SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[kyc0705]

honestly amazing that some people still have such unearned adoration for the Supreme Court as an institution that they will assume good or even consistent faith on its part.

[GP270watch]

honestly amazing that some people still have such unearned adoration for the Supreme Court as an institution that they will assume good or even consistent faith on its part.

 I've been saying for years on here that it's the worst branch of government.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

honestly amazing that some people still have such unearned adoration for the Supreme Court as an institution that they will assume good or even consistent faith on its part.

And that they’ll be more mad at the leaker than the justices signing onto the opinion.

[Former President tack50]

2. This is actually legally terrible. Contrary to popular belief, Roe's legal basis is solid. This is the exact sort of thing that a majoritarian legislature *shouldn't* have the right to weigh in on. The commerce clause is also fine, Dule.

Ok, so despite me being firmly pro-choice and thinking the leaked ruling is awful; this is a part I don't understand.

I actually have a very easy time imagining the US constitution recognizing some sort of vague (and honestly, not so vague) right to privacy. My issue is with the jump from "right to privacy" meaning "right to have an abortion".

There's perhaps an argument to be made about medical documents, or perhaps not disclosing your pregnancy status to your employers; but I struggle to ser how that extends to outright abortion being a right

[jojoju1998]

2. This is actually legally terrible. Contrary to popular belief, Roe's legal basis is solid. This is the exact sort of thing that a majoritarian legislature *shouldn't* have the right to weigh in on. The commerce clause is also fine, Dule.

Ok, so despite me being firmly pro-choice and thinking the leaked ruling is awful; this is a part I don't understand.

I actually have a very easy time imagining the US constitution recognizing some sort of vague (and honestly, not so vague) right to privacy. My issue is with the jump from "right to privacy" meaning "right to have an abortion".

There's perhaps an argument to be made about medical documents, or perhaps not disclosing your pregnancy status to your employers; but I struggle to ser how that extends to outright abortion being a right

THIS IS WHERE I AM AIMING AT IN MY POSTS ! BUT NO ONE UNDERSTANDS MY POINT.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

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

What a bold endorsement of Gallego for Senate from Sinema

[7,052,770]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/03/alito-roe-leaked-draft-disaster-for-supreme-court/

Keep in mind: Majorities, particularly in high-stakes cases such as the Mississippi abortion law at issue, can fall apart. We don’t know how Politico, which broke the story, obtained the draft. One theory — my leading theory — is that the leak came from the conservative side, possibly from a clerk for a conservative justice concerned that the seeming majority, ready to do away with the constitutional right to abortion, might be unraveling.

There was a hint of this last week in a Wall Street Journal editorial warning that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. might be trying to dissuade Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett from voting to overrule Roe outright. Roberts famously changed his mind after initially voting to strike down the Affordable Care Act in 2012 and “may be trying to turn another Justice now,” the Journal warned. “We hope he doesn’t succeed — for the good of the Court and the country.”

The Journal said its “guess” was that Alito was writing the majority opinion. Is it a coincidence that the Alito draft then leaked to Politico — or is it part of the same campaign to stave off a Kavanaugh or Barrett defection?

Of course, there are other possible culprits: a liberal clerk furious over the loss of abortion rights, perhaps? That makes less sense. Not much would be gained by leaking the draft of an outcome that has been expected since December’s oral argument in the Mississippi case, which involves a ban on most abortions after 15 weeks. Does anybody really think the reaction would change the conservative justices’ minds?

Conclusion: if a liberal did this, he's a dumbass. If a conservative did this, he's smart. Supreme Court clerks are usually smart.

Again we saw those students in Yale start screaming over a discussion, those same students later become clerks.

Not literally the same individuals. At least not without a lot of drastic maturing.

[Dr. Frankenstein]

Again, people, look at what happened at Ceausescu's Romania after he outlawed abortion. It didn't stop abortion. It just pushed into back alleys where a lot of women died because they didn't have access to the care they needed.

Not only did a lot of women die as a result of abortions performed in some back alley, behind some dirty curtains, but many more were left with lifelong disabilities.

I should know, as I was born there. My parents grew up under his regime. Grandpa's best friend had a sister who had such an abortion in her early twenties and this left her unable to have children ever again. And I've heard many more stories just like that or (far) worse.

[Badger]

Biden states;

Banned - Michigan, Arizona, Georgia.
Restricted - Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia.
Not protected - New Hampshire, New Mexico

Rest are protected by law

Trump states;

Protected by law - Montana
Restricted - Indiana, West Virginia, Florida, Nebraska, Kansas

Rest are banned.

Rest are banned

At least one election this could affect would be giving Shapiro a boost in the governor's race.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

2. This is actually legally terrible. Contrary to popular belief, Roe's legal basis is solid. This is the exact sort of thing that a majoritarian legislature *shouldn't* have the right to weigh in on. The commerce clause is also fine, Dule.

Ok, so despite me being firmly pro-choice and thinking the leaked ruling is awful; this is a part I don't understand.

I actually have a very easy time imagining the US constitution recognizing some sort of vague (and honestly, not so vague) right to privacy. My issue is with the jump from "right to privacy" meaning "right to have an abortion".

There's perhaps an argument to be made about medical documents, or perhaps not disclosing your pregnancy status to your employers; but I struggle to ser how that extends to outright abortion being a right

I am also pro-abortion and pro-right to privacy but fundamentally agree with this post.

A right to privacy in the Constitution naturally implies a right to abortion only if you have accepted the premise that a fetus is not a person with independent human rights.  Just because you have a right to privacy doesn't mean you have the right to murder another person in the privacy of your own home.

So in order for our interpretation of the Constitution to include a right to abortion, that interpretation must also include a justification for why a fetus is not a human life.  And Blackmun's opinion in Roe complete hand-waves this question.  It literally includes the line, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." The opinion does include quite a bit of discussion of how other parts of the constitution by implication define person "only post-natally", if this is the standard for personhood, why does Roe permit unlimited restrictions on abortion in the third trimester?

If there is a bright side to this opinion, I really believe it will force pro-abortion advocates to finally construct real arguments that actually engage the arguments of the other side rather than simply lazily resting on stare decisis to justify their positions.  I.e. rather than simply arguing that abortion is a right, we will actually have to make the argument for why abortion should be a right.

[DrScholl]

In addition to codifying Roe v. Wade, the Democrats should have come out against lockdowns and the rest of this COVID nonsense from the very beginning. Then they'd have more credibility about being defenders of bodily autonomy.

As it stands right now, all they're doing is just using the latest turn of events to raise money and not really do anything.

At he beginning of the pandemic there was no other choice but to lock everything down. Without a vaccine or way to control the virus the only way to prevent the spread was temporary lockdowns. And at this point those are a distant memory. Let it go.

[Xing]

I've tried to stay away from this site over the past few days, and the toxicity in this thread is a good reason why. I'll make my point here, then go back to my sabbatical from this forum and the absolute dumpster fire that is American politics.

The legality of Roe vs. Wade, or a repeal, for that matter, is beside the point, since this decision is so obviously judicial activism. And it's also perfectly emblematic of why America is not a democracy, and is, if anything, trending away from being one. At least half of the justices who are in favor of this were nominated by a president who got fewer votes than his opponent. They were confirmed by a Senate that does not come close to representing the actual make-up of the American population, and by a party that won a majority despite receiving significantly fewer votes. And they will serve for life, continue making decisions which, like this one, do not at all represent what the majority of Americans think or want.

It's almost funny how complacent or even happy people are with an increasingly small minority of the population calling all the shots. While humanity has always had its hierarchies, which tend toward a pyramid shape, this country is losing any pretense of even caring about its citizens. Make no mistake, this is not the endgame, and we're going to see many more decisions based purely out of activism and "owning" the other side, which is pretty much all politics amounts to these days. I can't even get myself to be mad at conservatives who seem to cheer anything that means that liberals will be unhappy, since I don't have the energy for anger anymore. Instead, I'm just disheartened, and it makes me that much more convinced that this country is going to continue to backslide and fall further behind other countries. And many people here aren't even going to care, so long as they believe that their side is "winning" (or, more importantly, people they're taught are the bad guys are unhappy.)

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

It's pretty wild, and under discussed, how Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all blatantly lied to the Senate about how they respected Roe's precedent.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

It's pretty wild, and under discussed, how Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all blatantly lied to the Senate about how they respected Roe's precedent.

Susan Collins is extremely concerned.

[7,052,770]

It's pretty wild, and under discussed, how Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all blatantly lied to the Senate about how they respected Roe's precedent.

If abortion really is murder, it is totally justifiable morally to tell a white lie in order to end it. I disagree with their opinion, but the way they went about it makes sense.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It's pretty wild, and under discussed, how Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all blatantly lied to the Senate about how they respected Roe's precedent.

If abortion really is murder, it is totally justifiable morally to tell a white lie in order to end it. I disagree with their opinion, but the way they went about it makes sense.

Perhaps, but my understanding is that the legal argument isn't so connected to the question of "murder" as it is to the premise that abortion rights simply aren't included anywhere in the constitution.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

US will now become a third world country

https://twitter.com/tekstone/status/1521535100613136389

USSR all day, all night

Also USA kids now can go to Mexico or Canada when Republicans if they win in november pass a nationwide ban.

And NO Transatlantic alliance anymore! At least i will never vote for parties that want a transatlantic alliance.

Be backwards in your own hole, thank u.

[GP270watch]

It's pretty wild, and under discussed, how Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all blatantly lied to the Senate about how they respected Roe's precedent.

 Only a fool would believe that these judicial candidates who were groomed by conservative organizations to do exactly this wouldn't do this when the time came.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

It's pretty wild, and under discussed, how Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all blatantly lied to the Senate about how they respected Roe's precedent.

This would presumably be grounds for impeaching all of them... if the Democrats were ever to get sufficient seats to do so. (Because Republicans wouldn't vote to impeach a rabid dog who used the Constitution as toilet paper, as long as the dog was a conservative.)

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Laki stuff

Lol

Maybe i overreacted

but this whole thing is so stupid.

Policing the entire world about human rights

and be like... women rights, never heard of it.

[Mr. Reactionary]

2. This is actually legally terrible. Contrary to popular belief, Roe's legal basis is solid. This is the exact sort of thing that a majoritarian legislature *shouldn't* have the right to weigh in on. The commerce clause is also fine, Dule.

If you want to convince me that Roe is legally sound, trying to also justify the Commerce Clause jurisprudence of the past 100 years is not the way to do it.

I LOL'd when I read someone claim Roe was legally sound. It was the biggest made up opinion in almost a century.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

A few thoughts

1. This is consequentially bad, but not *very* bad. Most states will allow abortion and most states that don't have made the process so hard to get that people are already travelling to blue states anyway. Roe should exist. Texans should have access to abortion, because Roe should guarantee that everywhere. But Texans already don't, so it's not like they're losing something they currently have.

2. This is actually legally terrible. Contrary to popular belief, Roe's legal basis is solid. This is the exact sort of thing that a majoritarian legislature *shouldn't* have the right to weigh in on. The commerce clause is also fine, Dule.

3. Roberts might strategically go 6-3 so he can write a much more limited opinion.

4. This leak almost certainly came from the right. It probably was done to either shore up the 5 votes (Kav) on the right by getting this through the political cycle already, or done to cynically flip Roberts so he can block Alito's opinion.

5. Most Americans will see this as a radical, destructive opinion. The right has overreached, and this could be extraordinarily self-defeating.

6. Other decisions, like marriage equality, aren't in jeopardy. They're clearly protected by the 14th. Kav would never.

7. Schumer should force an up-down vote on codifying marriage equality anyway. I bet it would clear 60 votes, probably 70. Obergfell allowed the GOP to abandon its unpopular stance on the issue without having a messy internal fight. Seeing who votes against marriage equality would be very revealing, and helpful.

8. We achieved de-facto safe, legal, and rare and y'all blew it up.

9. Hillary should have won.

I’d agree with pretty much everything except number 4. I’m still not sure who leaked it. 7 would be good to get the GQP on the record for where they stand.

I would also like to send my “thanks” to Ruth Bader Ginsburg for helping this happen. Damn geriatric moron.

[7,052,770]

It's pretty wild, and under discussed, how Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all blatantly lied to the Senate about how they respected Roe's precedent.

If abortion really is murder, it is totally justifiable morally to tell a white lie in order to end it. I disagree with their opinion, but the way they went about it makes sense.

Perhaps, but my understanding is that the legal argument isn't so connected to the question of "murder" as it is to the premise that abortion rights simply aren't included anywhere in the constitution.

I'm quite convinced that the 5 justices, along with the vast majority of anti-abortion politicians, start from a position of abortion being against their moral/religious beliefs, and then work backwards from there to find a justification.

That's not an attack per se, most everybody does that to some extent, but I don't think it's a coincidence that all of the Christian Conservatives on the Court have come to the decision that matches their church's teachings.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Biden states;

Banned - Michigan, Arizona, Georgia.
Restricted - Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia.
Not protected - New Hampshire, New Mexico

Rest are protected by law

Trump states;

Protected by law - Montana
Restricted - Indiana, West Virginia, Florida, Nebraska, Kansas

Rest are banned.

Rest are banned

I'm curious to see if that protection in Montana will last. My guess is that the rabidly GOP legislature and their insane governor don't touch it this year, and then abolish it ASAP after the election in November.