SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I believe President Trump had a suggestion way back in 2016 on how people who don't approve of un-finalized decisions from the Supreme Court ought to change them.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

With this decision, the idea of the Supreme Court being a non-partisan institution has been shot to hell. What a horrendous day for our country.

That's the thing I keep coming back to. For all that the appointments were problematic, the Roberts court in the Trump era has generally produced pretty decent opinions. Even when I didn't like them, they were seemingly objectively not bad law.

Overturning Roe alone would be a pretty steep departure from that, but if this, this thing from Alito I'm reading is actually a majority opinion from the Court, then that's been abandoned, the Court is finished, and our nation is about go from smouldering to burning over the next few years.


We shouldn't really be surprised, though. The United States was functioning far too well for something that has been assaulted so thoroughly by Donald Trump, who turns everything to ****.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1521305387923816449?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw...

This logic makes no sense. If the outcome is already known, then "the blow" already happened/is currently happening/will be happening.

If the end result is, instead, an opinion by Thomas that isn't quite so egregiously awful and transparently political, the right can use the contrast between Alito's naked partisan ****-take and Thomas' technically equivalent but far more normal-seeming opinion to paint it as liberals getting all bent out of shape over "business as usual". It won't help them with any pro-choice voters, but it will help them maintain the illusion for their followers that they're the "normal" part of the country.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I fully expect most Republican states to pass blanket bans within the next month after the decision goes live. They’ll also likely try fugitive abortion acts and basically bury themselves in the long run.

You can hardly blame them. Can't let those unclaimed handmaids escape from Gilead.

/s

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

People think the Dems can hold the Senate.... (new here?)

Better chance of Manchin passing a federal abortion protections bill in the lame duck.

No chance because no one will break the fillibuster

Regardless Manchin is Anti-Choice. Collins and Murkowski might vote for it but not to break the fillibuster

Manchin is whatever his backers need him to be.

I would not be shocked if Manchin turned out to have quasi-moderate-hero personal stances on abortion, deep down. Though it's unlikely we'll ever know.

I would be very shocked if Manchin has personal stances, period

I'm confident he personally believes his daughter shouldn't be prosecuted for her role in EpiPen price inflation scandal.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

As long as their are exemptions for rape, incest and health of the mother, I am ok with this.

Roe v Wade has divided our country for half a century. There is no end on sight. For 40-45% of Americans, no restrictions on abortion is an abomination. That bridge simply can not be built. In states where they are a majority, they should be able to ban it.

We already live in two Americas. People in my state stopped wearing masks a year before some other states. We have to get used to that and focus on things that unite us like passing paid leave or free college.

For 40-45% of Americans, no restrictions on Republican lies and abuse is an abomination. Should they be able to ban the GOP?

(I think the answer ought to be "no", but I've gotten to the point where I'm not sure I care that much anymore.)

[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.)

[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.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

At some point we need to start ignoring the courts.

What exactly does "ignoring the courts" entail here?

Arguing that Marbury v. Madison/judicial review was an invalid and unconstitutional ruling/concept; that the Supreme Court is an advisory body; and adopting the paraphrased spirit of Andrew Jackson (and Jefferson before him): ("[The court] has made [its] decision; now let [them] enforce it").

As Matt Bruenig argues at the People's Policy Project, it would be quite easy in practical terms to get rid of judicial review: "All the president has to do is assert that Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality are merely advisory and non-binding, that Marbury (1803) was wrongly decided, and that the constitutional document says absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court having this power." So, for instance, if Congress were to pass some law expanding Medicare, and the reactionaries on the court say it's unconstitutional because Cthulhu fhtagn, the president would say "no, I am trusting Congress on this one, and I will continue to operate the program as instructed."

Also, Congress can simply explicitly invoke its Constitutional power to place legislation and other matters beyond the Court's authority. While I'm not aware of any examples, Article III is very clear:

"The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1521485660649304064

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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

Edit: corrected from url to tweet.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Since when is a person's address classified material and above the level for people to protest? Just say you want a new restriction on First Amendment rights.

No I think they have all the right to protest but a large group of people descending on your neighborhood could absolutely intimidate the justices into making a decision which would undermine the judicial process.


I will say this the national guard should be sent in to protect their homes to ensure these protesters can’t step a foot on private property

Calm down and unclutch your pearls. The justices have protesters outside their offices most days of their careers. There are plenty of police present.

"Send in the National Guard". You truly are driven to hysterics easily.

I don't think that's an entirely fair criticism of OSR. He does belong to a political party that believes mob justice and assassination of political opponents (especially Supreme Court Justices) are acceptable. And Republicans (of Gilead) are very well know for their projection; many "conservatives" likely believe that liberals would do the same thing they would in this situation: storm the court and try to kill opposing justices.

Edit: Links added lest I be accused of being engaged in excessive hyperbole.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I don't think we'd be hearing the same excuses if there was a screaming mob outside a liberal justice's house. There'd probably be a lot of "where are blue avatars to condemn this" instead.

I fully support their right to protest, but this is teetering on the edge of stability and can easily get dangerous with just one violent person.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/1525131383919755266

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1539427670991175684

Ted Cruz is engaging in some classic Republican projection. (Any violence will play into the Republicans hands, as they will exaggerate it and use it to justify their own top-down terrorist advocacy.)

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Kavanaugh, the 5th vote to overturn Roe, opines in a concurrence in victim that the right to travel protects women traveling to other states to obtain an abortion. So at the end of the day, the practical impact of this should be limited, particularly if the number of states banning abortion entirely, as opposed to just after the first trimester, are rare.

Limited practical impact for those rich enough to travel for medical care.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Biden should have packed the court after McConnell and Trump's shenanigans. What is the point of winning elections and doing nothing when your opponents win elections and do whatever they feel like it. About 50 years of women's progress has been erased with one dubious court decision. The progressives will have to waste energy continuing to fight this issue when we have other key issues to fight. A cynical person might even say this is by design.

I won't say by design in the sense that there's some conspiratorial cabal among establishment politicians, but there doesn't need to be. Some courses of action and their impacts are pretty obvious. If pro-establishment, pro-status-quo politicians all act in favor of the existing state of affairs, it will continue even if they never have a single quiet conversation  with each other.

And that's what's been happening for the last half-century. Congress has passed legislation only to keep the status quo rolling - negative feedback legislation, effectively. "Progress" such as it is, has come almost entirely from the courts.

Now, the GOP has gained enough control of the courts to disrupt the status quo - not in good ways, not even in honestly reactionary ways. Democrats are united in opposing right-wing disruption of the status-quo, but split between those who want to keep the status-quo going, and those who want left-wing disruption of the status-quo ante.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

To keep babies safe, we should adopt other pro-life policies, such as stricter gun controls measures.

Right guys?

Or better yet, because many gun control policies are unlikely to survive this Court, use the Second Amendment to protect abortion rights. I don't think anyone's thought of that one yet!

Trump did. But the left  - quite reasonably - did not listen to him, because the costs of going down that path are even heavier than the ones Americans (mostly women) are going to be paying now.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Alright. Effortpost up, I had a lot of scattered thoughts about this but I figured I'd try to make a coherent defense of my points. One that isn't raging at the neolibs.

I'm more focused on Democrats' role because we expect this from the GOP. From a court that constantly tramples precedent, where one of their justice's spouses openly endorsed a political coup, appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, and three of its members knowingly and willfully perjured their way to their nomination. The Democrats have blame here as well - their prioritization of nominal power over actual power, the prioritization of their own political careers and fundraising over meaningful change, and civility over policy.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is merely a symptom of the problem - a party that is obsessed with reliving the 1990s. A party that squandered its supermajority to show a country that didn't care how bipartisan it was. Ginsburg stayed on the court because she believed retiring during a Democratic midterm would "politicize the court". A court where open hacks are nominated without scrutiny, blatant perjury is overlooked because it's politically convenient, and precedent is merely a suggestion. Checks and balances have utterly failed.

Pelosi is the one that comes to mind, still talking about how America needs a "strong Republican Party", but even Biden is guilty of this. In reality, the people who caused this have been here since then. The good old days of bipartisanship and kumbaya were never here in the first place. Mitch McConnell has been around since 1985. Clarence Thomas has been serving since 1991. George W. Bush appointed Alito and Roberts.  This isn't Donald Trump's party that overturned Roe or pushed an activist court. This is Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, and Adam Kinzinger's GOP. There's a difference between praising these people and the outright hero worship we see from Democrats today.

The Democratic Party not only believes people like OSR would vote for them, but actively believes its energy is better spent persuading him than motivating its base. As the party has professionalized, it feels like they see more in common with their affluent, educated comrades across the aisle than the rubes they represent. Democratic leadership will gladly accept you as their ally if you say the magic words - "Trump bad" - even if you continue to support his lackeys and ideas. Liz Cheney, #Resistance hero and Good Republican, publicly supported and celebrated Roe being overturned. Mitt Romney confirmed Barrett and would have confirmed Kavanaugh. If you give lip service to the thought of opposition, Democrats laud you as a hero and hold you as proof that there's Good in the Republican Party.

The whole argument about "voting for Democrats" is what I talk about when I say they're more concerned with nominal power than actual power. The Cuellars and Manchins and Schraders and Sinemas of the world need to be stopped, but there are plenty more waiting in the wings. Take the minimum wage discourse, for example. While everyone was outraged about Sinema's thumbs-down dance, Tom Carper and Chris Coons did the exact same coordinated dance. More disgustingly, Hassan and Shaheen voted against raising the minimum wage at the behest of the owner of the largest restaurant chain in the state. This isn't a localized incident. There's a bloc of these people in the House and the Senate, willing to screw us over for a quick campaign donation, often elected because of "electability".

What good is electing a "Democrat" if they just get into office and vote like a Republican?

And that's not even talking about the Andrew Cuomos of the world, who actively campaigned for more Republicans to get elected. Or the heads of various state and local parties that openly endorsed Trump entryists because a progressive would risk defeating their own machines. Hell, that's how Manchin got his start in politics! By losing a primary, endorsing the Republican, and burning down the party to remake in his conservative image.

I don't necessarily think that Democrats are secretly pro-life or whatever. I think they just care about incumbency and civility more. It doesn't matter that Henry Cuellar is in a D+5, Trump-trending district. It doesn't matter that Cisneros was outside the lockstep of the district. It doesn't matter that Henry Cuellar is pro-life and anti-union. Leadership backed Henry Cuellar because he's One of Them. He's on the whip team. He's been in office for 18 years, going on 20. So leadership campaigns for him and gets him elected, despite his lack of support for the Democratic agenda in a district that's less hostile than Sinema's.

And those who support his challenger get blackballed from the caucus, and get passed over for key committee assignments. Even if it means appointing the deciding vote against prescription drug reform. After all, Cuellar's views make for awkward conversation at the caucus's weekly brunch.

The Democratic Party has learned nothing from 2008, let alone 2020. They believe voters value "bipartisanship" and act on a agenda that enriches the ruling class at their expense. You don't see Republicans do this type of masturbatory crap when they talk about tax reform or COVID relief or whatever. They just get it done. Leadership operates as if the Republicans are good-faith actors, and those who pay lip service are lionized as honorary Democrats. Those responsible for stifling the agenda are allowed to thrive in the name of "norms and civility", and those who speak truth to power are silenced at the expense of the agenda.

The more I see the party try the same thing, and the more they attempt to stifle those looking for the structural change they claim to want, the less I trust our politicians to save us. Democrats aren't heroes. RBG and KBJ aren't heroes. The Squad and the Bernie wing aren't heroes. We are the only ones who can save ourselves and fight for our rights. And whether you believe we can change from within, we cannot rely on our politicians or the Democratic Party when they've proven they won't get in the mud.

We need to stop being complacent and expect better from our politicians. We need to find who stands with us ourselves, and not their clique or their people. We need to channel our energy towards those who do, and show those who sell us out that we control their job. Donating to a broken party and voting for its candidates wholesale is not enough. Our emancipation will come from our own fight and our own labor.

Good post, thank you.

Your post led me to think more on some of what's been roiling around in my head in recent months, and I'm going to attempt a response that touches on some of my own, I think related, thoughts.

It's not that the Democratic Party establishment believes that people like OSR will vote for them, it's that they believe people like OSR will vote for the status quo (for their own, Republican, version of the establishment). The party hacks and flaks do see more in common with the Republican hacks and flacks than they do with any sort of leftist seeking significant economic and electoral change. Both Republican and Democratic establishments support the continued existence of a political elite that revolves around catering to well-heeled donors, easy and plush fundraising gigs, and  eventually followed by lucrative sinecures they've earned from years spent keeping the status quo stable and the wealthy influential. Their concern for liberal "meat and potatoes" (civil rights for everyone, a strong social safety net, increased opportunity for everyone, ending gross wealth inequality) is very much secondary to their desire to keep their familiar, comfortable, and rewarding (to them) system going. They loathe Trump insofar as he threatens their status quo - while leftists despise Trump because he is antithetical to the future they wish to create.

As a leftist, the theoretical utility of the big tent that includes both me and those even further left, and back all the way out to Manchin and those like him, is that we all (again, in theory) agree that our country is moving in a very wrong direction and that we need a 180-degree turn. Sure, we disagree about how far we need to go after that turn, but getting things turned around and moving in the correct direction is something we all ought to be able to agree on.

But, as it is increasingly made very apparent, so long as they think their rice bowls will remain unbroken and their own oxen ungored, the Democratic Establishment is quite happy to be a permanent minority party. From a certain point of view, that's far easier for them. They can rail against the excesses of Trump, or Generic Conservative Republican endlessly, without every being expected to do anything. The "we're helpless to change things for the better" narrative becomes a lot more work when they're actually in power.

They don't give a damn about "bipartisanship" but they damned well want to keep serving (and being part of) the ruling class. You'll note that while the Republicans are swift to make real change that favors the wealthiest Americans, substantial populist changes in governance never seem to materialize. Roe v. Wade, gun control, and trans rights are all great examples - we can spend years voting for Democrats, getting a majority, re-taking the court and finally "winning" on these issues... but somehow, what will not be addressed are the root causes of wealth inequality, or the flaws in our system that cripple our democracy. There will always be Machin & Sinema, or their successors on the left or right, ready to find a "principled centrist" reason why we can't have a strong social safety net, a high minimum wage, or an end to a system that is barely representative.

Saying that we need to end our complacency, and enabling of the Democrats (who in turn enable Republicans) isn't wrong, but what methods do you propose? The best I can come up with is to support politicians like AOC and Bernie, not simply because of their politics, but because they break the fundraising cycle. Their campaigns run on small-dollar donations from the bulk of Americans. "Campaign reform" legislation is a pipe dream. We will not get it until and unless we no longer need it. (At which point its a safeguard of sorts, but it will never, can never, be an end in itself.)

As I write this, my phone is blowing up with fundraising messages. And for this election cycle and future election cycles, I'm thinking use a simple algorithm: I will donate as much as I can to any decent candidate who refuses corporate and big-ticket donors, but not a penny to those who choose to make themselves beholden to America's wealthiest.

In the end, I don't know if even that will be sufficient. America faces many challenges in the near future: an established system that is choking itself and the rest of the country, a right-wing movement that will (if it can) tear everything down to make itself feel better, and a series of geopolitical challenges which the above two internal struggles have made us shockingly unprepared. I'm really thinking that getting out and moving somewhere with better fundamentals and a more agile government, may be the only sane choice. (If America does break up peacefully, there's at least a chance that some successor states will also meet that description.)

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

“This is about saving lives”

Okay, then mandatory covid vaccines.

“No!!!!”

"This is about 'my body, my choice"

Okay, then no mandatory COVID vaccines.

"No!!!!"

If someone genuinely honestly can't perceive the vast Chasm between being required to get an injection or two and carrying a child to term, is an idiot. You are not an idiot, therefore you are not posting in good faith.

if "my body my choice" is the legal principle you are using to justify saying people have a constitutional right to an abortion than by the same justification COVID Vaccine mandates are also unconstitutional.

You can argue that Roe should be codified by a law passed by congress while supporting COVID vaccines but that is different cause laws are not the same thing as constitutional rights.

When you claim pregnancy is a deadly infectious disease that spreads through the air, you're really really telling us that sex ed needs a lot of work.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

They could, however, investigate any miscarriage under suspicion that it was an abortion pill, subpoena internet and credit card records to see if a woman bought one.

Pretty nightmarish stuff, but at the same time you can't really oppose that kind if thing if you really and sincerely think abortion is murder.

They will eventually suspect some sort of attempted abortion even if there is a difficult pregnancy at this rate. That’s what I am worried about as an expecting dad.

We're not that far from a point where Republicans will want white women to produce medical certification of documented infertility, or they'll be charged with felony failure to reproduce.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Question: how long until someone (presumably a doctor) gets prosecuted for breaking an abortion ban?

We are headed for a doctor shortage in our country. Prosecuting them and putting them away in prison sure isn't going to go over well with the population, seems to me.

The far-right reactionary Christians Theocrats in this country don't care about real negative consequences, as long as they can develop the hegemony they always wanted to see that vindicates their views,  it's worth it.

That's why I say there is no compromising with them. In their hearts they want to ban all abortion. Period. And they have been ordained by God to do so. They will stop at nothing, and no compromise will be good enough for them.

I am open to being pleasantly surprised, but I'm not holding my breath.

Mississippi House Speaker says 12-year-old incest victims should continue pregnancies to term

Mississippi House Speaker Philip Gunn (R) told reporters Wednesday it is his “personal belief” that if a 12-year-old girl is a victim of incest she should still be made to carry a resulting pregnancy to term.

“I believe that life begins at conception and every life is valuable. Those are my personal beliefs,” Gunn said.

A reporter then asked, “So that 12-year-old child molested by her father or uncle should carry that child to term?” to which Gunn replied, “That is my personal belief.”

I find I am unable to comment on this one while remaining within forum guidelines.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

This is the state of  our country now.

This is what Republican America will look like.

And not just on the specific issue, but on everything. Child welfare, education, health care, employment, entertainment, the environment, science, our whole future. That they're going to overwhelmingly take themselves to hell with the rest of us ought to be no consolation.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://mobile.twitter.com/libbyemmons/status/1543200559242641408
“10 year olds need to have their rapist child because libs on Twitter are mean” is really something

Saudi Arabia and most Muslim nations are more liberal on abortion than the GOP.

Saudi Arabia’s abortion laws are more forgiving than Alabama’s (2019)

Similarly, abortion laws in other Muslim-majority nations allow pregnancies to be terminated in cases of rape, incest, fetal impairment, or risk to a woman’s mental or physical health. These exemptions to abortion bans exist in Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates.