https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/0 ... n-00029473

Now granted, the final ruling is some 2 months away, and there's a lot that can happen to sway the justices opinions, but this leaked draft shows the direction that the court is leaning toward. Not good news.

I suspect that the slow-burn crisis of legitimacy for SCOTUS is about to become a fast-burn crisis.

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…

Well, better start buying stocks in knitting needles. Because women's demand for abortions will certainly not dissapear, rather they will seek them in places where their health and safety can't be ensured.

Reminds me of banning the use of escorts, the market persists but those you seek to protect are left in a worse state.

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.

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

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.

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…

Bingo. And they need to do the same with same sex marriage. Even the late, great 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.

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

well, the consitution doesn´t explicitly mention ammunition either...

best regards
Thomas

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.

Justices are not bound by prior statements or confirmation testimony, but it shows that what they say to be confirmed, does not necessarily reflect their true beliefs. Same for Kavanaugh.

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.

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.

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.

I forgot to post a link showing the polling data and my number was off, it floats between 60% and 70%

https://news.gallup.com/poll/350804/ame ... -wade.aspx

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.

It's interesting that in some other countries, the parties alternate in nominating justices, which keeps the court always within 1 vote of balance. Also the confirmations are less contentious, because ideology is a given, so the debate focuses on qualifications.

In the US system, it's up to the parties to maintain balance. One way is to nominate moderates & centrists, to ease their confirmation and garner crossover votes. That was at one time, the preferred method. The other way is to nominate strongly partisan candidates, and rely on the party's majority for confirmation. That results in party-line votes with little crossover. That seems to be where we are now.

A justice like Sandra Day O'Connor, would today perhaps not be nominated, for fear she would be too moderate.

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.

I guess it's all about separation of powers.

Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.

Surely with the Supreme Court, you've got the Executive proposing to the Legislature what Judiciary the Executive wants.
So essentially the Judiciary is at the whim of the other 2.

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.

Free travel is in the Constitution, I think Missouri would lose that one.

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.

Gay rights are next.

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.

Agreed, I think the ship of moving forward to better days has sailed.

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.

Agreed. If we look back through history, the great empires and kingdoms didn’t fall because they were invaded, they self-destructed from many of the same problems the US is facing. Deep divisions, corruption, internal bickering, complacency and so on. Can this be turned around or is it too late. I don’t know.

Dystopian science fiction weren’t far off.

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.

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?

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.

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

The US Supreme Court has a very strict policy as to its internal decision making including premature release of its decisions including drafts. Part of that is to assure no one gets inside information that someone can use to financial or political advantage.

Whoever is the leaker, especially if a clerk to a Justice of the court, will be seen as a hero by some and to others a traitor to the country, facing death threats (how ironic), their personal and professional life destroyed, felony criminal prosecution with jail time. It is most likely the leaker is a clerk to a 'liberal' member of the court trying to force a change in vote from public pressure, but it could be a clerk to a 'conservative' one to get support for a reversal of Roe v. Wade in the 'Red' states that many have already have passed laws to make abortion illegal.

Of course many fear the likely decision in this case will lead to overturning decisions and laws protecting GLTBQ rights and protections. The real danger is to limit Federal power over State power in many critical areas, especially as to civil rights, criminal rights, most Federal regulations like on environmental and labor protections.

Of course since last night and into today, the politicians are taking hard sides in support or against this alleged decision. The news media will be an ugly hot mess for the next several days.

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.

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.

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:

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.

Yes, they decried "tyranny from beyond the grave," and Jefferson wanted the Constitution to expire after nineteen years. Unfortunately the expiration was not adopted, and the framers' strong impulse to distrust and fear majoritarian rule prevailed. So we were left with a Constitution which is too difficult to alter especially given the state of social decay, polarization, and paranoia that exists today.

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. That leads to pressure build up over time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

RBG should have listened to Obama and retired so he could replace her with a liberal justice and Biden should have not listened to Hillary and ran in the Primary and he could have been President instead of Trump and installed his liberal justices. Funny how things work.

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.

You are very much correct.

However, there is a reason its so hard. Civil rights which was a very serious issue, was despite the difficulty making changes to laws, codified in the 1960's. The same way back to slavery after the civil war, hard but done.

Some topics are hard because they are polarizing, if abortion isn't that polarizing, this so called 'law' wouldn't have been enshrined into law by un-elected for life appointed judges. Instead it would have been federal law.

There is a reason why instead of the capitol receiving protests daily, they are being done in the Supreme court, is because congress has abdicated their willingness to legislate on these hot button issues (see also immigration). And left them to judges, which shouldn't be.

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.

I don’t know what effect such a decision would have on national politics, but I’m thinking some swing states like Florida might switch governors if their current Republican governor tries to ban abortion outright.

I live in Georgia and the current republican governor barely held on to his seat last election. Last thing he needs is a highly divisive issue pop up next election that will rally his opposition in a very strong way.

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

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.

They mentioned last night, that the "final" original decision on Roe v. Wade was leaked.

But drafts leaking, this is new...

I wonder how long Politico actually had the leak....

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.

This right here is the biggest issue with Roe vs Wade being overturned. It will turn women into criminals in some states. Will it turn the men that gave them unwanted pregnancies into rapists?

This ruling will be a set back for Women's rights and health, and it may very well destroy the Republican party as we know it. Companies will have to have separate health care plans, and separate rules for travel and conferences. Do they want to send women to states that criminalize abortion if the woman has already gotten one?

Do women get thrown in jail because they were too poor to travel out of state to get a legal abortion?

This ruling will create years of lawsuits, and backlash.

Here is a more comprehensive listing of American Attitudes towards abortion.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk ... 907f87ac1f

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.

Senate Judiciary Hearing on Ethics and Accountability of Supreme Court Set for Today at 10 AM ET

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKmUEyjQIAM

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.

Because ‘owning libz’ is more important than patriotism, dontcha know? What the authoritarian fans don’t understand though is they’ve been owned by the outrage machine that profits off exploiting their anxieties.

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.

It's a good point. This will certainly become THE rallying cry for a despondent Democratic voting block. It'll be Women's Rights vs. Inflation. Will it be enough to turn out enough women in age groups that rarely vote? Will they be able to convince their menfolk to get their lazy asses out bed and vote with them? We'll see. If the Senate goes GOP and a conservative judge kicks it it'll be 2024 at the earliest until a new one gets confirmed. That's the new ground rule, if you control the Senate no one joins SCOTUS until your party has the White House. If it take 24 years so be it. It'd be interesting to see the SCOTUS dwindle to 2-3 octogenarians eating their mushy Wheaties through a straw. But that's how 'Murica rolls these days.

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.

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.

No matter which way, it would be showing that public opinion can have effect on court ruling, and that would be against the principle that court system is designed.

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.

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?

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.

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.html

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?

I think you misunderstand the US system slightly in this specific context. Roe did not require rewriting of anything because it invoked the privacy rights in the 14th Amendment, and those apply everywhere. There was nothing to be rewritten.

https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-an ... n%2C%20etc.

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.

Well in and of itself the leak is concerning, but you're right the fact that they're seeming to focus on that and not the issue itself is potentially telling. And we could contrive many different scenarios as to why either side would want to leak it:

Dems: rally a tepid agenda and minimal enthusiasm for the guy in the White House
GOP: Distract from a potentially uneven response to Trump-endorsed candidates in today's primary, and otherwise rally a loosely coalesced voting pool
Dems: attempt to publicly pressure swing justices
GOP: Leak what they have as "final" when in reality it's gone the other way in order to be able to blame public Democratic pressure for swinging otherwise virtual judges
GOP: Take the spotlight off of Justice Thomas and his barking moonbat of a wife by giving liberals something to bray about and conservatives something to gloat about

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

Alito in the leaked draft opinion specially references the Court ruling legalising same sex marriage (Obergefell vs Hodges) being in the same vein as Roe vs Wade (ie should be overturned). Not just the right to same sex marriage, Alito also criticised Lawrence vs Texas, which overturned laws that criminalised homosexual sexual activity (yes, Texas still banned homosexual activity up until 2003).

This could be a serious wind back of gay rights as well as women’s rights.

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.

It's always the people you suspect. Religion is great because you can do the crime and grant yourself forgiveness without the inconvenience of having a conscience.
NC Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson admits to paying for abortion
https://www.christianpost.com/news/nc-l ... rtion.html


It's incredible how conservatives have become objectively pro rapist. They push for parental rights for the rapist, several states want to allow the rapist's family and friends to sue the victim for money if she decides to get an abortion, and conviction rates for rapists are quite low. Arguably there's a $10,000 incentive to rape someone assuming she has an abortion. And all in all the rapist has more parental rights than same sex parents in the minds of some on the right. Insanity.

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.html

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."

Clutch my pearls. Susan Collins, intentional or not, has become really good at playing hoodwinked by members of her political party.