RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal

[Kukulkan]

We've just taken a huge step toward authoritarianism. We're slightly better than China right now. This country is lost, and I'm not sure it can find its way.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that. Abortion still remains legal in the majority of states right now and will most likely end up remaining legal in about 50%. I think this is an ugly wake up call that the SC cannot be trusted with issues like this. We have to pass laws not only for abortion, but contraception, marriage equality, etc. It is the only way we can effectively enshrine them in our democracy. Yes, we have taken a step off of the path for now, but I truly trust that our country will correct course. The wheels of our democracy will keep keep spinning, albeit sometimes at an excruciating slow pace.

Now isn't the time to throw in the towel and declare defeat. If anything this shows how important it is to vote. We have important elections coming up which can potentially have big implications in the context of passing abortion legislation in Congress.

[canpakes]

Griswold

Isn't this one just about married couples having the right to choose to use birth control without government meddling?

Is Thomas really suggesting that we need to revisit whether a married couple can be arrested for using a condom?

That’s correct.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

Brought to you by the party of ‘limited government’, who are now paving the way towards watching what contraception you can use - if any - and possibly using period tracker data to make sure that pregnant women stay pregnant ... or else.

[Vēritās]

Impeaching and threatening justices of the Supreme Court seems a bit insurrecty to me.

Maybe, instead of sending assassins and mobs to the houses of justices we do not like, or leaking confidential correspondence, we could find a non-insurrecty way to communicate with the court and implement their rulings.

Maybe you should stop pretending to be cute and witty by misrepresenting what people say.

Only an ignorant person would call impeachment "insurrecty."

"Communicate with the court"! Yeah, that always works doesn't it?

[Vēritās]

I wonder what the consequences of this decision will be in the decades to come? I imagine there are going to be a lot of babies born to people without the ability to rear them properly (even moreso than now).

Anyway. If I were an abortionist here in Utah I’d be renting space in Nevada and Colorado, next to the weed shops. They’re gonna make a killing. Ahem.

- Doc

It will prevent zero abortions and cause many women to die. We've already been through this before.

But the ruling doesn't make "abortions illegal." That is just what's going to be happening in certain states because radical judges with no integrity lied during their confirmation hearings.

[Kukulkan]

But the ruling doesn't make "abortions illegal." That is just what's going to be happening in certain states because radical judges with no integrity lied during their confirmation hearings.

The judges declaring that Roe was precedent contrasted to the current overturning is not lying. The idea that precedent cannot be overturned is ridiculous. At the time of their confirmations, it WAS precedent. Precedent is always being analyzed, and in some cases, overturned. It was exactly this idea that led to 60 years after Plessy v Ferguson, the 'separate but equal' doctrine being slapped down by Brown v Board of Education. If our country is to always be strapped down by precedent, we may have not seen the desegregation of society for another several decades, or at all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/ ... -roe-wade/

RGB has famously disliked the precedent and ruling of Roe. It has always had a shaky foundation.

[Binger]

One of the most important things to note about this decision is that it is a clear indication that the Supreme Court has lost its independence and has become a political body. It no longer has credibility as an nonpartisan entity as currently constituted.

We've just taken a huge step toward authoritarianism. We're slightly better than China right now. This country is lost, and I'm not sure it can find its way.

I think that the appointment of the justices is done by a political body, if I recall correctly. Maybe that is a better indication of how politics plays into this than any single decision, including this one.

I wonder if we can ask the justices, or even the public for that matter, whether threats to pack the court would help the court be less political or whether it would effect our perceptions of the political leanings of the court.

[Vēritās]

But the ruling doesn't make "abortions illegal." That is just what's going to be happening in certain states because radical judges with no integrity lied during their confirmation hearings.

The judges declaring that Roe was precedent contrasted to the current overturning is not lying. The idea that precedent cannot be overturned is ridiculous. At the time of their confirmations, it WAS precedent. Precedent is always being analyzed, and in some cases, overturned. It was exactly this idea that led to 60 years after Plessy v Ferguson, the 'separate but equal' doctrine being slapped down by Brown v Board of Education. If our country is to always be strapped down by precedent, we may have not seen the desegregation of society for another several decades, or at all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/ ... -roe-wade/

RGB has famously disliked the precedent and ruling of Roe. It has always had a shaky foundation.

They didn't just say it was precedent. That would have been a stupid question. Do you think it is precedent? Of course it is. What they were asked is how they would rule if the matter came up, and this is how they responded:

Amy Coney Barrett, 2020

“What I will commit is that I will obey all the rules of stare decisis, that if a question comes up before me about whether Casey or any other case should be overruled, that I will follow the law of stare decisis**, applying it as the court is articulating it, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts in law, just all the standard factors,” she said during her confirmation hearing in October 2020. “I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I’ll follow the law.”

Brett Kavanaugh, 2018

Roe v. Wade “is important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times. But then Planned — and this is the point that I want to make that I think is important. Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed Roe and did so by considering the stare decisis factors,” he said in 2018. “So Casey now becomes a precedent on precedent. It is not as if it is just a run-of-the-mill case that was decided and never been reconsidered, but Casey specifically reconsidered it, applied the stare decisis factors, and decided to reaffirm it. That makes Casey a precedent on precedent.”

Neil Gorsuch, 2017

Judge Gorsuch, President Donald J. Trump’s first nominee to the Supreme Court, refused to say how he would rule on abortion.
“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” he told senators in March 2017. “It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

He added, “For a judge to start tipping his or her hand about whether they like or dislike this or that precedent would send the wrong signal. It would send the signal to the American people that the judge’s personal views have something to do with the judge’s job.”

** Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions. Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_d ... 20decision

These people knew they could not get confirmed unless they assured Congress they would not seek to overturn Roe. They lied.

288860085_10100186504721235_6289441080314501817_n.jpg

[Some Schmo]

The wheels of our democracy will keep keep spinning, albeit sometimes at an excruciating slow pace.

The wheels have been stripped bare. A large portion of this country is no longer interested in democracy, primarily because they are the minority. The only way the minority gets their way is if they're represented by an authoritarian - and that is the GOP of 2022.

Now isn't the time to throw in the towel and declare defeat. If anything this shows how important it is to vote. We have important elections coming up which can potentially have big implications in the context of passing abortion legislation in Congress.

I will certainly vote, but unless I see this affecting the midterms in some significant way, I will assume enough people are good with it to make it stick. Our elected politicians give me no confidence in the electorate.

Telling women they have to have a baby no matter how they got pregnant or how it will impact theirs and the lives of those around them is being a dictator. People who call themselves "Pro Life" are damned confused. I saw a bunch of them carrying signs saying "Choose Life." These damned morons. How can you choose life if the choice is taken away?

Yeah, I suppose I envy your optimism, but I'm not catching the reason for it.

[Kukulkan]

Amy Coney Barrett, 2020

“What I will commit is that I will obey all the rules of stare decisis, that if a question comes up before me about whether Casey or any other case should be overruled, that I will follow the law of stare decisis**, applying it as the court is articulating it, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts in law, just all the standard factors,” she said during her confirmation hearing in October 2020. “I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I’ll follow the law.”

To interpret this as Justice Barrett saying she would not overturn Roe is naïve. You don't seem to have an understanding of what stare decisis means in this situation. It doesn't mean that if SC gets a case that was previously decided they just give their stamp of approval because a previous court already ruled on it. Following on the principle of stare decisis means that you give SPECIAL consideration to how previous courts have ruled on it. It doesn't prevent you from adding new information or new legal arguments, or completely overruling it. As pointed out, Brown v Board was a famous ruling that threw stare decisis out the window.

From https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... -hearings/

She also refused to say that Roe v. Wade was a “super precedent,” defining the term as a case that is universally accepted and that virtually no one advocates for overturning.

Although she said she believed that “indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category,” scholars say it “doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled, but descriptively it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted.”

Barrett said she would take into account stare decisis, a legal principle that says a judge should look to precedent when deciding on a current issue, when considering any case.

“Senator, what I will commit is that I will obey all the rules of stare decisis, that if a question comes up before me about whether Casey or any other case should be overruled, that I will follow the law of stare decisis, applying it as the court is articulating it, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts in law, just all the standard factors,” Barrett said at the hearing, referring to the 1992 Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that reaffirmed Roe.

Brett Kavanaugh, 2018

Roe v. Wade “is important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times. But then Planned — and this is the point that I want to make that I think is important. Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed Roe and did so by considering the stare decisis factors,” he said in 2018. “So Casey now becomes a precedent on precedent. It is not as if it is just a run-of-the-mill case that was decided and never been reconsidered, but Casey specifically reconsidered it, applied the stare decisis factors, and decided to reaffirm it. That makes Casey a precedent on precedent.”

Same thing here. He says he will apply stare decisis. In no way, shape or form does that mean that it LOCKS the court into deciding how past courts have. Just means they will give special consideration to how past courts have ruled on the issues. The majority of the time it means that they will come up with the same ruling and a small portion of the time it means what happened currently.

Neil Gorsuch, 2017

Judge Gorsuch, President Donald J. Trump’s first nominee to the Supreme Court, refused to say how he would rule on abortion.
“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” he told senators in March 2017. “It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

He added, “For a judge to start tipping his or her hand about whether they like or dislike this or that precedent would send the wrong signal. It would send the signal to the American people that the judge’s personal views have something to do with the judge’s job.”

Again, same thing. Just simply states that Roe at the time is precedent and will be treated as such.

** Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions. Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_d ... 20decision

These people knew they could not get confirmed unless they assured Congress they would not seek to overturn Roe. They lied.

No, they were incredibly careful on how they answered the questions as to remain judicially neutral as they should strive to be. Everything they said was relatively normal. That Roe is precedent and if challenged they would give it special consideration due to stare decisis. Never once did any of them say they would uphold Roe because of stare decisis.

On the same page you provided.

Although courts seldom overrule precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida explained that stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.” When prior decisions are “unworkable or are badly reasoned,” then the Supreme Court may not follow precedent, and this is “particularly true in constitutional cases.” For example, in deciding Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly renounced Plessy v. Ferguson, thereby refusing to apply the doctrine of stare decisis.

[Kukulkan]

The wheels have been stripped bare. A large portion of this country is no longer interested in democracy, primarily because they are the minority. The only way the minority gets their way is if they're represented by an authoritarian - and that is the GOP of 2022.

I can see how you feel that way. I think many felt the same way when they saw the country quite literally split during the Civil War. It was a huge test of our resolve as a democracy. We managed to persevere. I believe we can again.

I will certainly vote, but unless I see this affecting the midterms in some significant way, I will assume enough people are good with it to make it stick. Our elected politicians give me no confidence in the electorate.

Telling women they have to have a baby no matter how they got pregnant or how it will impact theirs and the lives of those around them is being a dictator. People who call themselves "Pro Life" are damned confused. I saw a bunch of them carrying signs saying "Choose Life." These damned morons. How can you choose life if the choice is taken away?

Yeah, I suppose I envy your optimism, but I'm not catching the reason for it.

While yes, there are states that restrict a woman's right to an abortion, we have to acknowledge and celebrate that there are states that respect it. That bodes well for our country. We should celebrate that. We all don't have our heads in the sand. I guess my optimism comes from the need to try to better the country. There is already so much bitterness and pessimism present in the current political sphere, I find that adding more is not healthy for those around me and for myself. I look at the country and all of the ugly scars and warts it has, many current and still growing, yet here we still stand. I look to the optimistic leadership of those such as Dr Martin Luther King Jr and his movement and how successful it was. That is what our country needs more of.