Board 8 > U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

Good thing democrats are obsessed with decorum over all else. I'm sure we'll just be told to "VOTE!" to solve this after they did absolutely nothing to stop this from occurring for the past two years.

What could Democrats have done to stop this over the past two years? SC is stacked

Utterly ridiculous that women are given less body autonomy than corpses.

Yeah this was over in 2016 lol

I personally choose to remember that Republicans are the worst and that there are at least some good democrats. Basically I will vote for every Democrat until bernie dies out of sheer respect for the man. Maybe after too because he has impacted my life to such a large degree. He is worth believing in even if his colleagues are not always.

fucking dumb

It takes a special kind of person to look at this news and think ah yes, the democrats are the problem

you can pack the courts, actually

I do hope that people realize that the U.S. is not a first-world country.

Trump has single handily set this country back 70 years.

A twice impeached president, and a SC judge whose wife was actively influencing the events of Jan 6th.

Whole thing is fucking illegitimate.

KamikazePotato posted...

What could Democrats have done to stop this over the past two years? SC is stacked

Abolished the filibuster and enshrined the right to an abortion into law

*Republicans run on overturning Roe v. Wade for 40 years*
*Democrats warn losing SC will cause Roe v. Wade to be overturned*
*Republicans manage to stack court with SC justices thanks to having senate and presidency in 2016*
*100% of justices that vote to overturn precedent are republican justices, including three that were confirmed during the time voters were warned would cause this to happen*

"How could the democrats do this!"

lmao k

TotallyNotMI posted...

It takes a special kind of person to look at this news and think ah yes, the democrats are the problem

it takes a special kind of person to watch republicans erode civil liberties for 5-10 years (or more accurately, 30-70 years (depending on where you want to start) with zero pushback and not think, hey maybe we should actually push back against this by every means possible

changmas posted...

it takes a special kind of person to watch republicans erode civil liberties for 5-10 years with zero pushback and not think, hey maybe we should actually push back against this by every means possible

5-10 years

LOL

Try 60

DoomTheGyarados posted...

5-10 years

LOL

Try 60

true true i went back to edit

DoomTheGyarados posted...

5-10 years

LOL

Try 60

Well, Roe was 49 years ago and 5 GOP justices voted for it, to be fair

Anyway the problem is Republicans always. Always. They are 50-0 evil or corrupt. Democrats are like maybe half and half which is also horrible but got to always play good marketing here. Blame the people actually at fault first.

The entire system of the Supreme Court and how it's ran is the actual joke. Our very laws are dictated by random luck of who is president when they're able to catch the opposing party's judges dying so they can fill their seats with their own agendas. It's a bad system that will always mire civil liberties in this country. It is in dire need of a reformation.

Roe v Wade is literally the prime issue that was always argued we never had to actually worry about, to justify not voting. What a bizarre way to open this thread.

v_charon posted...

The entire system of the Supreme Court and how it's ran is the actual joke. Our very laws are dictated by random luck of who is president when they're able to catch the opposing party's judges dying so they can fill their seats with their own agendas. It's a bad system that will always mire civil liberties in this country. It is in dire need of a reformation.

Based take tbh yeah

v_charon posted...

The entire system of the Supreme Court and how it's ran is the actual joke. Our very laws are dictated by random luck of who is president when they're able to catch the opposing party's judges dying so they can fill their seats with their own agendas. It's a bad system that will always mire civil liberties in this country. It is in dire need of a reformation.

That was my thought too. What's the point of a system where they just vote along party lines and there's the ability to stack the court which could then have ramifications long after you're out of power.

The problem for conservatives is any other way is anti them. Updating judges every 16 years would be very progressive overall. So they hate it

I'd like the Supreme Court if it was stacked with left-wingers, but it's not, so it's bad

You may think I'm joking, but at this point anything that gives an inch to Republicans - 'fair' or otherwise - is morally incorrect

v_charon posted...

The entire system of the Supreme Court and how it's ran is the actual joke. Our very laws are dictated by random luck of who is president when they're able to catch the opposing party's judges dying so they can fill their seats with their own agendas. It's a bad system that will always mire civil liberties in this country. It is in dire need of a reformation.

it's true. the entire basis for the legal system in this country is nothing more than to preserve existing hegemonies. Justice and equality are nothing more than afterthoughts or political levers.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

The problem for conservatives is any other way is anti them. Updating judges every 16 years would be very progressive overall. So they hate it

My idea was that every odd numbered year, the longest tenured Justice gets replaced. That lets every President/Senate combo get one and only one.

A Justice dies, then we just manage without one for a little bit like we did in 2016 (thanks Mitch)

GuessMyUserName posted...

Roe v Wade is literally the prime issue that was always argued we never had to actually worry about, to justify not voting. What a bizarre way to open this thread.

Yeah, also this, 100%. The number of smug "this is never going to happen both parties are the same" takes I heard definitely aren't aging well at the moment. Although if I had to guess, most people saying this just didn't actually care about Roe v. Wade.

Jakyl25 posted...

My idea was that every odd numbered year, the longest tenured Justice gets replaced. That lets every President/Senate combo get one and only one.

A Justice dies, then we just manage without one for a little bit like we did in 2016 (thanks Mitch)

Way too progressive lol

v_charon posted...

The entire system of the Supreme Court and how it's ran is the actual joke. Our very laws are dictated by random luck of who is president when they're able to catch the opposing party's judges dying so they can fill their seats with their own agendas. It's a bad system that will always mire civil liberties in this country. It is in dire need of a reformation.

*When they ALSO have enough seats in the Senate to push a vote.

v_charon posted...

It is in dire need of a reformation.

The cure-all would be to get rid of political parties.

Because right now, there are only two: Us and Them. Us does everything that Them hates, and Them does everything that Us hates. Because these two forces will always be in opposition, nothing will ever get done, and we'll be stuck in a tug-of-war over wastes of time like undoing and reimplementing basic rights. This is just plain wrong, obviously.

The Supreme Court is meant to be a non-partisan entity but it's wholly partisan, and this furthers the problem of the two-party system. I don't see a way to reform how justices are chosen because no matter what, one party's gonna get to decide. So let's just do away with partisanship. It's not like we can feasibly have more than two parties that can ever be in control.

Jakyl25 posted...

Abolished the filibuster and enshrined the right to an abortion into law

I think it's far more likely that the GOP would have 50 votes for a federal abortion ban sometime in the next decade than that the Dems have 50 votes to enshrine it now even without the filibuster.

You think eliminating partisanship is more realistic than reforming the court?

LordoftheMorons posted...

I think it's far more likely that the GOP would have 50 votes for a federal abortion ban sometime in the next decade than that the Dems have 50 votes to enshrine it now even without the filibuster.

If that happens, then they would eliminate the filibuster themselves

You can't really do away with partisanship because at its root it is rich vs poor.

And technology has made guillotines obsolete.

Jakyl25 posted...

Abolished the filibuster and enshrined the right to an abortion into law

Which we could've done after we had abolished the Senate and stop letting the combined states of Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota and South Dakota (Population: 3,000,000) have 4x more political power than the state of California (population 40,000,000) Our government is rigged against us.

Jakyl25 posted...

If that happens, then they would eliminate the filibuster themselves

I'm not convinced of that. On this issue in particular I suspect that there are a bunch of Republicans who would be scared politically of both anti-abortion activists and of the massive backlash a national abortion ban would create; the fillibuster gives them an out. I would also bet that people like McConnell would rather have the power to stop new entitlements etc than to ban abortion.

I routinely forget Wyoming is a real place and not like, a Elder Scrolls country like Elsweyr

BlueCrystalTear posted...

Because right now, there are only two: Us and Them.

I hate to say it, but that's just how it has to be. 95% of conservatives (probably more but I'm trying to be positive) are all brainwashed sheep by now. I used to think Republicans were bad historically but looking back at some of them from times before Trump's ascension to power makes me realize I was wrong back then. There's literally no hope for that party now because you have a very small handful of politicians who identify as Republicans that are even halfway quality people. Even if you just say "get rid of the parties", you still have this large collective of dummies who all think the same way anyway. It has to be "us vs. them", because in this case one of those groups is going to stick together in unity under madness no matter what. The only way to combat them is to stand against them in another group of people.

Republicans are mostly evil and Democrats are only partially evil.

I spent a long time on neither side, now it's just a matter of the lesser of two evils to me.

this is incredibly embarrassing for our country

Suprak the Stud posted...

Yeah, also this, 100%. The number of smug "this is never going to happen both parties are the same" takes I heard definitely aren't aging well at the moment. Although if I had to guess, most people saying this just didn't actually care about Roe v. Wade.

GuessMyUserName posted...

Roe v Wade is literally the prime issue that was always argued we never had to actually worry about, to justify not voting. What a bizarre way to open this thread.

the part that frustrates me is how everyone's going to collectively choose to forget this. they're all going to pretend it was obviously going to happen, there was no deception, etc etc

just like how by 2009 there mysteriously weren't any republicans who remembered supporting baby w bush's war in iraq

Jakyl25 posted...

Well, Roe was 49 years ago and 5 GOP justices voted for it, to be fair

Keep in mind it was about that long ago that the Dems and Reps started switching places on a lot of issues, and those justices could've been in place for who knows how many years. In 1973 a Republican SC justice would almost certainly have been a liberal.

ChichiriMuyo posted...

Keep in mind it was about that long ago that the Dems and Reps started switching places on a lot of issues, and those justices could've been in place for who knows how many years. In 1973 a Republican SC justice would almost certainly have been a liberal.

It's bewildering to me how many people didn't know about the Dixiecrats and the party swap that happened. The GOP sure likes to talk about their party's grand history, but never seem to mention that they weren't a conservative party until the mid-20th century.

Also, Democrats could've and should've and promised to codify abortion rights into law during Obama's first term, but he decided not to do it so as not to upset some anti-abortion members of the party. Can't give up that crucial campaign issue by permanently solving it, can we? Think of the fundraising that occurs, and will occur especially now, when abortion rights are at stake. No politician wants to lose those dollars.

ChichiriMuyo posted...

Keep in mind it was about that long ago that the Dems and Reps started switching places on a lot of issues, and those justices could've been in place for who knows how many years. In 1973 a Republican SC justice would almost certainly have been a liberal.

It was also before the foundation of the Federalist Society which was essentially created as a reaction to GOP appointed justices not ruling the way they wanted (Stevens, Souter, etc.) to be a gate-keeping society to basically groom lawyers to be conservative ideologues who wouldn't "disappoint/betray" them. The 6 conservatives on SCOTUS right now all went through there.

~~~

Also I posted this in the containment topic but since I know a lot of people have that tag blocked I'll post it here since it's relevant: I did a quick workup of a map based on how the status of abortion rights would change the day Roe is overturned based on the sources regarding state-by-state differences on the law I found.

https://www.270towin.com/maps/VQYpY

Key:
Dark Red - States that have old laws still on the book that were invalidated by Roe and would come back into force of law or states that have passed trigger laws that are to take effect in the event of Roe being overturned.
Pink - States where court orders are halting restrictions that were found unconstitutional and would likely be rendered moot were Roe to be overturned.
Light Pink - States where laws exist banning abortion at 20 weeks or less which per Casey is before the viability line they set there.Technically these light pink states don't change upon Roe's overturning but they already exist on shaky ground if the Court actually cared about precedent.
Blue - States that have passed laws to protect abortion rights.

I don't want to see it overturned, but my (limited) understanding of Row v Wade is that there is fairly widespread agreement that it was a bad ruling from a legal perspective

Sure; which is why it should have been enshrined into law by now instead of perilously resting reproductive rights on a flimsy ruling

MarkS222222222222222 posted...

I don't want to see it overturned, but my (limited) understanding of Row v Wade is that there is fairly widespread agreement that it was a bad ruling from a legal perspective

Only if you're a strict constitutionalist and don't believe in the right to privacy, which is critical to several amendments.

Jakyl25 posted...

Sure; which is why it should have been enshrined into law by now instead of perilously resting reproductive rights on a flimsy ruling

Senate tried 2 months ago but it was filibustered.

Should absolutely bring it back up in light of this news however.

GuessMyUserName posted...

Roe v Wade is literally the prime issue that was always argued we never had to actually worry about, to justify not voting. What a bizarre way to open this thread.

Suprak the Stud posted...

Yeah, also this, 100%. The number of smug "this is never going to happen both parties are the same" takes I heard definitely aren't aging well at the moment. Although if I had to guess, most people saying this just didn't actually care about Roe v. Wade.

I think you're all coming at the same thing from different angles here. Maybe smug centrists used this as an excuse to not vote but Democrat politicians have been using it as a motivator for years. Despite not doing anything to prevent it via legislation when they had the chance a decade ago (presumably because that smug centrist take was common in the political class at the time).

xp1337 posted...

Senate tried 2 months ago but it was filibustered.

Should absolutely bring it back up in light of this news however.

Would it matter though? By 2024, we'll likely be dealing with a conservative majority in the Senate and House, with a possible conservative president.

The SC deciding that an abortion is no longer a right means it would, at best, swing back and forth between legal and illegal based on the current governments makeup.

TheRock1525 posted...

Would it matter though? By 2024, we'll likely be dealing with a conservative majority in the Senate and House, with a possible conservative president.

If were lucky, this ruling might just be the kick in the ass the public needs to reverse those trends.

redrocket posted...

If were lucky, this ruling might just be the kick in the ass the public needs to reverse those trends.

Doubtful. It might mitigate the expected losses somewhat, but I don't think there's enough single issue voters out there supporting abortion rights, nor people right now who are willing to stomach the inflation issues in order to try and protect/restore it.