SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

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

Or just say women.

That wouldn't be inclusive to trans men or AFAB non-binary people.

Or my hamster who the pet shop told us was a boy and then he haves birth to six baby hamsters

So, not to contribute to the derailing of the thread, but.....Imma contribute to the derailing of the thread.

I'm gonna preclude this story by saying that I'm gay, for whatever that's worth.

A while back I came across a post on tumblr ( I know who uses that s***) from a girl who bred and sold hamsters. She set up a webcam and the hamsters had their own various social media profiles as a way to advertise her business. Every now and then she would notice that she had a gay hamster couple or two among her many, many, many hamsters. She would point this out on a vlog or an instagram post. It was all fun and cute until one day the trans community got wind of her hamsters. The comments this girl got....."HOW DO YOU KNOW THEYRE NOT TRANS HAMSTERS!!!111!!!11" "YOU DONT KNOW THOSE HAMSTERS' PREFERRED PRONOUNS!!11!!"  "YOU'RE A CISGENDERED ANTI-TRANS BIGOT!!11!"

Poor girl explained that she knew they were gay simply b/c they were male hamsters who exclusively hung out with and had sex with each other despite being surrounded by dozens if not hundreds of available female hamsters. This girl got DEATH THREATS.

As a gay man, I really don't like not being on the "side" of an unpopular minority group that the crazed "christian" right bashes for cheap political points, but a certain sector of the trans rights activists community really, desperately needs to stop acting so f****** insane. Their rhetoric is coo coo for cocoa puffs level bats*** nonsense.

Saying "birthing bodies" b/c "women" wouldn't include " trans men or AFAB non-binary people?"

JFC get a goddamn grip. The middle of country is nowhere near this level of pronoun and gender identity.....awareness or whatever it is they want.

Yeah, there’s some folks in activist circles that do really need to understand that not everyone is going to care 100% about their pet issue. They’re missing the forest for the trees here. That and “birthing bodies” just sounds awful when as others have said you could just say “people” or “pregnant people” and it would be perfectly fine and not gross sounding.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

https://twitter.com/Literature_Lady/status/1522202362366078979

Edit: corrected from url to tweet.

The draft opinion generally mentions Hale in connection with Edward Coke, William Blackstone, and/or Henry de Bracton. I doubt this tweet-er, or almost anybody on the forum for that matter, would have much patience for Coke's, Blackstone's, or Bracton's perspectives on issues like marital rape either, and at one point that I noticed Alito quote-mines Hale to make him seem more hostile to abortion than the whole quote suggests he was, but the Dobbs draft doesn't single out Hale in particular as uniquely authoritative on the subjects it discusses.

[TopShelfGoal]

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.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

https://twitter.com/Literature_Lady/status/1522202362366078979
Edit: corrected from url to tweet.

The draft opinion generally mentions Hale in connection with Edward Coke, William Blackstone, and/or Henry de Bracton. I doubt this tweet-er, or almost anybody on the forum for that matter, would have much patience for Coke's, Blackstone's, or Bracton's perspectives on issues like marital rape either, and at one point that I noticed Alito quote-mines Hale to make him seem more hostile to abortion than the whole quote suggests he was, but the Dobbs draft doesn't single out Hale in particular as uniquely authoritative on the subjects it discusses.

Also, you know Matthew Hale died 125 years before the US constitution was a written, and about 175 before substantive due process was a thing.
So I'm not sure how his opinion on the matter is relevant anyway.

Additionally, if you follow his logic of 'nothing 17th century jurists didn't consider isn't protected', good-bye Loving, good-bye Griswold.
He actually rattled off a list of cases that this opinion's logic would compel him to overturn, but then just declared they are different because he said.

It's a joke of an opinion and all the people that constantly defend the court as a body of serious jurists following where the law leads them need to understand how damn many opinions exactly like this, either just deciding that well established precedent doesn't apply in this case because they don't like the outcome or outright ignoring it, come out of this court every year.

ETA By the way, both paragon of legal virtue John Roberts and blessedly retired moderate hero Anthony Kennedy regularly did this.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

https://twitter.com/Literature_Lady/status/1522202362366078979
Edit: corrected from url to tweet.

The draft opinion generally mentions Hale in connection with Edward Coke, William Blackstone, and/or Henry de Bracton. I doubt this tweet-er, or almost anybody on the forum for that matter, would have much patience for Coke's, Blackstone's, or Bracton's perspectives on issues like marital rape either, and at one point that I noticed Alito quote-mines Hale to make him seem more hostile to abortion than the whole quote suggests he was, but the Dobbs draft doesn't single out Hale in particular as uniquely authoritative on the subjects it discusses.

Also, you know Matthew Hale died 125 years before the US constitution was a written, and about 175 before substantive due process was a thing.
So I'm not sure how his opinion on the matter is relevant anyway.

Additionally, if you follow his logic of 'nothing 17th century jurists didn't consider isn't protected', good-bye Loving, good-bye Griswold.
He actually rattled off a list of cases that this opinion's logic would compel him to overturn, but then just declared they are different because he said.

It's a joke of an opinion and all the people that constantly defend the court as a body of serious jurists following where the law leads them need to understand how damn many opinions exactly like this, either just deciding that well established precedent doesn't apply in this case because they don't like the outcome or outright ignoring it, come out of this court every year.

ETA By the way, both paragon of legal virtue John Roberts and blessedly retired moderate hero Anthony Kennedy regularly did this.

There's actually a page on congress.gov website listing each time the Supreme Court ignored muh stare decisis and explicitly overturned a past decision. It's happened something like a dozen times since 2018 alone. And yet Plessy of all cases is technically still on the books. Sad!

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

https://twitter.com/Literature_Lady/status/1522202362366078979
Edit: corrected from url to tweet.

The draft opinion generally mentions Hale in connection with Edward Coke, William Blackstone, and/or Henry de Bracton. I doubt this tweet-er, or almost anybody on the forum for that matter, would have much patience for Coke's, Blackstone's, or Bracton's perspectives on issues like marital rape either, and at one point that I noticed Alito quote-mines Hale to make him seem more hostile to abortion than the whole quote suggests he was, but the Dobbs draft doesn't single out Hale in particular as uniquely authoritative on the subjects it discusses.

Also, you know Matthew Hale died 125 years before the US constitution was a written, and about 175 before substantive due process was a thing.
So I'm not sure how his opinion on the matter is relevant anyway.

Additionally, if you follow his logic of 'nothing 17th century jurists didn't consider isn't protected', good-bye Loving, good-bye Griswold.
He actually rattled off a list of cases that this opinion's logic would compel him to overturn, but then just declared they are different because he said.

It's a joke of an opinion and all the people that constantly defend the court as a body of serious jurists following where the law leads them need to understand how damn many opinions exactly like this, either just deciding that well established precedent doesn't apply in this case because they don't like the outcome or outright ignoring it, come out of this court every year.

ETA By the way, both paragon of legal virtue John Roberts and blessedly retired moderate hero Anthony Kennedy regularly did this.

There's actually a page on congress.gov website listing each time the Supreme Court ignored muh stare decisis and explicitly overturned a past decision. It's happened something like a dozen times since 2018 alone. And yet Plessy of all cases is technically still on the books. Sad!

Remember Shelby County, when John Roberts overturned federal law that had been passed with near unanimously (only 33 votes against in House, 98-0 in the Senate) less that a decade ago explicitly because he thought that they hadn't given it enough consideration? Sure is some great judicial restraint there.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

https://twitter.com/Literature_Lady/status/1522202362366078979
Edit: corrected from url to tweet.

The draft opinion generally mentions Hale in connection with Edward Coke, William Blackstone, and/or Henry de Bracton. I doubt this tweet-er, or almost anybody on the forum for that matter, would have much patience for Coke's, Blackstone's, or Bracton's perspectives on issues like marital rape either, and at one point that I noticed Alito quote-mines Hale to make him seem more hostile to abortion than the whole quote suggests he was, but the Dobbs draft doesn't single out Hale in particular as uniquely authoritative on the subjects it discusses.

Also, you know Matthew Hale died 125 years before the US constitution was a written, and about 175 before substantive due process was a thing.
So I'm not sure how his opinion on the matter is relevant anyway.

Additionally, if you follow his logic of 'nothing 17th century jurists didn't consider isn't protected', good-bye Loving, good-bye Griswold.
He actually rattled off a list of cases that this opinion's logic would compel him to overturn, but then just declared they are different because he said.

It's a joke of an opinion and all the people that constantly defend the court as a body of serious jurists following where the law leads them need to understand how damn many opinions exactly like this, either just deciding that well established precedent doesn't apply in this case because they don't like the outcome or outright ignoring it, come out of this court every year.

ETA By the way, both paragon of legal virtue John Roberts and blessedly retired moderate hero Anthony Kennedy regularly did this.

There's actually a page on congress.gov website listing each time the Supreme Court ignored muh stare decisis and explicitly overturned a past decision. It's happened something like a dozen times since 2018 alone. And yet Plessy of all cases is technically still on the books. Sad!

Remember Shelby County, when John Roberts overturned federal law that had been passed with near unanimously (only 33 votes against in House, 98-0 in the Senate) less that a decade ago explicitly because he thought that they hadn't given it enough consideration? Sure is some great judicial restraint there.

Or somehow "state's rights" became lets toss a century old Montana law that makes it too hard for multinational corporations to buy elections today.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

No one is going to go after Loving v. Virginia, that's delusional.

[Benjamin Frank]

'Pro life' Republicans:

Andrew Wilhoite (R) won a Republican primary in Indiana on Tuesday night after being arrested and jailed in the murder of his wife, Nikki Wilhoite, who had just finished her last round of chemotherapy, the Kansas City Star reports.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article261127012.html

Andrew Wilhoite is accused of killing his wife, 41-year-old Nikki Wilhoite, McClatchy News reported. Indiana State Police say he struck her “with a blunt object” and dumped her body in a nearby creek.

[Person Man]

'Pro life' Republicans:

Andrew Wilhoite (R) won a Republican primary in Indiana on Tuesday night after being arrested and jailed in the murder of his wife, Nikki Wilhoite, who had just finished her last round of chemotherapy, the Kansas City Star reports.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article261127012.html

Andrew Wilhoite is accused of killing his wife, 41-year-old Nikki Wilhoite, McClatchy News reported. Indiana State Police say he struck her “with a blunt object” and dumped her body in a nearby creek.

Stories like this just keep proving to me that society is on borrowed time.

[Inmate Trump]

'Pro life' Republicans:

Andrew Wilhoite (R) won a Republican primary in Indiana on Tuesday night after being arrested and jailed in the murder of his wife, Nikki Wilhoite, who had just finished her last round of chemotherapy, the Kansas City Star reports.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article261127012.html

Andrew Wilhoite is accused of killing his wife, 41-year-old Nikki Wilhoite, McClatchy News reported. Indiana State Police say he struck her “with a blunt object” and dumped her body in a nearby creek.

“But he’s against abortion, so he’s still better than a Democrat.”

—Fuzzy Bear, probably

[fhtagn]

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

[Inmate Trump]

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

I don’t think interracial marriage is on the table but gay marriage definitely is. It’s not at all far fetched to think that.

[Person Man]

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

I don’t think interracial marriage is on the table but gay marriage definitely is. It’s not at all far fetched to think that.

Right now, I give gay marriage about a 50-50 chance. And I gave interracial marriage and simply being gay about 80 to 90% chance of being OK. If we went from a 6-3 to 7-2 Court, I give all of these less than a 50% chance of not being overruled. At that point, there is a non-trivial possibility of Brown being overruled.

[Benjamin Frank]

If we assume the position that striking down Roe V Wade doesn't ban abortion, it just brings it to the people and state legislatures to decide, I fail to see on what grounds interracial marriage would be any different from this, or that it should be any different than this ruling.

Either 14th Amendment protections for privacy exist or they don't.

To argue something like 'abortion is an issue of such importance to people that it should be decided by the public but interracial marriage isn't' is the exact sort of 'legislating from the bench' that conservatives claim they don't like.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Gorsuch said the CRA protects transgender people. You really think hes going to backtrack and obliterate gay marriage which is an equal protection issue rather than a substantive due process issue?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

If we assume the position that striking down Roe V Wade doesn't ban abortion, it just brings it to the people and state legislatures to decide, I fail to see on what grounds interracial marriage would be any different from this, or that it should be any different than this ruling.

Either 14th Amendment protections for privacy exist or they don't.

To argue something like 'abortion is an issue of such importance to people that it should be decided by the public but interracial marriage isn't' is the exact sort of 'legislating from the bench' that conservatives claim they don't like.

Yeah, when Alito said that abortion was different because it raised moral questions, my immediate thought was “wouldn’t social conservatives say that about all those other cases you cited too?”

[Badger]

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

I concede that despite Senator Braun's completely off the wall statement that loving versus Virginia was wrongly decided, even the most hardcore racist Deep South GOP dominated legislature is not about to vote to reinstitute miscegenation laws, let alone that the Supreme Court would use the opportunity to reverse Loving.
. After all, it affects one of their own personally so it doesn't count you see.

But going after the lgbtq community next? Abso-freakin'-lutely. Imagine being so delusional as to not to see this from the many many statements to that effect, not only the Hobbs decision quite implicitly attacking the fundamental basis for cases like Lawrence and Obergefell , but also the many many prominent Republicans who've quite explicitly said these cases are now in their crosshairs

[Horus]

Trends matter, and SCOTUS is not immune from public pressure. Contraceptive use, ssm, interracial marriage etc. are all more popular and accepted with every passing year.

Abortion? That's been a tentative 60-40 split for a generation. The discourse has gone nowhere. Plus in the eyes of countless millions there are literally "piles of dead babies" in the back of every Planned Parenthood. Abortion gets people riled up in a way these other issues just don't, why would that special anger not extend to the conservative justices?

[Vespucci]

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

I can see that despite Senator bronze completely off the wall statement that loving versus Virginia was wrongly decided, even the most hardcore racist Deep South GOP dominated legislature is not about to vote to reinstitute miscegenation laws, let alone that the Supreme Court would overrule it. After all, it affects one of their own personally so it doesn't count you see.

But going after the lgbtq community next? Abso-freakin'-lutely. Imagine being so delusional as to not to see this from the many many statements to that effect, not only the Hobbs decision quite implicitly attacking the fundamental basis for cases like Lawrence and Obergefell , but also the many many prominent Republicans who've quite explicitly said these cases are now in their crosshairs

If any state were to elect Bronz as a Senator it should immediately be expelled from the union

[Person Man]

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

I can see that despite Senator bronze completely off the wall statement that loving versus Virginia was wrongly decided, even the most hardcore racist Deep South GOP dominated legislature is not about to vote to reinstitute miscegenation laws, let alone that the Supreme Court would overrule it. After all, it affects one of their own personally so it doesn't count you see.

But going after the lgbtq community next? Abso-freakin'-lutely. Imagine being so delusional as to not to see this from the many many statements to that effect, not only the Hobbs decision quite implicitly attacking the fundamental basis for cases like Lawrence and Obergefell , but also the many many prominent Republicans who've quite explicitly said these cases are now in their crosshairs

He does have a point that Cavanaugh and Gorsuch might be more sympathetic to gay people than women but the calculus of the court has changed with Barrett’s ascension. Also whether or not being trans is a protected suspect class or at least quasi-suspect class doesn’t really protect Lawrence and Obergefell  which were decided on the basis of things like Griswold and Roe. It’s not inconceivable that Lawrence, Griswold, and Oberfefell being overturned but that they are eventually reaffirmed based on equal protection grounds the same way row versus Wade could be reinstated. This is what RBG was trying to get done but was unable to so she concurred a lot of these things. These new rulings wouldn’t ban states from banning abortions or from being gay or gay married but would Require that antiabortion mars be equal enforced upon mothers and fathers, and that sodomy laws be calling for second Street and gay people.

[Person Man]

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

I can see that despite Senator bronze completely off the wall statement that loving versus Virginia was wrongly decided, even the most hardcore racist Deep South GOP dominated legislature is not about to vote to reinstitute miscegenation laws, let alone that the Supreme Court would overrule it. After all, it affects one of their own personally so it doesn't count you see.

But going after the lgbtq community next? Abso-freakin'-lutely. Imagine being so delusional as to not to see this from the many many statements to that effect, not only the Hobbs decision quite implicitly attacking the fundamental basis for cases like Lawrence and Obergefell , but also the many many prominent Republicans who've quite explicitly said these cases are now in their crosshairs

If any state were to elect Bronz as a Senator it should immediately be expelled from the union

We are both at work so we are using our voice to text to do a lot of things.

[TheReckoning]

These people are fascists. Plain and simple.

If opposing Roe v. Wade is fascism, could it be said all participants in WW2 were fascist? I’m pretty sure all of them had more restrictions on abortion than what is allowed by Roe.

[Person Man]

These people are fascists. Plain and simple.

If opposing Roe v. Wade is fascism, could it be said all participants in WW2 were fascist? I’m pretty sure all of them had more restrictions on abortion than what is allowed by Roe.

h
They also had segregation and left omosexuals in the camps after they were liberated. That's why we don't tear down statues of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.

[T'Chenka]

If we assume the position that striking down Roe V Wade doesn't ban abortion, it just brings it to the people and state legislatures to decide, I fail to see on what grounds interracial marriage would be any different from this, or that it should be any different than this ruling.

Either 14th Amendment protections for privacy exist or they don't.

To argue something like 'abortion is an issue of such importance to people that it should be decided by the public but interracial marriage isn't' is the exact sort of 'legislating from the bench' that conservatives claim they don't like.

Agreed. Would the Supreme Court "end" interracial marriage? Definitely no. Would they end it nationally so each state could make their own choice about it? Yeah maybe. I wouldn't put it past the Rethuglicans.