In fairness, that's because congress rarely bothers to try. Do you think that national gay marriage bill would fail if they tried to pass it today?
SCOTUS Getting Shade Over Roe v Wade
- Thread starter The Original Sixth
- Start date
In fairness, that's because congress rarely bothers to try. Do you think that national gay marriage bill would fail if they tried to pass it today?
Reklos
Well-known member
Maybe I should go back and read that opinion. I just asked that question because I know a few acquaintances (I knew I misspelled that word) who believe exceptions for rape and incest are wrong.
And I definitely know they are going to crow about how this opinion means that abortion is automatically banned nationwide. But since you said that the opinion punts this over to the states and government to decide. Then I am going to have to explain on why the opinion does not exactly do that.
So now trust within SCOTUS is likely to be broken, as this was a grave breach of protocol and procedure.
Also:
Yes, Roberts wanted to get rid of Trump any way he could, and that is why he forced the elections cases to be either punted as 'no standing, as voting hasn't happened yet' or 'moot, voting already happened' to make sure no case that could challenge the results of the election went anywhere, regardless of merit or standing.
This action however shows that any trust or bipartisan feelings in SCOTUS are dead; the court is now a battleground of leaks and bullshit too.
But hey, at least no mean Tweets.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Perfect answer except for one thing: Mississippi.
I'm actually fuzzy on the rational for incest allowances. I strongly question the morality of rape as well, sins of the father and all that, but the rational is understandable as the child was conceived through a violation of consent. But if the incest was consensual, that's....really gross, but I'm not clear why it makes abortion permissible.
It's on the last few pages. I'd also grab the quotes where Alito explicitly says "just because we're overturning this, it doesn't mean Obergfell and those other cases are in question, they're totally different from Roe and aren't questionable the way Roe is", becuase dollars to donuts that ends up being the next line of attack. I've already seen Slate trying to push that angle.
I honestly don't believe rights should be up to a majority vote. That's why they are rights. And Congress would only vote for it now because it is already law. If it wasn't law, it'd get filibustered at best. The only reason it got popular in the first case was another court case in Massachusetts showing that normal families could result from it.
The reason I'm fine with a rape exception is that the mother has no obligation to the kid in such a case. She never consented to anything. It would be good of the mother to not have the abortion, but she has no duty to do this, and evacuations (extracting the fetus to try to keep it alive and growing) don't currently work at such an early time.
And incest is an exception because it's almost always rape, and that rises to near certainty if the woman is willing to tell whoever they need to (presumably law enforcement? IDK) in order to get an abortion. It's also easier to show if a court order is needed for the abortion.
That's fair, though I'd point out it's not entirely reasonable to argue that rights shouldn't be up to a majority vote, so SCOTUS is the correct avenue to argue for their enforcement, once they are recognized by a majority vote.
Yes, but in that case then it's covered by rape exemptions. I'm not clear on the argument for it when it's not rape.
Reklos
Well-known member
While I do understand that a liberal clerk leaking the draft would be the most likeliest conclusion. But there already are unsubstantiated things going around on Twitter that it was Justice Roberts or someone on his staff who is responsible for leaking the draft itself. We are not going to know who exactly leaked this until the dust settles
Last edited:
You mean SCOTUS being recognized by a majority vote, or something else?
It's easy to prove rape. Basically it's likely there will be a time crunch (as the woman understandably doesn't want to pregnant any longer than necessary), it facilitates it.
Let's not speculate who might have done it with such little evidence. Wait for some actual evidence.
Whodunnit?
Speculating on how the apparent Dobbs first draft from Feb. 10, 2022 was leaked.
reason.com
This speculates it might be non-justice, non-clerk. Like someone responsible for printing it, for example.
SCOTUS cases are resolved via majority vote.
Fair, but they are as close to telling if something violates rights as we got. I'd prefer some magic genie that just says "It violates rights", but we don't have that. The Supreme court at least makes an honest attempt at it, and usually succeeds. Majority vote doesn't even make the attempt.
And yeah, I think this is going to lead to bad stuff down the line based on voting alone. The democrats will finally rip down all the institutions after this. There will be no peace, and they'll get a majority vote to pack congress and other things.
Conservatives were winning the culture battle for the first time in my lifetime. This might just send it back. This achieves 0 new voters for republicans, all the pro lifers now got what they want, and can check out. This gets tons of money for democrats, especially for state house races.
I hate giving blackpills, but this is a big one. I hope I'm wrong, but democrats are set to win big, then enact abortion at the federal level and pack the court.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
They can only "enact abortion" if they have the willpower to kill the filibuster, and if they do that there's much less need to pack the courts rather than go on a legislative tear. God knows there's enough backlog on both sides of the aisle that would pass and never be held unconstitutional by even a hostile SC.
They nearly do have the willpower to gut the fillibuster, and they will by the next election. We (conservatives and libertarians) don't have the institutional power to withstand a full on fight.
Just one problem and it is this. Remember what a certain Democrat once said.
It's the economy stupid.
The economy is in the shitter right now. The left may go bonkers over the repeal of Roe. But that does not put food in their belly when shelves are bare. Or put gas in their SUVs when gas is over $4 dollars.
Yeah. Given the apoplectic meltdown from blue checkmark right now, I'm not really getting the sense that they think this will be a minor setback for a few months until they secure their majority and start passing everything they want.
That's not certain. They have 2 definite No votes against nuking the filibuster, and so because getting rid of the filibuster is a no go, the other 48 can say whatever they want to posture for the base, without having to make any hard decisions. If the didn't have that safety margin, a number of those Yes votes might tun out to be Nos.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Sure, and I wouldn't be that surprised if they do kill the filibuster if they still hold Congress in January. But my thinking is that, if the filibuster is dead, they would have plenty to occupy themselves with via legislation rather than risk the infighting that would result from court-packing. Even the New Dealers at the height of their power had problems with that on this question, as I recall.
Or maybe they can't even agree on killing the filibuster. But I don't see a world where they aren't willing to kill the filibuster but are willing to pack the court.
If they kill the filibuster, the first thing they'll do is force abortion through federally.
But thanks for giving me some hope. I should be happy right now, but I'm just terrified of the democrats going full on war.
I would hate to see a federal abortion statue passed too (assuming it mirrors currently abortion law, rather than a more moderate compromise bill), but even if it does happen that's still an improvement over the status quo. Striking that law from the books would be a matter of one election cycle to get enough votes, as opposed to striking down Roe which has taken 50 years to finally (hopefully) bring down.