SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Associate Justice PiT]

This will be a test of the polling industry. If public sentiment is truly against this ruling then the GOP will suffer long term for this. IF they’re right…interesting to see

     This is the mistake Atlas always makes in analyzing politics; people here think that because an issue exists and people say they have an opinion on it, they are willing to vote on it. The reality is most voters don't care about abortion and the ones that do are mostly not persuadable. The backlash that Democrats are hoping for is highly unlikely to materialize beyond a tiny movement at the margins.

I think it is a mistake to view this decision the same way as every other SCOTUS decision or every other thing that happens in a typical week in politics.

It's not.
This is the single biggest abrupt policy change in America in my lifetime.  

And it is one that should cut through even to low information voters.  If you ask a typical voter to name a single Supreme Court decision, they could probably name Roe vs. Wade and that's it (and maaaaybe Brown v. Board).  

I don't think you can predict how voters will respond to this based on how voters have responded to other routine stuff.

The better analogy would be 2002.  George W. Bush was likely in very bad shape in the 2002 midterms until 9/11.  But 9/11 was an event of a generational scale that completely reframed the political debate of that election cycle.  This decision strikes me as being of similar scale.

     Time will tell what the reaction to the news today will be, but even with the leak putting this in the news cycle early, only about 5% of American voters rated this as their top issue in the Quinnipiac poll earlier this month. Most voters assign a low priority to abortion, and this is where your 9/11 comparison falls flat.

[GoTfan]

What a sad day for this country. I shudder to think about what's next. Will the Court overturn marriage equality? I assume that will be the next challenge, if it isn't already in the works.

Same sex relations, contraception, school integration,

And maybe the economic issues as well, social security, Medicare,


The whole new deal paradigm is at risk.

Right. I am worried contraception is what will be targeted next. Clarence Thomas essentially said in his opinion that the court should re-examine the landmark cases that established the right to contraception, right to same sex marriage and right to same sex intimacy.

This really is a frightening time.

Thomas is an outlyier on that (he hates substantive due process), and Kavanaugh's concurrence said no. I can't image a national law being passed banning 1st trimester abortions btw.

Like I said above, I give it six months max before they do it.

[Ferguson97]

Just a few examples off the top of my head where the court literally just made stuff up to reach the outcome the left wanted:

Moore v East Cleveland

An East Cleveland, Ohio zoning ordinance that prohibited a grandmother from living with her grandchild was unconstitutional

Reynolds v Sims

State senate districts must have roughly equal populations based on the principle of "one person, one vote".

Gideon v Wainwright

The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires U.S. states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own.

Miranda v AZ

The Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of their rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney, at no charge if need be. Supreme Court of Arizona reversed and remanded.

Griswold v CT

A Connecticut law criminalizing the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. Connecticut Supreme Court reversed.

Eisenstadt v. Baird

The US Supreme Court that established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married couples.

Jacobellis v. OH

The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, protected a movie theater manager from being prosecuted for possessing and showing a film that was not obscene.

Lemon v. Kurtzman

For a law to be considered constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the law must (1) have a legitimate secular purpose, (2) not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and (3) not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion.

Okay what non-fascist reasons do you have for opposing these obviously good rulings?

Like wow, you are WAY further right than I thought you'd be.

[Horus]

So interesting that Democratic politicians suddenly talk about "women" again instead of "people giving birth".

Imagine thinking that matters.

It might. A social class unable to properly vocalise its identity cannot fight discrimination against themselves as effectively as they otherwise could.

I realy don't think the Birthing person think was anything mainstream, it was a weird medical term that got used by some politicans looking to score woke points rather than anything substanisal.

The ACLU is now saying "women and other people who can become pregnant."

[fhtagn]

FYI, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Brett Kavanaugh are all murderers. Never forget it.

Saving babies is murder?

[Cashew]

Mccaskill rides to the defence of her friend.

https://twitter.com/rjw411/status/1540371401370124289?s=20&t=b0tiRtnqF-Aa2fH...

[GoTfan]

FYI, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Brett Kavanaugh are all murderers. Never forget it.

Saving babies is murder?

So all of the women and babies who die in the back-alley abortions this will force a lot of women to get are acceptable casualties?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This will be a test of the polling industry. If public sentiment is truly against this ruling then the GOP will suffer long term for this. IF they’re right…interesting to see

     This is the mistake Atlas always makes in analyzing politics; people here think that because an issue exists and people say they have an opinion on it, they are willing to vote on it. The reality is most voters don't care about abortion and the ones that do are mostly not persuadable. The backlash that Democrats are hoping for is highly unlikely to materialize beyond a tiny movement at the margins.

Atlas's is problem is the opposite, they're too stuck on narratives regarding trends, polarizations and voters not switching so their seems to be this kind of stocisim regarding how elections are going to go. Look at how many people disregard every poll that doesn't fit their bias regarding the state, downplay every scandal as meaningless and unirocanily go on rants about how canidate quality is meaningless.

Stocisim about how these things matter is all well and good, but each of one these things. has the possibility to break or change the over all course of elections.

     I remember the 2014 cycle well, when users were arbitrarily convinced that Dems were going to do well and polls foretelling GOP victories were just casually dismissed as "junk". What I would suggest though is that one of the narratives that Atlas loves most is the idea that abortion will be a difference-maker for them in the elections, despite it routinely failing to make lists of top issues for voters and the election being over four months away.

Also thanks to the leak most of the country pretty much already knew it was gonna be overturned and it still failed to be listed high in the issues voters care about

Well, if the majority of the US population doesn't care about an attempted self-coup and now theocrats progressively seizing control of the country the US will be lucky to survive to 2050 as a democratic country.

How does the US get to 2050 when nuclear war annihilates the world before the end of the year?

[OSR stands with Israel]

We are increasingly living under a right-wing judicial dictatorship, and we need to treat that as the crisis that it is.

Lol so returning this decision to the people’s elected representatives is dictatorship

They get to experience what conservatives felt in the 1960s and 1970s when the then-awful Supreme Court just made stuff up.

Beyond Roe, what cases are you referring to?

Just a few examples off the top of my head where the court literally just made stuff up to reach the outcome the left wanted:

Moore v East Cleveland
Regents v Bakke
Reynolds v Sims
Gideon v Wainwright
Miranda v AZ
Griswold v CT
Eisenstadt v. Baird
Jacobellis v. OH
Lemon v. Kurtzman

How is Moore and Jacobellis particularly bad decisions

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Jacobellis v. OH

How is "The First Amendment means a state can not prevent a theater owner from showing a film" a "made up" decision? Like it's obvious it wouldn't be constitutional for a blue state to ban showing Matt Walsh's new movie.

[GeneralMacArthur]

It's been sadly unsurprising to see folks on the left come out in force to blame and attack the Democrats for this ruling.  As usual, the Republican Party is just some immutable force of nature that bears no responsibility for its crimes.  The only actor with any agency is the Democratic Party, and whenever anything bad happens, it's because Democrats failed to stop it, meaning they bear full responsibility.  This is unironically the worldview of a whole lot of people of the left (mostly "left-leaning independents").

No, Democrats did not "let this happen" by refusing to codify Roe or expand the court or what have you.

The Obama-era supermajority had lots of pro-lifers, that's how it was able to get so large with lots of red state senators.  Even if they'd codified Roe, this court would just rule that codification unconstitutional.  I wrote about this previously.

Manchin won't let us expand the court, and expanding the court is a really bad idea.  FDR wasn't actually able to expand the court, even when he had 3-1 Congressional majorities.  And even if we did, Republicans would just expand it again when they get into power, and undo all our phony rulings.

RBG couldn't have prevented this by retiring either.  This was a 6-3 decision, and as I've written about before.  It would have just been the Merrick Garland crisis a year or two earlier.  This is what Ginsburg herself said was her reason for not retiring.

Lastly, a lot of progressives salty about Cisneros losing have been eagerly using this ruling to attack Democrats, as though we're only just now realizing that Cuellar being pro-life is bad.  Like just stop.  Cisneros was a terrible candidate, and as her post-loss bitching and conspiracy-mongering temper tantrum have shown, we absolutely dodged a bullet.  She was so bad that she lost in a primary to a pro-life Dem three times but we're supposed to be confident that she could win a D+5 district in a red wave year?  Democrats don't like that Cuellar is pro-life, but he's a representative so it doesn't really matter, and they didn't want to lose the seat.  This is the obvious reason why the party turned out for Cuellar but progressives refuse to accept it and instead insist it was some grand conspiracy where the party is secretly pro-life.  Grow up.

It's also maddening to see so many people on social media today proposing all sorts of wacky plans to try to fix this.  The only plan that doesn't seem to enter people's minds?  Voting.  That's how Republicans did this.  They showed up, consistently, without bitching or complaining or demanding a bribe, for decades, voting to overturn Roe.  Meanwhile Democratic voters constantly have to be coddled and cajoled and bribed into turning out every two years and then whine incessantly about how much voting sucks.  Even Democratic thought leaders and activists talk constantly about how much the party sucks and how worthless voting is.  Know who doesn't do that?  Republicans.  They just vote.  And when they vote they win.  And when they win, they get to appoint judges who do what they want.  You never hear about Republicans wanting to pack the court or do some wacky complicated House of Cards plan to get their agenda through.  Because they understand that just voting consistently is enough to get most of that they want.

[Person Man]

This will be a test of the polling industry. If public sentiment is truly against this ruling then the GOP will suffer long term for this. IF they’re right…interesting to see

     This is the mistake Atlas always makes in analyzing politics; people here think that because an issue exists and people say they have an opinion on it, they are willing to vote on it. The reality is most voters don't care about abortion and the ones that do are mostly not persuadable. The backlash that Democrats are hoping for is highly unlikely to materialize beyond a tiny movement at the margins.

Atlas's is problem is the opposite, they're too stuck on narratives regarding trends, polarizations and voters not switching so their seems to be this kind of stocisim regarding how elections are going to go. Look at how many people disregard every poll that doesn't fit their bias regarding the state, downplay every scandal as meaningless and unirocanily go on rants about how canidate quality is meaningless.

Stocisim about how these things matter is all well and good, but each of one these things. has the possibility to break or change the over all course of elections.

     I remember the 2014 cycle well, when users were arbitrarily convinced that Dems were going to do well and polls foretelling GOP victories were just casually dismissed as "junk". What I would suggest though is that one of the narratives that Atlas loves most is the idea that abortion will be a difference-maker for them in the elections, despite it routinely failing to make lists of top issues for voters and the election being over four months away.

Also thanks to the leak most of the country pretty much already knew it was gonna be overturned and it still failed to be listed high in the issues voters care about

Well, if the majority of the US population doesn't care about an attempted self-coup and now theocrats progressively seizing control of the country the US will be lucky to survive to 2050 as a democratic country.

How does the US get to 2050 when nuclear war annihilates the world before the end of the year?

I imagine parts of it will.

[Mr. Illini]

This is so weird. I was told the Republican Party had moderated and moved on from social issues!

[kyc0705]

This is so weird. I was told the Republican Party had moderated and moved on from social issues!

It's one of those great proclamations made by the op-ed-writing classes that just... never seemed true, even when it was supposedly happening? I'm struggling to think of some mythical time in the last decade when the mainstream of the American right suddenly cooled off on culture wars.

The 2010s began with the Tea Party (which, of course, was never about "low taxes", something that a lot of GOP politicians themselves didn't understand) and smoothly rolled into Trump by the midpoint.

[PSOL]

FYI, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Brett Kavanaugh are all murderers. Never forget it.

Saving babies is murder?

This ain’t saving any babies

[GP270watch]

It's also maddening to see so many people on social media today proposing all sorts of wacky plans to try to fix this.  The only plan that doesn't seem to enter people's minds?  Voting.  That's how Republicans did this.  They showed up, consistently, without bitching or complaining or demanding a bribe, for decades, voting to overturn Roe.  Meanwhile Democratic voters constantly have to be coddled and cajoled and bribed into turning out every two years and then whine incessantly about how much voting sucks.  Even Democratic thought leaders and activists talk constantly about how much the party sucks and how worthless voting is.  Know who doesn't do that?  Republicans.  They just vote.  And when they vote they win.  And when they win, they get to appoint judges who do what they want.  You never hear about Republicans wanting to pack the court or do some wacky complicated House of Cards plan to get their agenda through.  Because they understand that just voting consistently is enough to get most of that they want.

 Bro, Trump just tried to steal an election WTF are you babbling about? Republican would absolutely pack the court if they saw it was their only recourse. McConnell knows the Senate math favors them. What he did with Garland/Gorsuch was a wacky scheme. You are talking absolute nonsense here. Democrats do vote we win elections and then get weak politicians like Biden who just basically said he has no executive power to fight this bad decision which is bullsh**t. Biden can offer Federal pardons for all women traveling to get an abortion or who receive abortion drugs in the mail and could have stated that in his speech today. The Attorney General can also bring suit against states violating civil rights. Even if it ends up being heard by Republican dominated courts, the Democrats have to fight, including fighting bad state laws with every ounce of federal power.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is so weird. I was told the Republican Party had moderated and moved on from social issues!

It's one of those great proclamations made by the op-ed-writing classes that just... never seemed true, even when it was supposedly happening? I'm struggling to think of some halcyon time in the mid-2010s when the mainstream of the American right suddenly cooled off on culture wars and it just never existed.

A Majority of Republican voters support Gay Marriage

[Associate Justice PiT]

Just a few examples off the top of my head where the court literally just made stuff up to reach the outcome the left wanted:

Moore v East Cleveland

An East Cleveland, Ohio zoning ordinance that prohibited a grandmother from living with her grandchild was unconstitutional

Reynolds v Sims

State senate districts must have roughly equal populations based on the principle of "one person, one vote".

Gideon v Wainwright

The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires U.S. states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own.

Miranda v AZ

The Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of their rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney, at no charge if need be. Supreme Court of Arizona reversed and remanded.

Griswold v CT

A Connecticut law criminalizing the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. Connecticut Supreme Court reversed.

Eisenstadt v. Baird

The US Supreme Court that established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married couples.

Jacobellis v. OH

The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, protected a movie theater manager from being prosecuted for possessing and showing a film that was not obscene.

Lemon v. Kurtzman

For a law to be considered constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the law must (1) have a legitimate secular purpose, (2) not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and (3) not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion.

Okay what non-fascist reasons do you have for opposing these obviously good rulings?

Like wow, you are WAY further right than I thought you'd be.

     It's obvious from context that Mr. Reactionary is talking about legal justifications for these rulings and not whether the outcomes constitute good policies in themselves. He isn't claiming that grandparents and grandchildren should be prohibited from living together.

[Inmate Trump]

“This is about saving lives”

Okay, then mandatory covid vaccines.

“No!!!!”

[GoTfan]

This is so weird. I was told the Republican Party had moderated and moved on from social issues!

It's one of those great proclamations made by the op-ed-writing classes that just... never seemed true, even when it was supposedly happening? I'm struggling to think of some halcyon time in the mid-2010s when the mainstream of the American right suddenly cooled off on culture wars and it just never existed.

A Majority of Republican voters support Gay Marriage

The reactionaries running the court don't care, and neither do Republican politicians.

[Cashew]

I can see this drastically altering the midterms.

There may well be a red wave but it will be extremely blunted now. If we don’t go into recession…if inflation is no longer a big issue…we could actually see a blue wave.

It's a big legal decision sure, but in most states not much will acdually change for most people. Solidly democratic states will keep abortion legal, while Republican states will go from being de facto illegal to de jure illegal. It might have an impact in North Carolina and Florida if the legislatures pass abortion bans, and strengthen Democratic governors in the midwest, but I am uncertain it will matter in the rest of the country.

[Horus]

This is so weird. I was told the Republican Party had moderated and moved on from social issues!

It's one of those great proclamations made by the op-ed-writing classes that just... never seemed true, even when it was supposedly happening? I'm struggling to think of some halcyon time in the mid-2010s when the mainstream of the American right suddenly cooled off on culture wars and it just never existed.

A Majority of Republican voters support Gay Marriage

The reactionaries running the court don't care, and neither do Republican politicians.

Then why didn't Alito and the Trump appointees sign onto the Thomas concurrence?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Just a few examples off the top of my head where the court literally just made stuff up to reach the outcome the left wanted:

Moore v East Cleveland

An East Cleveland, Ohio zoning ordinance that prohibited a grandmother from living with her grandchild was unconstitutional

Reynolds v Sims

State senate districts must have roughly equal populations based on the principle of "one person, one vote".

Gideon v Wainwright

The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires U.S. states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own.

Miranda v AZ

The Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of their rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney, at no charge if need be. Supreme Court of Arizona reversed and remanded.

Griswold v CT

A Connecticut law criminalizing the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. Connecticut Supreme Court reversed.

Eisenstadt v. Baird

The US Supreme Court that established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married couples.

Jacobellis v. OH

The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, protected a movie theater manager from being prosecuted for possessing and showing a film that was not obscene.

Lemon v. Kurtzman

For a law to be considered constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the law must (1) have a legitimate secular purpose, (2) not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and (3) not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion.

Okay what non-fascist reasons do you have for opposing these obviously good rulings?

Like wow, you are WAY further right than I thought you'd be.

     It's obvious from context that Mr. Reactionary is talking about legal justifications for these rulings and not whether the outcomes constitute good policies in themselves. He isn't claiming that grandparents and grandchildren should be prohibited from living together.

But how is a law preventing them from living together constitutional

[GeneralMacArthur]

It's also maddening to see so many people on social media today proposing all sorts of wacky plans to try to fix this.  The only plan that doesn't seem to enter people's minds?  Voting.  That's how Republicans did this.  They showed up, consistently, without bitching or complaining or demanding a bribe, for decades, voting to overturn Roe.  Meanwhile Democratic voters constantly have to be coddled and cajoled and bribed into turning out every two years and then whine incessantly about how much voting sucks.  Even Democratic thought leaders and activists talk constantly about how much the party sucks and how worthless voting is.  Know who doesn't do that?  Republicans.  They just vote.  And when they vote they win.  And when they win, they get to appoint judges who do what they want.  You never hear about Republicans wanting to pack the court or do some wacky complicated House of Cards plan to get their agenda through.  Because they understand that just voting consistently is enough to get most of that they want.

 Bro, Trump just tried to steal an election WTF are you babbling about? Republican would absolutely pack the court if they saw it was their only recourse. McConnell knows the Senate math favors them. What he did with Garland/Gorsuch was a wacky scheme. You are talking absolute nonsense as always. Democrats do vote we win elections and then get weak politicians like Biden who just basically said he has no executive power to fight this bad decision which is bullsh**t. Biden can offer Federal pardons for all women traveling to get an abortion or who receive abortion drugs in the mail and could have stated that in his speech today. The Attorney General can also bring suit against states violating civil rights. Even if it ends up being heard by Republican dominated courts, the Democrats have to fight, including fighting bad state laws with every ounce of federal power.

All you have are impotent, stupid, symbolic ideas that have no chance of actually changing anything.  You know that won't work, but they're a weapon you can use to direct your outrage at Biden and the Democrats.  Anything to avoid blaming Republicans.  Anything to avoid having the solution be something as breathtakingly lame as "organize, donate and vote for Democrats." No no, you see, we could totally protect abortion with this one weird trick but Biden won't do it because he's too weak and stupid and/or secretly pro-life.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Just a few examples off the top of my head where the court literally just made stuff up to reach the outcome the left wanted:

Moore v East Cleveland

An East Cleveland, Ohio zoning ordinance that prohibited a grandmother from living with her grandchild was unconstitutional

Reynolds v Sims

State senate districts must have roughly equal populations based on the principle of "one person, one vote".

Gideon v Wainwright

The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires U.S. states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own.

Miranda v AZ

The Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of their rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney, at no charge if need be. Supreme Court of Arizona reversed and remanded.

Griswold v CT

A Connecticut law criminalizing the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. Connecticut Supreme Court reversed.

Eisenstadt v. Baird

The US Supreme Court that established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married couples.

Jacobellis v. OH

The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, protected a movie theater manager from being prosecuted for possessing and showing a film that was not obscene.

Lemon v. Kurtzman

For a law to be considered constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the law must (1) have a legitimate secular purpose, (2) not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and (3) not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion.

Okay what non-fascist reasons do you have for opposing these obviously good rulings?

Like wow, you are WAY further right than I thought you'd be.

The law is not a "fascist" reason. I dont give a damn if these opinions were about giving puppies to orphans. None of these cases were rooted in the Constitution. When you twist the constitution to get the outcome you want, that is ad hoc law. Ad hoc law is bad. Again, none of those cases are based off the text or history of the constitution. That you like the outcomes means you should seek a statute to do them, not have a cabal of activist lefties pretend that if you squint real hard and turn your head, you can sort of, almost see what I want so therefore the Constitution demands it! Those opinions are sparse on substance and are just activist lefty argle-bargle. And that means, as with Roe, SCOTUS can giveth and SCOTUS can taketh away. If you want these outcomes, pass a law, because their legal footing is fleeting.

But yes, Im sure youll derp something about how is muh fascist to obey the constitution and not just make up stuff to get what you want.