SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

These people are fascists. Plain and simple.

The Republican Party is pure fascism. We're probably only 5-10 years from Gujarat-style mass murder in certain parts of the country.

But God forbid the New York Democrats pass a gerrymandered map!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

look I know mr x can be disingenuous but its obvious what he's talking about. As I said above, people in this thread are fear mongering about the SCOTUS using the same logic to overturn Griswold/Obergefell/Lawrence. That's absolutely concern trolling

Right, ERM is a spam bot who should've been banned long ago.

He also unironically believed the Supreme Court was going to actually hear Mike Lindell's lawsuits and rule in his favor, that's all that needs to be said about him really.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I am a woman. My opinion on the issue has more value than yours.

You don't actually believe this, you're just parroting what you've seen some pro-choice women say to pro-life men as an attempt to "own" him.

You don't get to say what I do or do not believe in. Nor do you know me well enough to have a valid argument here.

Okay, theocrat.

Why do you even care about this? You're the one who unironically claimed that all human life would be ended by nuclear war by the end of the year anyway. Based on that no court decisions matter at all.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Worth noting that many states have their own equivalents of Roe v. Wade per State Supreme Court, I know that Minnesota does, as does Kansas of all places. That might be an option for some surprising states, like Kentucky and Oklahoma. Michigan is a no-brainer, its Supreme Court already has a 4D-3R majority but one of the Republicans is basically a RINO so it's really a 5-2 liberal majority, and there's already evidence that Whitmer and Nessel are planning something to it in this regards.

This also might not only save Whitmer in November, but also dash the Republican hopes of flipping the Michigan Supreme Court since two of the Democrats are up for re-election....well now here's the wedge issue.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I am a woman. My opinion on the issue has more value than yours.

You don't actually believe this, you're just parroting what you've seen some pro-choice women say to pro-life men as an attempt to "own" him.

You don't get to say what I do or do not believe in. Nor do you know me well enough to have a valid argument here.

Okay, theocrat.

Why do you even care about this? You're the one who unironically claimed that all human life would be ended by nuclear war by the end of the year anyway. Based on that no court decisions matter at all.

I have friends living in the States that are going to be affected by this.

No one is going to be affected for long once that nuclear war you predicted ends all human life.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Worth noting that many states have their own equivalents of Roe v. Wade per State Supreme Court, I know that Minnesota does, as does Kansas of all places. That might be an option for some surprising states, like Kentucky and Oklahoma. Michigan is a no-brainer, its Supreme Court already has a 4D-3R majority but one of the Republicans is basically a RINO so it's really a 5-2 liberal majority, and there's already evidence that Whitmer and Nessel are planning something to it in this regards.

That's not much comfort to the millions of pro-choice Americans living in states where is it going to be totally illegal this summer.

I never said it was, but I don't see the point in just adding more dooming posts to the pile here.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

look I know mr x can be disingenuous but its obvious what he's talking about. As I said above, people in this thread are fear mongering about the SCOTUS using the same logic to overturn Griswold/Obergefell/Lawrence. That's absolutely concern trolling

Obergefell and Lawrence sure, but how is Griswold not under threat from this decision? I'm hardly a legal scholar, but from my skimming of the draft opinion and prior knowledge of both cases, it seems like Griswold and Roe were decided on similar bases. Wouldn't a decision overturning Roe necessarily indicate that Griswold is suspect?

They really weren't, and while the logic of the Griswold decision has probably been attacked more than Roe, the actual outcome is not particularly controversial (or at least is supported by normie conservatives).

Also depends on what you mean by "under threat". If you mean that the Court was once much more afraid of making decisions that would anger the American progressive movement than it is now, then lots of things are under threat, since this is clearly absolutely no barrier to anything.

By contrast, the way that Alito worded excerpts I've read I would have to think overrules Obergefell (it not-very-subtly hints that this would be a correct decision). Lawrence is sustainable if you assume something along the lines of a right to privacy (and similar concepts really do go back all the way to the beginning), although if you insist that such a right only covers things that would've been protected in 1787, or are extensions of such things, then you could be internally consistent and overrule Lawrence.

The real reason I think Griswold and Lawrence aren't going anywhere is simple: There's no drive to get a state to pass laws in contravention of them and challenge the decisions. The Republicans have to take a rather extreme position on abortion because it's what their base wants, but there's no longer (and really hasn't been for decades) a similar to push to ban all forms of birth control or sodomy, and it's hard to see a state actually following through and banning them thus creating the needed case. Also why Loving v. Virginia is an even bigger stretch, what state is actually going to want to ban interracial marriage today?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Congress should have resolved this issue years ago.

I am surprised that in the 50 years period between Roe and this case, no national law on abortion was passed. There have been multiple trifectas in that time, and you'd think that somebody would have made a move at some point.

Actually there has been at least one, the Republicans passed a ban on a specific procedure called dilation & extraction (which they referred to as "partial birth abortion") which SCOTUS upheld, although the ban doesn't really do much since the procedure was hardly ever used except for the exceptions outlined in the law to save the mother's life.

As for Democrats, I imagine it was just easier to accept the status quo and not push anything. Although I'm not sure what "legislation codifying Roe v. Wade" would really accomplish, the SCOTUS could just simply strike that down as well.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

look I know mr x can be disingenuous but its obvious what he's talking about. As I said above, people in this thread are fear mongering about the SCOTUS using the same logic to overturn Griswold/Obergefell/Lawrence. That's absolutely concern trolling

Obergefell and Lawrence sure, but how is Griswold not under threat from this decision? I'm hardly a legal scholar, but from my skimming of the draft opinion and prior knowledge of both cases, it seems like Griswold and Roe were decided on similar bases. Wouldn't a decision overturning Roe necessarily indicate that Griswold is suspect?

They really weren't, and while the logic of the Griswold decision has probably been attacked more than Roe, the actual outcome is not particularly controversial (or at least is supported by normie conservatives).

Also depends on what you mean by "under threat". If you mean that the Court was once much more afraid of making decisions that would anger the American progressive movement than it is now, then lots of things are under threat, since this is clearly absolutely no barrier to anything.

By contrast, the way that Alito worded excerpts I've read I would have to think overrules Obergefell (it not-very-subtly hints that this would be a correct decision). Lawrence is sustainable if you assume something along the lines of a right to privacy (and similar concepts really do go back all the way to the beginning), although if you insist that such a right only covers things that would've been protected in 1787, or are extensions of such things, then you could be internally consistent and overrule Lawrence.

The real reason I think Griswold and Lawrence aren't going anywhere is simple: There's no drive to get a state to pass laws in contravention of them and challenge the decisions. The Republicans have to take a rather extreme position on abortion because it's what their base wants, but there's no longer (and really hasn't been for decades) a similar to push to ban all forms of birth control or sodomy, and it's hard to see a state actually following through and banning them thus creating the needed case. Also why Loving v. Virginia is an even bigger stretch, what state is actually going to want to ban interracial marriage today?

I agree, and particularly on Griswold I truly can't imagine it, but the thing is that there are lots of positions in the conservative legal world that are held by maybe 75% of people. These can't get through when you have a 5-4 majority, and only have a shot when you have 6-3, but they become likelier the more the conservative majority grows. Given realistic prognoses of Senate composition we can expect the conservative majority to grow unless something very unexpected happens, and that will come with an ideological ratchet effect.

(Consider that, per 538 charts, the distance between Gorsuch and Kavanaugh was as large as the distance between a conservative and a liberal, and they're just different kinds of conservatives. This meant that the 5-4 majority made the court unexpectedly liberal; there were multiple terms over the 2010s in which most of the 5-4 decisions took the form of "one conservative defects", and that was never a terribly rare outcome. This means there's a lot of stuff a 6-3 court could overturn. There would be more that 7-2 would target, and so on.)

What I'm saying is it's probably moot because such cases would never make it to the court to begin with. Like what state is going to ban birth control to challenge Griswold and interracial marriage to challenge Loving?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A lot of European countries have far stricter abortion laws than the US on paper, but either almost never enforce them or also have massive gaping loopholes in them making them effectively like the US status quo in effect (the UK for example does actually not allow abortions on demand without reason, but has a justified reason of "socioeconomic factors" which is so broad and vague it effectively be used for on-demand requests.) Of course late-term abortions for non-medical reasons are quite rare anyway.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

For those people supporting this decision that say it should be left up to the states, I call attention to this article published in the Post just this morning:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/02/abortion-ban-roe-supreme-court-mississippi/

Cliff: Republicans in Congress are piosed to introduce a nationwide ban on abortion after six weeks.

This flies in the face of Commerce Clause and 10th Amendment jurisprudence. I would expect a majority like Bostock, if not larger, to strike down a law like this.

In the short term, this doesn’t matter.  This is where the national debate on abortion will be moving, and it will be a much more prominent national debate than at any point in the last 50 years.  

Every Republican candidate running in a swing state or suburban congressional district will not constantly be asked whether they support a nationwide ban on almost all abortions.  I can’t fathom how people think this issue will be a wash in the midterms.  

Typo?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Our nation is moving backwards, while the rest of the world moves forward.

This is the boldest claim that's been made in 20 pages, and we've seen a lot of very bold claims.

Countries that I would describe as "moving forward"...uh I suppose Canada very slowly and I guess New Zealand? I guess Saudi Arabia technically is in comparison that where it was like 20 years ago but that's basically a dead cat bounce.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://dailycaller.com/2022/05/03/justice-roberts-fbi-investigation-scotus-leak/

FBI will be involved to determine who the leaker was, and that person may be targeted criminally. Rumor is apparently "a Sotomayor clerk", though that might be several individuals.

I think for the sake of national unity, he shouldn't have clerks be charged for this if it was just them. We are already split enough, especially on this divisive issue that causes high emotions to come out.

LOL that's like the same logic some centrist blowhards said as to why Biden should pardon the Capitol rioters.

I'm not really opposed to the leak, but this is the dumbest reason ever to oppose prosecuting something.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://twitter.com/HKrassenstein/status/1521511374920298497

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1521569658960240642

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

When Obergefell was decided, everyone on the left was openly celebrating an unmitigated victory.

The reaction of Republican politicians and most others on the right could not be more different.

Whether they are sincerely anti-abortion or not, Republicans know this is a political catastrophe for their party and they have no idea how to respond except to lash out at some imagined left-wing leaker.

Yeah it's important to ask how the reaction would be to a leak of the Obergefell decision.... you'd see some tsking and attacks on the leaker but the reaction from liberals would just be celebratory. At most I think a liberal might be like 80% happy/20% upset about the leak. The fact that conservatives aren't celebrating by and large and just focusing on the leak IS telling.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Wow, The Young Turks are dissatisfied with the Democratic Party? This is a game-changer.

They have basically told people to vote democratic in the general elections before but this time Ana is basically saying she has given up on congress and Cenk is asking them to stop donating .

Cenk ran for Congress twice and got 5.9% in one and 6.6% in the other. That doesn't sound like a powerhouse of influence. Probably about slightly more than that guy bronz keeps raving about.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

When Obergefell was decided, everyone on the left was openly celebrating an unmitigated victory.

The reaction of Republican politicians and most others on the right could not be more different.

Whether they are sincerely anti-abortion or not, Republicans know this is a political catastrophe for their party and they have no idea how to respond except to lash out at some imagined left-wing leaker.

Yeah it's important to ask how the reaction would be to a leak of the Obergefell decision.... you'd see some tsking and attacks on the leaker but the reaction from liberals would just be celebratory. At most I think a liberal might be like 80% happy/20% upset about the leak. The fact that conservatives aren't celebrating by and large and just focusing on the leak IS telling.

because this isn't a real opinion? 

Roberts confirmed it's genuine. It may not be the final opinion but it's not "fake".

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

THIS DOESN'T HELP, PLEASE SHUT THE F[INKS] UP WITH THIS TYPE OF LANGUAGE AT A TIME LIKE THIS

https://twitter.com/StateRepHong/status/1521298873859334145

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

Agreed, but no idea why anyone who's ostensibly trans-inclusive would be offended by the sentiment of including trans people who can get pregnant.

"Bodies" is like the creepiest and least appealing term to use like that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

Agreed, but no idea why anyone who's ostensibly trans-inclusive would be offended by the sentiment of including trans people who can get pregnant.

"Bodies" is like the creepiest and least appealing term to use like that.

What's creepy is that you care on dunking more than randos using weird woke lingo than you care about what they're talking about, which is the war on bodily autonomy, which the Republicans you claim to despise are winning. People's lives are going to be negatively affected greatly not only by this particular attack on bodily freedom, but also by the assaults on Obergefell and Lawrence — assaults on which your primary interest is to dunk on people you think are hyperbolic on grounds of pedantic technicality — which you deny are happening, and you even hope that they happen because the hypothetical prospect of Democratic electoral advantage is more important to you than the lives of the people affected. Politics is a sport to you, all you care about is your team winning, and the people you're supposed to be on the side — women, LGBT people, black people — of are just props you can use to brag about your inclusiveness before disagreeing them as undeserving of rights or platforms if you think the language they use is weird or hyperbolic.

What's your opinion of Glenn Greenwald and jfern?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

Agreed, but no idea why anyone who's ostensibly trans-inclusive would be offended by the sentiment of including trans people who can get pregnant.

"Bodies" is like the creepiest and least appealing term to use like that.

What's creepy is that you care on dunking more than randos using weird woke lingo than you care about what they're talking about, which is the war on bodily autonomy, which the Republicans you claim to despise are winning. People's lives are going to be negatively affected greatly not only by this particular attack on bodily freedom, but also by the assaults on Obergefell and Lawrence — assaults on which your primary interest is to dunk on people you think are hyperbolic on grounds of pedantic technicality — which you deny are happening, and you even hope that they happen because the hypothetical prospect of Democratic electoral advantage is more important to you than the lives of the people affected. Politics is a sport to you, all you care about is your team winning, and the people you're supposed to be on the side — women, LGBT people, black people — of are just props you can use to brag about your inclusiveness before disagreeing them as undeserving of rights or platforms if you think the language they use is weird or hyperbolic.

What's your opinion of Glenn Greenwald and jfern?

I don't care. It's weird that you care.

I ask because I dump on Trump and Republicans all the time but those dipsh!ts never do and used the excuse there's no need to attack Trump because tons of people do that constantly and of course Glenn loves to deflect any attacks on Trump by bringing up George W. Bush (...from the same party that I've never voted for in my life....who I voted against as my first presidential vote ever) yet jfern is a beloved and worshipped poster here and Glenn is absolutely worshipped by the anti-Democratic left who has an immense cult who believe he can never be criticized ever.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I swear this site has a obnoxious pocket of posters with a deeply unhealthy distain for trans people.

did you mean Republicans

I agree, this site does have an unhealthy disdain for Republicans.

Dude you had a red avatar on January 6 in protest of Trump and what was happening. And now that party has decided what happened then is totally fine and all those arrested and charged are unjustly held political prisoners.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is it. LGBTQ community is a next and after this they are coming for interracial marriage. All the white dudes with asian wives... lookout... you're next.

Imagine being this delusional

Then why are Republican Senators saying that Loving and Obergefell should be overturned?

Because Braun is a complete f[inks]ing moron who wasn't aware that the Loving decision was based on the 14th Amendment and not the right to privacy and is a completely seperate decision and backed down the next day after pointing this out.

The question is what state is actually going to ban interracial marriage this creating a challenge case that can go to the Supreme Court? Unlike abortion there has been zero push for this for decades. Are states just going to ban interracial marriage out of the blue despite its legality having >90% support and there being zero lobby of any type to ban it?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is it. LGBTQ community is a next and after this they are coming for interracial marriage. All the white dudes with asian wives... lookout... you're next.

Imagine being this delusional

Then why are Republican Senators saying that Loving and Obergefell should be overturned?

Because Braun is a complete f[inks]ing moron who wasn't aware that the Loving decision was based on the 14th Amendment and not the right to privacy and is a completely seperate decision and backed down the next day after pointing this out.

The question is what state is actually going to ban interracial marriage this creating a challenge case that can go to the Supreme Court? Unlike abortion there has been zero push for this for decades. Are states just going to ban interracial marriage out of the blue despite its legality having >90% support and there being zero lobby of any type to ban it?

Honestly Braun is actually kinda like bronz when it comes to race. IIRC he had a few out of left field moments as well. He isn't even like MTG or anything , he's just literally weird.

He's also not a lawyer, so it's not surprising he could be that ignorant about such precedent. Although my undergrad constitutional law class covered those cases and the reasonings, but he also went to college a long time before me.