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Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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

 

[Eeyore]

Huckabee has plans for the new little sacrifices.

 

[zztop]

^ really need a facepalm emoji reaction but at least there is the option when making new comments/replies

 

[zztop]

I agree with her, but it'll never happen.



"If we allow Supreme Court nominees to lie under oath and secure lifetime appointments to the highest court of the land and then issue, without basis," she said, "we must see that through. There must be consequences for such a deeply destabilizing action and a hostile takeover of our democratic institutions."

"To allow that to stand is to allow it to happen," she continued. "And what makes it particularly dangerous is that it sends a blaring signal to all future nominees that they can now lie to duly elected members of the United States Senate in order to secure Supreme Court confirmations and seats on the Supreme Court."

 

[MT15]

 

[MT15]

I agree with her, but it'll never happen.



"If we allow Supreme Court nominees to lie under oath and secure lifetime appointments to the highest court of the land and then issue, without basis," she said, "we must see that through. There must be consequences for such a deeply destabilizing action and a hostile takeover of our democratic institutions."

"To allow that to stand is to allow it to happen," she continued. "And what makes it particularly dangerous is that it sends a blaring signal to all future nominees that they can now lie to duly elected members of the United States Senate in order to secure Supreme Court confirmations and seats on the Supreme Court."

I agree with her as long as it can be proven that they did lie.

 

[DaveXA]

I agree with her as long as it can be proven that they did lie.

So, do they review the testimony of all 9 justices? Who would enforce it?

 

[CoolBrees]

You aren’t going to find a time where either said “no” under oath.

They said “it is settled law.” Seriously that doesn’t say anything but leads the listener to believe them to be saying no they wouldn’t overturn it.

But in reality, all they are saying is a declarative statement of the current state of America when they said it.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Exactly. They didn't lie. And it's beyond the pail to think any Senator voting for them thought they weren't going to overturn it. Murkowski and Collins have the sensibility of five year-olds. 'O-M-G, he's a dirty fibber!'

Impeaching them is a non-starter, anyway. Good luck finding 13 GOP Senators to vote to remove them.

 

[MT15]

You aren’t going to find a time where either said “no” under oath.

They said “it is settled law.” Seriously that doesn’t say anything but leads the listener to believe them to be saying no they wouldn’t overturn it.

But in reality, all they are saying is a declarative statement of the current state of America when they said it.

I do like AOC, but she doesn’t always show a serious grasp of a situation. I certainly wasn’t under any illusion that these three had promised during their testimony that they wouldn’t overturn Roe. She probably wasn’t either. But this sort of statement just riles people up, to no purpose. I also saw where she called on Biden to put abortion clinics on federal land in red states. I don’t think that’s possible, and she should know better. I’m not a legislator, but I’m pretty sure there is a law about using federal money to facilitate abortions. So why call for something that’s a non-starter?

 

[Optimus Prime]

Good read
==========
Like it or not, here’s the reality: The Supreme Court has become the site of a new political Forever War.

That court has now done what liberals insisted it would and what conservatives alternately prayed for and denied was their intention all along:

Overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Now abortion can be outlawed, first in Republican-run states and perhaps eventually in the nation as a whole.

The best summary of what just happened comes from the dissent by the liberal justices: “The majority has overruled Roe and Casey for one and only one reason: because it has always despised them, and now it has the votes to discard them.”

Here are five takeaways from this political and legal earthquake.

The court’s decision is both straightforward and incredibly sweeping.​

The decision written by Justice Samuel Alito flatly declares that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start.” It rules that because a right to abortion is neither explicitly laid out in the Constitution nor “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions,” it deserves no protection as a fundamental right.

Therefore, states will be free to enact whatever restrictions on that right they choose. The decision also drips with contempt both for the court’s prior abortion jurisprudence and for abortion rights itself…….

The court is only getting started.​

In his concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas gives away the game, saying explicitly that the court should go on to overturn the cases that established the right to use contraception, overturned sodomy bans and established the right to same-sex marriage.

“After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions,” Thomas goes on, the court should expand its view outward to keep overruling more and more decisions…….

Democrats need a fundamental rethink to meet this moment.​

With the court escalating the radical legal revolution it is imposing on the country, Democrats need to shift their approach at the most fundamental level.

This entails both accepting and embracing this crowning fact: The court is going to be a zone of full-blown partisan combat for many years to come.

Republicans have known this for decades. Democrats have to meet them on the battlefield that Republicans created…..

Democrats must make very clear promises about what’s next.​

In keeping with the above shift, Democrats have to be ultra-clear about this fall’s elections.

They need to tell voters: If you let us keep the House and deliver us two more Senate seats, we will end the filibuster, pass a bill nationally codifying abortion rights, and undertake far-reaching Supreme Court reform……..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/24/roe-supreme-court-forever-war/

 

[RobF]

I also saw where she called on Biden to put abortion clinics on federal land in red states. I don’t think that’s possible, and she should know better. I’m not a legislator, but I’m pretty sure there is a law about using federal money to facilitate abortions. So why call for something that’s a non-starter?

I think that's the Hyde Amendment, which does allow for federal money to be used to to pay for abortions where it's "to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape," and which, notably, has also been excluded from Biden's recent budget proposals.

According to this article AOC is one of those who's been calling for its restrictions to be reversed. So I would surmise that the call for abortion clinics on federal land is being made with pushing for the reversal of the Hyde Amendment also in mind, although it does seem (from a very cursory understanding) that it'd be possible to provide life-saving abortions or abortions in the case of incest or rape as it stands.

Whether it's likely to be achievable is another question. It seems likely that it'll be difficult to get a budget that excludes the Hyde Amendment approved, and I can only start to imagine the legal and political implications of clinics on federal land. But even if we did think it a non-starter, there could still be a clear reason to call for it: to continue to highlight exactly who is acting to make it a non-starter.

 

[Heathen]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...with-expanding-supreme-court-jean-pierre/amp/

 

[samiam5211]

People shouldn't focus their anger at the court, that isn't going to change anything.

Court packing isn't the answer, because by the time they passed anything allowing justices to be added, we could have a Republican president to pick the new judges. Imagine that disaster.

I don't think a federal law requiring states to allow abortion would be constitutional.

Protests should be 100% focused on state capitals in states where abortion is illegal. That is where the fight is now.

 

[Sandman]

This decision will end up hurting Republicans. This was THE issue they ran on to turn out their religious base. With Roe gone, and most of the “red” states already having abortion bans on the books, what is there to turn them out?

On the contrary, the pro-choice base of the Democrat party is completely energized. Young women, who many times don’t vote, will be voting for the foreseeable future.

The strength of the Republicans has always been to turn out their base vs the Democrats. I think you will see that start to change with the midterms.

I know there are other issues they will try and fire the base up with, but keeping gay people from getting married doesn’t have the same appeal as “save an unborn life for Jesus.” Republicans are the dog that caught the car.

 

[DaveXA]

You aren’t going to find a time where either said “no” under oath.

They said “it is settled law.” Seriously that doesn’t say anything but leads the listener to believe them to be saying no they wouldn’t overturn it.

But in reality, all they are saying is a declarative statement of the current state of America when they said it.

Yeah, they're smart enough not to get themselves painted into a corner in the hearings. That said, supposedly, ACB or maybe it was Kavanaugh that told Collins he/she would uphold Roe or something to that effect. But I'm not so sure anything can be done about that.

People shouldn't focus their anger at the court, that isn't going to change anything.

Court packing isn't the answer, because by the time they passed anything allowing justices to be added, we could have a Republican president to pick the new judges. Imagine that disaster.

I don't think a federal law requiring states to allow abortion would be constitutional.

Protests should be 100% focused on state capitals in states where abortion is illegal. That is where the fight is now.

That's an interesting strategy. I think that would be the best approach as well, as there's no turning back the SCOTUS decision within the next decade or two, focusing on holding court in states allowing abortions in reasonable circumstances and attempt to make gains in states that can reasonably be flipped in the near term.

This decision will end up hurting Republicans. This was THE issue they ran on to turn out their religious base. With Roe gone, and most of the “red” states already having abortion bans on the books, what is there to turn them out?

On the contrary, the pro-choice base of the Democrat party is completely energized. Young women, who many times don’t vote, will be voting for the foreseeable future.

The strength of the Republicans has always been to turn out their base vs the Democrats. I think you will see that start to change with the midterms.

I know there are other issues they will try and fire the base up with, but keeping gay people from getting married doesn’t have the same appeal as “save an unborn life for Jesus.” Republicans are the dog that caught the car.

Agree 100%. This is the opening the Democrats need. Now let's see if the DNC forks this up too.

 

[SFIDC3]

So, what is he trying to say?

The way I understand it, "now do Brown v Board of Education" means "do the same thing to B v. BoE that you did to abortion", and if SCOTUS does B v BoE like they did abortion, it would mean that States will be free to enact laws to establish racial segregation.

I honestly don’t know how you could interpret it any other way….it smacks of “when someone shows you who they are, believe them” …..

 

[Sandman]

I honestly don’t know how you could interpret it any other way….it smacks of “when someone shows you who they are, believe them” …..

I may be wrong, but I think it was in response to a tweet about it being bad to overturn precedent. I think he is trying to say, “Brown overturned Plessy was a good thing and so is this.”

I disagree with the comparison (Plessy created a second class of citizens with lesser rights while Roe did no such thing), but I do not believe he is suggesting the Supreme Court should overturn Brown.

 

[MT15]

I may be wrong, but I think it was in response to a tweet about it being bad to overturn precedent. I think he is trying to say, “Brown overturned Plessy was a good thing and so is this.”

I disagree with the comparison (Plessy created a second class of citizens with lesser rights while Roe did no such thing), but I do not believe he is suggesting the Supreme Court should overturn Brown.

This is my understanding as well. It’s not an apt comparison, but that’s all they have.