Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (4 Viewers)

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

These judges tend to say one thing prior to being put on the Supreme Court and do the exact opposite after confirmation. There's literally nothing stopping her from doing practically anything now and she no longer has to mince words to avoid sounding controversial (well, more so than she already sounds). But yeah, the ACA is probably gone... which is comical because it's popular even among some of Trump's base.

 

[superchuck500]

I heard someone on NPR, so I'm going off memory, that she had made a statement that she wouldn't overturn Roe V Wade, which is always an overly simplistic question/comment. I do think later term abortions would be less likely to remain.

To me, that still operates within the framework of Roe V Wade and Casey... it's just tweaking the balance of the State's compelling interest vs the individual's rights.

Honestly, I'd be more concerned about the ACA, but that's already been pretty well gutted.

It's one of those things where the established law/precedent framework becomes firm enough that judges with the proper orientation know and believe that they can't just alter that framework for a different result. I read her comments from 2016 that she doesn't think the primary holding of Roe/Casey would change - the underlying right is protected - but that states could sort of tailor certain elements of how abortions are conducted in their state.

From an objective viewpoint about the role of the Court and its precedents (stare decisis), this is what we want to hear from a thoughtful, intelligent judge: the existing law will always be the starting point with a firm presumption about its validity.

Presuming she's being honest about that, the problem for a judge like Barrett will come from those individual examples of tailoring around the edges. We know that state legislatures in many states of the union want to outlaw abortion - some even without exception, literally. So what does she do when a state creates some kind of hurdle to abortion access that purports to be about an ancillary issue (such as LA's attempt to require abortion doctors to have hospital admission privileges that was, on its face, intended to ensure that the quality of the performing physician) but has the practical result of reducing access to the point of effective prohibition?

Does she apply the standing SCOTUS law or is she tempted to allow that kind of restriction because it doesn't go directly to the underlying right to abortion? How can she undertake this analysis in a way that is insulated from her belief that Catholic teachings (to which she adheres) make abortion absolutely prohibited?

Despite the fact that LA's law was "nearly identical" (per J. Breyer) to a TX law that the Court invalidated in 2016, the four most conservative justices dissented for various reasons that showed, at minimum, a willingness to allow states to use ancillary issue laws to dramatically limit abortion access in their states. I think its pretty easy to conclude that Barrett would have joined one of the dissents, or written her own - she's certainly more conservative that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. And the result would have been to effectively overturn the TX ruling just four years before.

This result doesn't seem to contradict her public comments about Roe/Casey, as it wouldn't directly challenge the legal right to an abortion. But as various approaches to limiting legal abortion get sustained, the contours of that right become very different.

 

[coldseat]

It's one of those things were the established law/precedent framework becomes firm enough that judges with the proper orientation know and believe that they can't just alter that framework for a different result. I read her comments from 2016 that she doesn't think the primary holding of Roe/Casey would change - the underlying right is protected - but that states could sort of tailor certain elements of how abortions are conducted in their state.

From an objective viewpoint about the role of the Court and its precedents (stare decisis), this is what we want to hear from a thoughtful, intelligent judge: the existing law will always be the starting point with a firm presumption about its validity.

Presuming she's being honest about that, the problem for a judge like Barrett will come from those individual examples of tailoring around the edges. We know that state legislatures in many states of the union want to outlaw abortion - some even without exception, literally. So what does she do when a state creates some kind of hurdle to abortion access that purports to be about an ancillary issue (such as LA's attempt to require abortion doctors to have hospital admission privileges that was, on its face, intended to ensure that the quality of the performing physician) but has the practical result of reducing access to the point of effective prohibition?

Does she apply the standing SCOTUS law or is she tempted to allow that kind of restriction because it doesn't go directly to the underlying right to abortion? How can she undertake this analysis in a way that is insulted from her belief that Catholic teachings (to which she adheres) make abortion absolutely prohibited?

Despite the fact that LA's law was "nearly identical" (per J. Breyer) to a TX that the Court invalidated in 2016, the four most conservative justices dissented for various reasons that showed, at minimum, a willingness to allow states to use ancillary effect laws to dramatically limit abortion access in their states. I think its pretty easy to conclude that Barrett would have joined one of the dissents, or written her own - she's certainly more conservative that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. And the result would have been to effectively overturn the TX ruling just four years before.

This result doesn't seem to contradict her public comments about Roe/Casey, as it wouldn't directly challenge the legal right to an abortion. But as various approaches to limiting legal abortion get sustained, the contours of that right become very different.

This is the same thinking and way the conservatives on the SC demolished the voting rights act and removed all of the protections it afforded to minority communities in voting. Basicaly saying "yeah, you have the right to vote, but good luck with that." It's no surprise that black voter participation started to fall after 2014, following 20 years of gains.

The real effect of this conservative court on abortion and society long term will be more unwed mothers, more teenage mothers, more mothers in poverty, more children in foster care, more tragic situation involving woman who couldn't access abortion and more abuse of woman and children. But you know, hopefully their Christian hearts will feel justified and satisfied that they've done God's work.

 

[Optimus Prime]

another backfire article
==========================
No doubt about it. The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a godsend for the Republican Party. It's just what President Trump needed to come back from the dead. It gives him a chance to tilt the court to the far right for decades, with the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the bench. It energizes the Republican base. It locks up the Catholic vote. And, most importantly, it changes the subject! Nobody will talk about the coronavirus anymore. From now on, all they'll talk about is getting Barrett confirmed before Nov. 3.

That's what Trump believes. That's what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and 50 Republican senators believe. And, judging from press reports, that's what the majority of the mainstream media believe. And they are all dead wrong.

Just watch. The battle over confirmation of Barrett will backfire against Trump and Senate Republicans and prove to be a godsend to Democrats, not Republicans. For several reasons.

First, why does Trump think this battle will energize his followers? His base is already energized. They don't need a Supreme Court battle. Besides, if the vote's already over by Nov. 3, what's there to get excited about?

In fact, there's evidence that the controversy over Barrett has excited the Democratic base, instead - especially female voters, who see Barrett, whether she's a woman or not, as a sure vote against the Affordable Care Act, Roe v. Wade and contraception.

Within 36 hours of Ginsburg's death, the Democratic site ActBlue received a record-shattering $100 million in small donations to the Biden and Democratic Senate campaigns. There was no such outpouring for Republicans.................

MSN

 

[superchuck500]

This made me giggle.

 

[Nebaghead]

This made me giggle.

I’m sure that’s a common mistake they get all the time.

 

[FullMonte]

This made me giggle.

Apparently, Fox News just went along with that, as well.

 

[MT15]

I’ve seen a couple new things lately. She evidently signed a statement saying that Roe must be overturned a few years back that was published. She didn’t disclose that, which she should have according to the rules. Someone found it because I saw a comment about it.

And the somewhat controversial religious group she belongs to has scrubbed her name off of their entire website, also without any acknowledgement that they were doing that. Once again, people were able to see previous versions because nothing is ever truly deleted.

I don’t have a good feeling about her.

 

[superchuck500]

Apparently, Fox News just went along with that, as well.

When I was in college I used to drive over to Rhodes to see a friend with benefits that went there. Lovely school but it ain’t Oxford.

 

[UriUT]

I’ve seen a couple new things lately. She evidently signed a statement saying that Roe must be overturned a few years back that was published. She didn’t disclose that, which she should have according to the rules. Someone found it because I saw a comment about it.

And the somewhat controversial religious group she belongs to has scrubbed her name off of their entire website, also without any acknowledgement that they were doing that. Once again, people were able to see previous versions because nothing is ever truly deleted.

I don’t have a good feeling about her.

Think this is what you mean:

Barrett's participation in 2006 ad calling for overturn of Roe v. Wade was not included in Senate disclosures

Democrats say she should have revealed the inclusion of her name on a list of signatures supporting the ad sponsor's mission.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[MT15]

I think the R’s will downplay (and she may as well) her commitment to overturn Roe. Well, there are several Rs already acting like she wouldn’t vote to overturn. It just doesn’t seem on the up and up, like they think they can pull a fast one.

Then again, they pushed Kavanaugh through without even investigating his debt and finding out who paid it off.

 

[SaintForLife]

I’ve seen a couple new things lately. She evidently signed a statement saying that Roe must be overturned a few years back that was published. She didn’t disclose that, which she should have according to the rules. Someone found it because I saw a comment about it.

And the somewhat controversial religious group she belongs to has scrubbed her name off of their entire website, also without any acknowledgement that they were doing that. Once again, people were able to see previous versions because nothing is ever truly deleted.

I don’t have a good feeling about her.

According to the rules it wasn't required.

White House Senior Communications Adviser Ben Williamson: "The Committee's questionnaire requires disclosure of material that a candidate has 'written or edited.' Judge Barrett neither wrote nor edited the ad in question," Williamson noted in a tweet. "This reporter's (and Dem aides') suggestion that ACB did something improper on her questionnaire is false."

 

[superchuck500]

According to the rules it wasn't required.

White House Senior Communications Adviser Ben Williamson: "The Committee's questionnaire requires disclosure of material that a candidate has 'written or edited.' Judge Barrett neither wrote nor edited the ad in question," Williamson noted in a tweet. "This reporter's (and Dem aides') suggestion that ACB did something improper on her questionnaire is false."

I don’t think it’s that clear - the title of section is literally “published writings and public statements” and the question includes “other published materials” that you have “written”. She signed a statement (which means you are accepting attribution to you) that was published. Seems to me that it could be within the meaning - and certainly the White House communications office is no place to get a proper interpretation of what it requires.

That said I don’t think it’s a big deal. She signed a statement 14 years ago and forgot to include it among all the stuff she actually wrote - not sure why that’s somehow a serious problem or gaffe. Her views about abortion are known and she can answer questions about Roe based on her views now, not 2006.

 

[SaintForLife]

I don’t think it’s that clear - the title of section is literally “published writings and public statements” and the question includes “other published materials” that you have “written”. She signed a statement (which means you are accepting attribution to you) that was published. Seems to me that it could be within the meaning - and certainly the White House communications office is no place to get a proper interpretation of what it requires.

That said I don’t think it’s a big deal. She signed a statement 14 years ago and forgot to include it among all the stuff she actually wrote - not sure why that’s somehow a serious problem or gaffe.

I agree with your last paragraph. Everyone knows she is pro-life. I guess the Democrats don't have much to attack her on. It's probably hard to claim she's a gang rapist.

 

[superchuck500]

I agree with yout last paragraph. Everyone knows she is pro-life. I guess the Democrats don't have much to attack her on. It's probably hard to claim she's a gang rapist.

They should probably just go for the obvious that she’s inexperienced and brings a resume of academic and legal accomplishment that is, by Supreme Court standards, subpar and she’s only there because she will overturn Roe and ACA, and the vote will go down partisan lines so what’s the point . . .unless maybe one or two or three Republican senators think the Court should have people with truly outstanding credentials, not just pretty good.

But you’re right it’s likely futile.

 

[MT15]

I was highlighting the rather dishonest attempts by some Rs to say she wouldn’t overturn Roe. That’s been a thing the past 24 hours, several are just saying there’s no reason to think that she would.

 

[MT15]

I agree with yout last paragraph. Everyone knows she is pro-life. I guess the Democrats don't have much to attack her on. It's probably hard to claim she's a gang rapist.

This is at least the second time you have dishonestly characterized the allegations against Kavanaugh. Credible allegations which were not allowed to be truly investigated.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I agree with yout last paragraph. Everyone knows she is pro-life. I guess the Democrats don't have much to attack her on. It's probably hard to claim she's a gang rapist.

It's damn shame them Democrats did that to Neil Gorsuch.