Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 390: Where Uvalde Cowboys Gone?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jakyl25 posted...

So your theory is that the 6 that overturned Roe and Casey here:

1.) Believe that abortion is murder
2.) Contrived an unrelated originalist reason to repeal Roe and Casey to further that belief, a line of reasoning that could be copy/pasted to lots of decisions
3.) Dont believe that those decisions are immoral enough to be worth repealing

Just making sure that this is where your argument stands

1 seems reasonable - maybe not for all of the 6 but at least a majority of the 6 and maybe all 6. 2 is reasonable although I wouldn't use the word "contrived" which generates the feelings that the originalist explanation is somehow not legitimate. 3 is also reasonable, although it doesn't apply to all 6.

Does this illegalize abortion completely or does it only do so in states that don't specify it?

Looks like the conservatives are striking back!

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Does this illegalize abortion completely or does it only do so in states that don't specify it?

Looks like the conservatives are striking back!

The decision on its own doesn't illegalize anything. It allows states that want to ban it to ban it. About half the states have preexisting laws that ban it, or laws that automatically go into effect when the Supreme Court declares they are allowed.

And the democrats are still going to get destroyed in the midterms.

What a great country!

Suprak the Stud posted...

And the democrats are still going to get destroyed in the midterms.

What a great country!

Absurdly premature statement

masterplum posted...

Absurdly premature statement

What percentage chances do you give the Dems of keeping the House and Senate

Itd be one thing if Republicans were in control and people could vote to get them out.

But with this shit happening with Democrats in total control, I suspect many will just say were fucked and stay home.

I hope Im wrong, but yeah.

Also frankly the idea of bodily autonomy being a protected right is sort of a joke as long as we have laws banning drugs, restricting alcohol, and requiring seat belt use - if people really have a right to bodily autonomy, surely they would have a right to do whatever they want to their own bodies. I think those are actually closer to a lot of the other major decisions that have focused on bodily autonomy, because they are victimless crimes or crimes in which the only "victim" is the person doing those things.

So this is a much less appropriate place to apply the slippery slope argument than it might appear. Because there are already things further down the slope that have already happened.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

will just say were f***ed and stay home.

fighting real hard against this mindset for myself, currently losing

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Itd be one thing if Republicans were in control and people could vote to get them out.

But with this shit happening with Democrats in total control, I suspect many will just say were fucked and stay home.

I hope Im wrong, but yeah.

Yup, and people care more about $5 gas than they do liberties they allege are important to them.

I look forward to all the gymnastics were about to see from the enlightened centrists about how both sides are still very much the same.

Jakyl25 posted...

What percentage chances do you give the Dems of keeping the House and Senate

20%

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

But with this shit happening with Democrats in total control, I suspect many will just say were fucked and stay home.

They very much don't control the courts. Republicans dominate that branch.

Suprak the Stud posted...

Yup, and people care more about $5 gas than they do liberties they allege are important to them.

I look forward to all the gymnastics were about to see from the enlightened centrists about how both sides are still very much the same.

I have seen at least 20 times as many people complaining about both sides are the same people as those actually saying that.

Maniac64 posted...

They very much don't control the courts. Republicans dominate that branch.

Not to be rude but Im obviously talking about the (federal) positions of power that people vote for.

Tom Bombadil posted...

fighting real hard against this mindset for myself, currently losing

To me personally theres no reason not to go vote since my polling station is always near empty with zero lines, even if theres no actual hope.

BUT my polling station has just changed due to redistricting so we will see if its now a burden for me to vote

Maniac64 posted...

They very much don't control the courts. Republicans dominate that branch.

They control all the positions that can make this SCOTUS decision moot, but refuse to do it

masterplum posted...

I have seen at least 20 times as many people complaining about both sides are the same people as those actually saying that.

Yeah I wonder why one group would be loudly complaining in large numbers right now while the other is suspiciously quiet.

Makes no sense.

The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.

Quoting today's opinion. A federal ban on abortion solely within a single state is probably unconstitutional as it would not fall within any of Congress's enumerated powers. At least under the conservative interpretation of the commerce clause. I've seen no indication that the conservatives will make a u-turn on their commerce clause decisions.

Also if Democrats had spent the last 50 years trying to legislate the traditional way instead of putting all their eggs in the SCOTUS basket they wouldn't be in the position they're in today. We have a generation of Democrats that counted on SCOTUS to change the laws for them. Instead of Congress and the state legislatures. This is antidemocratic and ought to stop.

Thank goodness the filibuster is safe though.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Thank goodness the filibuster is safe though.

There was a media scrum with Manchin a few weeks ago where he declared he would do all he can to protect the right to an abortion, but then someone asked about ending the filibuster and he still said no, lol

Jakyl25 posted...

There was a media scrum with Manchin a few weeks ago where he declared he would do all he can to protect the right to an abortion, but then someone asked about ending the filibuster and he still said no, lol

Those are entirely consistent. The Democrats may need to filibuster the Republican bill to ban it nationwide.

red sox 777 posted...

Those are entirely consistent. The Democrats may need to filibuster the Republican bill to ban it nationwide.

Or maybe they could have abolished it when we could have codified it before and not had to worry about this.

This is another one of these issues they kick the can down the road on until a semi comes and flattens them.

All he could*!

(*restrictions may apply, offer not valid within the continental United States)

https://twitter.com/gravelinstitute/status/1540347369111392256?s=21&t=ZkpVqEE5cjAaxH1FEvVj5A

LMAO fuck right off

Nancy Pelosi is a worthless husk of flabby skin and should crawl back into the crypt.

The absolute gall.

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/gravelinstitute/status/1540347369111392256?s=21&t=ZkpVqEE5cjAaxH1FEvVj5A

LMAO fuck right off

every last anti-choice republican but not the one anti choice demcorat

LMAO fuck right off indeed

God I thought were supposed to get a goddamn break from constant screwing us over laws with a democrat president.

PerfectChaosZ posted...

God I thought were supposed to get a goddamn break from constant screwing us over laws with a democrat president.

nah its bad vs super evil worse

Man it would be really awful if Nancy Pelosi who is trying to make more money off of this and pearl clutching over this had endorsed anti-choice democrats repeatedly.

PerfectChaosZ posted...

God I thought were supposed to get a goddamn break from constant screwing us over laws with a democrat president.

You didnt vote hard enough

I didn't see from anyone but was it 5-4 or 6-3?

6-3 with Roberts crying that this really should only be about allowing the Mississippi law but not extending to repealing Roe, but still voting for it

Corrik7 posted...

I didn't see from anyone but was it 5-4 or 6-3?

6-3 to uphold Mississippi's law and overturn the viability standard of Roe v. Wade. 5-4 to find there is no constitutional right to abortion.

Jakyl25 posted...

6-3 with Roberts crying that this really should only be about allowing the Mississippi law but not extending to repealing Roe, but still voting for it

Thanks. Interesting.

All right, finished reading the opinions.

Majority opinion of the court is fucking disgusting as I outlined earlier.

Thomas's concurrence is basically sending the signal to conservatives of where to target next, not that we didn't already know since the GOP has already publicly taken aim at Griswold, Obergefell, Lawrence, Loving, etc.

Kavanaugh's concurrence is him totally attempting to do a PR work for himself full of "We didn't outlaw abortion nationwide!", "We're totally not coming for those other cases/rights! [Not said, but definitely the unsaid feeling throughout the majority opinion: "Today"], "IDK maybe we should have constitutionally protected the right to an abortion in the case of the life of the mother, but eh most states banning it do that so it's probably fine. [Not said: Anything about the already in-place laws that do not]", "Well, personally I think we can't ban you from traveling to another state for an abortion. [Not a controlling opinion here, just riffing. Also nothing about those who can't afford to just do that.]", and "Well, people would be upset however we ruled."

Roberts's concurrence is basically: "Okay, so, when we first granted this case a hearing we were told by Mississippi we were only being asked to decide if all pre-viability restrictions on abortion were unconstitutional and explicitly that finding that some were allowable would not overturn Roe. We should have done that instead of going further than we had to and actually doing that. We should have punted the question of Roe itself down the road. We're rewarding Mississippi for changing their story after we okayed the case when they switched to 'actually we want you to overturn Roe entirely.'" aka Roberts would have further gutted Roe but technically left it in place but as a practical matter it'd probably be open season on it even more than it already was and probably would have delayed this full overturn a year or two.

The dissent points out what a fucking travesty this is - from the fact that the rich and well-off will still be able to get abortions for themselves and their family by going to "'New York [or] California' but to Toronto" (alluding to Kavanaugh bringing up criminalizing traveling between states) to the fact that despite the majority constantly getting defensive about it they very much put Griswold, Obergefell, Lawrence, Loving, etc. in peril by pointing out that the logic they use in overturning Roe rests on their argument there wasn't a right to abortion "deeply rooted in history" until Roe and pointing out the obvious that you could say the exact same thing about those cases too - so either the majority doesn't actually believe it's reasoning or that any "right" lacking a history dating back until at least the mid-19th century (where the majority seems to have drawn its line) is subject to the exact same challenge the majority used to overturn Roe.

They also come hard at the majority's fiction of "we must read the Constitution as it was written at that time" by pointing out that the majority looked at the landscape at the time the 14th Amendment was written and pointing out that at that time it was written and passed by men because women lacked the right to vote and would for another half century and that "We The People" very clearly did not mean all people.

Honestly, this dissent is perhaps the one with the least fucks given I've ever read of these. Like, you can clearly see just how fucking pissed they are with how savage they are in shredding the majority opinions and the concurrences.

Jakyl25 posted...

6-3 with Roberts crying that this really should only be about allowing the Mississippi law but not extending to repealing Roe, but still voting for it

Yeah, if you want to parse this out it's:

6-3 on the question of Mississippi's law (That is to say the answer to the question to "Are all restrictions on pre-viability abortion unconstitutional by default?" is "No")

5-4 on overturning Roe on the question of "Is there a constitutional right to an abortion?"

So it's 5-1-3 with the controlling opinion of the Court being that Roe and Casey are overturned and there is no right to an abortion.

Roberts (the 1) would have said that "It was wrong to set the line of abortion restrictions as "viability" so Mississippi's law is okay even though it's pre-viability. Roe would remain intact with Roberts explicitly noting that the question of Roe itself would be left to another day." But since the other 5 conservatives had the votes to overturn Roe themselves they left him behind.

Isnt Roe still basically informally dead even with Roberts attempt to thread the needle opinion? Like what the fuck sort of nuanced position is states can restrict access to abortions based on whatever reason they want but they cannot ban them?

Roberts is smart enough to try to keep the mask on.

others were like NOPE

Jakyl25 posted...

Isnt Roe still basically informally dead even with Roberts attempt to thread the needle opinion? Like what the fuck sort of nuanced position is states can restrict access to abortions based on whatever reason they want but they cannot ban them?

Roberts actually said he was for overturning Roe (he calls the viability standard its central holding). He just isn't for deciding the question of whether abortion can be banned at any time in the pregnancy. His position was that it's not necessary to decide that question to decide this case, so SCOTUS should punt on the question.

I think it's kind of silly. It would be like the Brown v. Board of Education court saying, we think that separate but equal cannot be applied to elementary schools, but we can decide this case without deciding the question of whether high schools can be separate but equal, so we refuse to decide that question. Come back when you are in high school and we'll hear your case then.

Poor Roberts and his legacy :(

I think we are fairly close to a breaking point where states start refusing to submit to judicial review

Then all hell breaks loose

If you think about it, if you're rich nothing has really changed at all.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

If you think about it, if you're rich nothing has really changed at all.

Been true for 6000 years

Jakyl25 posted...

Isnt Roe still basically informally dead even with Roberts attempt to thread the needle opinion? Like what the fuck sort of nuanced position is states can restrict access to abortions based on whatever reason they want but they cannot ban them?

Yeah, Roberts's play was to basically kill Roe without technically killing it to avoid the headline of "Supreme Court overturns Roe."

He'd basically erode the right to abortion further by saying, "Okay, so pre-viability bans aren't automatically unconstitutional" and leave it super vague as to what the fuck even would be. Clearly 15 weeks would be okay given the Mississippi law getting the explicit nod. It'd basically leave it vague and to be challenged case-by-case. The majority opinion actually calls him out on this vagueness while the dissent says they think he's wrong just not as catastrophically wrong as the other 5.

In practice I expect they'd just keep whittling down the right by continuously okaying increasingly restrictive laws while technically never saying it was entirely overturned.

Dick's Sporting Goods doing more than our government.

https://twitter.com/mattlindner/status/1540363274910171137?t=yZLlGw7A3Lw75APKdgljdg&s=19

masterplum posted...

I think we are fairly close to a breaking point where states start refusing to submit to judicial review

Then all hell breaks loose

All hell broke loose a long time ago.

masterplum posted...

I think we are fairly close to a breaking point where states start refusing to submit to judicial review

Then all hell breaks loose

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"

Yesmar_ posted...

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"

There's nothing for SCOTUS to enforce here. The decision is that they will not enforce anything on this matter and the states can do whatever they like.

HeroicCrono posted...

There's nothing for SCOTUS to enforce here. The decision is that they will not enforce anything on this matter and the states can do whatever they like.

Yet