SCOTUS Getting Shade Over Roe v Wade

[Abhorsen]

I really wanna know what special sort of LSD, weed, mushrooms, crack cocaine, or special mixture thereof they are either smoking or snorting or shooting up to make themselves THIS deluded.

This is, sadly, a gaping whole in the constitution that they could use given a big enough majority. SCOTUS and the other courts can just be stripped of any jurisdiction that isn't 'original' jurisdiction pretty easily.

Though hilariously, after they were done, they'd end up in basically the exact same place: "oh noes, we can't enforce Roe v Wade cause we don't have jurisdiction." So oddly, a weird way to lock in Dobbs permanently.

 

[Tiamat]

Socialism thats it anything for power and no attrocity to great to create their shitty utopia.

Won't argue there, the socialist dream of the "perfect utopia" is one hell of a drug after all, just ask it's legions of devout fanatics through history.

 

[WolfBear]

This is, sadly, a gaping whole in the constitution that they could use given a big enough majority. SCOTUS and the other courts can just be stripped of any jurisdiction that isn't 'original' jurisdiction pretty easily.

Though hilariously, after they were done, they'd end up in basically the exact same place: "oh noes, we can't enforce Roe v Wade cause we don't have jurisdiction." So oddly, a weird way to lock in Dobbs permanently.

Off-topic, but what effect would Dobbs have on adultery bans? On the one hand, Lawrence is still in effect, but on the other hand, Dobbs is somewhat in tension with Lawrence. There's an argument that Lawrence makes adultery bans untenable and thus unconstitutional.

 

[Blasterbot]

Off-topic, but what effect would Dobbs have on adultery bans? On the one hand, Lawrence is still in effect, but on the other hand, Dobbs is somewhat in tension with Lawrence. There's an argument that Lawrence makes adultery bans untenable and thus unconstitutional.

I don't believe Dobbs is in any way related to adultery legislation. Hypothetically if it is a ruling that did come into conflict what would need to happen is a state passes a law and someone sues the state and then it would go through an appellate process to the supreme court where they may or may not make the ruling that they also have no jurisdiction there.

 

[Bacle]

Off-topic, but what effect would Dobbs have on adultery bans? On the one hand, Lawrence is still in effect, but on the other hand, Dobbs is somewhat in tension with Lawrence. There's an argument that Lawrence makes adultery bans untenable and thus unconstitutional.

If this is off-topic, why bring it up here, when it has no relevance to Dobbs or RvW at all?

The fact is the US barely has 'adultery' laws at all, outside some barely enforced military regs, and this decision has nothing at all to do with anything other than abortion.

You have a bad habit of sticking off-topic ideas into threads only vaguely related to a matter, instead of just making a new thread about a subject.

 

[Abhorsen]

If this is off-topic, why bring it up here, when it has no relevance to Dobbs or RvW at all?

The fact is the US barely has 'adultery' laws at all, outside some barely enforced military regs, and this decision has nothing at all to do with anything other than abortion.

You have a bad habit of sticking off-topic ideas into threads only vaguely related to a matter, instead of just making a new thread about a subject.

Actually, I'd say this is on topic, in that it is specifically about Dobbs, and thus it's consequence. And the answer is maybe something if Thomas gets his way, but he likely won't.

Yes, there are promises in the opinion that this doesn't extend farther, but I think we all know Alito would love to extend those precedents farther. Personally, I think Lawrence (and likewise the unconstitutionality of adultery bans in general) are on far shakier constitutional grounds than gay marriage (Restricting marriage on race hits the Equal protection clause (Loving v Virgina) + Equal protection applies to sex discrimination as well as race (Reed v Reed) + LGT (not BQAI etc) discrimination is sex discrimination (Bostock) = banning same sex marriage is sex discrimination which violates Equal Protection). And I do know that the Texas AG has made noises about enforcing the sodomy laws, but the thing really defending those laws is the lack of political will to go after them.

 

[WolfBear]

If this is off-topic, why bring it up here, when it has no relevance to Dobbs or RvW at all?

The fact is the US barely has 'adultery' laws at all, outside some barely enforced military regs, and this decision has nothing at all to do with anything other than abortion.

You have a bad habit of sticking off-topic ideas into threads only vaguely related to a matter, instead of just making a new thread about a subject.

Done:

https://www.the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/adultery-bans-after-dobbs.8692/

And sorry.

Actually, I'd say this is on topic, in that it is specifically about Dobbs, and thus it's consequence. And the answer is maybe something if Thomas gets his way, but he likely won't.

Yes, there are promises in the opinion that this doesn't extend farther, but I think we all know Alito would love to extend those precedents farther. Personally, I think Lawrence (and likewise the unconstitutionality of adultery bans in general) are on far shakier constitutional grounds than gay marriage (Restricting marriage on race hits the Equal protection clause (Loving v Virgina) + Equal protection applies to sex discrimination as well as race (Reed v Reed) + LGT (not BQAI etc) discrimination is sex discrimination (Bostock) = banning same sex marriage is sex discrimination which violates Equal Protection). And I do know that the Texas AG has made noises about enforcing the sodomy laws, but the thing really defending those laws is the lack of political will to go after them.

The specific sodomy law that was in question in Lawrence was sex-specific: Male-male sodomy was criminalized but not male-female sodomy. Sex-specific sodomy bans are a violation of the ban on sex discrimination. But not sex-neutral sodomy bans. Though pre-Obergefell, one could still challenge sex-neutral sodomy bans (independently of Lawrence) on the grounds that opposite-sex couples who wished to engage in sodomy where it was illegal could simply marry whereas same-sex couples who wished to engage in sodomy did not have this option yet. This is assuming that sodomy bans could not be applied to married couples due to Griswold, of course.

 

[Bacle]

Actually, I'd say this is on topic, in that it is specifically about Dobbs, and thus it's consequence. And the answer is maybe something if Thomas gets his way, but he likely won't.

Yes, there are promises in the opinion that this doesn't extend farther, but I think we all know Alito would love to extend those precedents farther. Personally, I think Lawrence (and likewise the unconstitutionality of adultery bans in general) are on far shakier constitutional grounds than gay marriage (Restricting marriage on race hits the Equal protection clause (Loving v Virgina) + Equal protection applies to sex discrimination as well as race (Reed v Reed) + LGT (not BQAI etc) discrimination is sex discrimination (Bostock) = banning same sex marriage is sex discrimination which violates Equal Protection). And I do know that the Texas AG has made noises about enforcing the sodomy laws, but the thing really defending those laws is the lack of political will to go after them.

And pretty much all the other concurring Justice's specifically said nothing in the Dobbs decision should be seen as extending to anything but abortion.

So maybe don't act like the Right/SCOTUS is going to go full Handmaiden's Tale on anything that is LGB or 'progressive' friendly; we get enough of that sort of shit from the howler monkey's on CNN and the like.

 

[WolfBear]

 

[Typhonis]

Wolf? Your image isn't showing.

 

[Bacle]

House Democrats push bill to add four seats to Supreme Court

The effort comes after the high court overturned Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed abortion rights nationwide

justthenews.com

So the Dems are pushing to add 4 more seats to SCOTUS...

 

[posh-goofiness]

The article says they "demand" it. They haven't actually done anything yet. Nothingburger- they've been demanding court packing for months now.

 

[Cherico]

The article says they "demand" it. They haven't actually done anything yet. Nothingburger- they've been demanding court packing for months now.

Doing so would be crossing the political rubicon because you have a red wave coming and the republicans would be firmly justified in adding more conservative judges in revenge.

 

[Captain X]

Unless they just keep cheating like they have been, anyway.

 

[Cherico]

Unless they just keep cheating like they have been, anyway.

That only works to a point, and then it really doesn't work.

When you cheat to a certain level you basically open yourself up to be completely ahiliated by any one who has run out of fucks and decides to just enforce the law as written. And a whole lot of people are running low on fucks right now.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Anyone else catch AOC & the Squad + another dozen democrats getting escorted away from the Supreme Court during a pro-abortion rally?

Here's the pics that tells you all you need to know....







-- Photo Op Achieved! -- Pandering Level Gained! -- "I still look like an ass" award granted!!

 

[Captain X]

That only works to a point, and then it really doesn't work.

When you cheat to a certain level you basically open yourself up to be completely ahiliated by any one who has run out of fucks and decides to just enforce the law as written. And a whole lot of people are running low on fucks right now.

We'll see.

 

[Rocinante]

Anyone else catch AOC & the Squad + another dozen democrats getting escorted away from the Supreme Court during a pro-abortion rally?

Here's the pics that tells you all you need to know....

View attachment 1400

View attachment 1401

View attachment 1402

-- Photo Op Achieved! -- Pandering Level Gained! -- "I still look like an ass" award granted!!

This is so fake lmao

 

[strunkenwhite]

This is so fake lmao

I mean, pandering, sure. But they actually were arrested, at least for a little while, AFAIK.

 

[Captain X]

And while AOC pretended to be cuffed, she wasn't actually. None of them were, they were simple "escorted" away.