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Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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

 

[superchuck500]

It was a genuine question on my part - and I haven't had a chance to read the leaked opinion yet - but I can certainly understand concern about other rights.

At the risk of over-simplifying, for any particular right, I think very broadly we'd have to consider:

1) What kind of movement there is to overturn those rights, and whether it's sufficient to attempt to do so at the state level.
2) If it is, and the attempt was challenged at the Supreme Court level, would the reasoning in this opinion represent a shift in the likelihood of the rights being upheld, in the context of the previous reasoning for those rights being previously established.

If, in terms of reasoning, a right was significantly dependent on a similar premise, then I think that would substantiate real concern. If - if - that's the case, I'm not sure how much weight a statement that abortion is "sharply distinguishable" in the Alito opinion would carry, given that I suspect it would come down to the application of the approach and reasoning rather than broader statements of that nature. And, sadly, what the desired outcome might be from what is clearly a substantially partisan Supreme Court now.

I suppose that's reasonable - personally I just think it's different. I think the biggest problem with the right to abortion has always been the problem of the fetus. And science and developments in understanding the process that happens during pregnancy, the ability of modern high-definition equipment to show us what happens, has only made that issue more acute.

So to me, if it comes to pass that the Court overturns Roe/Casey, the reason why is that the advocacy in favor of the fetus has prevailed upon the Court. I don't see it as part of some broader reaction to institute a new era of social conservatism in America that reverses other rights. I don't see the same interests lining up to oppose gay marriage . . . there is no reasonable analogy to the issue of the fetus in the gay marriage question. Not to mention that I think the starting point for a decision to reverse Obergefell would have to be that the right to marry is not fundamental, which seems an odd place for such a movement to land its next target.

But I could be being naïve and wrong. My wife tells me that all the time.

 

[SFIDC3]

Let’s be clear. Mitch McConnell screwing Obama out of the appointment of Merrick Garland directly led to the loss of a 50-year right for women.

If this isn’t a case for court-packing, I don’t know what is.

Yup, the court was already full of male narcissists and then they added Barrett, a right wing religious wacko.....I hope to heck this backfires on the right, I think it will....

Nearly 60% in the country support woman's rights....somethings got to give here....

 

[MT15]

I think it’s far more likely this leak came from the far right of the court. I’ve seen discussions saying this leak doesn’t help the liberals - what it does is put this hard-line opinion out in the public view making it almost impossible for the Court to modify it in any way before June without everyone knowing all the gory details. There is speculation that one of the Justices was finding it difficult to go along with it and was wavering - so the hard right end put it out to essentially freeze it in place. Makes sense to me, much more than a liberal putting it out there right now. The timing is what makes this idea more plausible, IMO.

 

[brandon]

We have to be careful to keep all of this straight. There is a separate right of free travel among the states that is long-standing, well defended, and (for Justice Alito) historically based. Laws that penalize free travel among the states (for [insert any purpose]) are inherently suspect and likely to fail.

The answer is that it is not legal for a state to criminally penalize a state resident for traveling to another state to obtain an abortion that is legal in the other state. It may take some time to have that provision struck down but it will be.

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.

 

[superchuck500]

I think it’s far more likely this leak came from the far right of the court. I’ve seen discussions saying this leak doesn’t help the liberals - what it does is put this hard-line opinion out in the public view making it almost impossible for the Court to modify it in any way before June without everyone knowing all the gory details. There is speculation that one of the Justices was finding it difficult to go along with it and was wavering - so the hard right end put it out to essentially freeze it in place. Makes sense to me, much more than a liberal putting it out there right now. The timing is what makes this idea more plausible, IMO.

Definitely seems like wild speculation that it would have to from a "leftist" as Senator Cruz put it. There's no basis for that, there's reasons why anyone with access to it could have leaked it.

Getting on the soapbox based on wild speculation has always been the mark of a fool, to me at least.

 

[MT15]

But I could be being naïve and wrong. My wife tells me that all the time.

Chuck, allow me to join your wife.

During Justice Brown’s confirmation hearing Obergefell was specifically brought up by Senator Cornyn, and I seem to recall he wasn’t the only one. I found this from an NPR interview at the time:

“RASCOE: I wonder if we could just start with you characterizing what Republican senators had to say about Obergefell during these hearings.

MURRAY: Well, the Republicans were at great pains to emphasize that Obergefell v. Hodges, which focuses on the right to marry and specifically the right to marry a person of the same sex, as being unrooted in constitutional text. As they made clear, the right to marry is nowhere. But it has been recognized by the courts as one of the, quote, unquote, "basic civil rights of man" since as early as the 1940s. And so in 2015, when the court took up Obergefell v. Hodges, they merely extended that logic and noted that the institution of marriage had changed, and it was elastic enough to include the prospect of individuals marrying those of the same sex. But when we heard Senator Cornyn, for example, taking up the question in Judge Jackson's confirmations, it was to underscore that this was a, quote, unquote, "unenumerated right" and that these unenumerated rights might not enjoy the same kind of constitutional protection and fidelity as those so-called text-based rights like the Second Amendment, like religious liberty.”

 

[SFIDC3]

Oh look, Senator Collins is disappointed.

Isn't she the one that voted against impeaching Trump the first time because she felt he had learned his lesson or something? Either she is easily duped, a really bad liar or a total moron....or a combination of those things....

 

[superchuck500]

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.

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.

 

[MT15]

Those laws (cannot travel to a state where abortion is legal) wouldn’t be upheld, and the state legislatures passing them know it. I feel like they are just trying to intimidate women.

 

[samiam5211]

Those laws (cannot travel to a state where abortion is legal) wouldn’t be upheld, and the state legislatures passing them know it. I feel like they are just trying to intimidate women.

I could see Texas passing a law making it illegal to transport a fetus across state borders for the purpose of an abortion without the consent of the fetus.

 

[V Chip]

This is wild. Never thought this would happen.

This was the objective of putting so many activist judges on the court. Conservatives have had this as a goal for decades.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Isn't she the one that voted against impeaching Trump the first time because she felt he had learned his lesson or something? Either she is easily duped, a really bad liar or a total moron....or a combination of those things....

She used to be the most liberal Republican in Washington. No one up here can figure out what happened to her regarding Trump?

Political positions of Susan Collins
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The political positions of Susan Collins are reflected by her United States Senate voting record, public speeches, and interviews. Susan Collinsis a Republican senator from Maine who has served since 1997. Collins is a self-described "moderate Republican". She has occasionally been referred to as a "liberal Republican" relative to her colleagues.[1][2][3] In 2013, the National Journal gave Collins a score of 55% conservative and 45% liberal.[4]
The New York Times arranged Republican Senators in 2017 based on ideology and ranked Senator Collins as the most liberal Republican.[5][6]According to GovTrack, Senator Collins is the most moderate Republican in the Senate; GovTrack's analysis places her to the left of every Republican and four Democrats in 2017.

 

[SamAndreas]

I think this will end up helping the democrats in the mid terms. The pink hats will all be voting this year.

I like that a lot because that's what my first thought was. I'm a Sam as well after all.



This is obviously a reverse acting relationship, and it will be certain to put the conservative movement into reverse.

I've been worrying a lot about the midterm elections coming up, if this draft report is true and they do strike down Roe v Wade I will not be worrying about the Democrats losing to the Republicans in the midterms followed by Trump getting elected again two years later. This seems bad, but as many things are it may not be what at the moment it seems.

The backlash will be like 1930 all over again, the Republicans lose will be the Democrats gain. It won't be long and the essence of Roe v Wade will be legislated into law because of this. Both federal law, and in many states which have not already legalized abortion. Red states will turned into blue states even in the South.

In that process the overall liberal movement will move the country to the left, and along with reinstating abortion rights all sorts of other liberal initiatives will be realized.

This is a cartoon from new years day 1931. A new day that began the movement that FDR lead. A new beginning that signaled a departure from the past.

 

[superchuck500]

Chuck, allow me to join your wife.

During Justice Brown’s confirmation hearing Obergefell was specifically brought up by Senator Cornyn, and I seem to recall he wasn’t the only one. I found this from an NPR interview at the time:

“RASCOE: I wonder if we could just start with you characterizing what Republican senators had to say about Obergefell during these hearings.

MURRAY: Well, the Republicans were at great pains to emphasize that Obergefell v. Hodges, which focuses on the right to marry and specifically the right to marry a person of the same sex, as being unrooted in constitutional text. As they made clear, the right to marry is nowhere. But it has been recognized by the courts as one of the, quote, unquote, "basic civil rights of man" since as early as the 1940s. And so in 2015, when the court took up Obergefell v. Hodges, they merely extended that logic and noted that the institution of marriage had changed, and it was elastic enough to include the prospect of individuals marrying those of the same sex. But when we heard Senator Cornyn, for example, taking up the question in Judge Jackson's confirmations, it was to underscore that this was a, quote, unquote, "unenumerated right" and that these unenumerated rights might not enjoy the same kind of constitutional protection and fidelity as those so-called text-based rights like the Second Amendment, like religious liberty.”

This doesn’t change my view about the likelihood that Obergefell would be overturned.

 

[SamAndreas]

There we go, that last paragraph



I'm riding with Biden!

 

[porculator]

That's the plan.

What I'm seeing is a deliberate effort on the part of red states to be actively hostile to anyone who isn't with their pro-Trump, pro-authoritarian, pro-Red program. To drive them out into neighboring blue states.

Why? To ensure that current GOP strongholds remain so for the rest of time. The more people who can be convinced to leave, the greater the voting power of those who remain becomes. Red states will control the Senate and have a shot at the Presidency forever. With vigorous enough gerrymandering, supported by GOP state legislatures and a GOP SCOTUS, Republicans can wrangle control of the House, as well.

I don't think it's that deliberate. I think they're just doing what the base wants, which right now, is owning the libs.

But governance based on pure ideology and not pragmaticism isn't sustainable and will always backfire. And it's why ruby red Louisiana has a two term democratic governor right now.

 

[brandon]

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.

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.

 

[porculator]

This doesn’t change my view about the likelihood that Obergefell would be overturned.

The Supreme Court and Roberts in particular basically did the republicans in Congress a favor by "interpreting" the law in a way that they definitely wouldn't have a decade or two prior, the partisan lean of the court notwithstanding. While I am of course in favor of the end result, it is an example of the disturbing trend of the courts doing all of the work Congress won't do. It was clear that they were bending to public will, once the acceptance of gay marriage was clearly in the majority and continuing to trend up. And in the meantime they saved all the R's in congress the embarrassment of having to take a stand on the topic.
Meanwhile, these three new justices know who got them where they are, in our new hyper partisan transactional world, they are not going to burden the R's in congress with having to have an opinion on gay marriage, and will continue to uphold it to save their political hide, regardless of the actual legal concerns.