Roe v Wade is on deck

[lpetrich]

AOC appeared on Meet the Press:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "We have a responsibility to protect our democracy. That includes holding those in power who violate the law accountable.
Without it, rule of law can slip through our hands like sand through loose fingers." / Twitter
noting
Sarah Reese Jones on Twitter: ".@AOC says Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Thomas committed impeachable offenses, " I believe lying under oath is an impeachable offense and violating federal law and not disclosing income from political organizations as Clarence Thomas did is also potentially an impeachable offense." (vid link)" / Twitter

Poor Susan Collins Is Very Sad Kavanaugh and Gorsuch Lied to Her
and
Did the conservative justices commit perjury? Here’s what they said under oath about Roe v. Wade - News @ Northeastern - News @ Northeastern

Yet statements made by the trio of justices during their respective confirmation hearings suggested that they would, if confirmed, honor precedent or not reconsider matters thought to be so-called settled law (and Roe is frequently cited as such).

...
But amid the fallout from the Supreme Court’s decision Friday overturning Roe, what many—including Sen. Susan Collins of Maine—interpreted then as reassurance from the justices that they would uphold settled law turned out to be careful lawyerspeak. In retrospect, it should have suggested they were poised to do the opposite, says Dan Urman, director of the Law and Public Policy Minor at Northeastern, who teaches courses on the Supreme Court.

“To me, their careful lawyerly phrasing was, itself, a demonstration that they were prepared to overturn Roe,” Urman says. “If they were not, then they could have given a more direct and less careful answer.”

noting
WATCH: What Conservative Justices Said About Roe v. Wade During Their Supreme Court Confirmations - YouTube

Clarence Thomas's statements about it were long ago, when he was confirmed in 1991. So that's plenty of time to change his mind. In any case, his wife is a known insurrectionist, and he has yet to address that conflict of interest.

But Neil Gorsuch was confirmed in 2017, Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, and Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, which is *much* less time.

Would it be too much to ask to impeach all four Justices? That would be nice to see, though the Democratic leadership will have to be much less feckless to do it.

 

[lpetrich]

Meet the Press on Twitter: "WATCH: @RepAOC (D-N.Y.) responds to Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.) and Arkansas’ abortion ban.
“This decision and this policy will kill people no matter what their spin and what their talking points are.” (vid link)" / Twitter

Noting that Arkansas is the 3rd worst state for maternal mortality, and that black women are 70%. Checking on U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Arkansas black people are 16% of the population.

Meet the Press on Twitter: "WATCH: Democrats must realize that the implications of the Roe decision are "not just a crisis of Roe" but "a crisis of our democracy,” @AOC says. #MTP
“The Supreme Court has dramatically overreached its authority. … This is a crisis of legitimacy.” (vid link)" / Twitter
and
Aaron Rupar on Twitter: "AOC on Meet the Press: "What I believe that the president and the Democratic Party needs to come to terms with is that this is not just a crisis of Roe, this is a crisis of our democracy ... this is a crisis of legitimacy and President Biden must address that" (vid link)" / Twitter

She said that the Democratic Party should do things that will make that party worth voting for. Like opening abortion clinic on Federal lands in red states, as proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren and others: Senators Warren and Smith Call on Biden and Congress to Protect Abortion Access noting Opinion | Elizabeth Warren and Tina Smith: We’ve Seen What Will Happen Next to America’s Women - The New York Times noting Warren, Murray Lead Over 20 Senators Urging President Biden to Issue Executive Order to Defend Americans’ Right to an Abortion | U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts - 23 of them.

1. Increasing access to medication abortion.
2. Providing resources for individuals seeking abortion care in other states.
3. Establishing a reproductive health ombudsman at the Department of Health and Humans Services (HHS).
4. Enforcing “Free Choice of Provider” requirements.
5. Clarifying protections for sensitive health and location data.
6. Using federal property and resources to increase access to abortion.

That last one might have problems with the Hyde Amendment, but one could get around that by hosting private clinics. I confess that it can be fun to think like a sleazy lawyer.

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "We cannot allow this ding-dong who doesn’t seem to know the typical American seeking reproductive care is already a MOTHER, & who also thought fertility had to do with Daylight Savings become the next US Senator for Ohio. Time to knock doors for @TimRyan: (pic link)" / Twitter
noting a tweet from R OH Sen candidate JD Vance:

If your worldview tells you that it's bad for women to become mothers but liberating for them to work 90 hours a week in a cubicle at the New York Times or Goldman Sachs, you've been had.

I like this response:
Neil or no deal on Twitter: "@jayblackisfunny @AOC @TimRyan "Let me liberate you from that career we define as success for men."" / Twitter

Dallas Gal on Twitter: "@AOC @TimRyan Worth remembering JDVance very recently pushed for childless women to lose their teaching jobs bc “they don’t have skin in the game”.
The GOP is actively floating every possible talking pnt abt removing women from the workplace to see what sticks. Won’t be long b4 they find one." / Twitter

Belladonnaflame on Twitter: "@OhStaceyB His wife is an attorney; I bet she didn’t spend all that time at university to stay home in the kitchen. (link)" / Twitter
noting
Usha Chilukuri, J.D. Vance’s Wife: 5 Fast Facts | Heavy.com

 

[Politesse]

Now that the decision has been issued overturning Roe, he are at the point where we have insurgencies at the homes of some of the Justices.

Oh no, do they feel their privacy has been violated?

 

[Tigers!]

Would anyone be surprised if there isn't a real attempt to assassinate a SCOTUS judge? The one a couple weeks ago doesn't count.

Why doesn't it count? Because they failed?

 

[lpetrich]

J.D. Vance on Twitter: "If your worldview tells you that it’s bad for women to become mothers but liberating for them to work 90 hours a week in a cubicle at the New York Times or Goldman Sachs, you’ve been had." / Twitter

with responses
Jeff Yang on Twitter: "@JDVance1 Your wife Usha Chilukuri Vance—the liberated mother of your three children—is an associate at Munger, Tolles & Olson who leads m “complex civil litigation and appeals in a wide variety of sectors, including higher ed, government, entertainment and tech” (links)" / Twitter
and
Jeff Yang on Twitter: "@JDVance1 You’re a conman, a clown and a neoreactionary hatemonger fueled by Silicon Valley dark money @JDVance1. I wish those things were enough to keep you out of the Senate, but instead we have to hope that @TimRyan can kick your ass without continuing to rely on China-baiting to do so" / Twitter

As to who JD Vance is,
Cliff Schecter on Twitter: "@JDVance1 If your worldview tells you dance like a marionette for a billionaire venture capitalist between art exhibits and brunches in SF before coming "back" to Ohio to pretend you're a man of the ppl, your soul's been had" / Twitter
then
Cliff Schecter on Twitter: "@JDVance1 Hey all, look, more on JD Vance, Yalie, San Fran brunching, billionaire-stuffing-millions-in-his pockets, venture capitalist man of the people! He even wants us to be France (which I must admit, is kinda cool of him) (link) #AbortionRightsAreHumanRights" / Twitter

 

[Metaphor]

AOC appeared on Meet the Press:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "We have a responsibility to protect our democracy. That includes holding those in power who violate the law accountable.
Without it, rule of law can slip through our hands like sand through loose fingers." / Twitter
noting
Sarah Reese Jones on Twitter: ".@AOC says Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Thomas committed impeachable offenses, " I believe lying under oath is an impeachable offense and violating federal law and not disclosing income from political organizations as Clarence Thomas did is also potentially an impeachable offense." (vid link)" / Twitter

Poor Susan Collins Is Very Sad Kavanaugh and Gorsuch Lied to Her
and
Did the conservative justices commit perjury? Here’s what they said under oath about Roe v. Wade - News @ Northeastern - News @ Northeastern

Yet statements made by the trio of justices during their respective confirmation hearings suggested that they would, if confirmed, honor precedent or not reconsider matters thought to be so-called settled law (and Roe is frequently cited as such).

...
But amid the fallout from the Supreme Court’s decision Friday overturning Roe, what many—including Sen. Susan Collins of Maine—interpreted then as reassurance from the justices that they would uphold settled law turned out to be careful lawyerspeak. In retrospect, it should have suggested they were poised to do the opposite, says Dan Urman, director of the Law and Public Policy Minor at Northeastern, who teaches courses on the Supreme Court.

“To me, their careful lawyerly phrasing was, itself, a demonstration that they were prepared to overturn Roe,” Urman says. “If they were not, then they could have given a more direct and less careful answer.”

noting
WATCH: What Conservative Justices Said About Roe v. Wade During Their Supreme Court Confirmations - YouTube

Clarence Thomas's statements about it were long ago, when he was confirmed in 1991. So that's plenty of time to change his mind. In any case, his wife is a known insurrectionist, and he has yet to address that conflict of interest.

But Neil Gorsuch was confirmed in 2017, Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, and Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, which is *much* less time.

So what? I've read the "case" that Kavanaugh "lied" about his views and intentions, in this thread. If that is the totality of the case demonstrating he "lied", the case is pathetic. He said nothing like "I respect Roe v Wade and I will not overturn it".

And there is less than no case at all against ACB.

Would it be too much to ask to impeach all four Justices? That would be nice to see, though the Democratic leadership will have to be much less feckless to do it.

Why would they be impeached?

You appear to believe four years is not enough to change your mind. Well, your mind can be changed overnight if you read the right argument.

I once firmly believed in God. Then I read a high school philosophy text book which laid out all the arguments for and against God. And I thought "oh, the evidence isn't really there, is it?"

So if you had asked me the day before whether I believed in God and there was good philosophical reasons to do so, I'd have said yes. And the next day, I'd have said "I believe in God but there's no good philosophical reason to do so". And a few years later my answer would be "I don't believe in God and there's no good reason to".

 

[Metaphor]

Now that the decision has been issued overturning Roe, he are at the point where we have insurgencies at the homes of some of the Justices.

Oh no, do they feel their privacy has been violated?

No - having someone trying to kill you isn't a violation of your privacy.

 

[Politesse]

Now that the decision has been issued overturning Roe, he are at the point where we have insurgencies at the homes of some of the Justices.

Oh no, do they feel their privacy has been violated?

No - having someone trying to kill you isn't a violation of your privacy.

That seems like a pretty serious violation of privacy to me, actually. But of course, no such murder attempt has occurred. The President even signed a special bill to make sure all the Justices are safe from the mean old protesters. Isn't that fucking sweet. Everyone is friends up at the top.

 

[Metaphor]

Now that the decision has been issued overturning Roe, he are at the point where we have insurgencies at the homes of some of the Justices.

Oh no, do they feel their privacy has been violated?

No - having someone trying to kill you isn't a violation of your privacy.

That seems like a pretty serious violation of privacy to me, actually.

I don't know if you are trying to win a point here, but ...what?

A violation of my privacy is somebody installing a camera in my bathroom without me knowing and selling footage of it on the internet. A violation of my privacy is my GP going on television to discuss my medical conditions. I can think of many others.

But someone trying to murder me isn't violating my 'privacy'. They're violating my right to not be murdered.

 

[Patooka]

Irrelevant. The Supreme Court justices are nominated by a President and confirmed by a Senate. If that means the court is 'illegitimate' then the Congress that AOC sits in is illegitimate.

And each of those justices lied at their senate hearings. I know what would happen to me if I lied during a job interview.

 

[Metaphor]

So, I've reviewed what each of these justices accused of "perjury" said during their confirmation hearings.

ACB and Thomas specifically say they will not pre-judge any case.

Gorsuch says it is precedent but does not in any way say he agrees that it was decided correctly nor that it was 'settled law' (whatever that is supposed to mean).

Also, Gorsuch is movie-star handsome. Wow!

 

[Metaphor]

Irrelevant. The Supreme Court justices are nominated by a President and confirmed by a Senate. If that means the court is 'illegitimate' then the Congress that AOC sits in is illegitimate.

And each of those justices lied at their senate hearings. I know what would happen to me if I lied during a job interview.

Oh yes? Please point out the lies.

 

[ZiprHead]

Would anyone be surprised if there isn't a real attempt to assassinate a SCOTUS judge? The one a couple weeks ago doesn't count.

Why doesn't it count? Because they failed?

Because he was a mentally ill person who never atually attempted it. Duh.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Would anyone be surprised if there isn't a real attempt to assassinate a SCOTUS judge? The one a couple weeks ago doesn't count.

Why doesn't it count? Because they failed?

Well, technically, calling the police before you even try implies he knew he needed help and sought it... before actually trying, which he never did.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Now that the decision has been issued overturning Roe, he are at the point where we have insurgencies at the homes of some of the Justices.

Reply Options:

A) Oh that... it is viable political discourse.

or

B) Yes... we must be concerned about the liberty of those that are not women.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Katie Lannan on Twitter: "Under an executive order Gov. Baker signed today, Mass. "will not cooperate with extradition requests from other states pursuing criminal charges against individuals who received, assisted with, or performed reproductive health services that are legal in [MA]," per his office." / Twitter
noting
No. 600: Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Care Services in the Commonwealth | Mass.gov

Tracking Where Abortion Is Now Banned - The New York Times

• Abortion outlawed immediately in AL, AR, KY, LA, MO, OK, SD, UT, WI
• Abortion outlawed "within days" in MS, WY
• Abortion outlawed after 30 days in ID, ND, TN, TX
• Abortion may soon be outlawed in WV
• Abortion only before 6 weeks: GA, NC, OH
• Abortion only before 15 weeks: AZ, FL
• Uncertain status: IA, IN, KS, MI, MT, NC, NE, PA, VA
• Abortion protected: AK, CO, IL, MA, ME, MN, NH, NM, NV, RI
• Abortion access expanded: CA, CT, DC, DE, HI, MD, NJ, NY, OR, VT, WA

I am pleased that someone posted that.

As I look around the political landscape I see some giving negative reactions because of a belief that this will outlaw all abortion, and others giving positive reactions because of a belief that this will outlaw all abortion. It actually just makes it a state matter.

I suppose congress could actually try to do something on the issue. Unlikely. Part of the problem with RvW was that it was done entirely by the SCOTUS and congress had no part.

SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution doesn't protect the right to abortion. How does that provide you the signal that they'll rubber stamp a Federally passed legislative act on it? They'll say it is a state issue... because the Constitution doesn't speak on it... and feed the act through a shredder.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Now that the decision has been issued overturning Roe, he are at the point where we have insurgencies at the homes of some of the Justices.

Why didn’t the FBI just tell them to flee their homes? Seems to be SOP if you’re an election worker.

 

[Gospel]

The SCOTUS clearly misplaced their copy of the 9th amendment. Is there any way we can mail it to them?

Thanks,

Edit: I'm insinuating that they just might uphold the future trend (my prediction) of Red States overreaching to prosecute people going to blue states. That would be problematic because the 9th amendment (IMO) implies that the people of the state have the power over their state and by nature influences its laws. So if a citizen goes to a blue state and does something legal there another state has no standing since it wasn't done in their state where it is illegal. However since the SCOTUS lost their copy of the 9th amendment, they will allow states to prosecute.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The SCOTUS clearly misplaced their copy of the 9th amendment. Is there any way we can mail it to them?

Thanks,

This SCOTUS doesn't care about much in the way of any particular legal strategies or foundations. They'll tear at precedence, use the exact opposite arguments from case to case. This is about enacting their religious utopia on America.