Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
QF7 wrote:For far too long Democrats have naively held on to the notion that Roe was settled law
tommy1808 wrote:QF7 wrote:For far too long Democrats have naively held on to the notion that Roe was settled law
How many of the current judges have confirmend Roe to be the sattled law of the land during their confirmation hearings under oath?
best regards
Thomas
QF7 wrote:The Supreme Court giveth and the Supreme Court taketh away.
It’s a lot easier to overturn an earlier opinion than it is to overrule an actual law.
For far too long Democrats have naively held on to the notion that Roe was settled law and have failed to enact actual law at the Federal level to protect Roe’s rights.
How many times since the Roe ruling have the Democrats controlled government, even had filibuster-proof supermajorities in Congress, and yet they didn’t enshrine any of Roe’s rights into law? There was a lot of outraged caterwauling on MSNBC (and I’m sure elsewhere) tonight about the need for Federal laws that the Court would be bound to uphold. Well, that would have been nice last year, or last decade, or…
sabenapilot wrote:tommy1808 wrote:QF7 wrote:For far too long Democrats have naively held on to the notion that Roe was settled law
How many of the current judges have confirmend Roe to be the sattled law of the land during their confirmation hearings under oath?
best regards
Thomas
Anyway, the legal basis on which this ruling is allegedly to be built seems to be not much more than a very simple "the US constitution doesn't explicitly mention abortion as a given right
tommy1808 wrote:QF7 wrote:For far too long Democrats have naively held on to the notion that Roe was settled law
How many of the current judges have confirmend Roe to be the sattled law of the land during their confirmation hearings under oath?
best regards
Thomas
Avatar2go wrote:tommy1808 wrote:QF7 wrote:For far too long Democrats have naively held on to the notion that Roe was settled law
How many of the current judges have confirmend Roe to be the sattled law of the land during their confirmation hearings under oath?
best regards
Thomas
Exactly. The article has a link to Alito's confirmation testimony, where he says that decided case law forms a strong basis for future case law, as applied to Roe v Wade. That in answer to whether he considered Roe settled law. Now he is reverting to his 1985 opinion, which he disavowed during his testimony.
sabenapilot wrote:
Which shows that sadly even the US Supreme Court is now infected with political polarisation and can no longer just uphold (case) law, but needs to tweek it or even reverse it completely to fit their ideological slant.
Remember then-Senate majority Leader Mitch McConnell's refused to confirm then-President Barack Obama's Supreme Court pick, Merrick Garland in 2016 because it was in an election year. Four years later, the same GOP leader ignored his own "case law" rule prohibiting confirmations in an election year when he rushed through Trump's pick, Amy Coney Barrett, just days before the November contest then-President Trump lost.
Seems that whatever fits their purpose is good enough as an excuse for some GOP members, so you've got to wonder why the Democrats have been so hell bent on "going high when others go low" as Obama once called it, especially as it brings them nothing but defeat despite holding majority popular support. If you don't fight with the same weapons, you're bound to lose in the long run so if the Democrats want to prevent the US sliding back to the 1950s (or worse even) it's time to drop the naivity, IMHO, because this is exactly how a democracy slowly but steadily slides into an theocracy and even autocracy by those who live in the past and can't accept the country has changed.
Avatar2go wrote:If this ruling stands, abortion rights will revert to the states, and the country will be divided into zones where care is or is not offered. That will force some people to travel for care.
For states where it is not offered, the next step may be to criminalize travel for abortion care. Missouri is already considering such legislation. That would raise a new issue for the courts to consider.
ContinentalEWR wrote:All of this will pretty much assure the country will never move forward with much, its best days long behind it, and continue its steep decline into a cesspool of gun violence, extremism, poverty, and inequality.
ContinentalEWR wrote:It is regrettable that the United States political system is beholden to culture wars and unrelenting interference from extremist religious organizations (looking at you "evangelicals". All of this will pretty much assure the country will never move forward with much, its best days long behind it, and continue its steep decline into a cesspool of gun violence, extremism, poverty, and inequality.
Perhaps one day the Supreme Court will take up a case that results in religious organizations losing their tax exempt status and finally being exposed for what they are. If you want to play in the political arena, then pay taxes.
sabenapilot wrote:tommy1808 wrote:QF7 wrote:For far too long Democrats have naively held on to the notion that Roe was settled law
How many of the current judges have confirmend Roe to be the sattled law of the land during their confirmation hearings under oath?
best regards
Thomas
On the other hand, this right -as well at many others- should long have been cemented into federal law, rather than let their existance rely on a simple supreme court ruling which can be overturned at any time without much (if any) relation to public opinion on the matter.
Democrats have been extremely naive to believe extreme conservatives would simply accept the situation as settled over time and have thus systematically refused to enshrive Roe vs Wade into federal law when they had the chance. Even last year when the writing was already on the wall and the supreme court refused to strike down state laws which were eroding Roe vs Wade, they refused to pack the court in an ultimate act of defence, so what do they do now?
CitizenJustin wrote:Gay rights are next.
emperortk wrote:sabenapilot wrote:tommy1808 wrote:
How many of the current judges have confirmend Roe to be the sattled law of the land during their confirmation hearings under oath?
best regards
Thomas
On the other hand, this right -as well at many others- should long have been cemented into federal law, rather than let their existance rely on a simple supreme court ruling which can be overturned at any time without much (if any) relation to public opinion on the matter.
Democrats have been extremely naive to believe extreme conservatives would simply accept the situation as settled over time and have thus systematically refused to enshrive Roe vs Wade into federal law when they had the chance. Even last year when the writing was already on the wall and the supreme court refused to strike down state laws which were eroding Roe vs Wade, they refused to pack the court in an ultimate act of defence, so what do they do now?
This is irrelevant. Federal legislation protecting abortion (or any other controversial right, for that matter) wouldn't have made one iota of difference because the Supreme Court can declare a law passed by Congress unconstitutional. We are hamstrung by the opinions of men who've been dead for two centuries.
PPVRA wrote:The real problem is that for centuries the US Constitution has NEVER been interpreted to fully protect abortion rights. Never, ever… ever. Then, all of a sudden, the court votes to decide it is now in the constitution. And it votes in one of the most radical pro-abortion law in this planet.
If anyone should have voted in such a change, it’s the US Congress. Not a small group of unelected judges. I’m pro-choice, but the way this was accomplished in the US was thoroughly undemocratic.
PPVRA wrote:emperortk wrote:sabenapilot wrote:
On the other hand, this right -as well at many others- should long have been cemented into federal law, rather than let their existance rely on a simple supreme court ruling which can be overturned at any time without much (if any) relation to public opinion on the matter.
Democrats have been extremely naive to believe extreme conservatives would simply accept the situation as settled over time and have thus systematically refused to enshrive Roe vs Wade into federal law when they had the chance. Even last year when the writing was already on the wall and the supreme court refused to strike down state laws which were eroding Roe vs Wade, they refused to pack the court in an ultimate act of defence, so what do they do now?
This is irrelevant. Federal legislation protecting abortion (or any other controversial right, for that matter) wouldn't have made one iota of difference because the Supreme Court can declare a law passed by Congress unconstitutional. We are hamstrung by the opinions of men who've been dead for two centuries.
To change the constitution you need to amend it. It’s the process given by those very men you speak of, who didn’t want to enshrine anything forever.
Bypassing the US Congress entirely is not how any of this is supposed to work.
AirWorthy99 wrote:PPVRA wrote:The real problem is that for centuries the US Constitution has NEVER been interpreted to fully protect abortion rights. Never, ever… ever. Then, all of a sudden, the court votes to decide it is now in the constitution. And it votes in one of the most radical pro-abortion law in this planet.
If anyone should have voted in such a change, it’s the US Congress. Not a small group of unelected judges. I’m pro-choice, but the way this was accomplished in the US was thoroughly undemocratic.
You see, you are pro-choice and yet you are pro-common sense. I disagree with you on abortion, but completely agree with you that "ROE" was never law, and the correct and proper, and constitutional way is to codify this by federal law.
Democrats control all branches, congress and WH, they can if they wish enact a law, TODAY.
This should be left to the states in the meantime, unless the elected representatives enact a law federalizing it.
We are all in for 'democracy', but if Roe is reversed, its not because some bad judges reversed it, it is because some bad judges made it law when it wasn't and it was up to the elected representatives to make it law.
PPVRA wrote:AirWorthy99 wrote:PPVRA wrote:The real problem is that for centuries the US Constitution has NEVER been interpreted to fully protect abortion rights. Never, ever… ever. Then, all of a sudden, the court votes to decide it is now in the constitution. And it votes in one of the most radical pro-abortion law in this planet.
If anyone should have voted in such a change, it’s the US Congress. Not a small group of unelected judges. I’m pro-choice, but the way this was accomplished in the US was thoroughly undemocratic.
You see, you are pro-choice and yet you are pro-common sense. I disagree with you on abortion, but completely agree with you that "ROE" was never law, and the correct and proper, and constitutional way is to codify this by federal law.
Democrats control all branches, congress and WH, they can if they wish enact a law, TODAY.
This should be left to the states in the meantime, unless the elected representatives enact a law federalizing it.
We are all in for 'democracy', but if Roe is reversed, its not because some bad judges reversed it, it is because some bad judges made it law when it wasn't and it was up to the elected representatives to make it law.
There’s one more thing that’s important in this conversation, and it may be directly related as to why this happened. And speaks to the user Emperortk’s comment above that I replied to. See the video below on just how difficult it is to amend the US constitution:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4766984/ ... ns-context
It’s just unreasonably hard to make changes.
AirWorthy99 wrote:PPVRA wrote:AirWorthy99 wrote:
You see, you are pro-choice and yet you are pro-common sense. I disagree with you on abortion, but completely agree with you that "ROE" was never law, and the correct and proper, and constitutional way is to codify this by federal law.
Democrats control all branches, congress and WH, they can if they wish enact a law, TODAY.
This should be left to the states in the meantime, unless the elected representatives enact a law federalizing it.
We are all in for 'democracy', but if Roe is reversed, its not because some bad judges reversed it, it is because some bad judges made it law when it wasn't and it was up to the elected representatives to make it law.
There’s one more thing that’s important in this conversation, and it may be directly related as to why this happened. And speaks to the user Emperortk’s comment above that I replied to. See the video below on just how difficult it is to amend the US constitution:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4766984/ ... ns-context
It’s just unreasonably hard to make changes.
It is hard, that's why the American experiment has lasted so long. It hasn't succumbed to the whims of the powerful few, like the rest of the world. This country ain't perfect, its not the best but one thing for sure, having a stable political document and laws, allows for a stable country. If not, then this country would either go into civil war again or each state would become its own country. Having the process to be as it is presently has kept the union, successfully for so long and made this country the longest currently running representative Republic in history.
If Abortion is such an important issue, as it was slavery and civil rights, this shouldn't be controversial and the elected representatives would make it law, and make it a 'right'. Since this is a very polarizing issue, the best outcome is either states codify it or the US congress legislates it.
For now, its easier for states to codify it. The values of California won't ever be the same values of Alabama, etc.
flyguy89 wrote:RBG repeatedly critiqued the Roe vs. Wade decision. Of course all of this is little consolation for the woman who are impacted by this, which is obviously terrible.
PPVRA wrote:AirWorthy99 wrote:PPVRA wrote:
There’s one more thing that’s important in this conversation, and it may be directly related as to why this happened. And speaks to the user Emperortk’s comment above that I replied to. See the video below on just how difficult it is to amend the US constitution:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4766984/ ... ns-context
It’s just unreasonably hard to make changes.
It is hard, that's why the American experiment has lasted so long. It hasn't succumbed to the whims of the powerful few, like the rest of the world. This country ain't perfect, its not the best but one thing for sure, having a stable political document and laws, allows for a stable country. If not, then this country would either go into civil war again or each state would become its own country. Having the process to be as it is presently has kept the union, successfully for so long and made this country the longest currently running representative Republic in history.
If Abortion is such an important issue, as it was slavery and civil rights, this shouldn't be controversial and the elected representatives would make it law, and make it a 'right'. Since this is a very polarizing issue, the best outcome is either states codify it or the US congress legislates it.
For now, its easier for states to codify it. The values of California won't ever be the same values of Alabama, etc.
Remember, the US Constitution isn’t but a piece of paper with ink on it. And legal interpretation is a very broad and complex topic. If you let those societal pressures grow too much the paper will ultimately lose, and I think that’s exactly what’s been happening for the last 100 years.
As it stands, the practical way to change it is to appoint different judges, and that depends on who gets lucky. And those judges operate with few restraints on how they can change the constitution. That’s not good.
jetwet1 wrote:Well this will make for an interesting midterm. With close to 70% of the population in favor of Roe v Wade it seems on the surface that this will cause a backlash, saving the Democrats from a substantial loss of seats.
But as US politics has shown time and again, if people don't vote, they get to live with the 1950's mindset.
flipdewaf wrote:I don’t get it, if you don’t like abortions then don’t have one. Why does someone else get to choose if someone’s body has to play host to a parasite? Are we to expect that it’s reasonable to force someone to give up their blood to help a dieting person?
Weird!
Fred
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Avatar2go wrote:If this ruling stands, abortion rights will revert to the states, and the country will be divided into zones where care is or is not offered. That will force some people to travel for care.
For states where it is not offered, the next step may be to criminalize travel for abortion care. Missouri is already considering such legislation. That would raise a new issue for the courts to consider.
Gallup polls show Americans’ support for abortion in all or most cases at 80% in May 2021, only sightly higher than in 1975 (76%), and the Pew Research Center finds 59% of adults believe abortion should be legal, compared to 60% in 1995—though there has been fluctuation, with support dropping to a low of 47% in 2009.
777222LR wrote:flipdewaf wrote:I don’t get it, if you don’t like abortions then don’t have one. Why does someone else get to choose if someone’s body has to play host to a parasite? Are we to expect that it’s reasonable to force someone to give up their blood to help a dieting person?
Weird!
Fred
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Because this country teeters on wanting to be a Christian Theocracy. However, when it does become one (or dangerously close to one), those "Christians" will unfortunately realize their "visions" of what this country "should" be is going to be restrictive on them, as well. Unfortunately, it will be too late at that point.
The US is experiencing such a scary time, domestically. The GOP continues to grab power, by unconventional means, and has devolved from the party of limited government, or how they like to view themselves as the "Party of Reagan" to some weird, borderline fascist/populist/authoritarian party. They don't see that, however. They just wrap themselves in the flag and call themselves, "Patriots" and it's fine.
jetwet1 wrote:Well this will make for an interesting midterm. With close to 70% of the population in favor of Roe v Wade it seems on the surface that this will cause a backlash, saving the Democrats from a substantial loss of seats.
But as US politics has shown time and again, if people don't vote, they get to live with the 1950's mindset.
777222LR wrote:Because this country teeters on wanting to be a Christian Theocracy. However, when it does become one (or dangerously close to one), those "Christians" will unfortunately realize their "visions" of what this country "should" be is going to be restrictive on them, as well. Unfortunately, it will be too late at that point.
DIRECTFLT wrote:Who leaked it.... Liberal or Conservative Justice clerks???
NPR's commentary said they don't know, but if Conservatives leaked it, it is to soften the blow.
If Liberals leaked it, it is too see if mobilized Public Outcry can possibly change a vote. I think that this is more likely, as Conservatives don't care about softening the blow... a ruling is a ruling, whether it's up holding Gay Marriage, or some other thing. It is what it is. Like it or lump, as they say.
sabenapilot wrote:tommy1808 wrote:QF7 wrote:For far too long Democrats have naively held on to the notion that Roe was settled law
How many of the current judges have confirmend Roe to be the sattled law of the land during their confirmation hearings under oath?
best regards
Thomas
Interesting question, because if so, it means they have lied under oat to the Senate.
Whether it carries any consequences for them, I doubt it.
Anyway, the legal basis on which this ruling is allegedly to be built seems to be not much more than a very simple "the US constitution doesn't explicitly mention abortion as a given right, so there is no such a right other than one possibly given by (state) law." That principle bodes well for other interpretative civil rights derived from a not very specific US constitution like gay marriage, or all sort of racial equality issues then....
On the other hand, this right -as well at many others- should long have been cemented into federal law, rather than let their existance rely on a simple supreme court ruling which can be overturned at any time without much (if any) relation to public opinion on the matter.
Democrats have been extremely naive to believe extreme conservatives would simply accept the situation as settled over time and have thus systematically refused to enshrive Roe vs Wade into federal law when they had the chance. Even last year when the writing was already on the wall and the supreme court refused to strike down state laws which were eroding Roe vs Wade, they refused to pack the court in an ultimate act of defence, so what do they do now?
Accept whatever conservative, backward looking ruling comes out of this court for the next few years, hope they don't abuse their powers for other political issues which could (re)shape the US into some sort of a fundamentalist Christian taliban style country and pray that in a decade from now demographics will have changed the political landscape in such a way that even the best of gerrymandering will no longer be able to turn considerable popular minorities into an electoral majority which allowed all of this to happen in the first place.
wingman wrote:
It's a good point. This will certainly become THE rallying cry for a despondent Democratic voting block.
GOP Sen. Susan Collins said on Tuesday that a Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade published by Politico was "completely inconsistent" with what Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh "said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office."
"If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office," Collins said in a statement. "Obviously, we won't know each Justice's decision and reasoning until the Supreme Court officially announces its opinion in this case."
Asked if she was misled by Kavanaugh, Collins told CNN, "My statement speaks for itself."
c933103 wrote:I think, in some other places usually when a court made some ruling about constitutionality of some rights or so, law would *need* to be rewritten accordingly right after that to reflect the opinion? Or in case it is against public value, be amended so that the ruling no longer apply into the future?
sierrakilo44 wrote:wingman wrote:
It's a good point. This will certainly become THE rallying cry for a despondent Democratic voting block.
Looking at the conservative response to today’s news it’s almost as if they are aware about the potential for this ruling to solidify mass support for Democrats at the midterms. Overturning Roe vs Wade has been one of their main goals of the last 50 years but when it looks to be imminent they seemed muted. They are trying to make the leak of the opinion the biggest story, rather than it being the imminent overturning of women’s rights.
tommy1808 wrote:CitizenJustin wrote:Gay rights are next.
now that may be a bit more difficult, since the supreme court just recently ruled "discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 8_hfci.pdf
best regards
Thomas
sierrakilo44 wrote:777222LR wrote:Because this country teeters on wanting to be a Christian Theocracy. However, when it does become one (or dangerously close to one), those "Christians" will unfortunately realize their "visions" of what this country "should" be is going to be restrictive on them, as well. Unfortunately, it will be too late at that point.
Oh don’t worry, I’m sure the total ban on abortion will still allow some in limited circumstances, like a Christian pastor knocking up an underage member of his congregation or a GOP “family values” politician impregnating his mistress. They need to have some ability for people like that to get an abortion somewhere in the country.
For poor and marginalised women in red states who can’t afford to travel? Looks like it’s a coat hangar and potential murder charges for them.
casinterest wrote:Susan Collins has released a statement stating that Gosuch and Kavanaugh were apparently not honest in their discussions during confrimation.
This does not surprise me considering who nominated them , but here we are.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/politics ... index.htmlGOP Sen. Susan Collins said on Tuesday that a Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade published by Politico was "completely inconsistent" with what Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh "said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office."
"If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office," Collins said in a statement. "Obviously, we won't know each Justice's decision and reasoning until the Supreme Court officially announces its opinion in this case."
Asked if she was misled by Kavanaugh, Collins told CNN, "My statement speaks for itself."