Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (1 Viewer)

[LovesMusic7360]

Not long ago Kari Lake proclaimed Arizona's abortion law was a great law and wanted it the law of the state.

Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.

As I have been saying since 2022, the overwhelming vast majority of women aren't going to vote for the man who proudly boasts that he got rid of Roe V. Wade. Nor are those women going to vote for a forced birther politician.

Turns out, republican belief in "pro life" was all just lies to get votes. Who is surprised? I sure am not.

How many forced birthers will do the same about face?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ka ... r-BB1ltx3I.

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake is actively lobbying state lawmakers to overturn a 160-year-old law she once supported that bans abortion in almost all cases, a source with knowledge of her efforts told CNN.

 

[porculator]

Are you saying it would take a constitutional amendment that would recognize an individual right to privacy and bodily autonomy?

With every one of these backwards decisions that comes out of the SC, I lose more and more faith in the constitution. It just feels like we need to scrap the whole thing and start over with a constitutional basis that's functional for this century and that recognizes some of the basic individual rights that we, as a population, have come to depend on. We also need to make our system more democratic and actually representative. A lot of these conflicts that have arisen are because our government doesn't really represent the actual populace any longer. Voting alone isn't going to change that.

I think the issue here is that you expect the federal government to represent the common denominator of the states, but that's not its job. The reason abortion is about to be illegal in 20 states is because the people in those states democratically elected representatives that voted to make it illegal. I can predict the retort now of how certain states would have continued to allow slavery and segregation if not for the federal government, but it's hard to equate that with this issue when the women who are supposedly having their rights violated are also voting these bozos in (maybe not a majority in the swing states, but they absolutely are in the South.)

The original constitution granted a lot of autonomy to the states, and over the years it has been slowly chipped away, mostly for the better. But if there are states that want to be have stupid laws, I'm inclined to let them do it rather than continue to scold them from afar. Maybe if Alabama and Massachusetts aren't forced to live by a one-size-fits-all abortion law and can address them as they wish at the state level, our federal elections can start to focus on issues that MUST be addressed at the federal level, like national security and climate change.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Gaetz staying on brand

 

[RobF]

Are you saying it would take a constitutional amendment that would recognize an individual right to privacy and bodily autonomy?

This is an interesting opinion that seems to share some of what @superchuck500 has expressed and has that concern:

Why the ‘leaked’ Alito opinion will be especially worrying to supporters of a constitutional right to an abortion

3rd May 2022 I am not an American lawyer but I am a strong supporter of the fundamental right of a woman to choose to have an abortion, and so I have read what appears to be a leaked draft judgment…

davidallengreen.com

"And the worrying quality of the Alito opinion is not that it is a superficial counter-objection to Roe v Wade, but that it is detailed and reasoned in a way that the original judgment is not.

This in turn will mean, if adopted by the majority of the court, that reversing this reversal will be even more difficult.

And this creates a dreadful situation for supporters of the right to choose as a fundamental right across the United States, as opposed to the issue being left to different states.

It means that nothing less than a constitutional amendment is now needed – for even a federal law – ‘codification’ – may now be vulnerable to being struck down by the Supreme Court."

I'm not sure I'd entirely agree, but then, I'm not a lawyer so I'm pretty sure I'm not in a position to disagree either. There does seem to be reason for it be a valid concern at the very least.

 

[superchuck500]

I think the issue here is that you expect the federal government to represent the common denominator of the states, but that's not its job. The reason abortion is about to be illegal in 20 states is because the people in those states democratically elected representatives that voted to make it illegal. I can predict the retort now of how certain states would have continued to allow slavery and segregation if not for the federal government, but it's hard to equate that with this issue when the women who are supposedly having their rights violated are also voting these bozos in (maybe not a majority in the swing states, but they absolutely are in the South.)

The original constitution granted a lot of autonomy to the states, and over the years it has been slowly chipped away, mostly for the better. But if there are states that want to be have stupid laws, I'm inclined to let them do it rather than continue to scold them from afar. Maybe if Alabama and Massachusetts aren't forced to live by a one-size-fits-all abortion law and can address them as they wish at the state level, our federal elections can start to focus on issues that MUST be addressed at the federal level, like national security and climate change.

I think you're right in some cases (some states) but when you look at devices like gerrymandering and voting limitations, Coldseat still has a point. This might not matter in places like Alabama but take Wisconsin for example. Voter registration and voting in national elections shows Wisconsin is about 50/50. Trump won WI with 47.7% in 2016 and Biden won with 49.5% in 2020. Wisconsin's governor is a Democrat. Polling shows that more than half (about 60%) of Wisconsin adult residents believe that abortion should be legal.

But Wisconsin's state legislature is dominated by Republicans. In the WI Senate, Republicans outnumber Democrats 21 to 12. In the House (Assembly) the R to D ratio is 61 to 38. Republicans set the lawmaking rules in their favor. Republicans draw the districts in their favor. Republicans have a firm grip on state law. If the Alito opinion becomes the law, Wisconsin will revert back to its 1849 anti-abortion law that makes giving abortions in a felony except only in cases where the life of the mother is threatened. The Republicans in the state house are not going to change that law.

So there, you have a state with polling well north of 50% in favor of the right to abortion - and have been for many years. Yet, state law is dominated by those who have no intention of making that democratically supported idea the law in Wisconsin.


Sources:

How gerrymandering allows a purple state to promote Trump’s big lie

Wisconsin Republicans emboldened by untouchable majority in state legislature are promoting extreme antidemocratic laws

www.theguardian.com

Decade of Wisconsin polling shows majority support for abortion

Data compiled by the Marquette Law School Poll over the last decade show that, by and large, the majority of Wisconsinites have said abortion should be legal in most or

journaltimes.com

Wisconsin State Assembly

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

 

[porculator]

I think you're right in some cases (some states) but when you look at devices like gerrymandering and voting limitations, Coldseat still has a point. This might not matter in places like Alabama but take Wisconsin for example. Voter registration and voting in national elections shows Wisconsin is about 50/50. Trump won WI with 47.7% in 2016 and Biden won with 49.5% in 2020. Wisconsin's governor is a Democrat. Polling shows that more than half (about 60%) of Wisconsin adult residents believe that abortion should be legal.

But Wisconsin's state legislature is dominated by Republicans. In the WI Senate, Republicans outnumber Democrats 21 to 12. In the House (Assembly) the R to D ratio is 61 to 38. Republicans set the lawmaking rules in their favor. Republicans draw the districts in their favor. Republicans have a firm grip on state law. If the Alito opinion becomes the law, Wisconsin will revert back to its 1849 anti-abortion law that makes giving abortions in a felony except only in cases where the life of the mother is threatened. The Republicans in the state house are not going to change that law.

So there, you have a state with polling well north of 50% in favor of the right to abortion - and have been for many years. Yet, state law is dominated by those who have no intention of making that democratically supported idea the law in Wisconsin.


Sources:

How gerrymandering allows a purple state to promote Trump’s big lie

Wisconsin Republicans emboldened by untouchable majority in state legislature are promoting extreme antidemocratic laws

www.theguardian.com

Decade of Wisconsin polling shows majority support for abortion

Data compiled by the Marquette Law School Poll over the last decade show that, by and large, the majority of Wisconsinites have said abortion should be legal in most or

journaltimes.com

Wisconsin State Assembly

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

No arguments here. Each state has its own flawed version of representative democracy, and Wisconsin's absolutely seems to be one of the most flawed. But if you think there need to be set standards for each states procedures thats a whole nother thing, and an enormous can of worms.

 

[el caliente]

Interesting,

the NSA isn’t involved, it’s some sort of internal investigator. This is ridiculous. Maybe you are joking? It’s not national security, for cripe’s sake.

It was partially in jest, but partially serious. This country spends enough money on security where finding out who leaked the info would probably be short work for the group Anonymous, so what’s the Supreme Court’s hold up on finding out who leaked this info?

 

[el caliente]

Someone needs to think of the poor horses. PETA is going to be pissed.

 

[coldseat]

No arguments here. Each state has its own flawed version of representative democracy, and Wisconsin's absolutely seems to be one of the most flawed. But if you think there need to be set standards for each states procedures thats a whole nother thing, and an enormous can of worms.

It's a huge problem in both federal and statewide elections Here in Texas, the politics of the state shouldn't be so extreme. While there is no denying that Republicans hold an edge overall in the state, as they always win the statewide races. The politics of the of the legislature should not be as extreme as they are. As in all elections, rural voters have more voting power than urban voters. Their vote counts more. You couple that with gerrymandering the state house and senate are extremely skewed to the extreme right.

 

[MT15]

I read an interesting theory, and it was a while ago so I’m sorry I can‘t remember where, that gerrymandering is having the unintended result of giving us more and more radicalized candidates (this would apply everywhere there is gerrymandering). And the reason there are so many extreme Rs is because Rs have gerrymandered in a broader manner in more states than Ds. If we could get rid of gerrymandering, these state legislatures and the House would return to more normal candidates. It couldn’t hurt.

 

[MT15]

It was partially in jest, but partially serious. This country spends enough money on security where finding out who leaked the info would probably be short work for the group Anonymous, so what’s the Supreme Court’s hold up on finding out who leaked this info?

My guess is that if they find out it was from the office of a conservative justice, we will never hear about it. Of course if it’s a liberal justice, people will want a public flogging. John Roberts is the one that the internal investigator will report to, and this court is hopelessly politicized even before the leak for lots of other reasons.

 

[coldseat]

Alito is egregiously wrong.

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[J-DONK]

I read an interesting theory, and it was a while ago so I’m sorry I can‘t remember where, that gerrymandering is having the unintended result of giving us more and more radicalized candidates (this would apply everywhere there is gerrymandering). And the reason there are so many extreme Rs is because Rs have gerrymandered in a broader manner in more states than Ds. If we could get rid of gerrymandering, these state legislatures and the House would return to more normal candidates. It couldn’t hurt.

If this is true, it's the inverse of who controls the state. For example, if R's control the state, and they have 5 seats. They make 4 districts 55/45 R, and one D seat 80/20. That Democrat needs to win their primary in an extremely blue district. You end up with a far left Democrat. Democrats do a fair share of their own gerrymandering as well.

I don't personally believe in this. It doesn't explain the senate. It also doesn't explain some of the biggest clowns in Congress.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

It's definitely true on the state legislature front and this is a problem that has long been overlooked as people focus on the more 'glamorous' venue of national politics. It's even more scary as people in state legislatures tend to be crazier/dumber than your average national politician.

 

[SaintForLife]

Apparently horse medication is okay now

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[zztop]

Oh what a shocking revelation! A moderate democrat (and that is what Biden has always been) changed his mind about something.

 

[MT15]

They are not sending their best: