SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Person Man]

There was zero need for this ruling.  Dangerous and dumb.

Fortunately, this Supreme Court has also recently ruled that it's fine to ignore the Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects its own precedent in death row decision

The Supreme Court held in June 2020 that Texas cannot execute Andrus because he had received unconstitutionally inadequate legal representation at his trial.

But the Texas court ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling – essentially flouting the bedrock judicial principle that lower court judges must abide by the decisions of the highest court in the land, even when they disagree.

But this time, the Supreme Court decided not to intervene, effectively acquiescing to a lower court’s insubordination.

What in the absolute f--k

If that's gonna happen, then Biden should just go full Andrew Jackson and refuse to enforce this court's asinine rulings.

That would basically mean that the President basically 1) fires everyone who uses the decision to disobey him, 2) send in the national guard to prevent states from enforcing the rulings, and 3) pardoning everyone involved, including himself, after leaving office.

And?

I no longer care if the rule of law is this fundamentally broken anyway.

He also should have forcibly enforced that death penalty decision Texas violated if SCOTUS wasn’t going to do anything about it.

This Supreme Court is going to cause the dissolution or reorganization of the United States.

[Badger]

There was zero need for this ruling.  Dangerous and dumb.

Fortunately, this Supreme Court has also recently ruled that it's fine to ignore the Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects its own precedent in death row decision

The Supreme Court held in June 2020 that Texas cannot execute Andrus because he had received unconstitutionally inadequate legal representation at his trial.

But the Texas court ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling – essentially flouting the bedrock judicial principle that lower court judges must abide by the decisions of the highest court in the land, even when they disagree.

But this time, the Supreme Court decided not to intervene, effectively acquiescing to a lower court’s insubordination.

Imagine how stupid things would get if they replaced Kagan or Sotomayor with a Federalist society wunderkind/handmaid.

No need. They've already got a solid six to three radical reactionary majority. It's going to take more than merely Roberts-- still a hardcore right-wing conservative on damn near any objective spectrum of judicial thought-- on rare situations coming to his senses before you get any semblance of Sanity out of this court

[OSR stands with Israel]

There was zero need for this ruling.  Dangerous and dumb.

Fortunately, this Supreme Court has also recently ruled that it's fine to ignore the Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects its own precedent in death row decision

The Supreme Court held in June 2020 that Texas cannot execute Andrus because he had received unconstitutionally inadequate legal representation at his trial.

But the Texas court ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling – essentially flouting the bedrock judicial principle that lower court judges must abide by the decisions of the highest court in the land, even when they disagree.

But this time, the Supreme Court decided not to intervene, effectively acquiescing to a lower court’s insubordination.

Imagine how stupid things would get if they replaced Kagan or Sotomayor with a Federalist society wunderkind/handmaid.

No need. They've already got a solid six to three radical reactionary majority. It's going to take more than merely Roberts-- still a hardcore right-wing conservative on damn near any objective spectrum of judicial thought-- on rare situations coming to his senses before you get any semblance of Sanity out of this court

The Warren Court was even more ideological

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

There was zero need for this ruling.  Dangerous and dumb.

Fortunately, this Supreme Court has also recently ruled that it's fine to ignore the Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects its own precedent in death row decision

The Supreme Court held in June 2020 that Texas cannot execute Andrus because he had received unconstitutionally inadequate legal representation at his trial.

But the Texas court ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling – essentially flouting the bedrock judicial principle that lower court judges must abide by the decisions of the highest court in the land, even when they disagree.

But this time, the Supreme Court decided not to intervene, effectively acquiescing to a lower court’s insubordination.

What in the absolute f--k

If that's gonna happen, then Biden should just go full Andrew Jackson and refuse to enforce this court's asinine rulings.

That would basically mean that the President basically 1) fires everyone who uses the decision to disobey him, 2) send in the national guard to prevent states from enforcing the rulings, and 3) pardoning everyone involved, including himself, after leaving office.

And?

I no longer care if the rule of law is this fundamentally broken anyway.

He also should have forcibly enforced that death penalty decision Texas violated if SCOTUS wasn’t going to do anything about it.

This Supreme Court is going to cause the dissolution or reorganization of the United States.

The only good thing about the Supreme Court taking the radical originalist stand that is has been enforcing lately is that it is making people reevaluate the wisdom of having our government be based on a two century old document designed for an agrarian, slaveholding society. Replacing the current constitution with one that has much broader and more explicit commitments to equal rights and personal liberties, rather than implied rights that a reactionary court can just wave away with no notice, would be a massive improvement.

That being said, I'm not getting my hopes up. We're probably more likely to descend further into reactionary authoritarianism than we are to actually fix our problems, at least in the near term.

[jojoju1998]

There was zero need for this ruling.  Dangerous and dumb.

Fortunately, this Supreme Court has also recently ruled that it's fine to ignore the Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects its own precedent in death row decision

The Supreme Court held in June 2020 that Texas cannot execute Andrus because he had received unconstitutionally inadequate legal representation at his trial.

But the Texas court ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling – essentially flouting the bedrock judicial principle that lower court judges must abide by the decisions of the highest court in the land, even when they disagree.

But this time, the Supreme Court decided not to intervene, effectively acquiescing to a lower court’s insubordination.

Imagine how stupid things would get if they replaced Kagan or Sotomayor with a Federalist society wunderkind/handmaid.

No need. They've already got a solid six to three radical reactionary majority. It's going to take more than merely Roberts-- still a hardcore right-wing conservative on damn near any objective spectrum of judicial thought-- on rare situations coming to his senses before you get any semblance of Sanity out of this court

The Warren Court was even more ideological

Brown vs. BOard of Education was Ideological ?

[OSR stands with Israel]

There was zero need for this ruling.  Dangerous and dumb.

Fortunately, this Supreme Court has also recently ruled that it's fine to ignore the Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects its own precedent in death row decision

The Supreme Court held in June 2020 that Texas cannot execute Andrus because he had received unconstitutionally inadequate legal representation at his trial.

But the Texas court ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling – essentially flouting the bedrock judicial principle that lower court judges must abide by the decisions of the highest court in the land, even when they disagree.

But this time, the Supreme Court decided not to intervene, effectively acquiescing to a lower court’s insubordination.

Imagine how stupid things would get if they replaced Kagan or Sotomayor with a Federalist society wunderkind/handmaid.

No need. They've already got a solid six to three radical reactionary majority. It's going to take more than merely Roberts-- still a hardcore right-wing conservative on damn near any objective spectrum of judicial thought-- on rare situations coming to his senses before you get any semblance of Sanity out of this court

The Warren Court was even more ideological

Brown vs. BOard of Education was Ideological ?

Conservatives have a much bigger problem with the decisions it authored in the 1960s

[Progressive Pessimist]

There was zero need for this ruling.  Dangerous and dumb.

Fortunately, this Supreme Court has also recently ruled that it's fine to ignore the Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects its own precedent in death row decision

The Supreme Court held in June 2020 that Texas cannot execute Andrus because he had received unconstitutionally inadequate legal representation at his trial.

But the Texas court ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling – essentially flouting the bedrock judicial principle that lower court judges must abide by the decisions of the highest court in the land, even when they disagree.

But this time, the Supreme Court decided not to intervene, effectively acquiescing to a lower court’s insubordination.

Imagine how stupid things would get if they replaced Kagan or Sotomayor with a Federalist society wunderkind/handmaid.

That's why no matter how bleak things are now in spite of Biden being President, and him (with the party by extension) being tarred-and-feathered with the blame for the post-pandemic economic situation, I would still rather he be President than Trump right now just for the sake of there at least being three liberal Justices secured on the bench. I reject the notion that Democrats' need to lose to win. Trump may very well could have been given the opportunity to replace Breyer and especially Alito or Thomas sooner if he had another four years. Honestly, we're at a point in our politics where all that matters is the Supreme Court now. It has amassed far too much power and influence within our broken system.

This may very well be the last stand against an impending theocratic autocracy, but as rough and small of a resistance as is, it's necessary.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There was zero need for this ruling.  Dangerous and dumb.

Fortunately, this Supreme Court has also recently ruled that it's fine to ignore the Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects its own precedent in death row decision

The Supreme Court held in June 2020 that Texas cannot execute Andrus because he had received unconstitutionally inadequate legal representation at his trial.

But the Texas court ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling – essentially flouting the bedrock judicial principle that lower court judges must abide by the decisions of the highest court in the land, even when they disagree.

But this time, the Supreme Court decided not to intervene, effectively acquiescing to a lower court’s insubordination.

Imagine how stupid things would get if they replaced Kagan or Sotomayor with a Federalist society wunderkind/handmaid.

That's why no matter how bleak things are now in spite of Biden being President, and him (with the party by extension) being tarred-and-feathered with the blame for the post-pandemic economic situation, I would still rather he be President than Trump right now just for the sake of there at least being three liberal Justices secured on the bench. I reject the notion that Democrats' need to lose to win. Trump may very well could have been given the opportunity to replace Breyer and especially Alito or Thomas sooner if he had another four years. Honestly, we're at a point in our politics where all that matters is the Supreme Court now. It has amassed far too much power and influence within our broken system.

This may very well be the last stand against an impending theocratic autocracy, but as rough and small of a resistance as is, it's necessary.

Lol it's been a 303 map since 2012 Obama was at 303 when the Election was called the Difference between now and then is OH and IA 24 EC votes replaced by AZ and GA 26 byEC voted 65/60M, we got in 2016/2018/20, but NH,  OH, KS and FL bucked the trends in 2018 and it's a Midterm not Prez races and it can certainly buck it now the blue wall is secure Ryan, Crist, Demings, and Laura Kelly and Sununu can all win in 22 this giving us wave insurance for a 218/217H, that's all we need is a little wave insurance for the H but FL 13 is going R but that's not gonna tell the story for EDay Crist is competetive with DeSantis and if Crist win Demings will and Ryan is running against Vance and leads 44/41 Vance wants to ban Porn

[Middle-aged Europe]

It's not so much the end to Roe v. Wade itself that's worrisome. "States' rights" are at least in theory fine. It's the fact that a few U.S. states have now stricter abortion laws than Saudi Arabia as a result... and that's not even an exaggeration. Which means the political polarization of America is being transformed into the beginnings of a balkanization, a phenomenon which could even be further deepened if the Supreme Court starts to axe LGBTIQ rights next (something I hadn't thought possible previously, but what I have come to expect now).

[Person Man]

It's not so much the end to Roe v. Wade itself that's worrisome. "States' rights" are at least in theory fine. It's the fact that a few U.S. states have now stricter abortion laws than Saudi Arabia as a result... and that's not even an exaggeration. Which means the political polarization of America is being transformed into the beginnings of a balkanization, a phenomenon which could even be further deepened if the Supreme Court starts to axe LGBTIQ rights next (something I hadn't thought possible previously, but what I have come to expect now).

New national identities will be forming.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Meanwhile on Friday, Germany repealed a ban on advertising abortions that was literally a Nazi law.

[Damocles]

It's not so much the end to Roe v. Wade itself that's worrisome. "States' rights" are at least in theory fine. It's the fact that a few U.S. states have now stricter abortion laws than Saudi Arabia as a result... and that's not even an exaggeration. Which means the political polarization of America is being transformed into the beginnings of a balkanization, a phenomenon which could even be further deepened if the Supreme Court starts to axe LGBTIQ rights next (something I hadn't thought possible previously, but what I have come to expect now).

I don't think the balkanization thing is accurate. What we are seeing is instead local politics becoming highly integrated with national politics. If anything, the political scenes in various cities and towns across the country are not focused on secession (TXGOP's saber-rattling aside), but instead a fierce contest of competing values and frameworks for what the United States is and ought to be. This is not the first time these sentiments surfaced, by the way.

Much of the political polarization is around an urban-rural, liberal-conservative axis. If you think The Troubles were bad, try scaling that up to the size of a continent the size of Europe. Then you'll get an approximation for what this would likely entail.

[Person Man]

It's not so much the end to Roe v. Wade itself that's worrisome. "States' rights" are at least in theory fine. It's the fact that a few U.S. states have now stricter abortion laws than Saudi Arabia as a result... and that's not even an exaggeration. Which means the political polarization of America is being transformed into the beginnings of a balkanization, a phenomenon which could even be further deepened if the Supreme Court starts to axe LGBTIQ rights next (something I hadn't thought possible previously, but what I have come to expect now).

I don't think the balkanization thing is accurate. What we are seeing is instead local politics becoming highly integrated with national politics. If anything, the political scenes in various cities and towns across the country are not focused on secession (TXGOP's saber-rattling aside), but instead a fierce contest of competing values and frameworks for what the United States is and ought to be. This is not the first time these sentiments surfaced, by the way.

Much of the political polarization is around an urban-rural, liberal-conservative axis. If you think The Troubles were bad, try scaling that up to the size of a continent the size of Europe. Then you'll get an approximation for what this would likely entail.

Or the Years of Lead?

[Torie]

It's not so much the end to Roe v. Wade itself that's worrisome. "States' rights" are at least in theory fine. It's the fact that a few U.S. states have now stricter abortion laws than Saudi Arabia as a result... and that's not even an exaggeration. Which means the political polarization of America is being transformed into the beginnings of a balkanization, a phenomenon which could even be further deepened if the Supreme Court starts to axe LGBTIQ rights next (something I hadn't thought possible previously, but what I have come to expect now).

In case you missed it, you might find this article of interest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/11/us/politics/roe-wade-supreme-court-abortion.html

[Person Man]

It's not so much the end to Roe v. Wade itself that's worrisome. "States' rights" are at least in theory fine. It's the fact that a few U.S. states have now stricter abortion laws than Saudi Arabia as a result... and that's not even an exaggeration. Which means the political polarization of America is being transformed into the beginnings of a balkanization, a phenomenon which could even be further deepened if the Supreme Court starts to axe LGBTIQ rights next (something I hadn't thought possible previously, but what I have come to expect now).

In case you missed it, you might find this article of interest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/11/us/politics/roe-wade-supreme-court-abortion.html

Maybe Gorsuch would be open in keeping Obergefell and Lawrence, but maybe not. He may be being radicalized and we will have to deal with that. I would already say the chance that Griswold is overruled is about 50-50 by 2027. I think cases like the Bob Jones case might get overruled if the Court finds legitimate freedom of religion in allowing private providers of education or health care to have private segregation. 

I think Loving v. Virginia or Brown v. Board, or West Coast Hotel are probably safe unless a Republican is president when one of the 3 remaining dissenters leave the court.

[Torie]

It's not so much the end to Roe v. Wade itself that's worrisome. "States' rights" are at least in theory fine. It's the fact that a few U.S. states have now stricter abortion laws than Saudi Arabia as a result... and that's not even an exaggeration. Which means the political polarization of America is being transformed into the beginnings of a balkanization, a phenomenon which could even be further deepened if the Supreme Court starts to axe LGBTIQ rights next (something I hadn't thought possible previously, but what I have come to expect now).

In case you missed it, you might find this article of interest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/11/us/politics/roe-wade-supreme-court-abortion.html

Maybe Gorsuch would be open in keeping Obergefell and Lawrence, but maybe not. He may be being radicalized and we will have to deal with that. I would already say the chance that Griswold is overruled is about 50-50 by 2027. I think cases like the Bob Jones case might get overruled if the Court finds legitimate freedom of religion in allowing private providers of education or health care to have private segregation. 

I think Loving v. Virginia or Brown v. Board, or West Coast Hotel are probably safe unless a Republican is president when one of the 3 remaining dissenters leave the court.

I respectfully disagree that any  of the progeny of privacy/autonomy cases are at risk. If you read the Alito decision, it is explained what is necessary to overturn settled precedent, and one of the prongs is lack of a reasonable basis for reliance, and lack of broad acceptance. Birth control and legalized sodomy and same sex marriage have all been relied upon and accepted.
In addition, there is not the issue of another life being involved, and what that life is, and so forth. That is why the passage of time on Roe was never going to mitigate the wound in the public square.

While so much is going to hell, here, there and everywhere, over time I am optimistic that the US will adopt a national law similar to the ones in much of Europe, that allows abortion on demand in the first trimester, and more heavily restrict it thereafter. In fact, if things really go haywire, I can see Manchin going along on a one time basis with nixing the filibuster on this one issue this year. If that happens, we get a national law this year, protecting first trimester abortions.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Same sex marriage isn't a pressing issue, because anyone can have consentual sex and live with a partner and have adoptive kids anyways

Also, you can leave your inheritance to anyone

[Person Man]

It's not so much the end to Roe v. Wade itself that's worrisome. "States' rights" are at least in theory fine. It's the fact that a few U.S. states have now stricter abortion laws than Saudi Arabia as a result... and that's not even an exaggeration. Which means the political polarization of America is being transformed into the beginnings of a balkanization, a phenomenon which could even be further deepened if the Supreme Court starts to axe LGBTIQ rights next (something I hadn't thought possible previously, but what I have come to expect now).

In case you missed it, you might find this article of interest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/11/us/politics/roe-wade-supreme-court-abortion.html

Maybe Gorsuch would be open in keeping Obergefell and Lawrence, but maybe not. He may be being radicalized and we will have to deal with that. I would already say the chance that Griswold is overruled is about 50-50 by 2027. I think cases like the Bob Jones case might get overruled if the Court finds legitimate freedom of religion in allowing private providers of education or health care to have private segregation. 

I think Loving v. Virginia or Brown v. Board, or West Coast Hotel are probably safe unless a Republican is president when one of the 3 remaining dissenters leave the court.

I respectfully disagree that any  of the progeny of privacy/autonomy cases are at risk. If you read the Alito decision, it is explained what is necessary to overturn settled precedent, and one of the prongs is lack of a reasonable basis for reliance, and lack of broad acceptance. Birth control and legalized sodomy and same sex marriage have all been relied upon and accepted.
In addition, there is not the issue of another life being involved, and what that life is, and so forth. That is why the passage of time on Roe was never going to mitigate the wound in the public square.

While so much is going to hell, here, there and everywhere, over time I am optimistic that the US will adopt a national law similar to the ones in much of Europe, that allows abortion on demand in the first trimester, and more heavily restrict it thereafter. In fact, if things really go haywire, I can see Manchin going along on a one time basis with nixing the filibuster on this one issue this year. If that happens, we get a national law this year, protecting first trimester abortions.

I hope so, but we ain't that lucky. The only way anyone is getting rid of the filibuster is that they are confident that they have at least a semi-permanent majority in the senate or at least one that can withstand a whole cycle. Then again, Harry Reid's Democrats did that and look what eventually happened.

[darklordoftech]

I've seen a lot recently about how "please just f***ing vote" is being seen as the Democratic equivalency to "thoughts and prayers," and people are getting sick of it. I get it. But proactively voting as often as possible for candidates that they believed reflected their goals is what granted the right this victory, even if it took fifty years.

If Democrats wanted people to vote, why did they shut down OFA as soon as Obama became President (and Obama’s Chief of Staff called those who wanted to revive it “***ing retards”)? Why did they call people who voted in the 2020 Democratic primaries “Brownshirts”? Why did they blame the very people who elected Biden for Senate and House defeats in 2020?

[Person Man]

I've seen a lot recently about how "please just f***ing vote" is being seen as the Democratic equivalency to "thoughts and prayers," and people are getting sick of it. I get it. But proactively voting as often as possible for candidates that they believed reflected their goals is what granted the right this victory, even if it took fifty years.

If Democrats wanted people to vote, why did they shut down OFA as soon as Obama became President (and Obama’s Chief of Staff called those who wanted to revive it “***ing retards”)? Why did they call people voted in the 2020 Democratic primaries “Brownshirts”? Why did they blame the very people who elected Biden for Senate and House defeats in 2020?

Everyone who is pissed off has to pull their weight. Politicians need to be less concerned about donors. Voters need to be less concerned about ideological purity.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I think the least likely to be overturned is the right to contraception. I believe Kavanaugh signaled in his concurring opinion that the Roe ruling does not mean all rights are at risk. I understand Kavanaugh also said he considered Roe settled law, so I am not sure his word means anything.

I am certain that Alito, Thomas and ACB would vote to overturn same sex marriage, legalized sodomy and right to birth control tomorrow if they could, regardless of how the litigation unfolds. Roberts voted against same sex marriage in 2013, but it is unclear if he would vote to overturn the law now. I always knew Kavanaugh would be the key vote on Roe. I am disappointed and disturbed that he voted the way he did.

Even if Manchin decides to join the Democrats and ends the filibuster to pass a nationwide bill legalizing abortion, there is nothing stopping Republicans from overturning the law, or worse, banning abortion nationwide, if they win the presidency and Congress in 2024.

This is the nightmare the Supreme Court has brought on this nation.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

AG Garland: States can't ban FDA-approved abortion pills on safety grounds

If a state bans abortion…. They can ban the pills too

[Hermit For Peace]

I think the least likely to be overturned is the right to contraception. I believe Kavanaugh signaled in his concurring opinion that the Roe ruling does not mean all rights are at risk. I understand Kavanaugh also said he considered Roe settled law, so I am not sure his word means anything.

I am certain that Alito, Thomas and ACB would vote to overturn same sex marriage, legalized sodomy and right to birth control tomorrow if they could, regardless of how the litigation unfolds. Roberts voted against same sex marriage in 2013, but it is unclear if he would vote to overturn the law now. I always knew Kavanaugh would be the key vote on Roe. I am disappointed and disturbed that he voted the way he did.

Even if Manchin decides to join the Democrats and ends the filibuster to pass a nationwide bill legalizing abortion, there is nothing stopping Republicans from overturning the law, or worse, banning abortion nationwide, if they win the presidency and Congress in 2024.

This is the nightmare the Supreme Court has brought on this nation.

Time is going to be our friend with regard to the subject of abortion. The anti's have been wanting their say for a long time now, so let's see what they come up with, what they have to offer society in full.

If it inconveniences too many people, if their draconian laws try to stifle the growth of a nation and its people, those draconian measures are doomed to failure. It can be no other way. Time will straighten out the confusion. Meanwhile, many many women and men also are going to be scrambling to make sense of the stupidity of this Roe decision. And many many already ALIVE human beings are going to suffer.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

AG Garland: States can't ban FDA-approved abortion pills on safety grounds

If a state bans abortion…. They can ban the pills too

But they can't stop the Postal Service from delivering the pills. State law only takes effect once the box is opened and then the recipient will be at home.

[Person Man]

AG Garland: States can't ban FDA-approved abortion pills on safety grounds

If a state bans abortion…. They can ban the pills too

How would they stop it? States can’t regulate the mail unless SCOTUS is ready to overturn the Inverse Commerce Clause.