst of an ethical maelstrom: Justice Thomas has received more than $4 million in gifts from right-wing special interests and benefactors and Justice Sam Alito’s homes have had flags sympathetic to January 6 insurrectionists flown outside them. There is little reason to wonder that the Supreme Court’s approval rating is at an all-time low of 34.2 percent. The Supreme Court appears to be careening further out of control this term, and the need for substantive reforms—to remind the justices that they are just one coequal branch of government—have never been more necessary. A new report from Devon Ombres outlines the threats to rule of law posed by this Supreme Court term, and how we can fight back against a radical Supreme Court majority. 

This is despicable! When are people going to stand up for everyone's First Amendment rights and not just for those whose First amendment speech/actions are similar to their own? The pro abortionists protested in front of SC Justice Kavanagh's home and violated a federal law but were not arrested. I am pro choice until the fetus is viable outside the womb, and I did not support the nomination of SC Judge Kavanaugh. However, I do not support a weaponized Justice system. President Trump said, they are coming for us as this 75 year old's sentencing and the sentencing of others like Peter Navarro shows. "Steve Calabresi writes in the Volokh Conspiracy that the entire (Bragg) prosecution was based on criminalizing fully lawful speech protected by the 1st Amendment. Denying an affair, whether true or false, is protected by the 1st Amendment, and Donald Trump had the legal right to contribute any amount he chose to his campaign (Buckley v Valeo, 1976; Citizens United, 2010)." If you cannot see the corruption involved with President Trump's felony verdicts, then you are: 1) blinded by propaganda, 2) lacking information from credible sources about the compromised Judge who gave a campaign contribution to Democrats (not permitted) and his daughter's fundraising for VP Harris as well as the Judge's daughter taking money from Democratic Senator Goldman who coached serial liar Michael Cohen to testify against President Trump, 3) ignorant about the Justice Department's involvement in Trump's trial with the number 3 man at the Justice Department (federal) leading the prosecution of a case that was, at most, a state misdemeanor 4) Unaware that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just paid a fine imposed by the FEC for classifying the payment of a fraudulent dossier as legal fees yet the FEC found no wrongdoing in Trump's hush money case prior to this political trial 5) ignoring that Stormy Daniels was paid by attorney, Michael Cohen, on his own in 2016 without Trump's knowledge, and was compensated by Trump in 2017, after the election. The bookkeeper aptly labeled the attorney's compensation as legal fees 6) unable to understand the skewed legal proceedings with questionable jury instructions and denial of a FEC expert to testify by the Judge as examples and 7) suffering from "Trump derangement syndrome" or cognitive dissonance.

Failures in the “Laboratories of Democracy” and Democratic Due Process as Constitutional Guardrails - PDF: https://lnkd.in/ghGafE4k In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court reversed decades of precedent supporting a substantive due process right to abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment, and purported to return the question of reproductive autonomy to the “democratic process” in the states. Justice Thomas, writing in concurrence, militated for reconsidering all of the Court’s substantive due process precedents. In today’s era of democratic backsliding, these are dangerous pronouncements with grave, if not existential, implications for democracy in the United States. The Dobbs majority hazardously asserted that state-level abortion legislation would, in fact, be the result of a democratic process. Further, because the law of democracy draws extensively from substantive due process, including where the Fourteenth Amendment “incorporates” textually enumerated constitutional rights against the states, the broader threat to substantive due process in the Dobbs majority opinion and Justice Thomas’s concurrence is also a direct threat to democracy itself. Although the literature on democracy and the literature on substantive due process are both individually voluminous, there is surprisingly limited scholarship focused specifically on both as interrelated topics. Building from democratic theory and John Hart Ely’s political process theory of judicial review, this Article seeks to begin elaborating on the important connections between democracy and substantive due process that help explain the legal and practical importance of each to the other. In doing so, it also attempts to lay the groundwork for an approach to substantive due process rooted in the Federal Constitution’s vision of democratic self-government for a diverse society. #DueProcess #constitutionalguardrails #democracy #abortionrights #CivilWarAmendments #incorporation #substantivedueprocess #proceduraldueprocess #LaboratoriesOfDemocracy #StateConstitutions

In the ongoing efforts to protect Missouri's ballot initiative petition process, Missouri’s Will of the People coalition has once again successfully defended against legislative threats, blocking a bill designed to increase the difficulty of amending the state constitution. Protecting ballot measure access in states across the country is critical to ensuring people a voice on issues impacting health and racial equity. But there are efforts in several states to change the rules of the ballot measure process to make it harder to use. These tactics, driven by state legislatures, erode people’s power to advance policies they care about, including measures about access to health coverage, abortion rights, economic security, and more. The victory in Missouri marks a significant win for democracy! Let's continue to work together to ensure the strength of the people's voice. https://lnkd.in/e_B-8Xdj

Spent my morning today at a press conference with Governor DeSantis calling for new amendments to the U.S. Constitution for things like term limits for members of Congress, getting a balanced budget, and equal treatment under the law for both the public and politicians - all great ideas. I only wish that he would call for the enforcement of the already existing 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which says that no state shall "deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." If a baby in the womb is not a person, then what is it? If it is a person, then why isn't he or she protected? If he did take a stand like that, maybe then Florida wouldn't be the third worst state in the country for abortion numbers, and soon show us having had more abortions in 2023 than the year before in Florida. Oh, I forgot, it's an election season and we are led to believe that talking about #abortion will hurt the GOP's chances of winning in November. I have a novel idea, why not try being the "party of Lincoln" that started with an anti-slavery platform? While politically not a popular idea at the time, it was nevertheless the RIGHT THING TO DO, and ended the great evil of slavery in law. To end abortion, we don't need a new amendment, we just need to uphold an amendment that already exists. Today, the baby in the womb is the last unprotected class of persons in law. I encourage all politicians to put aside the polls and fulfill their oath to protect the most innocent and vulnerable among us! #constitutionalpersonhood #prolife #antiabortion #inconvenienttruth

ONE WEEK TO SCOTUS 🏛️ On Wednesday, April 24th, the state of Idaho will face off against the Biden administration in America’s highest courtroom. In many ways, Idaho isn’t merely defending its own pro-life law. It’s defending EVERY state that took the U.S. Supreme Court at its word: “the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.” The Biden administration is trying to undo the Dobbs ruling, invent a federal abortion mandate, and nullify the pro-life laws of more than 20 states. To do so, it’s twisting a federal law that was intended to SAVE life, not end it. In essence, the Biden administration is trying to use one pro-life law to invalidate another. ADF is proud to assist the AG of Idaho and stand against this brazen power grab. We’ll be livestreaming the oral arguments, with commentary beforehand and afterward. TUNE IN LIVE 📺 9:45am ET: adflegal.org/emtala Idaho protects life. The Constitution protects its right to do so.

Failures in the “Laboratories of Democracy” and Democratic Due Process as Constitutional Guardrails - PDF: https://lnkd.in/ghGafE4k In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court reversed decades of precedent supporting a substantive due process right to abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment, and purported to return the question of reproductive autonomy to the “democratic process” in the states. Justice Thomas, writing in concurrence, militated for reconsidering all of the Court’s substantive due process precedents. In today’s era of democratic backsliding, these are dangerous pronouncements with grave, if not existential, implications for democracy in the United States. The Dobbs majority hazardously asserted that state-level abortion legislation would, in fact, be the result of a democratic process. Further, because the law of democracy draws extensively from substantive due process, including where the Fourteenth Amendment “incorporates” textually enumerated constitutional rights against the states, the broader threat to substantive due process in the Dobbs majority opinion and Justice Thomas’s concurrence is also a direct threat to democracy itself. Although the literature on democracy and the literature on substantive due process are both individually voluminous, there is surprisingly limited scholarship focused specifically on both as interrelated topics. Building from democratic theory and John Hart Ely’s political process theory of judicial review, this Article seeks to begin elaborating on the important connections between democracy and substantive due process that help explain the legal and practical importance of each to the other. In doing so, it also attempts to lay the groundwork for an approach to substantive due process rooted in the Federal Constitution’s vision of democratic self-government for a diverse society.