SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Dr. Arch]

They're not stopping.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1542463030600032257

Literally unconstitutional

[Person Man]

They're not stopping.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1542463030600032257

Literally unconstitutional

Gorsuch and Roberts won't be on board with this. This is a non-started. If a seventh R justice is named, I think it could happen though.

[Ferguson97]

https://twitter.com/ap/status/1542504901074292737

[Middle-aged Europe]

https://twitter.com/ap/status/1542504901074292737

Yup, time to take the gloves off.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

https://twitter.com/ap/status/1542504901074292737

While I support it, this will only work until the GOP gains control of the government. The Democrats better act fast because it is almost certain the GOP will gain control of one or both houses of Congress after the midterms.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

https://twitter.com/ap/status/1542504901074292737

While I support it, this will only work until the GOP gains control of the government. The Democrats better act fast because it is almost certain the GOP will gain control of one or both houses of Congress after the midterms.

That is how government is supposed to work. It is meant to be a living thing that responds directly to elections, after which the consequences of one's vote can be felt, understood and acted on in a reasonable amount of time.

Dismantling the filibuster just for this and stopping there might be poor strategy (and it would be a likely outcome given that they haven't even managed to use their filibuster-free reconciliation bills).

In principle, however, Democrats should be willing to trade in greater Republican legislative power in exchange for them also having this kind of power and the Supreme Court being weaker. The problem is that they don't see an advantage here because they don't want to wield legislative power - that would mean they'd have to act on an agenda they don't actually believe in.

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/ap/status/1542504901074292737

While I support it, this will only work until the GOP gains control of the government. The Democrats better act fast because it is almost certain the GOP will gain control of one or both houses of Congress after the midterms.

Biden cod veto a repeal, no?

[Torie]

https://twitter.com/ap/status/1542504901074292737

While I support it, this will only work until the GOP gains control of the government. The Democrats better act fast because it is almost certain the GOP will gain control of one or both houses of Congress after the midterms.

That is how government is supposed to work. It is meant to be a living thing that responds directly to elections, after which the consequences of one's vote can be felt, understood and acted on in a reasonable amount of time.

Dismantling the filibuster just for this and stopping there might be poor strategy (and it would be a likely outcome given that they haven't even managed to use their filibuster-free reconciliation bills).

In principle, however, Democrats should be willing to trade in greater Republican legislative power in exchange for them also having this kind of power and the Supreme Court being weaker. The problem is that they don't see an advantage here because they don't want to wield legislative power - that would mean they'd have to act on an agenda they don't actually believe in.

I think the idea has traction. Manchin, Collins and Murkowski would not be willing to kill the filibuster now for everything because then any law could be passed with 50 votes plus Harris. If it is suspended for this one vote on this one issue, then it continues until one party or the other kills it when they have the votes. In the case of the Dems, that would be if they had 52 votes at the moment. So why not just do it, and pass something sensible, so we don't have woman traveling around all over the place to get a first trimester abortion, or messing with what pills they take. Let's pull the plug on that now.

[Middle-aged Europe]

You can get rid of the filibuster altogether for all I care. Then abortion is legalized nation-wide, followed by a nation-wide ban on abortion as soon as the GOP takes control of Congress, followed by a nation-wide re-legalization of abortion when the Dems are back in charge, and so on.

This would either truly lead to the Second American Civil War or it would showcase the ridiculous state of American politics to everyone so people would finally come to their senses in the end. Either way the gridlock would be broken.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The justices see Biden Approvals and Gerrymandering map and are getting ready for an R takeover no question about it for 2023 so expect Affirmative Action to get struck down 6/3 by Kavanaugh as CJ Roberts will side with the majority on a more limited view

KBJ means nothing for this Conservative majority unless it's immigration policy as was authorized today, but Planned Parenthood was already affirmed 6/3 and Kavanaugh was in the majority they are married to menapausal women and they know condemns protect you from HIV not just pregnancy as you use it for menapause females and SSM anyways that don't involve pregnancy

It's really no big deal that Rod is overturned it's a big deal but it's not George Floyd 2.0 no one is mass protesting like Floyd and as we found out LeBron, Kyrie gave money to Floyd family before they got 33M because Floyd had a gold casket funeral, before the settlement case

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

https://twitter.com/ap/status/1542504901074292737

While I support it, this will only work until the GOP gains control of the government. The Democrats better act fast because it is almost certain the GOP will gain control of one or both houses of Congress after the midterms.

Biden cod veto a repeal, no?

Shut with your logic

If elected representatives are allowed to pass laws, future legislatures could also pass laws by merely winning elections and we would have some kind of democracy. Think about the lack of bipartisan good feels that would create. It’s madness.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

They're not stopping.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1542463030600032257

Literally unconstitutional

Gorsuch and Roberts won't be on board with this. This is a non-started. If a seventh R justice is named, I think it could happen though.

Kavanaugh explicitly stated in his concurrence that this is still allowed. It won't stand.

[Tartarus Sauce]

You can get rid of the filibuster altogether for all I care. Then abortion is legalized nation-wide, followed by a nation-wide ban on abortion as soon as the GOP takes control of Congress, followed by a nation-wide re-legalization of abortion when the Dems are back in charge, and so on.

This would either truly lead to the Second American Civil War or it would showcase the ridiculous state of American politics to everyone so people would finally come to their senses in the end. Either way the gridlock would be broken.

I hate to admit it, but I think I am becoming an accelerationist on the issue of giving free reign to the parties to pass what they want a la a parliamentary system, but there needs to be true democratic accountability to go along with it. Let the cards fall where they may, no more of this bullsh**t grandstanding and impasses. The parties must run on the policies they actually pass, and if the American public hates it they will blow them out of the water in the next election.

[Badger]

They're not stopping.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1542463030600032257

Literally unconstitutional

Gorsuch and Roberts won't be on board with this. This is a non-started. If a seventh R justice is named, I think it could happen though.

Kavanaugh explicitly stated in his concurrence that this is still allowed. It won't stand.

This is assuming another Justice from the Hobbs majority would agree with him. I would assume Roberts likely would, but that's hardly a given. At the moment it's still simply very much on the table

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

They're not stopping.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1542463030600032257

Literally unconstitutional

Gorsuch and Roberts won't be on board with this. This is a non-started. If a seventh R justice is named, I think it could happen though.

Kavanaugh explicitly stated in his concurrence that this is still allowed. It won't stand.

Are you serious still pretending that this court has principles other that than  you, that’s why?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

They're not stopping.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1542463030600032257

Literally unconstitutional

Gorsuch and Roberts won't be on board with this. This is a non-started. If a seventh R justice is named, I think it could happen though.

Kavanaugh explicitly stated in his concurrence that this is still allowed. It won't stand.

Are you serious still pretending that this court has principles other that than  you, that’s why?

He specifically laid that out in his concurrence though. He could always go back on that yes, but if so why even bother with writing it out like that in the first place?

They're not stopping.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1542463030600032257

Literally unconstitutional

Gorsuch and Roberts won't be on board with this. This is a non-started. If a seventh R justice is named, I think it could happen though.

Kavanaugh explicitly stated in his concurrence that this is still allowed. It won't stand.

This is assuming another Justice from the Hobbs majority would agree with him. I would assume Roberts likely would, but that's hardly a given. At the moment it's still simply very much on the table

Roberts didn't even support overturning Roe, although it seems he was fine with a "death by a thousand cuts" assault on it, but thus is unlikely here.

The impression I get from their writings is that Kavanaugh is personally pro-choice but still thinks it should be a state issue, while Roberts has a somewhat complicated position that doesn't neatly fall under pro-choice/pro-life like Joe Manchin or that guy who just won the Republican nomination for Senate in Colorado.

[Badger]

They're not stopping.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1542463030600032257

Literally unconstitutional

Gorsuch and Roberts won't be on board with this. This is a non-started. If a seventh R justice is named, I think it could happen though.

Kavanaugh explicitly stated in his concurrence that this is still allowed. It won't stand.

Are you serious still pretending that this court has principles other that than  you, that’s why?

He specifically laid that out in his concurrence though. He could always go back on that yes, but if so why even bother with writing it out like that in the first place?

They're not stopping.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1542463030600032257

Literally unconstitutional

Gorsuch and Roberts won't be on board with this. This is a non-started. If a seventh R justice is named, I think it could happen though.

Kavanaugh explicitly stated in his concurrence that this is still allowed. It won't stand.

This is assuming another Justice from the Hobbs majority would agree with him. I would assume Roberts likely would, but that's hardly a given. At the moment it's still simply very much on the table

Roberts didn't even support overturning Roe, although it seems he was fine with a "death by a thousand cuts" assault on it, but thus is unlikely here.

The impression I get from their writings is that Kavanaugh is personally pro-choice but still thinks it should be a state issue, while Roberts has a somewhat complicated position that doesn't neatly fall under pro-choice/pro-life like Joe Manchin or that guy who just won the Republican nomination for Senate in Colorado.

Everything to my knowledge about Justice Kavanaugh, his background, his writings, his history on the bench, indicates he is very very personally anti-choice

[Person Man]

They're not stopping.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1542463030600032257

Literally unconstitutional

Gorsuch and Roberts won't be on board with this. This is a non-started. If a seventh R justice is named, I think it could happen though.

Kavanaugh explicitly stated in his concurrence that this is still allowed. It won't stand.

That’s what I meant. There’s probably only three justices who would approve of long arm abortion laws at this time.

[Torie]

You can get rid of the filibuster altogether for all I care. Then abortion is legalized nation-wide, followed by a nation-wide ban on abortion as soon as the GOP takes control of Congress, followed by a nation-wide re-legalization of abortion when the Dems are back in charge, and so on.

This would either truly lead to the Second American Civil War or it would showcase the ridiculous state of American politics to everyone so people would finally come to their senses in the end. Either way the gridlock would be broken.

I hate to admit it, but I think I am becoming an accelerationist on the issue of giving free reign to the parties to pass what they want a la a parliamentary system, but there needs to be true democratic accountability to go along with it. Let the cards fall where they may, no more of this bullsh**t grandstanding and impasses. The parties must run on the policies they actually pass, and if the American public hates it they will blow them out of the water in the next election.

I have favored repealing the Constitution and using the UK system since I was in high school. Yeah, at that age I was as weird, if not more weird,  as the current crop of young punks who infest this forum. The US system borders on the ludicrous, in so many ways. So per force of course, I dissent from the LDS position that it was inspired by God.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

They're not stopping.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1542463030600032257

Literally unconstitutional

Gorsuch and Roberts won't be on board with this. This is a non-started. If a seventh R justice is named, I think it could happen though.

Kavanaugh explicitly stated in his concurrence that this is still allowed. It won't stand.

Are you serious still pretending that this court has principles other that than  you, that’s why?

He specifically laid that out in his concurrence though. He could always go back on that yes, but if so why even bother with writing it out like that in the first place?

They're not stopping.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1542463030600032257

Literally unconstitutional

Gorsuch and Roberts won't be on board with this. This is a non-started. If a seventh R justice is named, I think it could happen though.

Kavanaugh explicitly stated in his concurrence that this is still allowed. It won't stand.

This is assuming another Justice from the Hobbs majority would agree with him. I would assume Roberts likely would, but that's hardly a given. At the moment it's still simply very much on the table

Roberts didn't even support overturning Roe, although it seems he was fine with a "death by a thousand cuts" assault on it, but thus is unlikely here.

The impression I get from their writings is that Kavanaugh is personally pro-choice but still thinks it should be a state issue, while Roberts has a somewhat complicated position that doesn't neatly fall under pro-choice/pro-life like Joe Manchin or that guy who just won the Republican nomination for Senate in Colorado.

Everything to my knowledge about Justice Kavanaugh, his background, his writings, his history on the bench, indicates he is very very personally anti-choice

Did you read his concurrence in Dobbs? He not only completely ignored the issue of if abortion is moral altogether he actually emphasized that it's still legal if states keep it that way and that women still unquestionably have the right to travel to other states for it.

[GoTfan]

They're not stopping.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1542463030600032257

Literally unconstitutional

They. Don't. Care.

[Pericles]

They're not stopping.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1542463030600032257

Literally unconstitutional

Gorsuch and Roberts won't be on board with this. This is a non-started. If a seventh R justice is named, I think it could happen though.

Kavanaugh said in his concurrence he'd oppose this.

[Skill and Chance]

They're not stopping.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1542463030600032257

Literally unconstitutional

Gorsuch and Roberts won't be on board with this. This is a non-started. If a seventh R justice is named, I think it could happen though.

Kavanaugh said in his concurrence he'd oppose this.

Yes,  Gorsuch is very, very into states rights.  He could be counted on more than anyone else on the right to vote down a federal abortion ban, but he could be fine with far-reaching state laws like this.  The surest conservative votes against this kind of stuff are Roberts and Kavanaugh.

[Person Man]

They're not stopping.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1542463030600032257

Literally unconstitutional

Gorsuch and Roberts won't be on board with this. This is a non-started. If a seventh R justice is named, I think it could happen though.

Kavanaugh said in his concurrence he'd oppose this.

Yes,  Gorsuch is very, very into states rights.  He could be counted on more than anyone else on the right to vote down a federal abortion ban, but he could be fine with far-reaching state laws like this.  The surest conservative votes against this kind of stuff are Roberts and Kavanaugh.

I mean, the consequences of states telling each other to go  themselves could be a big problem, right?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There won't be any federal abortion ban number 1 it's a Filibuster in the S and Mcconnell said he won't end the Filibuster because it's a slippery slope to DC Statehood and number two as long as Biden is Prez which he will be for 6 more yrs since all S incumbentts lead in the blue wall states Trump or even DeSantis arent winning MI, WI and PA and NV and Biden will veto any abortion ban


Trump only won MI, WI, and WI on 2016 just like Bush W won OH, NH and FL on split 3rd party vote Gary Johnson in 2016 and Nadar in 2000, users think Trump owned D's in MI, WI and PA in 2016  he won them very narrowly


A federal abortion ban is just as likely as Rs trying to expunge impeachment from the record of TRUMP