SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

1
Dobbs vs Jackson Women's Health
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 2_6j37.pdf
ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., and KAVANAUGH, J., filed concurring opinions. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

4
We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.
So it's up to each state to decide on abortion.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

6
highdesert wrote:
We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.
So it's up to each state to decide on abortion.
“States’ Rights” has been the rallying cry for all sorts of vile, reactionary legislation, and things aren’t any different this time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"I have been saying for some time now that America only has one party - the property party. It's the party of big corporations, the party of money. It has two right-wings; one is Democrat and the other is Republican."
-Gore Vidal

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

10
All the yea votes are Catholics or raised Catholics in the case of Gorsuch. There is dancing in the Vatican today. Those voting yea should have had to recuse themselves due to their religious doctrine and beliefs. Separation of Church and State. INVICTVS138 is correct. We now have a Rightwing Theocracy "court". They have already ruled that church supported schools can receive tax money for support of their schools. Where will the separation of church and state be upheld or destroyed?

The loud thumbing you hear is the founding fathers spinning in their graves.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

11
I have no doubt this is basically Alito's leaked decision, but they added arguments against many of the dissenting opinions.
The most striking feature of the dissent is the absence of any serious discussion of the legitimacy of the States’ interest in protecting fetal life. This is evident in the analogy that the dissent draws between the abortion right and the rights recognized in Griswold (contraception), Eisenstadt (same), Lawrence (sexual conduct with member of the same sex), and Obergefell (same-sex marriage). Perhaps this is designed to stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights, but the dissent’s analogy is objectionable for a more important reason: what it reveals about the dissent’s views on the protection of what Roe called “potential life.”

The exercise of the rights at issue in Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell does not destroy a “potential life,” but an abortion has that effect. So if the rights at issue in those cases are fundamentally the same as the right recognized in Roe and Casey, the implication is clear: The Constitution does not permit the States to regard the destruction of a “potential life” as a matter of any significance.
I disagree with them about "potential life", but at least Griswold and Eisenstadt and Lawrence and Obergefell don't deal with a fetus and they should still be legal with this court. Again this puts more pressure on the feds to push medical abortions, since surgical abortions will be only available in some states.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

12
highdesert wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:28 am I have no doubt this is basically Alito's leaked decision, but they added arguments against many of the dissenting opinions.
The most striking feature of the dissent is the absence of any serious discussion of the legitimacy of the States’ interest in protecting fetal life. This is evident in the analogy that the dissent draws between the abortion right and the rights recognized in Griswold (contraception), Eisenstadt (same), Lawrence (sexual conduct with member of the same sex), and Obergefell (same-sex marriage). Perhaps this is designed to stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights, but the dissent’s analogy is objectionable for a more important reason: what it reveals about the dissent’s views on the protection of what Roe called “potential life.”

The exercise of the rights at issue in Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell does not destroy a “potential life,” but an abortion has that effect. So if the rights at issue in those cases are fundamentally the same as the right recognized in Roe and Casey, the implication is clear: The Constitution does not permit the States to regard the destruction of a “potential life” as a matter of any significance.
I disagree with them about "potential life", but at least Griswold and Eisenstadt and Lawrence and Obergefell don't deal with a fetus and they should still be legal with this court. Again this puts more pressure on the feds to push medical abortions, since surgical abortions will be only available in some states.
On Friday morning, Alito’s conservative colleague on the court, Justice Clarence Thomas, disagreed with that. In his own individual opinion, Thomas wrote that, in fact, overturning Roe should only be the first step. “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” he writes. “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous.’”

“Demonstrably erroneous.” There is very little that is vague about those words. With the death of abortion rights in America, Thomas has now come out and said, in no-uncertain terms, that cases that enshrined Americans’ rights to marry whomever they want and to make personal decisions about their intimacy and child-bearing are flat-out wrong. For now, that is just Thomas’ opinion—none of what he’s written is legally enforceable. But the fact that he’s stating this explicitly affirms the fears of advocates that for many conservatives the demise of Roe was never meant to be the end—but rather a bleak beginning.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... raception/

Will Thomas also vote for overturning Loving vs. Virginia?
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

13
TrueTexan wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:55 am
highdesert wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:28 am I have no doubt this is basically Alito's leaked decision, but they added arguments against many of the dissenting opinions.
The most striking feature of the dissent is the absence of any serious discussion of the legitimacy of the States’ interest in protecting fetal life. This is evident in the analogy that the dissent draws between the abortion right and the rights recognized in Griswold (contraception), Eisenstadt (same), Lawrence (sexual conduct with member of the same sex), and Obergefell (same-sex marriage). Perhaps this is designed to stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights, but the dissent’s analogy is objectionable for a more important reason: what it reveals about the dissent’s views on the protection of what Roe called “potential life.”

The exercise of the rights at issue in Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell does not destroy a “potential life,” but an abortion has that effect. So if the rights at issue in those cases are fundamentally the same as the right recognized in Roe and Casey, the implication is clear: The Constitution does not permit the States to regard the destruction of a “potential life” as a matter of any significance.
I disagree with them about "potential life", but at least Griswold and Eisenstadt and Lawrence and Obergefell don't deal with a fetus and they should still be legal with this court. Again this puts more pressure on the feds to push medical abortions, since surgical abortions will be only available in some states.
On Friday morning, Alito’s conservative colleague on the court, Justice Clarence Thomas, disagreed with that. In his own individual opinion, Thomas wrote that, in fact, overturning Roe should only be the first step. “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” he writes. “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous.’”

“Demonstrably erroneous.” There is very little that is vague about those words. With the death of abortion rights in America, Thomas has now come out and said, in no-uncertain terms, that cases that enshrined Americans’ rights to marry whomever they want and to make personal decisions about their intimacy and child-bearing are flat-out wrong. For now, that is just Thomas’ opinion—none of what he’s written is legally enforceable. But the fact that he’s stating this explicitly affirms the fears of advocates that for many conservatives the demise of Roe was never meant to be the end—but rather a bleak beginning.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... raception/

Will Thomas also vote for overturning Loving vs. Virginia?
Absolutely if he ever thinks Gini a liability or getting uppity.
To be vintage it must be older than me!
Stories coming to you from Deep South Texas!
The next gun I buy will be the next to last gun I ever buy. PROMISE!

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

14
This is what comes of so many on the Left being too fucking "pure" to vote for the Lesser of Two Evils.
The Naderites who COULD have made Al Gore the 43rd President but believed Nader's "Not a Dime's Worth of Difference" gave us John Roberts and Samuel Alito, author of this catastrophe, citing a 17th century misogynist executor of children for witch-craft.
The anti-Hillary "purists" who stayed home, especially in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and all those idiots who believe the Clinton eMail bullshit and thought "Why not give Trump a chance?" have loaded us with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.

FIVE Reactionary Supreme Court Justices because they were too fucking "pure" to vote for the lesser of two evils.

THIS is how Democracy dies! The refusal to sacrifice the perfect and in so doing, lose the good.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

15
You're not wrong, YT. I've held back the bile and voted the lesser of two evils my whole adult life (except Obama who I was excited to vote for the first time). But the democratic party also shares blame for not codifying Roe when they've had the ability to do so. Ginsburg warned us. We went after assault weapons instead. Lesson: when you have the power, use it to expand and secure rights, not restrict them.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

16
Well, ever the optimist, I believe that intelligence will be fired up by this decision. Intelligent Americans will view this turning of Roe v Wade with a straight line connection to the Jan 6 Commission hearings, see this as another disaster that befell the nation with 4 years of 45 at the helm. What harm could the nincompoop do to our country in just one term?

Plenty.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

18
Bisbee wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:48 pm Well, ever the optimist, I believe that intelligence will be fired up by this decision. Intelligent Americans will view this turning of Roe v Wade with a straight line connection to the Jan 6 Commission hearings, see this as another disaster that befell the nation with 4 years of 45 at the helm. What harm could the nincompoop do to our country in just one term?

Plenty.
Don't forget Dubya. He gave us Roberts, Alito, 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, turned a $500 billion budget surplus into a $1.4 trillion deficit.....
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

19
With regard to overturning Loving vs VA, just look at the power dynamics of Gini vs Clarence. Who wears the pants in that household? Gini would clearly ask her husband to help overturn Loving to allow State’s Rights and Ghad’s Will to prevail. And he would too... just to show his wife how powerful he was. Compensatory actions being a main driver in insecure men.

You are all correct. The rallying cry of “States Rights” is Regressivism pure and simple. That ethos is meant to keep women subservient, minorities inferior, and poor people sick and poor. And the sad thing is we will continue to see the current trend of rising deaths associated with Red state laws and funding policies. Covid mortalities, gun violence, infant mortality ... all demonstrably evident that bad outcomes results from conservative policies. But of course, “Ghad!” so Red states will continue Redder (and more extreme, turning their frustrations to DC) as things circle the drain and intelligent, capable people retreat to Progressive enclaves or be forced leave those states entirely for the West Coast in a new wave of American “dust bowl migration”.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

21
YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:10 pm

FIVE Reactionary Supreme Court Justices because they were too fucking "pure" to vote for the lesser of two evils.

THIS is how Democracy dies! The refusal to sacrifice the perfect and in so doing, lose the good.
Yes. Check this out from scotusblog

The only way we can restore the court — and democracy itself — is to add seats, and the only window to act is now. That’s why I welcome this opportunity to dive into concerns I hear from well-meaning skeptics.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/03/the- ... expansion/

Worthy discussion.

CDFingers
Image
Image

Baio, Baio, tell me how can this be?
You arrest the girls for turning tricks, but you're scared of Staggerlee

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

25
Thomas has always been more conservative than the other justices, no other justice joined his concurring opinion in this case. Kavanaugh in his concurring opinion states,
First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.
Thomas might want to do it, but the Rule of 5 requires he have five votes and I don't see him getting them.

This decision doesn't preclude Congress from passing a law legalizing abortion nationwide, but I don't see Democrats ever having 60 votes to overcome a Senate filibuster. So there will be some states where surgical abortion is legal and some where it is not.
Last edited by highdesert on Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 4 guests

cron