Roe v Wade Overturned

I hope that women in those backward states that pass the anti-choice laws should now sue for child support upon conception, or whenever the state law indicates that life begins.

 

Thank you Harry Reid for ending the judicial filibuster. Thank you RBG for hanging on to that lifetime appointment until the bitter end. Thank you Hillary Clinton for opting to see Hamilton for a 3rd time on Broadway instead of campaigning in Wisconsin. Thank you Bernie Bros for refusing to pull the lever for Hillary Clinton. Thank you to the clerk that leaked the decision, as it took the wind out of the sails of the announcement and did not serve to change the decision in any meaningful way. And finally, thanks to the left for filling up this board, nay, all of the internet and news broadcasts with your cope and seethe. Have a great weekend all-me, I'm heading to San Diego for some mountain biking and a dip in the ocean!

 

Classic lawyer brain

 

I disagree.

While the candidates did say Roe v Wade as precedent (duh!), they qualified the precedent as "important", "reaffirmed", "anchor of law", "reaffirmed", "settled law", "reaffirmed", "settled", and "settled". When asked if they would overturn it, they threw up their hands and said the equivalent of "well... never say never".

Then they overturn it the first chance they get with a majority.

One may applaud them for their lawyer's dodges, but it's my opinion it was their intent to deceive the American people and our representatives.

 

A bit of advice...don't feed the troll...

 

I would prefer 18 but it’s certainly better than what these other states are doing. Take a look at Arkansas

The Florida legislature is not going to touch this with a ten foot pole right now.

 

I knew we had voted that way, but don't believe it is triggered and not presently law because it would have been considered unconstitutional before today, correct?

 

Not correct. The 15 weeks wasn’t triggered based on this case. It is the current law and there is no indication that the legislature will revisit in a special session as that would be a problem for DeSantis.

 

I envision a 16 year old smirking giggling wannabe proud boy hunched over a keyboard in his Mom's basement....Don't feed the troll...

 

Kavanaugh's concurrence sums it up nicely:

quote:
On the question of abortion, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected representatives to resolve through the democratic process in the States or Congress—like the numerous other difficult questions of American social and economic policy that the Constitution does not address.

quote:
To be clear, then, the Court’s decision today does not outlaw abortion throughout the United States. On the contrary, the Court’s decision properly leaves the question of abortion for the people and their elected representatives in the democratic process. Through that democratic process, the people and their representatives may decide to allow or limit abortion.

 

You sure are making a lot of assumptions in this post....but it makes for good drama so carry on.

 

He also says states may not bar interstate travel although the constitution is neither pro nor anti interstate travel. Originalism sucks.

Justice Kavanaugh Says States May Not Bar Travel to Obtain an Abortion

 

Congress had almost 50 years to codify Roe vs. Wade into Federal law. It is very unlikely that the Supremes would overturn a law passed by the House and Senate, signed by the President. Pro-choice legislators allowed that boat to sail.

Gun rights are protected by the Constitution, as opposed to abortion rights. This concealed carry ruling is no big deal. How many murders are committed by concealed carry gun owners? I don't know the answer, but we should know it. Every murder should be entered into a Federal database. Data can be extracted in all manner way shape and form to reach sound conclusions supported by evidence. Until this happens we are pissing in the wind.

 

They'll just charge you when you return

 

The majority goes out of its way to say that abortion is a unique issue based upon the life/potential life of the fetus. Okay, I actually think that's a fair distinction. But rather than analyzing or weighing the states' interests in protecting that life/potential life vis a vis the reproductive rights of women, it simply rules that women have zero constitutional interests when it comes to abortion. None. So it's just going to use a rational basis test from here on out.

Its finding of a wholesale absence of any constitutional right in the context of abortion is based upon its textual and historical arguments. Given its analysis, how could the majority not overrule cases which found constitutional rights to contraceptives, to consensual sexual activity, or to same sex marriage? None of those rights are expressly enumerated in the Constitution either ("Hey, where is the word 'sodomy' in the Constitution!??"), and those cases were even more recent. Perhaps they could - because another life is not implicated with those issues - decide to uphold those rights under stare decisis. But that would make little sense if those purported "rights" were just invented by the Court, unlawfully usurping the rights of the people. To be clear, that is what Alito said of the same sex marriage Opinion in Obergefell.

Yet, despite all that, Alito suggests in this case that the dissent is stoking "unfounded fear" that this decision will impact those other rights/cases. This really seems like gaslighting to me.

 

Great day for the most innocent.

We will be judged for legally allowing the killing of the most innocent the Pat 50 years. And the states that continue to allow the legal killing of the most innocent will continue to be judged.

This was a good correct step.

 

I sure hope so, hell has to be an improvement on this damn country and the insufferable fools who inhabit it

 

Possible after 50 years of killing the most innocent legally for convenience.

And states can continue to do so. Hopefully all will not. But…

 

I'm not discounting your observations or criticisms or suggesting this is what you're proposing. But as human and imperfect as the Court is, I'm concerned about a scenario where the Court is viewed as so illegitimate that its rulings are ignored. What happens in cases like Bush v. Gore or the Trump election cases, for example? Are we just going to fight it out in the streets? What if liberal states or cities decide to ignore the 2nd Amendment rulings and start taking guns or locking up gun owners? What if conservative states or cities decide they're going to start prosecuting gay sex again or doing whatever else they're fired up about that day? And if SCOTUS is illegitimate, is there reason to believe we won't start ignoring lowering courts or even state supreme courts? Not sure where that ends.