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?

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.

That isn't the impression Joe Biden had in the 1980s.

 

[Metaphor]

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

The Justices haven't done any such thing.

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)

Did the other decision establish an "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.

Right.

 

[ZiprHead]

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

The Justices haven't done any such thing.

Would you please explain this.

 

[Metaphor]

This ruling takes away a long established right for a woman to make an important and possible life saving choice in her life.

It doesn't "take away" the right. It says the Constitution never provided such a right. It is individual States that are taking away or granting rights. For example, women in California or New York have not lost any rights compared to what they had before the ruling.

It permits states to establish their religious view that an embryo is a person as law

The Justices haven't done any such thing.

Would you please explain this.

Roe v Wade did not establish that an embryo is or is not a person. Whether you think an embryo is a person depends on your definition of 'person' and other metaphysical assumptions. It may or may not be a 'religious' belief. If a State made an abortion law using religious reasoning, it would fail Constitutional muster.

I don't think an embryo is a person. I don't think an embryo has "interests". But I also do not see that the Roe decision was somehow correct and well-reasoned contrasted with the decision to overturn it. If you think the current decision is 'political' or 'religious', it seems the same accusation should be made of 'Roe'.

 

[lpetrich]

Another response to JD Vance, the Republican candidate for US Senate in Ohio:
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

Then
Jessica Valenti on Twitter: "These motherfuckers will do anything they can to make oppression sound like a favor they're doing us (link)" / Twitter
and
Jessica Valenti on Twitter: "If being a full-time parent is so great why don't more men do it? And if motherhood is women's natural imperative why do men need to create laws to force them into it?" / Twitter


Maria Reppas on Twitter: "@JessicaValenti And if child care and domestic work are the most important things a woman can do, then why do wealthy families outsource both responsibilities?" / Twitter

Fake Greek Grill on Twitter: "@ReppasMaria @JessicaValenti And if they are so important, why aren't the compensated with money, prestige, and bromides rather than head pats and bromides?" / Twitter
and
Fake Greek Grill on Twitter: "@ReppasMaria @JessicaValenti First "bromides" should read "power" ugh" / Twitter


More about JD Vance, alluding to his book "Hillbilly Elegy":
Sarah Reese Jones on Twitter: "@JDVance1 If your worldview tells you someone with a Yale degree who worked in venture capitalism and visited Appalachia for a few weeks is not the elite he rails against, you’ve been had." / Twitter

Ms. Tom Morrow on Twitter: "@PoliticusSarah he barely went to Appalachia, he spent most of his time in a town between Cincinnati and Dayton. source: I grew up near where he lived. he’s done a great job fooling a lot of people." / Twitter

Miss Lelaina Is Angry on Twitter: "@hbnyc87 @PoliticusSarah I lived in Middletown for a little while. Some of the population there is…special. Next town over, there was a Confederate monument that no one there knew about, but when they found out, they were indignant that it was going to be removed for traffic sight lines." / Twitter


Rishona Fleishman on Twitter: "@JessicaValenti And it is all performance too! His wife works in Big Law and clerked for Roberts and Kavenaugh. And they have three kids. He probably has health insurance through her. Her cubicle life definitely supports his political ambition." / Twitter

goldnecklace on Twitter: "@RishonaF @JessicaValenti This. I don’t care what any mom does, but writing things like this while your own kids are def raised by a nanny is…something else." / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

Full AOC: ‘The Supreme Court Has Dramatically Overreached Its Authority’ - YouTube
"In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) talks about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade says that recent Supreme Court nominees lied under oath, which may merit impeachment."

The interview mentioned Jason Linkins writing in The New Republic:

The Democrats' Theory of Change: Wait for the Republicans to Screw Up

"For the GOP, change comes after long periods of hard work, steady funding, and maintaining enthusiasm and momentum through periods of setback. For Democrats, change is reactive, coming only after the GOP's ambitions have hurt just enough people to make Republican rule untenable."

AOC suspected that the Democratic leadership is nostalgic for an earlier style of politics. Like their wanting a strong Republican Party. A sentiment I find sick. To me, the Democratic Party leadership reminds me of the gerontocratic leaders of the Soviet Union in its last years.

For the House,

• Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, born 1940, elected 1986
• Steny Hoyer, Maj Ldr, born 1939, elected 1980
• Jim Clyburn, Whip, born 1940, elected 1992
• Hakeem Jeffries, Dem Caucus Ldr, born 1970, elected 2012
• Jerry Nadler, head Judiciary Cmte, born 1947, elected 1992
• Carolyn Maloney, head Oversight Cmte, born 1946, elected 1992
• Adam Schiff, head Intelligence Cmte, born 1960, elected 2000
• Richard Neal, head Ways & Means Cmte, born 1949, elected 1988
• Joe Crowley, head Dem Caucus Ldr, born 1962, elected 1998, unseated 2018 by AOC
• Eliot Engel, head Foreign Affairs Cmte, born 1947, elected 1988, unseated 2020 by Jamaal Bowman

For the Senate,

• Chuck Schumer, Maj Ldr, born 1950, elected 1998
• Dick Durbin, Whip, born 1944, elected 1996

Some progressive politicians are nevertheless very aged, but they had special circumstances.

• Elizabeth Warren, born 1949, elected 2013 -- she got involved in politics rather late
• Bernie Sanders, born 1941, elected Mayor of Burlington 1980, elected House 1990, elected Senate 2006 -- on the fringes for a long time

 

[lpetrich]

Kyle Griffin on Twitter: "Sen. Elizabeth Warren on ABC: "We get two more senators on the Democratic side ... willing to protect access to abortion and get rid of the filibuster ... And, yes, John Fetterman, I’m looking at you in Pennsylvania. Mandela Barnes, I’m looking at you in Wisconsin."" / Twitter


Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene on Twitter: "AOC just launched an insurrection.

Any violence and rioting is a direct result of Democrat marching orders. (vid link)" / Twitter
(showing AOC at a pro-choice rally in DC saying something like "To the streets!")
noting
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "I will explain this to you slowly: exercising our right to protest is not obstruction of Congress nor an attempt to overturn democracy.

If one were a heinous enough person to do that, they’d likely seek a pardon for it too.

But only one of us here has done that. And it ain’t me (pic link)" / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

The Daily Beast on Twitter: "“The left will say, ‘Well what about in cases of rape or incest?’ I'm a law-enforcement officer. I became a police officer in 2011. I’ve worked one case where as a result of a rape, the young woman became pregnant," said Yesli Vega (link)" / Twitter
noting
Yesli Vega, Virginia GOP Rep Nominee, Says She Doubts Pregnancy Comes After Rape in Leaked Audio Comments - '“I’m a mother of two, I’m fully aware of how women get pregnant,” she later said in a statement.'

Woman ordered to pay child support to her accused rapist after sheriff 'dropped the ball'

'The View': Whoopi Goldberg Sends Warning To Clarence Thomas Amid Roe Rollback: 'He Better Hope That They Don't Come For You' With Loving

-- That's Loving vs. Virginia, where the Supreme Court decided that interracial marriage was legal, overriding some states' laws against it. Clarence Thomas has an interracial marriage.

Taylor Hirth Was Gang-Raped in Her Own Bed - Justice for Missouri Victim of Sexual Assault

Police Said They Couldn’t Find the Men Who Gang-Raped This Woman While Her 2-Year-Old Watched. Then Another Woman Was Raped.

In August, the Independence Police Department closed Taylor Hirth's case. Now a man has been charged with raping her and endangering her child.

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "The overwhelming majority of sexual assault and rape (80%) ..." / Twitter

The overwhelming majority of sexual assault and rape (80%) is never reported to police and never will be.

Most assaults happen by someone known or trusted. Forcing survivors to recognize, relive, & convince strangers in public of what happened to them is extremely traumatizing.

It takes years for many survivors to even realize/accept what happened.

The criminal system is not meant nor designed to deal w/sexual assault and therefore doesn’t w/ the exception of a minority of cases

Police reports & cases alone are not reliable or complete data whatsoever

Trying to advance police reporting as the standard for belief denies the overwhelming reality of sexual assault, rape, & child/domestic abuse & strengthens a system that protects violators & silences victims.

It’s also one example why criminalization and justice aren’t synonyms.

I hope that she might be willing to discuss in more detail what she considers good alternatives to criminalization. The first thing I think of is how traffic violations are handled, but she ought to speak for herself on that subject.

 

[lpetrich]

John Gage on Twitter: ".@AOC is posting about how people can skirt abortion bans. (pic link)" / Twitter
With pictures from some recent Instagram stories, pictures about online security.

She responded with
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Yeah, and? (pic link)" / Twitter

and later
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Hello,

Republicans are mad because I am sharing this information. Too bad!

Freedom of choice is an inalienable right. Your bodily autonomy belongs to you.

Link to my full IG story on how to protect yourself + access abortion in a post-Roe world: (links)" / Twitter
noting
Stories • Instagram

 

[Metaphor]

Full AOC: ‘The Supreme Court Has Dramatically Overreached Its Authority’ - YouTube
"In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) talks about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade says that recent Supreme Court nominees lied under oath, which may merit impeachment."

What are the alleged 'lies' that the recent Supreme Court nominees told?

 

[lpetrich]

H.R.1011 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Life at Conception Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

This bill declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being.

Nothing in this bill shall be construed to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.

Sponsor: Rep. Mooney, Alexander X. [R-WV-2] (Introduced 02/11/2021)
Cosponsors: 163, original 91, all Republicans. As one might expect, MTG and Lauren Boebert were among them.

There are 210 Republicans in the House, making that 78% of those Republicans.

It has a companion bill,
S.99 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Life at Conception Act of 2021 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

This bill declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being.

Nothing in this bill shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of preventing fertilization.

Sponsor: Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY] (Introduced 01/28/2021)
Cosponsors: 18, original 13, all Republicans

There are 50 Republicans in the Senate, making that 38% of those Republicans.

 

[Toni]

Full AOC: ‘The Supreme Court Has Dramatically Overreached Its Authority’ - YouTube
"In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) talks about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade says that recent Supreme Court nominees lied under oath, which may merit impeachment."

What are the alleged 'lies' that the recent Supreme Court nominees told?

That Roe v Wade was settled law.

Kavanaugh and Thomas also lied about sexual assaults.

 

[Jarhyn]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "The overwhelming majority of sexual assault and rape (80%) ..." / Twitter

The overwhelming majority of sexual assault and rape (80%) is never reported to police and never will be.

Most assaults happen by someone known or trusted. Forcing survivors to recognize, relive, & convince strangers in public of what happened to them is extremely traumatizing.

It takes years for many survivors to even realize/accept what happened.

The criminal system is not meant nor designed to deal w/sexual assault and therefore doesn’t w/ the exception of a minority of cases

Police reports & cases alone are not reliable or complete data whatsoever

Trying to advance police reporting as the standard for belief denies the overwhelming reality of sexual assault, rape, & child/domestic abuse & strengthens a system that protects violators & silences victims.

It’s also one example why criminalization and justice aren’t synonyms.

I hope that she might be willing to discuss in more detail what she considers good alternatives to criminalization. The first thing I think of is how traffic violations are handled, but she ought to speak for herself on that subject.

I don't think she is dichotomizing. She is saying not that there is an alternative that is not also criminalization of rape and sexual assault; rather, formulating strategies to successfully address it in ways that place investigation and enforcement on a different mechanism than the current police structure.

 

[Metaphor]

Full AOC: ‘The Supreme Court Has Dramatically Overreached Its Authority’ - YouTube
"In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) talks about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade says that recent Supreme Court nominees lied under oath, which may merit impeachment."

What are the alleged 'lies' that the recent Supreme Court nominees told?

That Roe v Wade was settled law.

As I have already pointed out further upthread, "settled law" has no single meaning.

As I have already pointed out, saying something is "settled law" does not mean you think the decision was correct, nor that you are vowing not to change it.

As I have already pointed out, even if there were counterfactual statements from the Justices (and I do not believe there were), that is consistent with seeing or hearing a good argument and changing your mind.

Also, to accuse ACB of lying about her position is mindless partisan demagoguery. She specifically said "I am not going to tell you what I think about Roe v Wade because telling you would negatively affect my position as a sitting judge".

Kavanaugh and Thomas also lied about sexual assaults.

Right. I'm certain you believe it.

 

[Toni]

Full AOC: ‘The Supreme Court Has Dramatically Overreached Its Authority’ - YouTube
"In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) talks about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade says that recent Supreme Court nominees lied under oath, which may merit impeachment."

What are the alleged 'lies' that the recent Supreme Court nominees told?

That Roe v Wade was settled law.

As I have already pointed out further upthread, "settled law" has no single meaning.

As I have already pointed out, saying something is "settled law" does not mean you think the decision was correct, nor that you are vowing not to change it.

As I have already pointed out, even if there were counterfactual statements from the Justices (and I do not believe there were), that is consistent with seeing or hearing a good argument and changing your mind.

Also, to accuse ACB of lying about her position is mindless partisan demagoguery. She specifically said "I am not going to tell you what I think about Roe v Wade because telling you would negatively affect my position as a sitting judge".

Kavanaugh and Thomas also lied about sexual assaults.

Right. I'm certain you believe it.

What you think the then candidates did or did not mean is irrelevant. Disagreeing with a decision does not mean that you believe it should be re adjudicated, at least not in the US. In the US, as has been pointed out by others, precedent matters. Roe was decided as it was, largely building of other cases which came before it.

In any case, you asked why people said the candidates lied. I told you why people said they lied. I’m not interested in discussing the merits of the US judicial system, the Supreme Court processes, etc.

You disagree with the statement that candidates lied? Big fucking deal.

I did not mention ACB.

I am certain that you believe the men because of course you do. Never mind whether or not you paid any attention at all to testimony during their confirmation hearings. I’m not certain you were out of diapers when Thomas was confirmed. I understand why you disbelieved the accusations from women about these two men.

 

[Metaphor]

Full AOC: ‘The Supreme Court Has Dramatically Overreached Its Authority’ - YouTube
"In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) talks about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade says that recent Supreme Court nominees lied under oath, which may merit impeachment."

What are the alleged 'lies' that the recent Supreme Court nominees told?

That Roe v Wade was settled law.

As I have already pointed out further upthread, "settled law" has no single meaning.

As I have already pointed out, saying something is "settled law" does not mean you think the decision was correct, nor that you are vowing not to change it.

As I have already pointed out, even if there were counterfactual statements from the Justices (and I do not believe there were), that is consistent with seeing or hearing a good argument and changing your mind.

Also, to accuse ACB of lying about her position is mindless partisan demagoguery. She specifically said "I am not going to tell you what I think about Roe v Wade because telling you would negatively affect my position as a sitting judge".

Kavanaugh and Thomas also lied about sexual assaults.

Right. I'm certain you believe it.

What you think the then candidates did or did not mean is irrelevant. Disagreeing with a decision does not mean that you believe it should be re adjudicated, at least not in the US. In the US, as has been pointed out by others, precedent matters. Roe was decided as it was, largely building of other cases which came before it.

In any case, you asked why people said the candidates lied. I told you why people said they lied.

You didn't show me evidence they lied. You said the candidates said Roe was settled law. Yes, it was. And now it's overturned. There is no lie.

I’m not interested in discussing the merits of the US judicial system, the Supreme Court processes, etc.

You disagree with the statement that candidates lied? Big fucking deal.

I disagree with unevidenced, mindless partisan assertions. If you believe Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied about Roe v Wade, produce their lies. Quote them to me.

 

[Toni]

Full AOC: ‘The Supreme Court Has Dramatically Overreached Its Authority’ - YouTube
"In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) talks about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade says that recent Supreme Court nominees lied under oath, which may merit impeachment."

What are the alleged 'lies' that the recent Supreme Court nominees told?

That Roe v Wade was settled law.

As I have already pointed out further upthread, "settled law" has no single meaning.

As I have already pointed out, saying something is "settled law" does not mean you think the decision was correct, nor that you are vowing not to change it.

As I have already pointed out, even if there were counterfactual statements from the Justices (and I do not believe there were), that is consistent with seeing or hearing a good argument and changing your mind.

Also, to accuse ACB of lying about her position is mindless partisan demagoguery. She specifically said "I am not going to tell you what I think about Roe v Wade because telling you would negatively affect my position as a sitting judge".

Kavanaugh and Thomas also lied about sexual assaults.

Right. I'm certain you believe it.

What you think the then candidates did or did not mean is irrelevant. Disagreeing with a decision does not mean that you believe it should be re adjudicated, at least not in the US. In the US, as has been pointed out by others, precedent matters. Roe was decided as it was, largely building of other cases which came before it.

In any case, you asked why people said the candidates lied. I told you why people said they lied.

You didn't show me evidence they lied. You said the candidates said Roe was settled law. Yes, it was. And now it's overturned. There is no lie.

I’m not interested in discussing the merits of the US judicial system, the Supreme Court processes, etc.

You disagree with the statement that candidates lied? Big fucking deal.

I disagree with unevidenced, mindless partisan assertions. If you believe Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied about Roe v Wade, produce their lies. Quote them to me.

Sigh. I did not offer MY opinion. I merely stated WHY people said they lied.

Here’s some video:

Your opinions about how the law works in the US are worth far less than the time and effort to type this sentence.

 

[Metaphor]

Full AOC: ‘The Supreme Court Has Dramatically Overreached Its Authority’ - YouTube
"In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) talks about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade says that recent Supreme Court nominees lied under oath, which may merit impeachment."

What are the alleged 'lies' that the recent Supreme Court nominees told?

That Roe v Wade was settled law.

As I have already pointed out further upthread, "settled law" has no single meaning.

As I have already pointed out, saying something is "settled law" does not mean you think the decision was correct, nor that you are vowing not to change it.

As I have already pointed out, even if there were counterfactual statements from the Justices (and I do not believe there were), that is consistent with seeing or hearing a good argument and changing your mind.

Also, to accuse ACB of lying about her position is mindless partisan demagoguery. She specifically said "I am not going to tell you what I think about Roe v Wade because telling you would negatively affect my position as a sitting judge".

Kavanaugh and Thomas also lied about sexual assaults.

Right. I'm certain you believe it.

What you think the then candidates did or did not mean is irrelevant. Disagreeing with a decision does not mean that you believe it should be re adjudicated, at least not in the US. In the US, as has been pointed out by others, precedent matters. Roe was decided as it was, largely building of other cases which came before it.

In any case, you asked why people said the candidates lied. I told you why people said they lied.

You didn't show me evidence they lied. You said the candidates said Roe was settled law. Yes, it was. And now it's overturned. There is no lie.

I’m not interested in discussing the merits of the US judicial system, the Supreme Court processes, etc.

You disagree with the statement that candidates lied? Big fucking deal.

I disagree with unevidenced, mindless partisan assertions. If you believe Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied about Roe v Wade, produce their lies. Quote them to me.

Sigh. I did not offer MY opinion. I merely stated WHY people said they lied.

Do you think they lied? If so, which sentences did they utter that were lies?

 

[marc]

Another response to JD Vance, the Republican candidate for US Senate in Ohio:
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

But then you have a mother that still has to work 90 hours a week in a cubicle. Conservatives long for the times when the woman stayed home and raised the kids, but also refuse to pay people enough so they can raise a family on one income.