Roe v Wade is on deck

[Toni]

Kavanaugh wouldn't lie!

I think that at the very least, Roe will get gutted. I hate to keep saying this, but this was all predicted when Trump got elected. The left lost two extremely winnable presidential cycles (Bush v Gore, Trump v Clinton) because we couldn't unite and get motivated enough to win against flawed candidates. And we're paying for this now. To me, the most shocking statistic from the Trump 2016 and 2020 runs is that a majority of white women voted for Trump. It's hard for me to understand. But if we want bodily control returned to the people, we need to vote every election. It's real simple, if the republicans get trounced in 2022 and 2024. We take the senate and retain the presidency, eventually these rulings will be reversed. The deal is who wants it more, the left or the right?

I've said before and I will say again: I don't actually believe that a majority of white women voted for Trump, damn the exit polls. After all, polling had Hillary soundly beating Trump.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Kavanaugh wouldn't lie!

I think that at the very least, Roe will get gutted. I hate to keep saying this, but this was all predicted when Trump got elected. The left lost two extremely winnable presidential cycles (Bush v Gore, Trump v Clinton) because we couldn't unite and get motivated enough to win against flawed candidates. And we're paying for this now. To me, the most shocking statistic from the Trump 2016 and 2020 runs is that a majority of white women voted for Trump. It's hard for me to understand. But if we want bodily control returned to the people, we need to vote every election. It's real simple, if the republicans get trounced in 2022 and 2024. We take the senate and retain the presidency, eventually these rulings will be reversed. The deal is who wants it more, the left or the right?

I've said before and I will say again: I don't actually believe that a majority of white women voted for Trump, damn the exit polls. After all, polling had Hillary soundly beating Trump.

The polls didn't. The issue with polling and Trump is undecideds seemingly went heavy Trump. This is the reason it appeared Biden was going to win for real as he had 50+% in states, where as Hillary Clinton had a lead but was less than 50%.

Regardless, too many people voted for Trump. And would do it again... even knowing he tried to give Biden the virus. Trump's victory gave the GOP the power to poison the courts and take over SCOTUS for a generation.

 

[ZiprHead]

Nail... Head

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Trausti]

View attachment 36242

All those guys paying child support would like a word.

 

[Rhea]

All those guys paying child support would like a word.

All of them?

None of them are actually interested in their children’s welfare?
Shouldn’t they get free vasectomies, instead?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

All those guys paying child support would like a word.

All of them?

None of them are actually interested in their children’s welfare?
Shouldn’t they get free vasectomies, instead?

Seems like a decent trade. Male gets to have woman have abortion and in exchange she gets to have man snipped.

 

[ZiprHead]

^^^ What does this have to do with Roe vs Wade?

 

[ZiprHead]

YIKES! Laura Ingraham, Ted Cruz Threaten to CANCEL Supreme Court if it Doesn't Overturn Roe😱

The "Cancel Culture" rhetoric is an exclusively right-wing phenomenon intended to provide conservatives with a platform for whining about their imaginary victimhood. It is a thoroughly manufactured ...

www.dailykos.com

Ingraham: If we have six Republican appointees on this court, after all the money that has been raised, the Federalist Society, all these big fat cat dinners - I'm sorry, I'm pissed about this - If this court with six justices cannot do the right thing here, the constitutional thing, then I think it's time to do what Robert Bork said we should do. Which is to circumscribe the jurisdiction of this court and if they wanna blow it up, then that's the way to change things finally. Because this can't stand. This is insane.
Cruz: I would do that in a heartbeat. As you know the Constitution gives Congress the authority to restrict the jurisdiction of the court. I think we should do that.

Not only admitting that the judges were bought and paid for, but being entirely willing to blow up the court. Something the conservatives here said was bad when Dems hypothetically considered it.

 

[lpetrich]

Roe v. Wade: How Republicans got so close to overturning it - Vox

Some progressives look at the apparent success of the activists on the right and see a record of feckless failure on their own side: If only Democrats cared about abortion rights more and fought for them harder, as the anti-abortion movement fought to roll back abortion, this could have been averted.

But one of the main reasons conservatives got to the point where Roe’s defeat seems plausible is that they learned to be more like Democrats.

Some of the earlier post-RvW Republican appointees were not very strongly anti-abortion: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. But the Democratic Presidents' appointees are reliably pro-choice.

"The political triumph of conservative activists, then, was in taking over their own party — pressuring George W. Bush and Donald Trump to rethink how Supreme Court appointments were made, and to only appoint nominees they’d vetted and deemed reliably anti-abortion."

"Past Republican presidents appointed many justices who disappointed conservative activists"

"So for decades, there was a delicate balance of sorts, with five conservatives and four liberals on the courts, but with some of those conservatives (O’Connor and Kennedy) siding with liberals on certain key issues, and especially on Roe."

When Antonin Scalia, Barack Obama had a chance to appoint another Supreme Court Justice. But Mitch McConnell obstructed him about that, a feat that he once chuckled about on Fox News.

That helped Trump appoint three Supreme Court Justices.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

The primary thing to do, at our end, is to go ahead and be prepared to use the political energy that would result from extreme abortion prohibition, using Irish pro-abortion activism as a potential template. Abortion was a crime in Ireland for generations until only a few years ago, when a surge of youth activism succeeded at galvanizing a large mass of support.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The primary thing to do, at our end, is to go ahead and be prepared to use the political energy that would result from extreme abortion prohibition, using Irish pro-abortion activism as a potential template. Abortion was a crime in Ireland for generations until only a few years ago, when a surge of youth activism succeeded at galvanizing a large mass of support.

Except SCOTUS is going to do it in steps to help bleed off the pressure. What the first step is, is unclear. Do they create an arbitrary 15 week limit for allowable abortions or let the state choose. This will provide cover for the mid-terms.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

@Jimmy Higgins They are mistaken if they think they can just soft-peddle oppression until women suddenly stop being normal freedom-loving human beings and realize they were always happy with being repressed objects. That did not work in Ireland. Instead, they developed an underground subculture trafficking abortion pills and devices, and this created a sense of political unity that has resulted in turning Ireland into one of the most liberal countries on the planet. Irish feminists can be quite strident.

 

[TV and credit cards]

"We'll be a sanctuary."
-Gov. Gavin Newsom

Going to California.
Some told me there's a clinic out there that provides quality service with medical staff... that really cares.

Scholarships for abortion providers.
Pay off student debt of providers in rural areas.
Late term procedures.
Public funding.
Reimbursement for travel.
Lodging.
And a free t-shirt.

 

[Politesse]

Increasingly, the last decent place in the country.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

SCOTUS says insane law that creates a glitch in the system and is clearly unconstitutional in spirit can continue, but that some people can be sued by abortion proponents. It'd be weird that Whole Women's Health v Jackson would be the case that actually empowers action at the polls over Dobbs, as SCOTUS is effectively giving states a blank check for effectively banning abortion, at least for a bit.

the ultimate merits question -- whether S.B. 8 is consistent with the Federal Constitution -- is not before the Court. Nor is the wisdom of S.B. 8 as a matter of public policy

Also known as a copout.

Chief Justice Roberts

If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery.

This law is so blatantly unconstitutional, it shows how far-right the SCOTUS bench has become, with Thomas having a lot more company now.

Regarding the ability for abortion proponents to move forward to toss the law:

The Court unanimously rejects the petitioners' theory for relief against state-court judges and agrees Judge Jackson should be dismissed from this suit. (2) A majority reaches the same conclusion with respect to the petitioners' parallel theory for relief against state-court clerks. (3) With respect to the back-up theory of relief the petitioners present against Attorney General Paxton, a majority concludes that he must be dismissed. (4) At the same time, eight Justices hold this case may proceed past the motion to dismiss stage against . . . defendants with specific disciplinary authority over medical licensees, including the petitioners. (5) Every member of the Court accepts that the only named private-individual defendant, Mr. Dickson, should be dismissed.

So, some people can be sued, but not anyone important.

 

[lpetrich]

Citizen Enforcement of Abortion Law Violates Texas Constitution, Judge Rules - The New York Times - "A state judge said the approach inappropriately granted standing and denied due process. Abortion providers said they would expand services if the State Supreme Court upheld the ruling."

A state district court judge in Texas ruled on Thursday that the unique enforcement scheme of a restrictive abortion law violated the State Constitution by allowing any private citizen to sue abortion providers or others accused of breaking the law.

In a 48-page opinion, Judge David Peeples found that the approach, which had been seen by anti-abortion groups as its greatest strength, unconstitutionally granted standing to those who were not injured, denied due process and represented an “unlawful delegation of enforcement power to a private person.”

While deemed an important victory for abortion rights groups, abortion providers said on Thursday that they would not immediately resume performing the procedure after about six weeks of pregnancy.

 

[lpetrich]

Chief Justice John Roberts warns Supreme Court over Texas abortion law

The chief justice of the United States, John Roberts, warned Friday that the Supreme Court risks losing its own authority if it allows states to circumvent the courts as Texas did with its near-total abortion ban.

In a strongly worded opinion joined by the high court’s three liberal justices, Roberts wrote that the "clear purpose and actual effect" of the Texas law was "to nullify this Court’s rulings." That, he said, undermines the Constitution and the fundamental role of the Supreme Court and the court system as a whole.

The opinion was a remarkable plea by the chief justice to his colleagues on the court to resist the efforts by right-wing lawmakers to get around court decisions they dislike, in this case Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that made abortion legal in the United States, within limits. But in this case, his urgent request was largely ignored by the other justices on the court who were appointed by Republicans.

His opinion: 21-463 Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson (12/10/2021) - 21-463_3ebh.pdf

Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University, said Friday on MSNBC that “the real question here is whether or not Chief Justice John Roberts is chief justice in principle as well as name.”

“The question here is how can he reign in that hardcore conservative bloc of the court?" she asked. "And it seemed obvious last week in oral arguments, and this week — in terms of how these opinions are written, and where the chief justice finds himself — that maybe he's having a hard time keeping all of the conservative bloc in line.”

 

[ZiprHead]

So now we can nullify rights by suing individuals, what other rights can we nullify?

Gun rights?

Freedom of association?

Freedom of speech?

Allowing Supreme Court Justices to rule in favor of doing so?

 

[TomC]

So now we can nullify rights by suing individuals, what other rights can we nullify?

Gun rights?

I'd start with this one.

Rittenhouse got a gun from somewhere. The McMichaels got a gun from somewhere.
If it's Constitutional to sue someone for participating in a legal act, without threat of a countersuit, let's start with gun manufacturers and dealers.
Tom