BREAKING: Roe v. Wade might be overruled or severely weakened by SCOTUS (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 20, 2024, 03:55:32 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  BREAKING: Roe v. Wade might be overruled or severely weakened by SCOTUS (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: BREAKING: Roe v. Wade might be overruled or severely weakened by SCOTUS  (Read 12349 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,984


« on: May 17, 2021, 09:46:31 PM »

Not good.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,984


« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2021, 11:54:21 PM »

There are already four definite votes for fetal personhood.
That’s not how courts work. The Court could overturn Roe and allow states to ban abortion, but they can’t force California to criminalize abortion.

Yes, they could. And frankly, if the interest in protecting the fetus is so legitimate that it warrants overturning Roe, the court should at least protect the fetus in all states.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,984


« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2021, 11:57:06 PM »

I'm nervous about this ruling but I'm also not going to be too quick to say Roe is DOA. If upholding this 15 week ban does in fact overturn Roe, I see Roberts siding with the liberals and getting one of Kavanaugh or Gorsuch (most likely the former ironically) to side with him on it, as I don't think he'd let that happen given how bitterly divided the country is on the issue and given how dangerously polarized we are as a country at the moment. I think if Roberts is gonna kill Roe v Wade, he's gonna do it by a slow death of a thousand cuts rather than in one ruling. I don't think he wants to further erode people's already eroded faith in the court.

Thanks to RBG's appalling hubris, these decisions are no longer up to John Roberts. Yeah, her legacy will be her personal responsibility for every insane 5-4 rightwing decision moving forward. She was a terrible person (yeah, putting yourself above ~300 million others is the very definition of the the concept) and hopefully, the destruction of her reputation is enough to convince Stephen Breyer not to repeat the same mistake.


I think the only justices that guaranteed to kill Roe outright are Thomas, Alito, and the Handmaid. Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch are a toss up, and even if they were to do it (and by no means do I want Roe overturned), I think it would be done in a way that leaves the legal status of abortion to the states.

Yeah, that's what the destruction of Roe v Wade means — it's up to the states. Thanks to RBG. Who knows, maybe Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will surprise us. But the broader point is that I trust Roberts to attempt to preserve the legitimacy of the Court (too late), assuming the issue isn't nonwhites voting. Unfortunately, thanks to RBG, he no longer has veto power. Terrible justice, terrible person. All the RBG fans need to buckle up, because she's about to be dragged for the next ~20 years.

And for the next ~20 years, we'll point out that society would rather blame the loss of womens' rights on a woman for dying rather than the three/four misogynistic men who made the decision. RBG's "mistake" would never have been a mistake if the person 56% of women voted for -- Hillary Clinton -- was rightfully elected.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,984


« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2021, 12:29:14 AM »

I'm nervous about this ruling but I'm also not going to be too quick to say Roe is DOA. If upholding this 15 week ban does in fact overturn Roe, I see Roberts siding with the liberals and getting one of Kavanaugh or Gorsuch (most likely the former ironically) to side with him on it, as I don't think he'd let that happen given how bitterly divided the country is on the issue and given how dangerously polarized we are as a country at the moment. I think if Roberts is gonna kill Roe v Wade, he's gonna do it by a slow death of a thousand cuts rather than in one ruling. I don't think he wants to further erode people's already eroded faith in the court.

Thanks to RBG's appalling hubris, these decisions are no longer up to John Roberts. Yeah, her legacy will be her personal responsibility for every insane 5-4 rightwing decision moving forward. She was a terrible person (yeah, putting yourself above ~300 million others is the very definition of the the concept) and hopefully, the destruction of her reputation is enough to convince Stephen Breyer not to repeat the same mistake.


I think the only justices that guaranteed to kill Roe outright are Thomas, Alito, and the Handmaid. Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch are a toss up, and even if they were to do it (and by no means do I want Roe overturned), I think it would be done in a way that leaves the legal status of abortion to the states.

Yeah, that's what the destruction of Roe v Wade means — it's up to the states. Thanks to RBG. Who knows, maybe Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will surprise us. But the broader point is that I trust Roberts to attempt to preserve the legitimacy of the Court (too late), assuming the issue isn't nonwhites voting. Unfortunately, thanks to RBG, he no longer has veto power. Terrible justice, terrible person. All the RBG fans need to buckle up, because she's about to be dragged for the next ~20 years.

And for the next ~20 years, we'll point out that society would rather blame the loss of womens' rights on a woman for dying rather than the three/four misogynistic men who made the decision. RBG's "mistake" would never have been a mistake if the person 56% of women voted for -- Hillary Clinton -- was rightfully elected.

It's not her fault for dying, it's her fault for not retiring when Obama could have put some relatively liberal justice on the bench. Frankly, even if Hillary Clinton had been elected, I would still be mad at her for waiting so long and exposing the United States to unnecessary risk, especially if the Republicans held the Senate somehow. She had an opportunity to retire safely and she should have taken it, that's all there is to it. This doesn't absolve the other ghouls on the court by any means, but it's true nonetheless.

I have no problem with blaming her for not retiring earlier.

I just have a problem with the logic that all the bad decisions of the court are "thanks to RBG" and hammering away at that in an emotional manner. The reality is RBG thought Clinton would win. Wrong? Yes. But so were a lot of people. Unreasonable? No. In my experience, when women are hurt, society tends to blame women for it-- the typical scantily clad rape victim trope is the most common -- but in all contexts. For example, when Bill Clinton cheated on his wife, he got away with it, but Hillary was punished for it, as it was her career that was ultimately derailed by it. The ironic thing is, this is all a manifestation of general misogyny which, had it not been common among liberals to begin with, they would have taken the courts more seriously decades ago which would have saved us this situation anyway.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 9 queries.