SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I'm very pleased with this outcome. Never thought this day would actually come.

[Associate Justice PiT]

So wait, abortion will be completely illegal in those 13 states with laws banning abortion, even abortions in the first trimester?

It's entirely up to each state. You would need to refer to the state law for any allowance or exception.

This is a leak of a document written in February, so I'm taking it with a grain of salt. But If this is the real opinion they'll be releasing in a few weeks, Praise the LORD. This is not only the legally correct (When you take all the politics out of it, there is no right to abortion in the constitution. It simply isn't there. We invented it in 1973, and have only kept it around this long for public opinion concerns, which is not a legally appropriate basis for Court Decisions.) but also incredibly life-saving Decision. It's also a balanced decision that doesn't threaten Griswold or try to define personhood. It simply leaves abortion to the states. Maryland can allow abortion in the 9th Month, as their laws currently do. Texas can ban it completely if they choose. For the first time in nearly fifty years, people will not be told by a court what to do about abortion, but instead to determine the appropriate destiny for each society through our democracy. And they will remain able to prevent implantation via contraception.

I don't much care who this helps electorally. What I do find praise in is the strengthening of our democracy and the saving of lives that this decision would bring.

Also, if it's all true - Gorsuch, I was wrong about you. I still don't really get why you gave this answer, but glad to see you are actually pro-life. https://youtu.be/Z08EdjHJgoI

Why do you hate women so much?

I don't. I enthusiastically support robust government provided health care for Children, all sorts of entitlement programs for children and mothers, robust adoption programs, and contraception. I also support abortion allowance in certain cases, like rape, incest, life of the mother, fetal abnormalities - I would even be willing to sign a 15 week ban and set in firm stone, never be able to be changed. Heck, in Atlasia [Lincoln] I authored a 20 week ban, voted into law by the people, and I have no plans to change that should I serve in office again.

I simply reject the notion that it is up to a court to decide all of this. It should be decided by the people through their representatives. I further reject the notion that I have to embrace unfettered or effectively unfettered abortion to support Women. I think we should be a society where Women don't need to destroy life to succeed, but where we still enthusiastically assist Women and their babies with having successful lives.

Atlasia is not a real country so using it as an example is stupid.

You support a woman's autonomy being stripped away, which lines you up with theocrats.

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.

Can you do anything except make personal attacks in violation of the TOS. You can be upset but attacking posters is a TOS violation and you keep doing that.

Doesn't make me wrong.

It's not a woman's autonomy that is of primary concern here, it's the autonomy of the defenseless unborn child.

This is a pointless discussion. Nobody is going to be convinced to change their mind. It comes down to whether you believe a fetus is a person or not, arguing about it is fruitless.

     The important thing though in the context of this decision is that it does not answer that question definitively, but rather returns it to the legislative bodies. It has long puzzled me how the Roe decision claimed to not want to answer that question, but then decided that legislatures had no right to outlaw abortion until a rather late point (mandating a certain answer for practical purposes).

[Associate Justice PiT]

SunriseAroundTheWorld wanted me to posts this here on his behalf: Sunrise is Pro-Life and agrees with this decision

     Sunrise continues to be amazing.

[Associate Justice PiT]

In any case, as I said a few days ago, the median American voter is more moderate on abortion than the politicians are. A national 20-week abortion guarantee and ban would be very popular, but Congress would never pass it.

     This is something that falls on deaf ears here. Everytime a topic is made on abortion, it is a matter of time before someone posts a chart and declares America is majority pro-choice. More granular surveys find that the median voter supports abortion on demand in the first trimester only, which is a view effectively unrepresented among our elected officeholders.

[Associate Justice PiT]

How will this affect the elections in November?

     I could see it increasing turnout among people who place a high premium on abortion as an issue (both liberal and conservative). Most voters don't cite it as a top issue in general, and some may be swayed by this but I suspect inflation and other issues that affect their wallets will overall remain most prominent.

[Associate Justice PiT]

https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1521514504999378945?t=OUGugwS0AvorhCYxwmiN0A...

     Very interesting statement. Sinema was the only Senator who I could realistically see flipping on the filibuster over this event. Collins and Murkowski are pro-choice, but they are unlikely to value that over the filibuster.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

But how is a law preventing them from living together constitutional

     I'm not saying I agree with Mr. Reactionary; just that his point is being massively misrepresented.