SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[BGBC]

This thread is twitter-level discourse.

Anyways, finally, the only good outcome of the Trump Presidency has revealed itself. Good riddance to Roe and the dumpster fire of legal dogma that it was. I don't mind the political fallout of this since I don't care whether or not the GOP takes back Congress this term (though I'm sure talks of court packing from Congressional Democrats will prevent any serious change in generic ballot polling).

[BGBC]

Anyways, finally, the only good outcome of the Trump Presidency has revealed itself. Good riddance to Roe and the dumpster fire of legal dogma that it was.

This literally is a political manifesto packaged as a legal opinion and I oppose Roe.

I really don't think this will end up being the majority opinion. SCOTUS leaks rarely manifest into reality.

[BGBC]

The support for court packing probably just shot up.

Good thing you guys won’t have a trifecta for the rest of the decade

If this decision actually is handed down I wouldn't count on that not happening. Republicans have pushed too far and as I said a lot of Trump supporters are pro-abortion. Overturning Roe vs. Wade is a risky move electorally for Republicans.

The scheme to achieve this exact outcome was telegraphed years in advance, but the headlines will be shocking, nonetheless. Striking down the right to reproductive autonomy will have some serious ripple effects. Policing, surveillance, housing, immigration - all transformed for the worse. I expect this will stir up mass resistance from the two-thirds of the country who oppose this ludicrous opinion.

It going to make the Floyd aftermath look tame. Imagine a world where there’s a January 6th every week.

This is an embarrassingly bad prediction. Anything that could result from this decision will pale in comparison to the political events of Summer 2020, or even other events of the Trump presidency.

[BGBC]

It’s the height of hypocrisy of the same “pro lifers” to then fight against expanding the social safety net for prospective mothers. If you do not support universal healthcare and guaranteed paid maternal leave at the VERY minimum, I don’t want to hear pro life out of your mouth. I am pro life, 99% of the rest of these “pro lifers” only want to get high off their power.

I agree with the sentiment, but I think this type of gatekeeping does a disservice to the movement. You can lock arms with people you think are hypocrites.

[BGBC]

It’s the height of hypocrisy of the same “pro lifers” to then fight against expanding the social safety net for prospective mothers. If you do not support universal healthcare and guaranteed paid maternal leave at the VERY minimum, I don’t want to hear pro life out of your mouth. I am pro life, 99% of the rest of these “pro lifers” only want to get high off their power.

I agree with the sentiment, but I think this type of gatekeeping does a disservice to the movement. You can lock arms with people you think are hypocrites.

HARD NO!
One cannot live without the other. This is not negotiable, this is human life.

I would not be particularly picky with my political allies if the debate was over whether murder should be legal or not (from a pro-life perspective).

It’s the height of hypocrisy of the same “pro lifers” to then fight against expanding the social safety net for prospective mothers. If you do not support universal healthcare and guaranteed paid maternal leave at the VERY minimum, I don’t want to hear pro life out of your mouth. I am pro life, 99% of the rest of these “pro lifers” only want to get high off their power.

I agree with the sentiment, but I think this type of gatekeeping does a disservice to the movement. You can lock arms with people you think are hypocrites.

HARD NO!
One cannot live without the other. This is not negotiable, this is human life.

By the way, Republicans will never support paid family leave, universal prek and childcare, because all they care about is power. They don't care about life. They don't care about the dignity of work, of every human person.

I am a (registered) Republican and I support all of these things. Nobody in the real world cares about "power" except, like, the people in government, but even then I don't think you would apply the same level of scrutiny to their opposition.

[BGBC]

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.

[BGBC]

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.

No? They’ll just extend Carhart to this. Not difficult to do at all. Even Roberts was in the majority on that one.

Carhart didn't deal with the 10th Amendment. Thomas and Scalia even hinted in their concurring opinion that they would've struck it down on those grounds if the petitioners had argued on it.

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.

There's no reason to think Gorsuch has the liberal-ish attitudes on beginning- and end-of-life issues that he has on (some) LGBT issues (a fact that is itself somewhat idiosyncratic because he's at least nominally the least religious current conservative justice). His doctoral dissertation was an extended legal and moral argument against assisted suicide under the advisorship of the person who introduced constitutional/common-law personhood arguments into the relative legal mainstream.

This hypothetical doesn't deal with personhood, just federalism. The federal government doesn't even have the power to prescribe laws against murder, like actual murder, unless it's on federal property or somehow affects the federal government directly. Precedent on non-economic criminal issues has almost always granted power to the states.

[BGBC]

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.

There's no reason to think Gorsuch has the liberal-ish attitudes on beginning- and end-of-life issues that he has on (some) LGBT issues (a fact that is itself somewhat idiosyncratic because he's at least nominally the least religious current conservative justice). His doctoral dissertation was an extended legal and moral argument against assisted suicide under the advisorship of the person who introduced constitutional/common-law personhood arguments into the relative legal mainstream.

This hypothetical doesn't deal with personhood, just federalism. The federal government doesn't even have the power to prescribe laws against murder, like actual murder, unless it's on federal property or somehow affects the federal government directly.

I think you're seriously underestimating the role that motivated reasoning plays in American federal judges' decision-making process.

Maybe, just remember that the case I initially analogized this hypothetical to (Bostock) is a real case that happened in this "reactionary majority" (without ACB, which doesn't matter considering it was 6-3).

Some might also remember Gonzales v. Raich where the entire conservative bloc (save Scalia) voted to strike down federal marijuana prohibition on 10th Amendment grounds. It's not as polarized as you think it is.

[BGBC]

It’s the height of hypocrisy of the same “pro lifers” to then fight against expanding the social safety net for prospective mothers. If you do not support universal healthcare and guaranteed paid maternal leave at the VERY minimum, I don’t want to hear pro life out of your mouth. I am pro life, 99% of the rest of these “pro lifers” only want to get high off their power.

I agree with the sentiment, but I think this type of gatekeeping does a disservice to the movement. You can lock arms with people you think are hypocrites.

HARD NO!
One cannot live without the other. This is not negotiable, this is human life.

I would not be particularly picky with my political allies if the debate was over whether murder should be legal or not (from a pro-life perspective).

It’s the height of hypocrisy of the same “pro lifers” to then fight against expanding the social safety net for prospective mothers. If you do not support universal healthcare and guaranteed paid maternal leave at the VERY minimum, I don’t want to hear pro life out of your mouth. I am pro life, 99% of the rest of these “pro lifers” only want to get high off their power.

I agree with the sentiment, but I think this type of gatekeeping does a disservice to the movement. You can lock arms with people you think are hypocrites.

HARD NO!
One cannot live without the other. This is not negotiable, this is human life.

By the way, Republicans will never support paid family leave, universal prek and childcare, because all they care about is power. They don't care about life. They don't care about the dignity of work, of every human person.

I am a (registered) Republican and I support all of these things. Nobody in the real world cares about "power" except, like, the people in government, but even then I don't think you would apply the same level of scrutiny to their opposition.

There is no party registration in Virginia.

I'm not registered in Virginia. Don't ask why.

[BGBC]

I'm starting to change my mind on the leak, what's with the opposition to this? SCOTUS is the least accountable institution in the country, and I understand that's by design, but why are they entitled to strategically withholding information from the public? If they're too weak to make decisions and face the backlash, then they're too weak to be in this business. Americans have a right to know which rights are going to be taken away by unelected officials.

This is a cameras-in-courts level take.

[BGBC]

I'm starting to change my mind on the leak, what's with the opposition to this? SCOTUS is the least accountable institution in the country, and I understand that's by design, but why are they entitled to strategically withholding information from the public? If they're too weak to make decisions and face the backlash, then they're too weak to be in this business. Americans have a right to know which rights are going to be taken away by unelected officials.

This is a cameras-in-courts level take.

I'm opposed to live televised hearings but I've never liked the ban on cameras in the Supreme Court. I understand not releasing the footage until the case has been heard, but refusing to give the public a look at what they do is creepy, but then again most of the Supreme Court's rituals are creepy and straight out of an occult fraternity.

Jesus

[BGBC]

I'm starting to change my mind on the leak, what's with the opposition to this? SCOTUS is the least accountable institution in the country, and I understand that's by design, but why are they entitled to strategically withholding information from the public? If they're too weak to make decisions and face the backlash, then they're too weak to be in this business. Americans have a right to know which rights are going to be taken away by unelected officials.

This is a cameras-in-courts level take.

I'm opposed to live televised hearings but I've never liked the ban on cameras in the Supreme Court. I understand not releasing the footage until the case has been heard, but refusing to give the public a look at what they do is creepy, but then again most of the Supreme Court's rituals are creepy and straight out of an occult fraternity.

Jesus

The Supreme Court is very creepy, and the no-cameras-allowed thing is just one element of it. It's a bunch of elitist snobs in robes with lifetime appointments and no accountability. American politics hinging on waiting for elderly people to die is outrageously unacceptable and it's terrible for the country. I don't even give them much credit for most of their good decisions. They can overturn whatever they want so none of the rights they've granted to us in the past are safe, and a lot of their proper decisions were only necessary because they f-cked up in the first place.

I meant the part about surface-level legal traditions being like an “occult fraternity.” This is a really bizarre and awfully personal rant for a group of 9 people we really know nothing about. I would agree with you on the last point though; the only reason there is so much pressure on how the Court rules is because they opined these rights to begin with. You have to rip the bandaid off at some point, though.