I think we’re mostly saying the same thing here. It’s territory the court doesn’t want to wade into; they don’t want to be seen as the one that’s opening a can of worms.
Unless you agree there are 5 current justices who absolutely want to overturn Roe v Wade, I don’t think we are saying the same thing at all.
Pretty sure this has zero chance of getting through the Senate but it’s a start.
Maybe in their minds they want to, but that’s not what matters. What matters is what they would implement. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m a gambler, and I’d be willing to wager they wouldn’t do anything to disturb the current Roe situation. (although this law is certainly a step in the wrong direction)
I smell a chance for a bet here.
1 Like
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said the landmark Roe v. Wade case that paved the way for legalized abortion in the US is “without a shred of support” from the Constitution.
In a bleak address, Alito took aim at abortion rights, same-sex marriage, gun control and other conservative bugbears.
Barrett, a Catholic and member of the religious group People of Praise, has also said that she personally believes life begins at conception, and that Roe “ignited a national controversy” by deciding the issue of abortion by court order rather than leaving it to the states.
It is alarming that the Louisiana law was blocked by so narrow a margin, as there is already clear precedent showing it is unconstitutional. The statue is nearly identical to a Texas law the supreme court struck down in 2016, ruling that requiring abortion providers to obtain hospital privileges is unduly burdensome and provides no medical benefit to women.
Also alarming is Brett Kavanaugh’s conduct in the case. While Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, joined the court’s liberals in putting a hold on the Louisiana law, Kavanaugh was not just in favour of the law, he wrote a dissent on his own behalf. This effectively argued that the law should go into effect as it wasn’t clear it would be unduly burdensome and we should just go ahead and see how it played out.
Second, Gorsuch wrote a note in his book about his mentor and former boss, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron R. White, who in 1986 said that abortion involves the death of a person in his dissent in “Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists.” Gorsuch characterized White’s dissent as arguing that “the right to terminate a pregnancy differs from the right to use contraceptives because the former involves the death of a person while the latter does not.”
Well, yeah - but that doesn’t mean they’d all actually do something to repeal Roe v. Wade if given the chance. I mean, did any of them explicitly say they’d do that?
No, they didn’t? Checkmate, lib.
Look, I’m not saying their beliefs probably don’t align with the Roe decision.
I’m saying that I also think they know we have a fairly stable situation right now with Roe, and I have doubts they would want to disturb that. There would be mutiny at the polls, Democrats would make HUGE political gains. I don’t think this would be a decision they’d want their names attached to, which is more or less what you said.
Then we disagree.
2 Likes
I did my part in reporting several definitely real-sounding people in real TX ZIP codes/counties who got abortions, with a variety of similar but not identical explanations.
1 Like
I have absolutely no idea what point you’re even trying to make.
What is it that we disagree with? You think the court IS likely to make a decision that would overturn it, I guess? I mean, fair enough if you think that; I just don’t think the zeitgeist is going in that direction. Just my two cents.
Yes, I believe the court as current constructed is actively looking for a way to overturn Roe and failing that to gut it from a legal stand point.
1 Like
Keep reading, eventually you’ll figure it out.
1 Like
Best I can tell is you are completely failing to understand my position on this matter.
Reading comprehension fail IMO
I think what you are missing is the implied sarcasm in Ted’s posts.
Oh, I understand your position on this matter. You articulated it pretty well.
It’s delusionally naive, it’s the same kind of “logic” that led to SCOTUS saying “there’s no proof that anyone will actually file a civil suit under this law” as a reason to not rule on whether it’s constitutional and thus allow the law to take effect as if it won’t have consequences that result, but it’s America, you’re allowed to be wrong as often as you want.
1 Like
No, I think the “Checkmate, lib” part is him somehow thinking I’m a conservative trying to argue with you on abortion rights, when the point was just whether or not we think the court will act on anything.
Checkmate, … we really need snarky one-syllable words for moderates and rightists that one can lob out as a knee-jerk, involuntary Tourette’s-like response, whether it really applies or not.
Great, now my lunch at B-Dubs is ruined. Thanks, Obama!
For all though who think the Handmaid’s Tale is a how to guide and not a cautionary tale, this ruling is great.
4 Likes