Roe v Wade is on deck

[Metaphor]

So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?

No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.

Margins are not always narrow. By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.

And how long did that majority last?

It was not a foremost priority because people believed the Supreme Court had integrity and respect.

What is it about this latest decision that means it does not have 'integrity' and 'respect'?

This short lived far right majority has been shredding precedence. Roe/Casey and effectively Lemon, they blew through a pair of 50+ year precedence cases, in a few days.

That does not answer my question. You surely cannot believe that the Supreme Court is permanently bound by its own precedent? Lower courts are bound by the precedent of higher courts, definitely.

If the current Supreme Court believed a previous decision was wrong, would it not violate the integrity of the Supreme Court to not overturn it? When you think a wrong decision has been made, do you think it makes sense to continue to pretend it was not wrong?

 

[Toni]

So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?

No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.

Margins are not always narrow. By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.

And how long did that majority last?

It was not a foremost priority because people believed the Supreme Court had integrity and respect.

What is it about this latest decision that means it does not have 'integrity' and 'respect'?

This short lived far right majority has been shredding precedence. Roe/Casey and effectively Lemon, they blew through a pair of 50+ year precedence cases, in a few days.

That does not answer my question. You surely cannot believe that the Supreme Court is permanently bound by its own precedent? Lower courts are bound by the precedent of higher courts, definitely.

If the current Supreme Court believed a previous decision was wrong, would it not violate the integrity of the Supreme Court to not overturn it? When you think a wrong decision has been made, do you think it makes sense to continue to pretend it was not wrong?

Do you realize how much the court has changed in the last 12 years? As foolish as it seems now, no one predicted Trump.

 

[laughing dog]

This may surprise you, but during the many times that the Democrats controlled both houses of the legislature, they may have even tried a constitutional amendment. Or they could have exercised their dormant power of determining what the SCOTUS can review when passing legislation to codify RvW. There are more options that just leaving it to a court.

You are right - it does surprise me that anyone thinks a constitutional amendment on the right to privacy or abortion would have had a chance of success given the fate of the ERA amendment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

EDIT: 1986 Joe Biden said there was an 'overwhelming, universal criticism' of the bad reasoning in Roe v Wade.

Many years ago, I asked why (probably to someone on this board), if the Republicans were so anti-abortion, they didn't just ban it federally when they had the chance(s). The simple answer was 'Roe v Wade prevents them doing that', which was true. But over the years, I never understood the reasoning in 'Roe v Wade'. Or, rather like my experience with the Ontological argument for the existence of God, I thought I didn't understand it. But nowI think I did understand it, it is just bad and shaky reasoning.

What I really don't understand is the criticism of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade because of the outcome. It was a Constitutional question, not a policy question. If anything, the first decision ought be criticised, because it reached the outcome so many people wanted, but based on nothing. And if the recent decision was somehow 'political', then so was the first one.

Roe v Wade was a bad judgment--that's what typically happens when the Supreme Court steps in and does Congress' job. The Supreme Court doesn't really have the power to do laws right.

Thus we get things like the Miranda decision--the legislature (state and federal) refused to do anything about cops ignoring the 4th so they acted in the only way they could--throwing out the evidence rather than punishing the cops because they had no power to punish the cops. Likewise Roe v Wade, they noted that all the existing anti-abortion laws were about punishing the woman rather than about any legitimate state interest and imposed their answer since they didn't have the power to do it properly.

Note that I am not saying these decisions are wrong, but rather the best they could do given the lack of the right tools for the job.

 

[laughing dog]

Which justices testified it was 'settled law'?

All but Thomas if memory serves.

What does 'settled law' mean to you? Can 'settled law' be overturned?

Settled means resolved. It can be overturned

If you thought something at time t, but encountered an argument at time t+1 that changed your mind, would you call your changed mind a 'travesty'?

Maybe. But there is no stated rationale of changed minds for those justices.

So, you believe that rulings on the 2nd amendment are at least as shaky as rulings about the (imagined) 'right to privacy'?

Shakier.

 

[Metaphor]

So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?

No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.

Margins are not always narrow. By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.

And how long did that majority last?

It was not a foremost priority because people believed the Supreme Court had integrity and respect.

What is it about this latest decision that means it does not have 'integrity' and 'respect'?

This short lived far right majority has been shredding precedence. Roe/Casey and effectively Lemon, they blew through a pair of 50+ year precedence cases, in a few days.

That does not answer my question. You surely cannot believe that the Supreme Court is permanently bound by its own precedent? Lower courts are bound by the precedent of higher courts, definitely.

If the current Supreme Court believed a previous decision was wrong, would it not violate the integrity of the Supreme Court to not overturn it? When you think a wrong decision has been made, do you think it makes sense to continue to pretend it was not wrong?

Do you realize how much the court has changed in the last 12 years? As foolish as it seems now, no one predicted Trump.

So, you realise the Supreme Court can change susbtantially in 12 years, let alone 50, yet it was never a 'foremost priority' for Democrats to codify Roe into law?

You also appear to concede that a court cannot be permanently bound by its own previous decisions (any more than a legislature should be permanently bound by its own previous decisions). But why does overturning a previous decision mean the court does not have 'integrity' and 'respect'?

I am asking people who appear to be upset by this decision why they think it reflects badly on the Court itself. Is it because it is a political outcome you didn't like? That doesn't mean the decision was bad legal reasoning. It means you want the Court to be 'activist judges', as long as they are activist in the direction you like.

 

[Metaphor]

Which justices testified it was 'settled law'?

All but Thomas if memory serves.

I would prefer evidence. But, even if they said it was 'settled law', if 'settled law' means merely 'a decision that has not been challenged for a long time and people generally think it won't be', that does not mean it is wrong to overturn it if you believe the original decision was wrong. Perhaps 'settled law' means something different to the people posing the questions ("if you say it's settled law, you are promising that you will never overturn it"). Even then, as I've said, it could be a broken promise due to a change of mind and not a lie.

What does 'settled law' mean to you? Can 'settled law' be overturned?

Settled means resolved. It can be overturned

So, if something can be overturned, what makes the decision to overturn it a travesty? It cannot be merely the overturning.

If you thought something at time t, but encountered an argument at time t+1 that changed your mind, would you call your changed mind a 'travesty'?

Maybe. But there is no stated rationale of changed minds for those justices.

But which justices said "I believe Roe v Wade was correctly decided and I will not overturn it" to Congress? I offer the idea that they could have said something at time t that was not a lie, but I don't even think they said at time t what they've been accused of saying.

So, you believe that rulings on the 2nd amendment are at least as shaky as rulings about the (imagined) 'right to privacy'?

Shakier.

But what evidence is there of internal inconsistency?

Why do you think the overturning was wrong, legally speaking? What was the error in judgment?

I am not a lawyer, let alone a specialist in American Constitutional law, so I can't answer the question for myself. But it does seem to me that the 1973 opinion of the Court was a product of the political times, and not a product of solid legal reasoning from the Constitution.

 

[laughing dog]

Which justices testified it was 'settled law'?

All but Thomas if memory serves.

I would prefer evidence. But, even if they said it was 'settled law', if 'settled law' means merely 'a decision that has not been challenged for a long time and people generally think it won't be', that does not mean it is wrong to overturn it if you believe the original decision was wrong. Perhaps 'settled law' means something different to the people posing the questions ("if you say it's settled law, you are promising that you will never overturn it"). Even then, as I've said, it could be a broken promise due to a change of mind and not a lie.

IIn this situation, there is no evidence to support your hypotheticals.

So, if something can be overturned, what makes the decision to overturn it a travesty? It cannot be merely the overturning.

Already asked and answered.

But which justices said "I believe Roe v Wade was correctly decided and I will not overturn it" to Congress? I offer the idea that they could have said something at time t that was not a lie, but I don't even think they said at time t what they've been accused of saying.

Senators Manchin and Collins disagree with your apologia because they rightly thought being told that something is settled law or a precedent indicated that those individuals would not overturn Roe v Wade.

It is pretty clear you have no clue about the history involved. Try googling it.

It is my understanding of SCOTUS reversing precedents is overwhelmingly in situations of expanding not restricting rights.

 

[Metaphor]

Which justices testified it was 'settled law'?

All but Thomas if memory serves.

I would prefer evidence. But, even if they said it was 'settled law', if 'settled law' means merely 'a decision that has not been challenged for a long time and people generally think it won't be', that does not mean it is wrong to overturn it if you believe the original decision was wrong. Perhaps 'settled law' means something different to the people posing the questions ("if you say it's settled law, you are promising that you will never overturn it"). Even then, as I've said, it could be a broken promise due to a change of mind and not a lie.

IIn this situation, there is no evidence to support your hypotheticals.

The fact that 'settled law' does not really have a fixed meaning does have evidence, and I linked to it upthread.

The fact that you claim justices said something was 'settled law' and then overturned it doesn't mean they did something wrong, does it? So what makes it a travesty?

So, if something can be overturned, what makes the decision to overturn it a travesty? It cannot be merely the overturning.

Already asked and answered.

Well, no, you didn't. What makes it a travesty?

But which justices said "I believe Roe v Wade was correctly decided and I will not overturn it" to Congress? I offer the idea that they could have said something at time t that was not a lie, but I don't even think they said at time t what they've been accused of saying.

Senators Manchin and Collins disagree with your apologia because they rightly thought being told that something is settled law or a precedent indicated that those individuals would not overturn Roe v Wade.

Well, I disagree that they were misled. I've listened to what Gorsuch, and ACB, and Kavanaugh said. Not one of them said "Roe v Wade was correctly decided and I will not overturn it".

It is pretty clear you have no clue about the history involved. Try googling it.

I have.

I have read article after (mindless) article making claims that the justices lied, and none of those articles actually evidence that claim.

You called this decision 'a travesty' but I am no closer to understanding why you think it is a travesty.

It is my understanding of SCOTUS reversing precedents is overwhelmingly in situations of expanding not restricting rights.

So...what, exactly? Even if I agreed that this decision "restricted" rights somehow (I don't agree: I think it changes the level of jurisdiction of rights), so what? "Precedents can only be overturned if they expand rights" is not a legal concept.

 

[Patooka]

So, you think the recent Supreme Court decision was by six 'batshit bonkers' Republican judges? What was 'batshit' about their reasoning?

Citing a witch hunter from the 1600s to justify a decision you've made with regards to women's rights in 2022 is batshit crazy. And it was exactly what Alito did.

 

[Metaphor]

So, you think the recent Supreme Court decision was by six 'batshit bonkers' Republican judges? What was 'batshit' about their reasoning?

Citing a witch hunter from the 1600s to justify a decision you've made with regards to women's rights in 2022 is batshit crazy. And it was exactly what Alito did.

So...what?

Citing somebody from the 17th century to help understand the context of an 18th century document does not seem 'batshit crazy' to me.

What was legally wrong in the majority opinion that the Roe decision actually got right?

 

[Patooka]

Citing somebody from the 17th century to help understand the context of an 18th century document does not seem 'batshit crazy' to me.

Good for you.

 

[SLD]

Which justices testified it was 'settled law'?

All but Thomas if memory serves.

I would prefer evidence. But, even if they said it was 'settled law', if 'settled law' means merely 'a decision that has not been challenged for a long time and people generally think it won't be', that does not mean it is wrong to overturn it if you believe the original decision was wrong. Perhaps 'settled law' means something different to the people posing the questions ("if you say it's settled law, you are promising that you will never overturn it"). Even then, as I've said, it could be a broken promise due to a change of mind and not a lie.

What does 'settled law' mean to you? Can 'settled law' be overturned?

Settled means resolved. It can be overturned

So, if something can be overturned, what makes the decision to overturn it a travesty? It cannot be merely the overturning.

If you thought something at time t, but encountered an argument at time t+1 that changed your mind, would you call your changed mind a 'travesty'?

Maybe. But there is no stated rationale of changed minds for those justices.

But which justices said "I believe Roe v Wade was correctly decided and I will not overturn it" to Congress? I offer the idea that they could have said something at time t that was not a lie, but I don't even think they said at time t what they've been accused of saying.

So, you believe that rulings on the 2nd amendment are at least as shaky as rulings about the (imagined) 'right to privacy'?

Shakier.

But what evidence is there of internal inconsistency?

Why do you think the overturning was wrong, legally speaking? What was the error in judgment?

I am not a lawyer, let alone a specialist in American Constitutional law, so I can't answer the question for myself. But it does seem to me that the 1973 opinion of the Court was a product of the political times, and not a product of solid legal reasoning from the Constitution.

That’s the problem. You can’t just read Roe and Griswold and think you understand it. You have to read dozens of cases that came before those, going back to the first cases after the Civil War. The cases build on each other. Yes, they’re a product of their political times as were all the others that came before them. But the concepts didn’t just appear out of nowhere. To truly understand them you have to read the Slaughterhouse cases, Lochner and it’s progeny and many other cases that ultimately led to the panoply of rights that are now threatened by this decision. Is Roe not a good constitutional decision? I think so. But obviously Alito doesn’t. But that’s obviously a product of his political and religious thinking, not simply constitutional. There are many approaches to interpreting the Constitution. But there isn’t one particular way that always gets to the correct legal interpretation as your answer seems to imply.

 

[Swammerdami]

The four most liberal Supreme Court Justices often cancel out the votes of the four most conservative Justices, and the center-most Justice — the "median" or "swing-vote" Justice — decides many important issues. It may be interesting to trace the history of the median Justice.

Nixon appointed four conservative Justices; this made Byron "Whizzer" White, a JFK appointee, the median Justice. For many years, White, Arthur Kennedy and/or Sandra Day O'Connor formed a centrist core of the Court.

White voted against Miranda in 1966; Miranda would have lost had this case been decided a few years later when White was the median Justice. OTOH, Nixon's appointees took Roe's side in the 1973 Roe v Wade case with White voting against her. (There wasn't the dogmatic hyper-partisanship we see today.)

Bush-41 replaced Thurgood with Clarence and two years later Clinton replaced White with Ginsburg. The net effect was to replace a centrist with a right-winger, but the median Justice (O'Connor or Kennedy) was still centrist. Bush-43 replaced O'Connor with Alito; the court was now split 4-1-4 with Arthur Kennedy the only remaining centrist. Arthur Kennedy was the deciding vote in many close decisions, sometimes siding with the liberals, sometimes the conservatives. He often wrote majority opinions for the Court. (His views on abortion were "centrist": he antagonized both sides.)

Kennedy's retirement at age 82 and replacement with Brett Scumbag was a tragedy, since there were now 5 right-wingers. The median Justice became Chief John Roberts, who started his career as a political hack, working for Reagan and coming up with ploys to suppress black votes. But Roberts was a true "swing" Justice, taking the rational side in a few important cases.

Finally, the death of Ruth Ginsburg sealed the fate of American democracy. With five bat-shit crazies now on the Court and with QOPAnon and Trumpsucking lawyers pushing cases they'd never have pursued in saner days, Republican hack Roberts often finds himself voting with the liberals. It may no longer make sense to speak of a median Justice, but it might be Kavanaugh himself if one insists.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The four most liberal Supreme Court Justices often cancel out the votes of the four most conservative Justices, and the center-most Justice — the "median" or "swing-vote" Justice — decides many important issues. It may be interesting to trace the history of the median Justice.

Nixon appointed four conservative Justices; this made Byron "Whizzer" White, a JFK appointee, the median Justice. For many years, White, Arthur Kennedy and/or Sandra Day O'Connor formed a centrist core of the Court.

This is just wrong. Kennedy and O'Connor were very much conservatives on most issues, except rights. On rights, they were very open to the expansion of rights. This SCOTUS seems to be the first that is actually giddy over reducing rights of people.

Kavanaugh, on paper, might have looked like a Kennedy, but for social issues, very much not. We are seeing Barrett, Alito, and Thomas as flat out judicial partisans when it comes to social issues.

 

[laughing dog]

You called this decision 'a travesty' but I am no closer to understanding why you think it is a travesty. So?

This ruling takes away a long established right for a woman to make an important and possible life saving choice in her life. It permits states to establish their religious view that an embryo is a person as law which is a violation of the separation of church and state in order to prevent women from taking care of their bodies. It uses hypocritical reasoning about allowing elected officials as representatives of the voters to make these laws while striking laws. It uses hypocritical reasoning to determine what is inot in the constitution (the right to privacy is mot mentioned but neither is am individuals unrestricted right to bear arms) And, it shows the mendacity of a majority of these justices and therefore the perception of thus particular SCOTUS’ legitimacy

In short, in my opinion this decision is a theologically driven decision hiding under hypocritical reasoning that threatens the well-being of women and everyone’s right to privacy.
I think it will embolden the theocrats to impose more of their religious views on the public. So I think the decision is a travesty.

You can agree or not with my conclusion, but I will not debate the merits of reasons or your objections because I feel no need for agreement with you.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, you think the recent Supreme Court decision was by six 'batshit bonkers' Republican judges? What was 'batshit' about their reasoning?

Citing a witch hunter from the 1600s to justify a decision you've made with regards to women's rights in 2022 is batshit crazy. And it was exactly what Alito did.

So...what?

Citing somebody from the 17th century to help understand the context of an 18th century document does not seem 'batshit crazy' to me.

What was legally wrong in the majority opinion that the Roe decision actually got right?

Simply put, the right to privacy saturates the Bill of Rights. This right comes forth from the First, third, fourth, and fifth amendments. The idea that the Founding Fathers would presume that they'd be fine with the State requiring to bless a marriage for it to happen would be akin to being alright for the King to do likewise. It is absurd. Marital privacy didn't abound from itself, it came from a series of other cases, dating back to the 1920s.

And now we are dealing with a woman's right to her own body. Self-autonomy. It is judicial cowardice to suggest 'well it isn't explicitly in the Constitution'. No, women voting wasn't either and it took over one hundred years to get that amendment! Shall African Americans have waited another 100 years for an amendment instead of Brown v Board of Education. The institution of the Supreme Court allows for us to see that these rights are applied to all people.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?

No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.

Margins are not always narrow. By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.

And how long did that majority last?

It was not a foremost priority because people believed the Supreme Court had integrity and respect.

What is it about this latest decision that means it does not have 'integrity' and 'respect'?

This short lived far right majority has been shredding precedence. Roe/Casey and effectively Lemon, they blew through a pair of 50+ year precedence cases, in a few days.

That does not answer my question. You surely cannot believe that the Supreme Court is permanently bound by its own precedent?

Not 100%, but if it doesn't heed to precedence, the legal system falls apart real quickly. There must be extraordinary reason to break with precedence. Roe v Wade wasn't even controversial in its time. Not like Dred Scot, of which Dobbs shares a decent amount of similarities.

The far right majority SCOTUS sought to right a problem that the people didn't even think existed in plurality (and depending on the question, in majority). SCOTUS instead went to try and protect the rights of people that don't exist at the price of women that very much do exist. It is preposterous.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

I’ve seen claims that private info (SSN, full credit card info, etc.) for the five “justices” and their family members have been posted online, with a tag line of “Their card, our choice”.

I’m sure some fascists will blame Biden/FBI/NSA/CIA within 24 hours.

 

[ZiprHead]

Home of the Marist Poll | Polls, Analysis, Learning, and More

The Marist Institute for Public Opinion (MIPO) is a survey research center. MIPO is home to the Marist Poll and conducts polls on politics, the economy, sports, technology and more at the local, state, and national level.

maristpoll.marist.edu

NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist National Poll: The Overturning of Roe v. Wade, June 2022​

Majority Opposes Overturning Roe v. Wade... More than Six in Ten Say Decision Will Push Them to the Polls in November​