Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (3 Viewers)

[Brennan77]

Forgive me for posting this given that I'm not a regular participant.

Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.

www.politico.com

Read Justice Alito's initial draft abortion opinion which would overturn Roe v. Wade

Read the full 98-page initial draft majority opinion.

www.politico.com

 

[MT15]

Also, a bunch of Rs have written a bill to nationally recognize personhood at conception. They’re all evil.

Every miscarriage would be a potential murder. Nobody would ever be able to use IVF to have a baby. Doctors will really hesitate to save a mother‘s life if the pregnancy must be terminated to do so. I keep telling you all - they don’t care if women die.

 

[SamAndreas]

Wow, there was three pages of postrs and I bet I agreed and like most of them.


But I didn't want to read three pages of post and like them. Just consider that I liked them all.

What I wanted to deal with is at this very moment is that I'm being called to do Federal Jury duty. Yesterday I filled out the on-line forum about doing that duty. I told them I couldn't do it, that it being a 120 miles from where I live was a problem. I have to take care of a severely disabled son on a 24/7 basis. I have not been able to take a vacation in 20 years. I can't do a several day jury trial 120 miles away from where I live. Especially not after the Roe V Wade ruling. F-the federal courts.

Doing a week or two of jury duty is beyond the pale. In that on line forum I told them I could not do it. And that is how it is. They will either accept that or I don't give a damn. I'm not going to show up. F-them!

That's final. That's the way is is after the federal ruling about abortion. They can F themselves, I'm not going to show up.

I sure hope they will read my reply about doing jury duty and grant me a reprieve. Otherwise they can F themselves good God Damn. If they make me show up I will punish them by finding the defendant not guilty. I will hang the jury, they will be sorry they F-d with me.

I don't give a damn. They better not make me show up a 120 miles from where I live to do jury duty that i really cannot do.

If they insist I will show up with my son in tow and tell them that he will be seated in the jury box at my side, and they better be willing to hear his occasional noises Autistic noises, and Autistic drama, and like it. That's how it is!

I'm not going to show up. I'm not going to make them do that. I'm just not going to F-ing show up. They can be damned.

Especially after Roe v Wade.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

The country is divided into two groups. The first thinks Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) practiced willful blindness to rationalize her votes confirming Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Neil M. Gorsuch — two of the five Supreme Court justices who last week voted to blow up the basic rights of millions of women by overturning Roe v. Wade.

This explanation assumes Collins’s aim was to survive any primary challenge from the right in her 2020 reelection.


The second camp posits that Collins was sincere in her belief that two dedicated right-wing nominees hand-selected by the Federalist Society would not overturn Roe. In short, she was duped…..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/27/susan-collins-supreme-court-damage-womens-rights/

A couple of decades ago I was a Susan Collins fan. Now? I'm afraid she has fallen into that category of Republicans that didn't have the courage to take on Donald Trump. I'm bitterly disappointed.

 

[V Chip]

Well, I'm speaking more from my own anecdotal experience than anything else, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks Christianity is often poorly represented by a lot of well-meaning Christians.

How it’s represented is inconsequential to me anymore. It’s the abuse of power, bigotry, and harm it has caused throughout our history that is outrageous. But the way you phrased that sure reads like recognizing the complicity I referenced.

I would absolutely love to see an uprising within the Christian community but I just don’t see it happening. The church I described, from my lifetime of observation, is in the extreme minority.

(I know this is late to the discussion… but)

I think this is now similar to whites need to not just say “well, I’m not racist and I don’t think like that” and then think they’re good. It’s not enough to not be racist when fighting against racism, one has to be actively anti-racist. Today it’s not enough to be say you’re not a Christian extremist, you have to actively be anti-Christian extremist.

 

[SamAndreas]

What I'm going to be doing is watching a select number of generic ballot question polls, while totally ignoring 7/8 of them because they are biased useless partisan noise that needs to be ignored.

Rasmussen, Quinnipick University, Trafalgar, McLaughlin Associates, etc are noise and I ignore them. Right now the polls I do pay attention to have shifted significantly since the Supreme Court ruling.

A rated Marist College shows a sudden shift to + 7% for Democrats since this Supreme Court ruling. Morning Consult which I regard as a relatively non biased, but piss poor as pollsters show Democrats at + 3%.

They are the only polls which are post the Court Ruling that I will bother to look at. I await further input, however the input so far looks good.

Politico regarded this ruling as a case of the Republicans finally caught the car. Now what are they going to do with the car? Like as if they're big dogs who have finally caught a car.

I had a big dog that actually did catch cars twenty years ago. What he did to cars he would catch was to tear the trim off with his teeth. and scratch the paint with has paws. And he would dent them quite a bit too.

I was pretty proud of him. One time he chased off a Grizzly bear when my kids were out in the yard. He was the ultimate 140 pound Chocolate Lab. Sort of a hound dog. It was kind of mixed up what he actually was.

He was big! Loud! Could chew up anything. Things like what one didn't want chewed up mostly.

He was the dog from Hell.

I miss him now that he's gone. But I'm kind of glad that he is gone. He was a handful.

​

 

[Optimus Prime]

This goes to what we’ve talked about in multiple threads

When are Dems going to take the gloves off and go to battle?
==================
Just hours after the Supreme Court decision ending 50 years of abortion rights, President Biden outlined his ideal response: Elect more Democrats. “This fall, Roe is on the ballot,” Biden said at the White House. “Personal freedoms are on the ballot. The right to privacy, liberty, equality, they’re all on the ballot.”

A short distance away, House Democrats gathered on the steps of the U.S. Capitol to sing a heartfelt rendition of “God Bless America” to celebrate the passage of a modest gun control bill -- a moment that felt tone deaf to many Democrats given the judicial bombshell that had just landed.


To an increasingly vocal group of frustrated Democrats, activists and even members of Congress, such responses by party leaders have been strikingly inadequate to meet a moment of crisis.

They criticize the notion that it is on voters to turn out in November when they say Democrats are unwilling to push boundaries and upend the system in defense of hard-won civil liberties.

“We have Democrats that are doing the opposite, you know? They just aren’t fighting,” Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) said. “When people see that, what’s going to make them show up to vote? We can’t just tell people, ‘Well, just vote — vote your problems away.’ Because they’re looking at us and saying, ‘Well, we already voted for you.’”


Progressive lawmakers, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), have outlined several actions they want to see Democrats embrace: Building abortion clinics on federal land. Funding people to seek abortions out of state. Limiting the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction or expanding its membership. Ending the filibuster.

“We can do it!” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted recently after listing some of these measures. “We can at least TRY.”……

But many abortion rights supporters say Republicans have routinely broken the rules in recent years and benefited enormously from it — for example, by blocking President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick — and that for Democrats to continue observing the niceties amounts to unilateral disarmament…..

If Biden pursued aggressive executive actions to expand abortion access, even if those moves were ultimately overturned by a court, it would energize supporters and signal to voters that Democrats are putting up a fight, advocates said.


Kurt Bardella, a former Republican who now consults for Democrats, said party leaders cannot be afraid of bold actions because of potential legal challenges……..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/27/democrats-angry-party-leaders/

 

[Maxp]

The dems are pushing transgender rights, which while deserved are a catastrophe at the ballot box, the Republicans are successfully removing the rights of all women.

 

[DaveXA]

(I know this is late to the discussion… but)

I think this is now similar to whites need to not just say “well, I’m not racist and I don’t think like that” and then think they’re good. It’s not enough to not be racist when fighting against racism, one has to be actively anti-racist. Today it’s not enough to be say you’re not a Christian extremist, you have to actively be anti-Christian extremist.

That makes sense.

 

[coldseat]

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?

I'm not picking on you @MT15 because I and most of us Democratic voters always do the same thing of backing off of and talking ourselves out of forceful/extreme reactions to extreme Republican actions, but all this does is lead us down the same road. It goes like this, Republicans spend 50 years forcing and extreme policy/judicial appointments to overturn a constitutional right and force birth on woman. Democrats/Moderates react in horror and anger and the dissolution of personal rights and progressive Democratic start making forceful/extreme policy suggestion as a reaction. The chorus of moderates not wanting to "make things worse" rationalize why the actions proposed by the progressive Democrats are to extreme and won't work and label the progressive Democrat as "going to far". Nothing of consequence gets done.

Until Democrats/Moderates voters learn the principles of Newton's Third Law, we will be stuck in this ever expanding universe of Republican extremism. Republicans voters never question their parties extremism, they just justify it and keep on forcing more extremism onto the country.

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.

I disagree, the SC should face the anger of the people every single day! They should not be let off the hook, neither should Democrats in the Senate offer any protections to the SC in the form of legislation protecting/hiding them. Maybe next time they'll think twice about forcing the country backwards if they do face that anger. Until something can be done to change the dynamics of the SC, they should face the wrath of the people every day. I'm not usually one for coercive actions of that nature, but these Republican extremist on the court can not be allowed to remove/take away our civil liberties on a whim. They should be forced to deal with they havoc that they have unleashed and not be left alone in their ivory towers.

The dems are pushing transgender rights, which while deserved are a catastrophe at the ballot box, the Republicans are successfully removing the rights of all women.

The Dems are not pushing transgender rights, they are reacting to Republican attempts to remove the civil liberties of transgender people. And it's a very weak and ineffectual response at that, as all that has been happening is red states removing the rights of transgender people anyway.

 

[SFIDC3]

That’s a sensible explanation to me.

Just to reiterate, I attended a Presbyterian church that was very much like the experience you and Chuck describe. I know those congregations are out there.

I know they’re out there too but they are being drowned about by the radical factions of Christianity….and I’ll add this….I got married in the Catholic Church, our priest was very obviously gay, I told him I thought the practice of sharing intimate details with our priest or the church was infringing on my privacy….he totally understood and basically said that the Church has a lot of issues and there was a movement to try and get it to move into the 21st century (or something)….and he wanted to be part of that movement….I totally respect that, he was a good man but for every one of him there are more radicals…..

 

[samiam5211]

I disagree, the SC should face the anger of the people every single day! They should not be let off the hook, neither should Democrats in the Senate offer any protections to the SC in the form of legislation protecting/hiding them. Maybe next time they'll think twice about forcing the country backwards if they do face that anger. Until something can be done to change the dynamics of the SC, they should face the wrath of the people every day. I'm not usually one for coercive actions of that nature, but these Republican extremist on the court can not be allowed to remove/take away our civil liberties on a whim. They should be forced to deal with they havoc that they have unleashed and not be left alone in their ivory towers.

It might feel better to be mad at the court, but that isn't going to do any good.

The states have the power on this issue now, the court isn't going to overturn Dobbs in the next 20 years, no matter how mad we get.

Court packing would be a disaster, by the time we increased the number of justices, we could run into the 2024 election, and imagine if the democrats increased the number of seats only to have a Republican president fill them.

 

[coldseat]

It might feel better to be mad at the court, but that isn't going to do any good.

The states have the power on this issue now, the court isn't going to overturn Dobbs in the next 20 years, no matter how mad we get.

Court packing would be a disaster, by the time we increased the number of justices, we could run into the 2024 election, and imagine if the democrats increased the number of seats only to have a Republican president fill them.

The Dems should definitely try to push the court packing through if they can. Let the Republicans do what they're going to do if they get power. They're going to do it anyway. They should respond with every action they can and draw the proverbial line in the sand. Forceful actions from Democrats is what is required at this moment, not more passive aggressiveness.

The anger at the SC should be sustained and amplified. The conservative SC justice should hear of and have to respond for the chaos they have created. Since the conservative on the SC have decide to act as another political body, they should be treated as such. Not because it makes anybody feel better, but has a hedge against further extreme rulings. If they suffer no backlash (some of it extreme), they will continue to pass even more extreme policy and remove more rights form us US citizens.

That's not to say that Democrats also shouldn't be doing everything they can on state levels. They should do all they can at all levels of government to counter the growing Republican extremism and shouldn't be shy about saying so.

 

[samiam5211]

The Dems should definitely try to push the court packing through if they can. Let the Republicans do what they're going to do if they get power. They're going to do it anyway. They should respond with every action they can and draw the proverbial line in the sand. Forceful actions from Democrats is what is required at this moment, not more passive aggressiveness.

The anger at the SC should be sustained and amplified. The conservative SC justice should hear of and have to respond for the chaos they have created. Since the conservative on the SC have decide to act as another political body, they should be treated as such. Not because it makes anybody feel better, but has a hedge against further extreme rulings. If they suffer no backlash (some of it extreme), they will continue to pass even more extreme policy and remove more rights form us US citizens.

That's not to say that Democrats also shouldn't be doing everything they can on state levels. They should do all they can at all levels of government to counter the growing Republican extremism and shouldn't be shy about saying so.

I don't think the justices will be influenced by public opinion no matter how overwhelming it is.

Honestly, I don't believe that the justices should care what the public thinks.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I don't think the justices will be influenced by public opinion no matter how overwhelming it is.

Honestly, I don't believe that the justices should care what the public thinks.

Someone was making this exact argument on CNN

and that public opinion was definitely not in favor of Brown v BOE at the time

 

[SystemShock]

The Dems are not pushing transgender rights, they are reacting to Republican attempts to remove the civil liberties of transgender people. And it's a very weak and ineffectual response at that, as all that has been happening is red states removing the rights of transgender people anyway.

I may be wrong in my understanding of the comment, but I think what @Maxp is saying, is that the focus on that particular topic and that particular label hurts in the ballot box. I think it would be a more effective strategy to promote individual rights, and not <specific label> rights. So for example, a man marrying another man should not be promoted as a gay right, but an individual right.

One quick example: remember Julian Castro in the 2019 primaries? He was asked if he would support abortion rights for transgender women, and he said yes. Nothing that was said on that day of debates mattered... on the Dem side everyone was either up in arms that Castro didn't have it right who's who in the trans world, or mocked him relentlessly for it; while the GOP used it as propaganda, pointing out the insanity of the Dems' wokeness.

 

[coldseat]

I don't think the justices will be influenced by public opinion no matter how overwhelming it is.

Honestly, I don't believe that the justices should care what the public thinks.

We disagree. When the SC is dealing with monumental cases like this, they should factor in public reaction and discord. ESPECIALLY, when removing constitutional protections from it's citizens. They should be very cognizant of the havoc they wreak, as shown in the Sotomayor dissenting opinion.

They may not be influenced, but until they face that wrath of anger over their opinions and legislative actions to limit their power, we won't really know.

 

[Optimus Prime]

So, a lot of the comments I'm reading are saying that overturning Roe doesn't ban abortion at all, it just sends the issue to the states (where it'll be banned)

And that any pregnant woman can still get an abortion if she chooses (and has the means to do so)

That ignores that states are trying to figure out how to stop traveling to an abortion legal state, and stop getting medications through online/telehealth, but that's neither here or there

I wonder how those people would feel if similar laws were made for guns?

You can buy the same guns you can now

But no more buying at gun shows, no more gun shops, no online

All gun purchases must be face to face, and done at approved locations which not every state has, and even in the states that do only one location is allowed

None of which says you can't buy and own a gun, none of which infringes on your right to bear arms

Wouldn't that feel like some rights are being taken away?

Wouldn't that feel like some people are being targeted?

Wouldn't that feel like the whole point is to drastically reduce the amount of guns sold even though the law 'doesn't say that'?

 

[coldseat]

I may be wrong in my understanding of the comment, but I think what @Maxp is saying, is that the focus on that particular topic and that particular label hurts in the ballot box. I think it would be a more effective strategy to promote individual rights, and not <specific label> rights. So for example, a man marrying another man should not be promoted as a gay right, but an individual right.

One quick example: remember Julian Castro in the 2019 primaries? He was asked if he would support abortion rights for transgender women, and he said yes. Nothing that was said on that day of debates mattered... on the Dem side everyone was either up in arms that Castro didn't have it right who's who in the trans world, or mocked him relentlessly for it; while the GOP used it as propaganda, pointing out the insanity of the Dems' wokeness.

Again, the focus on this hasn't come from Democrats. It's come from Republican's making it a culture war issue and all of the moderates reacting with their usual fear. No different than CRT.

I'm in Julian Castro's district and I don't even remember that, but I guess that had a major impact. Let's just blame tans people for all of our forking problems.

If the voting public can't see what's going on, then this is what we get. People need to wise the hell up in this country.