Page 1 of 5

SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:15 am
by highdesert
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.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:24 am
by featureless
God fucking damnit. I was so stupidly hoping this might have at least been tempered.

Time to fire up the underground railroad.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:26 am
by tonguengroover
Nothings set in stone with this court.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:33 am
by highdesert
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.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:36 am
by featureless
Abortion needs to be included in a universal right to healthcare. Unfortunately, it should have been codified years ago. This is profoundly painful news.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:39 am
by 7N6Wolf
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

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:42 am
by CDFingers
Perfect timing. Now the pundit weekend will be filled with Roe rather than with how guilty is the orange spirochete. Good pundits will connect the two.

The authoritarian mindset does not mind hypocrisy as long as the final solution is reached. As it were.

CDFingers

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:47 am
by INVICTVS138
Now the mask is off and SCOTUS is nothing more than a right wing religious, theocracy “court.” All that matters is the religious beliefs of the Justices, not the US Constitution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:05 am
by VpointVick
tonguengroover wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:26 am Nothings set in stone with this court.
Indeed.

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1540340414447755266

So next up is gay marriage, contraception, and just existing if gay.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:14 am
by TrueTexan
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.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:28 am
by highdesert
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.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:55 am
by TrueTexan
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?

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:00 pm
by sig230
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.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:10 pm
by YankeeTarheel
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.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:19 pm
by featureless
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

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:48 pm
by Bisbee
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.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:56 pm
by FrontSight
Family outing this evening, dinner and a protest.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:21 pm
by YankeeTarheel
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.....

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:32 pm
by Bisbee
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”.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:36 pm
by featureless
That's about right, Bis. Fucking miserable.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:53 pm
by CDFingers
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

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:07 pm
by Ylatkit
YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:21 pm Don't forget Dubya. He gave us Roberts, Alito, 9/11, ...
That's enough.

Trying to pin 9/11 on the sitting U.S. President is so feeble minded, fear-based and ignorant it's nauseating.

You will not be permitted to address me again.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:28 pm
by FrontSight
Well that didn't take long
Justice Thomas: SCOTUS ‘should reconsider’ contraception, same-sex marriage rulings
https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-thom ... 17580.html

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:51 pm
by tonguengroover
Will Thomas also vote for overturning Loving vs. Virginia?
Good one TT.

Heck, why not just do away with the whole 14th.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:11 pm
by highdesert
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.