Are red states going to send slave hunters abortion finders into blue states to hunt down women who have abortions there?
Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion
- Thread starter Piscian
- Start date
Dont worry, that's not their end goal. They can do more than getting rid of the gays and contraception
I'm sure he thinks his marriage is safe. The Leopard hasn't eaten his face yet so all is well with the world.
Trump election was never about Trump
Trump election was a distraction so the GOP can manipulate the system
Trump was incredibly useful because he would call people murderers and rapist and specifically detail how he personally is a rapist but if anyone else uses a word like degernate, they are clearly evil and must be excised.
Just like Harlon Carter, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and Jerry Falwell before him, they get to lie and call everyone else evil, degenerate groomers but if anyone so much as talks, they can be labelled as evil
No matter how good someone is, it will not matter if the rules are different for different people
It's almost like the system is broken.. you might say systematically
(Note: I dont think Clinton would have been an even adequate president. I dont think Biden is good at all. They just wouldn't destroy the American culture like Trump and Reagan.)
Why would voting in someone at the state, or federal for that matter, do anything?
SCOTUS can just block anything they don't like, including reforms to SCOTUS
If there was reform after the Civil War, why would there be reform now? The general populace and voting never mattered, and will never matter, when it came to SCOTUS. This is THE whole point of SCOTUS. Blocking the 'dumb poor people', as the founding fathers call them, from having any powwe. This is what's intended in the US constitution
So basically states now have the right to tell women to go to other states to get the thing done. Or find someone who'll do it illegally.
Hmmm, I wonder what people are going to choose.
Also I learned that over 650K abortions are performed in the U.S every year which is like a LOT isn't it. I mean back in the 1980's in was 1.5mill per year so the rate has gone down, but that still sounds likes a lot.
Hmmm, I wonder what people are going to choose.
Also I learned that over 650K abortions are performed in the U.S every year which is like a LOT isn't it. I mean back in the 1980's in was 1.5mill per year so the rate has gone down, but that still sounds likes a lot.
Well, overturning Obergefell is going to be a significantly harder ask than Roe or Griswold. First things first, it's a straightforward equal protection question, which means the court's leeway to overturn it is fairly limited and hinges on basically three sub-questions as per Carolene Products footnote four (the same ones upon which Obergefell hinged):
1. Is marriage a fundamental right?
2. Is sexual orientation grounds for suspect classification?
If either answer is "yes", the default standard for review is strict scrutiny. Only in the case that both are "no", can the court fall back to rational basis and find grounds to overturn Obergefell. Third question, not so important and it pretty much answers itself.
3. Is the Fourteenth Amendment part of the US Constitution, and therefore, is this legal question related to an enumerated constitutional right?
So, the conservative scrotus majority has to engineer an opinion that manages to argue marriage isn't a fundamental right, and that sexual orientation isn't grounds for suspect classification.
Without proving the counterpoint in the very process of engineering such opinion. The argument for prohibiting same-sex marriage is of marriage's presumed sanctity, and the very act of excluding same-sex couples from that right proves in and of itself the need for suspect classification.
The only conservative Supreme Court justice to have sat the bench in the last seventeen years who had anywhere near the intellect to proffer such an opinion that navigates those politically and logically treacherous waters, died in 2016. And they'll be having to do that without Roberts, who while being in Obergefell's minority, won't be so quick to overturn it now that it's established law.
Obergefell is a distraction right now; the real goalpost is overturning Griswold and that has nothing to do with contraception, I can promise you that. Because Griswold isn't just about contraception, it's a privacy case and overturning it will have ramifications on criminal procedure and law equivalent to that Chevron had on administrative law. The Miranda opinion that was handed down, is just a prelude to what happens when scrotus sets its gaze on Griswold.
Texas and Oklahoma already passed laws allowing citizens to sue anyone who helps someone leave the state to get an abortion. Kavanaugh has said he doesn't think doing so is Constitutional, but Kavanaugh also said he wouldn't vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, so....
The worry is that someone who lives in X will go to Y, get an abortion, and then be prosecuted once they return to X, despite it being totally legal to get one in Y.
I guarantee you this is gonna be the next step. States Rights are only for Red states, dontchaknow.
In truth, these barriers don't count for very much. The legal requirements and thresholds you've outlined above might sound very compelling to us on a straightforward logical basis, and they might even be quite meaningful in a system where judges were bound by such concerns.
But in practice, its not difficult for someone to bang out a justification for circumventing or disregarding those barriers. Apply a little tortured logic here; a little sympathetic emphasis there, and almost anything can be bypassed... after all, these are the judges that saw fit to disregard rights on the basis that they weren't old enough.
Personal political inclinations mean far more in the SCOTUS than sound legal reasoning. It's not as if the vast majority of people will even look at the wording of the ruling, and they know it. And even those who do are essentially powerless. It's unspoken but fully recognised throughout the country that the judiciary is another partisan body, only without the elections that occasionally irritate the executive and legislature.
Sounds to me like since RvW introduction, the number of performed abortions was cut by well over a half.
I'm as much a legal realist as any other person, but legal realism aside even a Supreme Court justice cannot merely say "because I said so". There very much still are boundaries on federal judicial power and the overall legitimacy of the court to consider, and even a justice like Felix Frankfurter -- the most-overturned justice to the best of my continuing knowledge -- needed legal bases upon which to write opinions.
Hence, Roberts' concurrence, but refusal to join the majority.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Dred Scott took not just one but two amendments to the US Constitution (and a civil war in the meantime) to fully overturn, because it was a legally-ironclad opinion. Whether or not you agree with the case, its ratio, or its disposition, it was legally ironclad. Make of my direct and deliberate comparison of Dobbs to Dred Scott, what you will.
Do.... you think ANY of this matters? They just got rid of Roe v Wade without making a counterpoint. Or logic. Eg. to SCTOUS sexual orientation is a disease that needs to be cured, not pandered to. They can be banned from marriage because they need medical help. Marriage is like guns, a fundamental right.... for healthy people.
Also, yes. Griswold is not the real goal. It's a stepping stone to getting rid of privacy. It's been the whole point. I've already stated this, in this thread. Trump continually banged on about getting rid of free speech, so pick a bunch of precedents to do with that to. I also wouldnt be surprised if Miranda starts coming up. Another stepping stone here is to stop race mixed marriage. Someone here stated that this would 'send abortion medicine into overdrive.' Yes, these conservatives have already thought of this. That's why they are targeting privacy. It's why for decades people have been using the 'Nothing to Hide' argument... specifically to get you to give up your privacy
It's why you have stupid laws like only legally being allowed 6 dildos in Texas and having to euphemisms in Texas that stands in for dildos. You cant enforce this law effectively without getting rid of privacy and free speech and letting people have the ability to defend themselves.
Y'allnewd to remeber that a century old concealed carry law was just struck down too. The 2nd amendment was significantly changed within my lifetime based on the flimsy excuse that you can ignore the part of a statement that's contained within commas.
Logical reasoning doesn't actually matter. There's no Supremer Court that's making sure these people stay within logical limits. "The 14th amendment doesn't say sexual orientation" is all they need to explode gay marriage. If that.
And they will. Not to mention that "what kind of sex you have" isn't a constitutional right, so there's contraception and sodomy too.
SCOTUS has struck down state laws. In this very session. In a very partisan way. Eg. NY and Maine. No, it doesn't matter what Texas does to Colorado's laws. That's not what I said. I said that SCOTUS will interfere with state laws
Let's say there is two court cases, one that challenges Colardo's abortion new law and one that challenges Texas' abortion laws. SCOTUS will make Colorado's law invalid and make Texas' precedent. That's how the Supreme Court works
Anyone done a tally on how many Justices lied to get on the Supreme Court?
I think that's important
It is a less than ideal solution, and a bandaid at that, but the first step to fixing this mess is to unpack the court. Three more Justices, STAT. Snap to it, Congress.
But to accomplish that we've got to pack both houses. And to do that, Dems have got to learn to fall in line like the Republicans do. That's how we ended up with Trump. That's how the court got packed.
But to accomplish that we've got to pack both houses. And to do that, Dems have got to learn to fall in line like the Republicans do. That's how we ended up with Trump. That's how the court got packed.