SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why would Joe Biden let this happen

Well, if it's 5-4, not advancing Clarence Thomas to a full floor vote might have made the difference.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If the immediate pressure campaign triggered by this doesn't convince Kavanaugh to realize what conservatives are getting into with this & flip to join Roberts & the liberals, & this draft opinion does actually end up panning out as the law of the land, then this very well could be for the Democrats in the midterms what Russia's invasion of Ukraine has been for NATO.

And ISTFG, if Manchin & Sinema won't finally vote to end the filibuster, at least on a bill to just do a Lilly Ledbetter & statutorily codify Roe, then what good are they even for? We have to assume that we only have the majority for 8 more months. Use it, f**kers! This, if NOTHING else, is what it's f**king for!!

Manchin anti-Roe

The one on the left is very anti Roe.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Pretty gross to see all the salivating from posters in here over this potentially saving Democrats in 2022 or whatever. A lot of people are going to die because of this, or have their life trajectories permanently worsened.

Do we even know who it will help? It seems Kavanaugh helped Republicans in the 2018 Senate elections.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I honestly wouldn't be shocked at this point if the final opinion prohibits the states from legalizing abortion as well.

Hard to do that since that would contradict any reasoning they used to overturn Roe v. Wade. If the argument is that abortion isn't a constitutional right then where is the reasoning that it actually isn't? There is no federal law or amendment that they can point to and say that states legalizing abortion are superceding federal law.

They can't legalize the types of abortions banned under Gonzales v. Carhart. So if they want to make a clean argument that it should be up to the states, they should overturn that too.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There's also West Virginia v. EPA, which seems like the case exists only for activist right-wing judges. It's like a case in search of a ruling.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of course, if you stand with the people who threaten them, like Markey did, that's when the establishment tries to stop you.

Or, how recently, they decided to blow up prescription drug pricing reform because the alternative was AOC gaining a high-profile committee seat.

Yeah, it's funny how their "don't endorse against incumbents" rule went out the window with Markey. And of course when Bernie endorsed some person for some irrelevant local race that was against abortion that wasn't allowed.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Remember when Alito called for judicial restraint? I think it's safe to say he meant "restrain everything I don't like". It's weird how people have this idea that the Supreme Court is about expert legal knowledge or something. Naw, it's just about coming up with what you want and then writing some garbage to justify it. Maybe back in the Warren Court justices actually thought about things, but not today.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

https://twitter.com/DouglasKBlair/status/1523095574156742657


The people who leaked this need to be arrested and throw in prison for years

We don't even have the ruling yet, however 20 million people protested the Iraq war before it started.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There was a protest outside his home last year. So it's not like no one knew his address before.

https://wtop.com/gallery/montgomery-county/abortion-rights-advocates-march-on-kavanaughs-chevy-chase-home/

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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