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

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    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    Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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.
     
    MT15 said:
    See, I read the delay differently. They’re trying to figure out a way to justify banning it.
    Click to expand...
    Not really. Even if they return it to the 5th Circuit, that hardly means they're done with it. They can't ban it anyway. It's my understanding that what this is really about is whether they take the case or not. If they take the case, then it's going to be several months before this issues is decided because they have to add it to the docket, listen to arguments and write opinions. The question is whether they would stay the lower court rulings in the meantime.

    Hopefully they do something expedited so we can get some sense of how to proceed going forward.
     
    Can they just throw this out and vacate what the lower courts did? Since they were clearly out of line?
     
    A Florida judge rejected by voters after denying a teenage girl an abortion citing her poor school grades is in line for a seat on the state supreme court as the Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, continues to turn the bench to the right.

    Jared Smith will be interviewed alongside 14 others next month by a nominating commission that will make recommendations to DeSantis, who last week signed a six-week abortion ban into law.

    The governor appointed Smithto the newly established sixth district court of appeal in December, four months after voters in Hillsborough county ousted him from the circuit court following his controversial ruling.

    Smith said the 17-year-old was unfit to obtain an abortion as he questioned her “overall intelligence, emotional development and stability”. The decision was overturned by a three-member appeals court that said Smith abused his judicial discretion.

    DeSantis’s decision to disregard that rebuke was the second time he had looked favorably on Smith, having first appointed him to the circuit court in 2019.

    The Florida supreme court seat opened up last month when the long-serving justice Ricky Polston announced he was standing down. Filling the vacancy will mean DeSantis will have picked five of the court’s seven members, a potentially crucial factor for the future of abortion laws in the state……

    www.theguardian.com

    Judge who denied girl abortion over grades shortlisted for Florida’s top court

    Jared Smith, who was ousted for decision, will be interviewed before Ron DeSantis picks new supreme court member
    www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
     
    brandon said:
    I would argue, with our current SC makeup, a potentially different scenario that unfolds.

    The right to travel for an abortion is challenged and makes its way back to the SC. The SC determines that not only is there no constitutional right to abortion, but that abortion fundamentally infringes on the right to life. Therefore, while the specific provision to travel for abortion is overturned, the argument shifts to abortion being equivalent to murder, and we don't let people travel to another state to commit murder. And in one fell swoop, abortion is illegal nationwide.
    Click to expand...

    superchuck500 said:
    I'd say that's simply inconceivable but in deference to infallible logic of The Princess Bride, I'll say that it's implausible and hyper-unrealistic. The Court just doesn't function that way and such a result would be contrary to so many tenets of basic American federalism.
    Click to expand...

    brandon said:


    I’ll defer to your knowledge of the details on how we get there, but I feel pretty confident in the outcome, though it will obviously be years before something like this can play out.

    Remember the thread about Trump never leaving? Well, you won the first round, but I’d hardly say the bout is over there, either.
    Click to expand...


    superchuck500 said:
    Which outcome are you referring to? I feel pretty confident about Obergefell but I'd have to concede that it's not outlandish that a state would pass a new marriage law that allows only opposite-sex marriage and that law could be upheld, reversing Obergefell. I think it's unlikely but I can't say it's unrealistic.

    The Supreme Court declaring that abortion is murder to reach a result upholding restriction on travel between the states that effectively outlaws abortion in the United States is a scenario against which I would make a substantial wager. There isn't even a federal statute that defines murder for the nation because it's a question left to the states based on notions of federalism (the federal government exercises only the powers granted to it by the Constitution, leaving all other power to the states) that are confirmed in the 10th Amendment. So while there is a federal statute defining federal murder, it applies to only those limited areas of federal criminal jurisdiction (e.g. murder on a military base, murder of a federal officer, etc.).

    The Court has consistently upheld this distinction and in modern times famously rejected the notion that constitutional interstate-commerce power in the federal government gives Congress police power over the general activities within a state, where some aspect of the crime may involve interstate commerce (the Lopez case, where a federal statute prohibiting guns in schools was found unconstitutional because there simply was not a sufficient connection to federal constitutional authority). So if Congress couldn't even define abortion as criminal murder in the United States, the Supreme Court certainly can't do it on its own in decision reviewing a state prohibition on travel to obtain an abortion. It's just fundamentally not how it works.

    That ends the discussion for the scenario that was presented - but while we're at it, we can talk more generally about the freedom of movement question. The idea is that a state tries to limit (by making it illegal) its residents from going to other states to get abortions. This raises fundamental questions of state criminal jurisdiction and the privileges and immunities clause in Article IV (which, along with the 14th Amendment, shapes the "freedom of movement" right in America). It is basic that a state only has criminal jurisdiction over activity within the confines of the state - so state A can't say that activity in state B is a crime in state A, there's just no jurisdiction to do that. Further, the privileges and immunities clause provides that a citizen of one state shall be entitled to any privileges and immunities of another state while in that other state. Ergo, if abortion is legal in California, a resident of Texas is legal in getting an abortion in California. Though abortion is illegal in Texas, Texas only has criminal jurisdiction to prosecute crimes that occur in Texas. Texas lacks jurisdiction to declare conduct in California to be criminal, even if the person participating in the conduct is a Texas resident.

    And outlawing going to California in the first place to get an abortion attempts an end run around the territorial limits of state criminal jurisdiction by restricting free movement on the basis that the person is seeking to engage in that conduct . . . but the conduct is legal in California, which brings us back to the privileges and immunities clause. It begins to get circular but states simply don't have that kind of criminal jurisdiction. Of course we know they're going to try it and it will have to be resolved, but I just don't see how it can be reconciled with the constitutional text and long-standing (centuries) Supreme Court case law.
    Click to expand...

    brandon said:
    You don't need the court to declare that abortion is murder. You merely need them to determine that a fetus has the right to life. Then the 14th amendment comes into play where they are being deprived the right to life without due process of law, and bam, abortion is unconstitutional.

    That was a wild leap two days ago. Today, that's easily the next step.
    Click to expand...

    superchuck500 said:
    Ah fair enough, I misread your first post.

    Your premise is the Supreme Court declaring that a fetus is a person for purposes of the 14th Amendment. I don't know, I'm sure there's some good reading on that question and the principles that apply to it.

    It's an interesting question. My gut is that they wouldn't do it on their own, but given the right statute before them, I could see something like that happening. Sorry for the confusion on my part.
    Click to expand...

    Hey, @superchuck500,

    Wanted to see what your thoughts were vis-a-vis the conversation above right around 1 year later.
     
    DaveXA said:
    Lol, we got that right. Interesting to see Kav and ACB concur with the majority.
    Click to expand...
    When I heard the decision but before they said the vote count I figured it was going to be 5-4 with Kavanaugh siding with the majority. Don't know why I figured it would be him but yeah I was surprised to see it at 7-2.
     
    MT15 said:
    Can they just throw this out and vacate what the lower courts did? Since they were clearly out of line?
    Click to expand...
    So apparently, SCOTUS didn't vacate the lower court rulings but rather froze enforcing those decisions until the appeals process plays out, meaning it probably will end up back in SCOTUS at the end of all that. At least access won't be hindered or restricted in the meantime.

    It's ultimately kicking the can down the road. Not out the woods yet.
     
    I don’t understand everything these legal types are saying, but it doesn’t sound good. They are saying the SCOTUS is setting this up for a nationwide abortion ban, as soon as this comes back to them. There are several more tweets if someone here with legal experience could read and tell me what they are saying in plain English, please.



     
    Every time I think about how these people have decided to punish women, how they just don’t give a shirt whether women live or die, or whether they suffer needlessly, I get enraged all over again. This isn’t healthy, but this is just felt so personally by me. For example:



    These (mostly) men who don’t know anything about women‘s reproductive health care are just arrogantly making decisions about issues on which they are clueless.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom