Draft Alito opinion leaked overturning Roe

testing

 

Why wouldn't independence be a prerequisite for life to have its own protections? And I'm defining independent in a very narrow way. It simply means capable of surviving for more than a de minimis amount of time without its host.

 

There are a lot of things we assume are protections, but like abortion the constitution doesn’t give them that right. The right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers for one. The right to procreate isn’t protected. The right to travel wherever you want isn’t in the constitution or protected. The right for anyone, gay or straight, to get married isn’t protected by the constitution. By your logic any of those things can be taken away just like the right any woman to have control of her medical decisions.

 

No one “lied” or “promised” how they would rule on any case in their confirmation hearings. In fact all of them repeatedly and expressly refused to answer questions about how they would rule on any number of things (including abortion).

To the extent someone decided to read “Roe is precedent” as anything other than “well, it is a decision by the Supreme Court,” that’s on them. Because literally everyone involved in the process was very well aware that’s all that answer means.

 

Garbage. You guys would be going nuts if a nominee told the judiciary committee during their confirmation hearing that Heller was the law of the land as a direct answer to a direct question and then turned around and voted to overturn it.

 

Are we still subjects of the British crown?

 

This truly feels like the twilight zone. I can’t believe this shit. Blatant political maneuvering by the Supreme Court. This country is so (messed up).

 

I don’t know why independence wouldn’t be a part of the definition of life, but I also don’t know why it would. All definitions are human constructs. The word “life” doesn’t really have an inherent nature that predates our thinking, and our thinking on this point has been anything but clear:
What Is Life? Its Vast Diversity Defies Easy Definition.

In addition, what is a “host”? If you put any organism into a habitat that isn’t it’s environment, it will die. A pineapple plant can’t live in the desert. A coral can’t live off the coast of California. A human can’t live in the ocean. All living things are completely dependent upon other living things as well as abiotic factors. In fact, many are starting to view human and their associated microbiomes as “superorganisms”:
The human superorganism - of microbes and men - PubMed

I just can’t see a way to define life without invoking rather arbitrary criteria.

 

Ben isn't wrong. Were they intentionally misleading? Yes. Is it perjury? No. But let's be honest, how many people actually believed they weren't going to overturn Roe?

 

Judicial decision making is a game of drawing arbitrary lines. I'd rather draw those arbitrary lines in a way that maximizes personal freedoms.

 

Unbelievable.

 

What’s the difference between intentionally misleading and a lie in this context? And I never said it was perjury. But it was a lie.

 

testing curtis

 

There is no way that Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett told them how they would rule on this. I don’t believe them.

 

Easy for males to say when they don't have to face the possibility of being pregnant.

 

Clever gamesmanship, frankly. It's lawyer speak. Using words that give the listener a perception that is different from what the words literally mean. Roe v. Wade technically was precedent when they made those comments. But the comments themselves were intended to convey that they respected it as precedent. But again, I think most folks who knew their records were well aware of what they'd do with Roe.

 

What nonsense. Griswold, Roe and Casey and every other decision based on a right to privacy will be overruled if this decision goes final. There never has been a constitutional right to an abortion. It was always a balance between privacy rights and the unborn child. Just like there is no constitutional right to wear a prophylactic. And, no constitutional right to refuse medical treatment the state wants to force in you. Etc.

 

..... aka everyday at my house

 

There is no such thing as whataboutism in a court case. Once you overrule a right, Such as the right to privacy, then every opinion applying that right is overruled. That is what if you listen to an oral argument, they ask about the consequences of the position you argue. Row could be overruled while Still recognizing the right to privacy by concluding that the interest in the life of the fetus outweighs the interest in terminating the pregnancy. This court is going to take away individual rights and empower government for a long time. And the right will cheer them.

 

The ‘Pubs, if they take complete control of the federal government could pass federal legislation banning abortion. Getting rid of the filibuster would not be a problem for them.