USSC strikes down Roe v Wade

[WyattEarp]

The same people who want to ban abortion insist that the State has no right to force a vaccine on them.

And the same people who demand abortion rights say the State has the right to push a vaccine on them. They are both hypocritical. My body, my choice is a load of horse shit.

I see your point, but you would find there are many people who accept legalized abortion but deny that the State has a right to force vaccination. Conversely, there are many people who are anti-abortion who believe the State can force vaccination. If I had to take a guess, the latter is a smaller group relative to the former.

 

[jalimon]

I see your point, but you would find there are many people who accept legalized abortion but deny that the State has a right to force vaccination. Conversely, there are many people who are anti-abortion who believe the State can force vaccination. If I had to take a guess, the latter is a smaller group relative to the former.

For both... these people are idiots. An abortion is not contagious therefore it's not a public health matter. Abortion should remain the decision of only one person. The mother. Because bringing an unwanted child in our difficult world is not a good idea at all.

 

[jcpro]

Yah, that's what they said about slavery too, back in the 1850's. Great for fund-raising and mobilizing the base, but not a genuine issue.

But more seriously.... how is the now-total denial of abortion in MO not a 'real issue"??

Ever heard of the 13th amendment?

 

[Valcazar]

The pendulum swings left and right. It swung left for a really long time until folks got fed up with the antics of the left and elected Trump. The U.S. (and Canada) needed to move a little back to the centre.

Actually it swung aggressively right during Reagan and was just starting to head more to the center again and the right is freaking out and trying to slam it far right and make sure it stays there by removing the people's ability to vote for who they want.

 

[Valcazar]

why did it get overturned - did someone(s) challenge it or did scotus pull it out of their arse?

Challenged.
Laws were written specifically to violate the Constitution so that they could be brought up the line to challenge.
There was a massive push to write more and more aggressive laws because they had spent years getting their Supreme Court people into place.
They didn't pretend otherwise.

That's why Thomas signaled that despite what the majority opinion said, the logic also lets them overthrow other previous decisions.
Those laws - outlawing contraception (with maybe an exception for married couples), outlawing sodomy or other non-PIV sex (to be used only to target homosexuals of course), outlawing same-sex marriage, etc - have 3-4 votes on the bench. Roberts is a bit of squish on pure culture war votes and Kavanaugh signaled he isn't necessarily there yet. Alito implied he isn't, but is almost certainly lying since he made sure to write the logic of the piece to justify overturning those, too. That means Thomas is asking people to write laws outlawing those things so they can get up to the court and the court can strike them down. (He seems pretty sure he can get vote #5.)

 

[bver_hunter]

The left clearly has an agenda. If anyone disagrees with their agenda, the left will stalk, harass, persecute and cancel that person. With them there is no middle ground.

Except that the real terrorism threat has been from the right anti-abortion movement. That is now expected to pick up some steam against the fewer Clinics that are offering abortion:

Threat of anti-abortion terrorism amplified as bans reduce number of providers

Threat of anti-abortion terrorism amplified as bans reduce number of providers

Rachel Maddow points out that the already violent anti-abortion movement is now even more dangerous to abortion providers as state bans have both reduced the number and raised the profile of providers targeted by the anti-abortion right.

www.msnbc.com

This usual individual will even fuel the flames with his abhorrent statements:

Tucker Carlson says corporations are helping their employees get an out-of-state abortion because those 'without families are much cheaper for the company'

Tucker Carlson says corporations are helping their employees get an out-of-state abortion because those 'without families are much cheaper for the company'

After the Supreme Court voted to strike down Roe v. Wade, Disney and Meta offered to pay travel costs for employees seeking an abortion out of state.

www.businessinsider.com

After years of amplifying threats against abortion clinics, Fox News suddenly decries violence after attacks on crisis pregnancy centers

www.mediamatters.org

 

[Valcazar]

If they won't eliminate the filibuster for this then the right wing will continue to win. Its that simple.

It's never that simple.

Manchin is from an anti-abortion state and won't eliminate the filibuster for this.
Sinema has made it clear she will never eliminate the filibuster under any circumstances.
No Republican will eliminate the filibuster while the Democrats have nominal control of the Senate.
(They won't ever eliminate it until they have a piece of their real agenda that they absolutely cannot pass without eliminating it.)

Of course, as I said, eliminating the filibuster to pass a law codifying abortion will buy only a few months to a year.
It will be challenged immediately and the Supreme Court will strike it down as unconstitutional.
(A law banning abortion at the Federal level will not be unconstitutional, though.)

What might work is just ignoring the Supreme Court on this, but that's the kind of radical move I can't see happening in this environment.
But that require 3-4 more Dem senators to get around Manchin and Sinema.

 

[Valcazar]

This is exactly why the GOP and SENATE repugs should be decimated in 2022

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem likely.
As jcpro loves pointing out in the "good news for joe" thread (or whatever it is called), the polls are all heavily down against the Dems right now.
A big part of that is people don't like inflation and many many people are going to prioritize that over liberty, rights, and democracy.
(look at Addict2Sex's post right under yours.)
I wish people shared those as higher priorities, but they don't.
There is also a large contingent that recognizes the system is broken, but don't really understand why and in what ways, and think not voting or voting for people who can't win will help instead of making things worse.
(There are others who think "making things worse" is a good strategy because then it will be easier to tear down the system and build a new one but because they don't understand what's broken they are mostly working to make it easier for the totalitarians and right wing to take over.)

I would love to be wrong about this and see such a massive surge that it fucks up the GOP in 2022 for this but I just don't see it happening.
There is a reason there is a massive propaganda push right now to insist that the other rights aren't really at risk and that this just "sends it back to the states" and that "for most people things won't change so people are overreacting". They fear you are right and are doing everything they can to make it not happen.
And I think they will succeed.

 

[squeezer]

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem likely.
As jcpro loves pointing out in the "good news for joe" thread (or whatever it is called), the polls are all heavily down against the Dems right now.
A big part of that is people don't like inflation and many many people are going to prioritize that over liberty, rights, and democracy.
(look at Addict2Sex's post right under yours.)
I wish people shared those as higher priorities, but they don't.
There is also a large contingent that recognizes the system is broken, but don't really understand why and in what ways, and think not voting or voting for people who can't win will help instead of making things worse.
(There are others who think "making things worse" is a good strategy because then it will be easier to tear down the system and build a new one but because they don't understand what's broken they are mostly working to make it easier for the totalitarians and right wing to take over.)

I would love to be wrong about this and see such a massive surge that it fucks up the GOP in 2022 for this but I just don't see it happening.
There is a reason there is a massive propaganda push right now to insist that the other rights aren't really at risk and that this just "sends it back to the states" and that "for most people things won't change so people are overreacting". They fear you are right and are doing everything they can to make it not happen.
And I think they will succeed.

I'm hoping with Roe Vs Wade, the New York ruling on concealed guns and the Jan. 6th hearings it will galvanize the left to come out in droves to vote as they did in 2020. I realize it's more of hoping than happening but hey, some do win Lottomax and imagine the ribbing of the righties we will all enjoy here if this were to happen. LOL

 

[danmand]

Yes, that's why we kept slavery until the1860's.....

Yes, Canada showed some independence in 1812.
But lately??

 

[Valcazar]

Except it isn't.

Roe was law 50 years ago. And no one moved to overturn it. This isn't spontaneous outrage. This is decades of planning, scheming and maneuvring by a minority to hijack the state.

Not exactly true.
Yes, when the case got ruled on it was a compromise that most people - including the major evangelical groups - agreed with.
But by the end of the decade it had been turned into the way to get the Evangelicals back into politics and protect segregation. (They couldn't use protecting segregation as "our moral crusade" any more, so they had to make "the unborn babies" the new crusade to act as cover.)
They did work hard since 1980 on to overturn it.
That it survived as long as it did is a bit of a fluke.
They thought they were going to be able to kill it with Bork, but he got rejected.
They thought they had it killed with Casey but Kennedy decided to join the middle ground (and Souter and O'Connor also proved to be "unreliable") and so it was weakened but specifically upheld as a concept.
That was the birth of the Federalist Society's absolute stranglehold on future nominations - they were never going to be surprised by a GOP judge not voting to drop Roe if they had the chance again.
It was a weird fluke it didn't get struck down in 1992, and it took another 20 years for them to get the shot again.
It will probably take another 20 years for it to be put back and that is only assuming the people who support those rights use the same kind of patient long-term strategy.

 

[Valcazar]

Sorry man, d'em the facts.

Manchin says he won’t vote to ‘eliminate or weaken the filibuster’

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) vowed on Thursday that he will not “vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster,” the latest blow to Democratic hopes of changing the Senate rules to pass voting rights le…

thehill.com

Now has he changed his mind after he himself admits he's been duped by the Judges who lied and bullshitted their way through to get on the highest court of the land? We shall see.

Of course not.
He's a douchebag.
He is reliable on supporting Dem judges, which has been useful, but he is basically untouchable right now and isn't going to do anything that messes with his good thing.

 

[WyattEarp]

They are going to pass laws that criminalize going to another state for one or helping someone do that.
Those are already proposed and in process.

How would a State law like this work in reality? I'm sure there are examples of where a State law couldn't be enforced on a person when they left the State. Perhaps there was a time you when you were considered a citizen of a State. There's no real or practical permanence to State residency.

On a practical level, who is going to turn you in? Your doctor? I could be wrong, but isn't your doctor legally required to maintain your privacy.

For pretty much the same reason State abortion bans are fairly outdated, who's going to know you were pregnant and got an abortion out of state?

 

[Valcazar]

Yep, all of a sudden the Dems are not so hot on "democracy " and that's exactly what SCOTUS did- it forced the legislators to do their job and to legislate.

This is the pitch they will try and sell, of course.
"You can legislate your way out of this."
Of course, they are supporting ways to make it harder to vote out people who disagree with them and they will vote down as unconstitutional laws that support things they disagree with.
(They just the day before said that states can't make their own choices about gun laws no matter what the people vote for.)

So they are hoping to sell this bullshit line, and unfortunately I think it will work for enough people to buy them the time they need to make it harder and harder to put in laws the people want.

 

[Valcazar]

For how long.

There are cells in Canada that want The Charter of Rights and Freedoms voided, this decision will supercharge them. From perspective gained from studying The French Revolution, we are closer to The Handmaid's Tale becoming a reality. The USSC won't stop until 1884 is achieved. The laws made in the Victorian Era held until the mid 60's.

The blowback is only just beginning, this is a "Cars hissed by my window" moment.

It is substantially harder to pull something like this off in the Canadian system.
The US has a lot of counter-majoritarian elements that lead to weak points you can exploit even when unpopular.
That's much harder to do in the Canadian system.
It isn't impossible, but you have to assemble more actual support to pull things off when they are deeply unpopular.
That said, ignoring it because "our institutions will hold" is a big part of what fucked the US in all this, so getting too complacent up here isn't a good plan.

 

[Valcazar]

Isn't there a big difference in the Court permitting Mississippi's 15 week limit as opposed to opening up the possibility of Mississippi banning abortion altogether?

Yes.
Whittling down the limits slowly and claiming to never overturn Roe is much more politically savvy.
Just keep turning the screws and make it harder and harder without ever saying anyone can ban it outright.
It is like I was saying about overturning Brown.
No need to ever overturn it if you just make sure conditions on the ground keep schools segregated anyway.
Roberts understood that doing it that way gives cover for all the rhetoric about how "they aren't really overturning it and only activists are freaking out to fundraise" and so on.
It's been sound strategy for years now.

But there are people who want the big win and the liberal tears and the "fuck you, that's why" rush.
And they don't need him anymore to vote the way they want so he is shit out of luck.

 

[Darts]

Actually it swung aggressively right during Reagan

Reagan Democrats.
Reagan Democrat - Wikipedia

 

[Valcazar]

But yet the strict constitutionalist do not the think the same for gun law? Removing state regulations just 2 days ago?

You would have to believe the "strict constitutinalists" exist as a real thing.
"Originalism" and "textualism" are bullshit, as they constantly show in their actions.

 

[Darts]

Back in the day, the lefties could always count on the courts (especially the 9th Circuit) to bail them out. Now they are finding out that they must actually win count cases based on merit.

Proposition 8 is the classic example. The lefties lost the referendum so they ran to the courts to nullify the results.

 

[Valcazar]

Most of Western Europe enacted compromise legislation which survives - in part - because many of those countries are predominantly Catholic. And even Germany has an active Catholic political presence.

The restrictions in Western Europe are also the kind of thing that would be a move forward in the US and that isn't even getting into the fact they exist within a different context of health care and maternal support.