In a tumultuous few weeks, the Supreme Court has ignored the scientific evidence underlying safe abortion, the need to slow climate change, and the value of gun safety laws. It is alarming that the justices have now indicated a willingness to consider a voting rights case next term, given Chief Justice John Roberts’ feelings on what he calls the “sociological gobbledygook” of research into the effects of gerrymandering.
Disregarding science and evidence is a terrible shift for the highest court in the land, which once safeguarded the health of the public in rulings that upheld state vaccine mandates and safe food production. This is in contrast to the way our current conservative justices have viewed COVID restrictions, whether exempting religious groups from bans on group gatherings or barring vaccine mandates for large businesses.
In their decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the majority justices ignored what we and others have repeatedly reported: abortion is safe—much safer than pregnancy itself—and that denying people access to legal abortions leads to poorer physical and mental health outcomes, not to mention economic outcomes. In overturning Roe v.
And then there is climate change. In stripping power from the EPA to help power plants mitigate their carbon output, the majority justices again said evidence doesn’t matter, science doesn’t matter. Our planet is warming. Coal is one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gases in the world. Taking regulatory power away from the EPA now puts states in charge of slowing climate change. Piecemeal efforts will not yield the reductions we need to slow warming.
Stick to science, not interested in your communist politics.
Scientific American is neither scientific nor American. You lost the bubble decades ago and you are owned by the Germans. Go away. No one believes a thing you say.
If you were insane and super-rich and decided the world were overpopulated, how would you get rid of 3 billion human beings? - Answer: Stop efforts to end global warming. GOPTraitors Murdoch
Don’t forget Julian Assange for a case of American injustice
Here's my editorial. Scientific American is losing credibility daily by making socio / political commentaries. Stick to science or don't do it. Otherwise you're throwing away over a hundred years of credibility for clickbait.
DNC talkn point this b☝️🏾 If not 4 the Right Side of this Court-- Dems would have gotten their National Segregation Act of 2021 😡💉💉💉💉💉 Dems wanna ForcedOrFired unless I take harm bene jabs. myocarditis + all the other AE goodies. Demexit b me👋🏾
RockyMntnMike Hi. I went to Medical School so let me tell you how to properly practice law. Hi. I work for Arab Oil Trillionaires in a Theocracy, here’s my take on climate crisis. Hi. I’m bought and paid for by enemy agents, here’s their chosen “facts”. Wake up!!
Unfortunately, the dystopia is the point.
(1) Considering the education and experience required to become a SC Justice, one would expect they'd appreciate the effort required to become an expert in any field, and would therefore seek input on issues beyond their skill set. ...
'Let evidence rule judgment.' It is pretty clear this court does not want to be encumbered with science or evidence. Among other issues, stripping GHG regulatory power from the EPA is a huge step backwards as our planet continues to warm.
So laughable, so scientific of you
'Yet in their efforts to be constitutional purists, at least when it suits their ideology, the justices in the majority show that ignoring science and evidence is their modus operandi.' Yep.
Are you scientific?
This is a fascinating display of the science of how people in authority often feel impelled to opine on subjects they are completely ignorant about.
'When you ask people who have chosen to live in an ancient world to decide what is good for modern humans, only chaos will result.'
Scientific American has absolutely *nothing* related to science to offer, anymore. A boring, agenda site.
No. Not at all. Stop this. Go back to science.
Please stick to science and avoid lecturing us on your misunderstandings of law.
They are “MAGA conservative Christians”
“Scientific” indeed.
The pseudo science being promulgated the past few years & a departure from factual reality in the areas of viruses, biology, and climate…can only be explained by the precept that the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil. As the fear of God wanes perversity abounds.
Your editorial is a gross misunderstanding of the role of the Supreme Court.
Regardless of whether one agrees with the positions taken in the article, I'm afraid that for a large degree it's addressed to the wrong institution. Isn't it Congress that is primarily to blame for shoddy legislation? Scotus stepped in because Congress was failing to do so.
Yeah. But let that for politics magazines.
And yet, here we are. Choosing a God based upon your gut feelings is a personal choice. Making scientific or legal opinion based upon your feelings is just dumb. The GOP has lost it's way.
Shut up
Wake up. The GOP plan is for Civil War.
What about the health & welfare of the unborn child? Why should it pay for the actions of the adults?
I think that you'll find that 9 hacks using their own political prejudices to interpret the will of some 18th Century farmers is far more important and useful than science...duh
COVID mRNA vaccines were EUA approved in 18mos, 94-95% efficacy with 2 doses and a possible 3rd dose for the immune compromised. No safety testing for doses 3, 4 or 5 on the general population. There goes your “science”
Mass of Cells?
Aren't we all just 'a mass of cells'? 🤔
horsepoop
My OriginalIntent trumps your HumanRights
Also why do surrogate $ payoffs when the
Like every great American institutions, SCIAM was a great leading source of knowledge and facts for the general world population. An inspiration to many around the world. Sadly it is now another woke corrupt rag dedicated to destroying American values. Stick to science!
At what stage did you become more than a mass of cells? I like being alive!
👎
Why does Scientific American keep making political posts? This kind of stuff is everywhere. I thought there would be information about science.
You're just a mass of cells without religion.
It’s a scientific fact that a human embryo & human fetus is a human life. It is a live developing human. Abortion is the killing of a developing human - if not the murder thereof.
Science is Science, expand the court
Welcome to the
I try not to be negative or political but they are a disappointment.
This supreme court insults conservatism and intelligence.
Science has always outed errors and outright fraud. It’s a method for discerning the difference between consistent data and peoples opinions. It’s the enemy of frauds and fools.
Why not kill the women too? That will take care of future problems. You should also consider killing the sperm donors.
A mass of cells is not a person, but this is a gun?
A BUNCH OF LIBERAL PROPAGANDA!! Science has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR JOB! They are supposed to uphold the LAWS Congress made and uphold THE CONSTITUTION!! THAT'S IT!! Not make Laws,and not make decisions based on emotions or Science!
The fathers of the lumps of cells are also going to be responsible for their welfare for 18 years (or longer) - if they contribute nothing else, child support is likely a major burden.
Nope, no science there either. Please, guys, concentrate. You can do this. I have faith in you.
Basically we individually are a bunch of cells according to your logic.
You guys are brutal. Do you differentiate between an unborn 'mass of cells' and your friends and neighbors? Could all killing be justified using a 'mass of cells' defense? Why or why not?
Oh! Just WOW! The Scientific American has turned itself into a political rag, on the same level as the New York Times and the Washington post. They have become woke!
BS!
Double banana stickers for those taking the headline and thinking they have valid comments on the actual argument presented by real scientists. You epitomize the society Carl Sagan, Roger Waters, and DEVO warned us about.
PackTheCourt RepublicansAreDestroyingAmerica
You are only a mass of cells. Everyone is only a mass of cells. Every living thing is only a mass of cells.
Manuel Gracián | A song to life vía ManuelGracian Pontifex_es ArchCordileone IglesiaMexico POTUS BarackObama
Mass of cells. Philadelphia 562 murders in 2021 10,000 wounded since 2015. All the victims were a Mass of Cells by assailants that were a Mass of Cells. If Men would wrap their Rascal we wouldn't have these problems. Wrap you Rascal Son !
'Evidence shouldn't be optional' Tell me you didn't read the ruling without telling me you didn't read the ruling.
When is a mass of cells not just a mass of cells anymore.. When it is viable you say ? So why did most of Europe decide to make it law to not wait that long ? Old Continent Wisdom vs New World Hubris ?
A supposedly serious scientific publication referring to an unborn child as a “mass of cells” is incredible.
Mass of cells, really? If a fetus is just mass of cells than so is the woman.
You spelled the Constitution* wrong.
GoreNielsen Wait til they bring back slavery* and make it illegal for women to vote. Don't think it hasn't crossed their minds. *(sic.) 'involuntary relocation''
Mony_de_Swaan terrible a medieval court
Ok, explain the science you also are ignoring! I'm all ears!
Here’s a fun fact: RGB…liberals favorite champion of womens rights…agreed that Roe was decided incorrectly. While she agreed with the outcome, the constitutional arguments before the court were flawed. Oddly enough justices on the left also believe in the law over emotion.
Maybe stick to science since you obviously have absolutely no clue about the Supreme Court and their responsibilities, ffs. I’m actually embarrassed for you.
Looks like SA should change its name to Social Justice. Abortion results in death, guns are listed in the constitution and carbon dioxide helps things grow. Opposition to abortion, guns & carbon based fuels is more like a cult and not science
This Supreme Court is a joke.
I’m no legal scholar, so take what I say with a grain of salt. This article should be directed at the legislative branch. The SC just determines whether laws are in accordance with the Constitution, not whether they’re based on good science.
This piece from the editors of SciAm reflects a fundmental misunderstanding of the purview of SCOTUS. Scientific evidence of this sort can and should influence federal legislation and rulemaking. But not SCOTUS decisions. SCOTUS's job is to interpret the law and the Constitution.
Science today, like everything viewed by liberals as a tool, has been, and will continue to be manipulated and twisted to support their crazy agenda...and apparently SA is on board with that effort.
Even their faces spook me.😂😂😂😂
The court is there to enforce the laws which are subjective matters of human life, not objective scientific facts. Also, it is startling that you seem to care about lives but also support killing healthy unborns. There is no logic here that is also needed in science.
Conservatives don't care about the scientific evidence. This is what makes them conservatives.
The function and purpose of the U.S. Supreme Court is to interpret the validity of laws and adherence to those laws according to the Constitution. Scientists are the ones to attend to science. SA should be embarrassed at this editor's misguided ignorance.
Disappointing article from the editors of SciAm. These considerations clearly fall outside the purview of SCOTUS. Scientific evidence of this sort can and should inform federal legislation and rulemaking. But not SCOTUS. Their job is to interpret the law and the Constitution.
Scientific American used to be about science. Now it’s a Left-wing rag. BTW, you might want to read and understand the SCOTUS opinions before you respond with irrelevant nonsense.
The scientific American doesn't understand the Constitution or Federalism. They also seem to think that politicians can change the climate if we just let them pass bills designed to make themselves filthy rich while doing nothing to actually solve the problem 🤣 What a joke!
You may not like it, but scientific evidence has nothing to do with judicial review of the law. Justices are supposed to evaluate the law as written against it’s constitutionality. If you want science aware law, write your legislator, ask them to factor that in.
Apparently this Saa author doesn’t understand what the Constitution is. It’s NOT based on nor has it anything to do with science. Fuck!
Yeah just wait until it's 10-3 after DeSantis or Trump packs the court with the 4 justices that Biden didn't
The supreme Court justices decisions are usually emotional and Religious based
Alito’s ignorance of the epidemiological science of regulating guns is especially galling: “Does the dissent think that laws like New York's prevent or deter such atrocities?' There’s no question they do.
TheScienceTM already has epistemological moral claims on abortion?
Now scientific America is weighing in on an emotional issue? The law is very clear, Roe v Wade and Casey were not sound decisions. Abortion is not a constitutional right, it has to be up to the states to decide
I'm afraid they will continue to ignore the science when they hand down their next ruling on affirmative action.
They said the EPA can’t act without legislation. Maybe get the legislature to legislate?
Is that kind of like when libs ignored the fact that masks do not remotely stop Covid, herd immunity isn't possible with Covid, and the vaccine doesn't work...at all Seems like libs ignored science.
Does that include the Scientific Journal?
Congress should focus on science crating laws. The USSC focuses on the Constitution. That’s their land. Congress should act in their lane.
They are not deciding if global warming is happening or if this or that will bring green house gases down. They merely decided whether the EPA had authority to do what it wanted. Maybe we should elect people that write better laws I’m just spit balling here. 😂
I see “scientific American” has crossed into poli-science. lol. Maybe save science for scientists and constitutional jurisprudence for our Justices. Hint - You aren’t one.
Uhm, yeah! They are political appointees of a fascist president that almost managed to stage a coup, representing a party of nazi, racist, religious fanatics. Why do you think they should care about science? Of all things!
Also who asked any of you bureaucrats about how our Supreme Court makes decisions? Get back to work!
Sciam has committed many scientific sins but hide it buried for decades until they won't be libel for hurting any people until they are long dead, so what is your point? WAIT, is this part of Biden's 'Liberal World Order?' 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😎
This editorial is crap. The SCOTUS didn’t outlaw abortions or change any environmental regulations. All they did was say abortion should be an issue addressed by the states and that legislating by executive order is unconstitutional, which it clearly and affirmed the 2A.
Given that real science is falsifiable, of course. BrewingAle JoeSilverman7
The Supreme court does not judge on SCIENCE, but on MORALITY and LEGALITY. They do not need to be scientists to do their job correctly.
Umm how is that relevant? Their job is 2 go by the text of the constitution in their rulings! Not science! On the other hand it is the congressmen & senators aka “legislatures” who should take science into consideration(when applicable) when passing bills 2 tackle these issues
Short, well reasoned. Of course apologetic criticism in defense of the Robert’s court is failure to be ‘originalist’ or ‘textualist’. Founders were men of science & enlightenment, no doubt they would not have shackled their vision to any dogma, but a especially a religious one.
MOST OF THEM ARE BEING PAID BIG MONEY TO DESTROY AMERICA, AND THEY ARE PUPPETS FOR SATAN AND THE NWO! THESE ARE THE END OF TIMES AS WE ALL KNOW THEM!
I created a model that projects global cooling. Is that also part of the “science”? Projection models are not science.
Looks like this journal is also controlled by the deep state. Sad that a formerly reputable journal goes so low now to justify vaccines in children. Correct me if I'm wrong
'In a tumultuous few weeks, the Supreme Court has ignored the scientific evidence underlying safe abortion, the need to slow climate change, and the value of gun safety laws.' because they are not legislators. They evaluate if a law is constitutional. Not if it is good.
Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh & Barett: 'Look at us. We used our skills, time & money to learn how to interpret written documents & worship a 'god'. See what we are doing now! If you don't teach your kids science & to use fact based knowledge, they too will end up like us.'
A Supreme Court justice is not a scientific position nor are their decisions on matters of science. They judge based on legal/constitutional questions, which exist in a realm distinct from scientific or ideally political (which Scientific American increasingly is) questions
You mean like the newest dipshit appointment that can't define a woman? I subscribed to your magazine as a teen... Now, I'm ashamed to admit that. Woke doesn't equal science. Way to stick your foot in your mouth.
Science is irrelevant to them. Laws, especially those passed by Congress are their concern. Laws, Bills, Legislation in general can have their own definitions.
Cry more.
Next the Supreme Court will legalize witch burning and alcomy.
Sciam must not understand the role of the Supreme Court,
That isn't a bug; it's a feature, and it's been cultivated by republicans for at least 50 years. Without science, outrageously illogical positions are far easier to justify, especially when wrapped in the long black robes of a supposedly 'Supreme Court'. [==*==]
they're just guys as it plays out they look official because they're hella old
At least it only affects many lives when you do it.
Curious what science they've ignored? They interpret law as it applies to the constitution. Your opinion isn't science
Paying attention to science is not 'deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition,' apparently.
Why do you Americans give them so much power?
Kinda like Fauci
They’re not asked to be scientists. Their job is to know the law and rule on the legality of topics. THAT IS ALL.
This is scientism. Stop treating science like a religion.
America is in a state of shambles , so sad to watch.
'No, it's the supreme court justices that don't know the constitution' Modern day journalists. You don't even deserve scorn anymore, just mockery.
It certainly should not be. Moreover, we should establish a minimum literacy requirement in
Bob_Stinson1234 Science and religion don't mix.
Could it be that conservatives don't care how many people their decisions effect? So long as they live in communities that hold open doors for each other at the Cracker Barrel they couldn't care less what happens elsewhere.
It's duty is to interpret the Constitution not be scientists. Any decision they make effects many lives.
and practice medicine without a license
This court is a joke. You might as well let Ted Cruz rule on everything.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: sciam - 🏆 300. / 63 Read more »
Source: TheStarPhoenix - 🏆 253. / 63 Read more »
Source: axios - 🏆 302. / 63 Read more »
Source: MSNBC - 🏆 469. / 51 Read more »
Source: PolitiFact - 🏆 17. / 71 Read more »
Source: thedailybeast - 🏆 307. / 63 Read more »