“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.

What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.

Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.

Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.

Federal laws are not sacred. Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about.

Very true. Also very true that having a law in place would make it much much much harder to attack abortion, and that even many moderate Republicans would support it -- again, it was REPUBLICANS in MISSISSIPPI who passed a law allowing abortion within the first 15 weeks.

You are gaslighting. Mississippi legislated to reduce access from the Roe/Casey viability standard to 15 weeks because they couldn’t ban it with Roe/Casey as the caselaw. 15 weeks is not their position. That law was just to get the question to SCOTUS.

It actually would be easier for the 5 SC Justices to overturn a federal law than it was to overturn Roe. With Roe they had to overturn a 50-year precedent. With a new law they don’t have that burden. They just say Congress doesn’t have the authority in the Constitution.

WTH are you talking about?

She is talking about how easy it is for the courts to invalidate federal laws republicans don’t like. She’s right. Particularly when the courts are packed with federalists. The states will sue, they will win, federal law won’t hold. We need the court to give women their rights back.

LOL, what law was invalidated by the Dobbs decision? As a gentle reminder, the court does not write laws - they cannot give rights to women that didn't exist in the first place either naturally or statutorily.

Ummmmmmm.........I had a constitutional right my entire reproductive life that is now stripped away from my and your daughters. So there is that.

Based on what? A court case that even Ginsburg agrees was poorly decided? You did not have a constitutional right to abortion. The court fabricated a right out of irrational logic - which was just as easily vacated by a subsequent decision.

Women have this right and they will exercise it if needed as they always have and always will. For 50 years, this country recognized it. Now we and our sons and daughters will re fight this fight untill the country again matches of with women's natural rights.

That's a baseless assertion.

Nope. It is a solid assertion.

As solid as a turd.

You are so clueless. Women will not be forced to give birth. Sorry.

Clueless is thinking anyone is forcing anyone to get pregnant and give birth. The argument here is that there is no constitutional right to abortion. Most agree there probably should be. I certainly think so. But just because I wish I was rich doesn't mean I am rich or that I deserve to be rich. I still need to actually do the things to become rich.

Where there is a will, there is a way as there always has been and will be. At some points the constitution was in line with this reality and at other points it was out of alignment.

The reality does not change, just the justices. When some are appointed with some respect for this reality, the right will be upheld again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.

What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.

Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.

Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.

Federal laws are not sacred. Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about.

Very true. Also very true that having a law in place would make it much much much harder to attack abortion, and that even many moderate Republicans would support it -- again, it was REPUBLICANS in MISSISSIPPI who passed a law allowing abortion within the first 15 weeks.

You are gaslighting. Mississippi legislated to reduce access from the Roe/Casey viability standard to 15 weeks because they couldn’t ban it with Roe/Casey as the caselaw. 15 weeks is not their position. That law was just to get the question to SCOTUS.

It actually would be easier for the 5 SC Justices to overturn a federal law than it was to overturn Roe. With Roe they had to overturn a 50-year precedent. With a new law they don’t have that burden. They just say Congress doesn’t have the authority in the Constitution.

WTH are you talking about?

She is talking about how easy it is for the courts to invalidate federal laws republicans don’t like. She’s right. Particularly when the courts are packed with federalists. The states will sue, they will win, federal law won’t hold. We need the court to give women their rights back.

LOL, what law was invalidated by the Dobbs decision? As a gentle reminder, the court does not write laws - they cannot give rights to women that didn't exist in the first place either naturally or statutorily.

Ummmmmmm.........I had a constitutional right my entire reproductive life that is now stripped away from my and your daughters. So there is that.

Based on what? A court case that even Ginsburg agrees was poorly decided? You did not have a constitutional right to abortion. The court fabricated a right out of irrational logic - which was just as easily vacated by a subsequent decision.

Women have this right and they will exercise it if needed as they always have and always will. For 50 years, this country recognized it. Now we and our sons and daughters will re fight this fight untill the country again matches of with women's natural rights.

That's a baseless assertion.

Nope. It is a solid assertion.

As solid as a turd.

You are so clueless. Women will not be forced to give birth. Sorry.

So when there is no exception for rape/incest you wouldn't call those situations forced births? Very Evangelical way of interpreting God's gift if so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.

What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.

Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.

Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.

Federal laws are not sacred. Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about.

Very true. Also very true that having a law in place would make it much much much harder to attack abortion, and that even many moderate Republicans would support it -- again, it was REPUBLICANS in MISSISSIPPI who passed a law allowing abortion within the first 15 weeks.

You are gaslighting. Mississippi legislated to reduce access from the Roe/Casey viability standard to 15 weeks because they couldn’t ban it with Roe/Casey as the caselaw. 15 weeks is not their position. That law was just to get the question to SCOTUS.

It actually would be easier for the 5 SC Justices to overturn a federal law than it was to overturn Roe. With Roe they had to overturn a 50-year precedent. With a new law they don’t have that burden. They just say Congress doesn’t have the authority in the Constitution.

WTH are you talking about?

She is talking about how easy it is for the courts to invalidate federal laws republicans don’t like. She’s right. Particularly when the courts are packed with federalists. The states will sue, they will win, federal law won’t hold. We need the court to give women their rights back.

LOL, what law was invalidated by the Dobbs decision? As a gentle reminder, the court does not write laws - they cannot give rights to women that didn't exist in the first place either naturally or statutorily.

Ummmmmmm.........I had a constitutional right my entire reproductive life that is now stripped away from my and your daughters. So there is that.

Based on what? A court case that even Ginsburg agrees was poorly decided? You did not have a constitutional right to abortion. The court fabricated a right out of irrational logic - which was just as easily vacated by a subsequent decision.

Women have this right and they will exercise it if needed as they always have and always will. For 50 years, this country recognized it. Now we and our sons and daughters will re fight this fight untill the country again matches of with women's natural rights.

That's a baseless assertion.

Nope. It is a solid assertion.

As solid as a turd.

You are so clueless. Women will not be forced to give birth. Sorry.

So when there is no exception for rape/incest you wouldn't call those situations forced births? Very Evangelical way of interpreting God's gift if so.

Some will be unfortunately be trapped but most with some knowledge and resources or ability it beg borrow or steal the needed resources will find a way to get the help they need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.

What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.

Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.

Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.

Federal laws are not sacred. Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about.

Very true. Also very true that having a law in place would make it much much much harder to attack abortion, and that even many moderate Republicans would support it -- again, it was REPUBLICANS in MISSISSIPPI who passed a law allowing abortion within the first 15 weeks.

You are gaslighting. Mississippi legislated to reduce access from the Roe/Casey viability standard to 15 weeks because they couldn’t ban it with Roe/Casey as the caselaw. 15 weeks is not their position. That law was just to get the question to SCOTUS.

It actually would be easier for the 5 SC Justices to overturn a federal law than it was to overturn Roe. With Roe they had to overturn a 50-year precedent. With a new law they don’t have that burden. They just say Congress doesn’t have the authority in the Constitution.

WTH are you talking about?

She is talking about how easy it is for the courts to invalidate federal laws republicans don’t like. She’s right. Particularly when the courts are packed with federalists. The states will sue, they will win, federal law won’t hold. We need the court to give women their rights back.

LOL, what law was invalidated by the Dobbs decision? As a gentle reminder, the court does not write laws - they cannot give rights to women that didn't exist in the first place either naturally or statutorily.

Ummmmmmm.........I had a constitutional right my entire reproductive life that is now stripped away from my and your daughters. So there is that.

Based on what? A court case that even Ginsburg agrees was poorly decided? You did not have a constitutional right to abortion. The court fabricated a right out of irrational logic - which was just as easily vacated by a subsequent decision.

Women have this right and they will exercise it if needed as they always have and always will. For 50 years, this country recognized it. Now we and our sons and daughters will re fight this fight untill the country again matches of with women's natural rights.

That's a baseless assertion.

Nope. It is a solid assertion.

As solid as a turd.

You are so clueless. Women will not be forced to give birth. Sorry.

So when there is no exception for rape/incest you wouldn't call those situations forced births? Very Evangelical way of interpreting God's gift if so.

Some will be unfortunately be trapped but most with some knowledge and resources or ability it beg borrow or steal the needed resources will find a way to get the help they need.

Ah, sounds like a perfect plan then! At least you forced birthers have thought through how individuals are supposed to manage in this cruel new world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.

What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.

Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.

Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.

Federal laws are not sacred. Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about.

Very true. Also very true that having a law in place would make it much much much harder to attack abortion, and that even many moderate Republicans would support it -- again, it was REPUBLICANS in MISSISSIPPI who passed a law allowing abortion within the first 15 weeks.

You are gaslighting. Mississippi legislated to reduce access from the Roe/Casey viability standard to 15 weeks because they couldn’t ban it with Roe/Casey as the caselaw. 15 weeks is not their position. That law was just to get the question to SCOTUS.

It actually would be easier for the 5 SC Justices to overturn a federal law than it was to overturn Roe. With Roe they had to overturn a 50-year precedent. With a new law they don’t have that burden. They just say Congress doesn’t have the authority in the Constitution.

WTH are you talking about?

She is talking about how easy it is for the courts to invalidate federal laws republicans don’t like. She’s right. Particularly when the courts are packed with federalists. The states will sue, they will win, federal law won’t hold. We need the court to give women their rights back.

LOL, what law was invalidated by the Dobbs decision? As a gentle reminder, the court does not write laws - they cannot give rights to women that didn't exist in the first place either naturally or statutorily.

Ummmmmmm.........I had a constitutional right my entire reproductive life that is now stripped away from my and your daughters. So there is that.

Based on what? A court case that even Ginsburg agrees was poorly decided? You did not have a constitutional right to abortion. The court fabricated a right out of irrational logic - which was just as easily vacated by a subsequent decision.

Women have this right and they will exercise it if needed as they always have and always will. For 50 years, this country recognized it. Now we and our sons and daughters will re fight this fight untill the country again matches of with women's natural rights.

That's a baseless assertion.

Nope. It is a solid assertion.

As solid as a turd.

You are so clueless. Women will not be forced to give birth. Sorry.

So when there is no exception for rape/incest you wouldn't call those situations forced births? Very Evangelical way of interpreting God's gift if so.

Some will be unfortunately be trapped but most with some knowledge and resources or ability it beg borrow or steal the needed resources will find a way to get the help they need.

Ah, sounds like a perfect plan then! At least you forced birthers have thought through how individuals are supposed to manage in this cruel new world.

.the sooner the forced birthers are voted out, the better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.

What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.

Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.

Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.

Federal laws are not sacred. Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about.

Very true. Also very true that having a law in place would make it much much much harder to attack abortion, and that even many moderate Republicans would support it -- again, it was REPUBLICANS in MISSISSIPPI who passed a law allowing abortion within the first 15 weeks.

You are gaslighting. Mississippi legislated to reduce access from the Roe/Casey viability standard to 15 weeks because they couldn’t ban it with Roe/Casey as the caselaw. 15 weeks is not their position. That law was just to get the question to SCOTUS.

It actually would be easier for the 5 SC Justices to overturn a federal law than it was to overturn Roe. With Roe they had to overturn a 50-year precedent. With a new law they don’t have that burden. They just say Congress doesn’t have the authority in the Constitution.

WTH are you talking about?

She is talking about how easy it is for the courts to invalidate federal laws republicans don’t like. She’s right. Particularly when the courts are packed with federalists. The states will sue, they will win, federal law won’t hold. We need the court to give women their rights back.

LOL, what law was invalidated by the Dobbs decision? As a gentle reminder, the court does not write laws - they cannot give rights to women that didn't exist in the first place either naturally or statutorily.

Ummmmmmm.........I had a constitutional right my entire reproductive life that is now stripped away from my and your daughters. So there is that.

Based on what? A court case that even Ginsburg agrees was poorly decided? You did not have a constitutional right to abortion. The court fabricated a right out of irrational logic - which was just as easily vacated by a subsequent decision.

This.

It's so obvious.

The US needs to pass a law. Like every other civilized country.

Which the forced birther fascists will just undo. You guys are so hateful and unamerican.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.

What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.

Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.

Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.

Federal laws are not sacred. Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about.

Very true. Also very true that having a law in place would make it much much much harder to attack abortion, and that even many moderate Republicans would support it -- again, it was REPUBLICANS in MISSISSIPPI who passed a law allowing abortion within the first 15 weeks.

You are gaslighting. Mississippi legislated to reduce access from the Roe/Casey viability standard to 15 weeks because they couldn’t ban it with Roe/Casey as the caselaw. 15 weeks is not their position. That law was just to get the question to SCOTUS.

It actually would be easier for the 5 SC Justices to overturn a federal law than it was to overturn Roe. With Roe they had to overturn a 50-year precedent. With a new law they don’t have that burden. They just say Congress doesn’t have the authority in the Constitution.

WTH are you talking about?

She is talking about how easy it is for the courts to invalidate federal laws republicans don’t like. She’s right. Particularly when the courts are packed with federalists. The states will sue, they will win, federal law won’t hold. We need the court to give women their rights back.

LOL, what law was invalidated by the Dobbs decision? As a gentle reminder, the court does not write laws - they cannot give rights to women that didn't exist in the first place either naturally or statutorily.

Ummmmmmm.........I had a constitutional right my entire reproductive life that is now stripped away from my and your daughters. So there is that.

Based on what? A court case that even Ginsburg agrees was poorly decided? You did not have a constitutional right to abortion. The court fabricated a right out of irrational logic - which was just as easily vacated by a subsequent decision.

Someone doesn’t know or care that abortion was legal at founding.

Legal according to whom?

It was legal for millennia. Like, get a goddamn clue. Learn the difference between enumerated powers of the government and the natural rights of people under the Constitution. The Supreme Court didn’t invent the right, it recognized that it always existed. Life, liberty, property, all implicated in a woman’s decision to keep a pregnancy or not.

The Robert’s Court took rights away that the Court had already recognized, the first time the SCOTUS has ever done such a thing in this country’s history.

Even if Congress were to pass a law protecting access to abortion (not even sure how it could be drafted) the federalist courts would be quick to claim the federal government can’t interfere with state criminal laws on the issue. I mean where did you get your education? Obviously not a decent law school, or you would understand that it’s a BFD to say there are no fundamental rights involved when it comes to abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly—why don’t Dems just say it and run on it? We need more senators so we can restore balance to the court. Haven’t seen any attempt at this messaging but I think it’s a winner. Dem senators need to get in line with it—it’s got to happen.

Because they've already said it. Some of us said over, and over, and over, and over again that THIS WOULD BE THE RESULT with a Republican Senate and President. We def sounded this alarm in the lead up to 2016.

And we were ignored b/c people "didn't like Hillary."

So.

Here.We.Are. And we can't undo it at this point. Not in the short term. Only in the very long term. We are stuck with this for a generation.

Are the Dems in the Senate really such cowards? It just makes me sick. End the filibuster and restore balance to SCOTUS. Why isn’t this what they’re running on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.

What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.

Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.

Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.

Federal laws are not sacred. Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about.

Very true. Also very true that having a law in place would make it much much much harder to attack abortion, and that even many moderate Republicans would support it -- again, it was REPUBLICANS in MISSISSIPPI who passed a law allowing abortion within the first 15 weeks.

You are gaslighting. Mississippi legislated to reduce access from the Roe/Casey viability standard to 15 weeks because they couldn’t ban it with Roe/Casey as the caselaw. 15 weeks is not their position. That law was just to get the question to SCOTUS.

It actually would be easier for the 5 SC Justices to overturn a federal law than it was to overturn Roe. With Roe they had to overturn a 50-year precedent. With a new law they don’t have that burden. They just say Congress doesn’t have the authority in the Constitution.

WTH are you talking about?

She is talking about how easy it is for the courts to invalidate federal laws republicans don’t like. She’s right. Particularly when the courts are packed with federalists. The states will sue, they will win, federal law won’t hold. We need the court to give women their rights back.

LOL, what law was invalidated by the Dobbs decision? As a gentle reminder, the court does not write laws - they cannot give rights to women that didn't exist in the first place either naturally or statutorily.

PP is responding the assertion that Congress should just pass a law legalizing abortion instead of relying on the right to bodily autonomy as a natural Constitutional right. PPs point is that if such a law were passed, it is too easy to strip away with the very next Congress. A constitutional right cannot be stripped away by Congress (but clearly an amoral Supreme Court can pretend it doesn't exist and allow legislatures to strip it away). Roe was the correct way to affirm that this right does indeed exist. It is unprecedentedly shocking that SCOTUS reversed it and changed its interpretation of the our Constitutional rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.

What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.

Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.

Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.

Federal laws are not sacred. Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about.

Very true. Also very true that having a law in place would make it much much much harder to attack abortion, and that even many moderate Republicans would support it -- again, it was REPUBLICANS in MISSISSIPPI who passed a law allowing abortion within the first 15 weeks.

You are gaslighting. Mississippi legislated to reduce access from the Roe/Casey viability standard to 15 weeks because they couldn’t ban it with Roe/Casey as the caselaw. 15 weeks is not their position. That law was just to get the question to SCOTUS.

It actually would be easier for the 5 SC Justices to overturn a federal law than it was to overturn Roe. With Roe they had to overturn a 50-year precedent. With a new law they don’t have that burden. They just say Congress doesn’t have the authority in the Constitution.

WTH are you talking about?

She is talking about how easy it is for the courts to invalidate federal laws republicans don’t like. She’s right. Particularly when the courts are packed with federalists. The states will sue, they will win, federal law won’t hold. We need the court to give women their rights back.

LOL, what law was invalidated by the Dobbs decision? As a gentle reminder, the court does not write laws - they cannot give rights to women that didn't exist in the first place either naturally or statutorily.

PP is responding the assertion that Congress should just pass a law legalizing abortion instead of relying on the right to bodily autonomy as a natural Constitutional right. PPs point is that if such a law were passed, it is too easy to strip away with the very next Congress. A constitutional right cannot be stripped away by Congress (but clearly an amoral Supreme Court can pretend it doesn't exist and allow legislatures to strip it away). Roe was the correct way to affirm that this right does indeed exist. It is unprecedentedly shocking that SCOTUS reversed it and changed its interpretation of the our Constitutional rights.

Yes. This. It’s genuinely the most radical thing the SCOTUS has ever decided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.

What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.

Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.

Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.

Federal laws are not sacred. Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about.

Very true. Also very true that having a law in place would make it much much much harder to attack abortion, and that even many moderate Republicans would support it -- again, it was REPUBLICANS in MISSISSIPPI who passed a law allowing abortion within the first 15 weeks.

You are gaslighting. Mississippi legislated to reduce access from the Roe/Casey viability standard to 15 weeks because they couldn’t ban it with Roe/Casey as the caselaw. 15 weeks is not their position. That law was just to get the question to SCOTUS.

It actually would be easier for the 5 SC Justices to overturn a federal law than it was to overturn Roe. With Roe they had to overturn a 50-year precedent. With a new law they don’t have that burden. They just say Congress doesn’t have the authority in the Constitution.

WTH are you talking about?

She is talking about how easy it is for the courts to invalidate federal laws republicans don’t like. She’s right. Particularly when the courts are packed with federalists. The states will sue, they will win, federal law won’t hold. We need the court to give women their rights back.

LOL, what law was invalidated by the Dobbs decision? As a gentle reminder, the court does not write laws - they cannot give rights to women that didn't exist in the first place either naturally or statutorily.

Facepalm. You bolded “we need the court to give women their rights back.” Thr PP you were reaponsnibg to was not saying that the court writes laws- she was saying that if Congress writes a law protecting abortion access it would likely be declared unconstitutional by the court. The court could not do this if it recognized that bodily autonomy is a right because Congress and state legislatures can’t pass laws that violate rights

Rights are not laws. No laws were specifically invalidated- but the right that women had to bodily autonomy was.

PP I was replying to specifically said laws. Learn to read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.

What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.

Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.

Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.

Federal laws are not sacred. Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about.

Very true. Also very true that having a law in place would make it much much much harder to attack abortion, and that even many moderate Republicans would support it -- again, it was REPUBLICANS in MISSISSIPPI who passed a law allowing abortion within the first 15 weeks.

You are gaslighting. Mississippi legislated to reduce access from the Roe/Casey viability standard to 15 weeks because they couldn’t ban it with Roe/Casey as the caselaw. 15 weeks is not their position. That law was just to get the question to SCOTUS.

It actually would be easier for the 5 SC Justices to overturn a federal law than it was to overturn Roe. With Roe they had to overturn a 50-year precedent. With a new law they don’t have that burden. They just say Congress doesn’t have the authority in the Constitution.

WTH are you talking about?

She is talking about how easy it is for the courts to invalidate federal laws republicans don’t like. She’s right. Particularly when the courts are packed with federalists. The states will sue, they will win, federal law won’t hold. We need the court to give women their rights back.

LOL, what law was invalidated by the Dobbs decision? As a gentle reminder, the court does not write laws - they cannot give rights to women that didn't exist in the first place either naturally or statutorily.

Rights are not laws. No laws were specifically invalidated- but the right that women had to bodily autonomy was.

PP I was replying to specifically said laws. Learn to read.

Facepalm. You bolded “we need the court to give women their rights back.” Thr PP you were reaponsnibg to was not saying that the court writes laws- she was saying that if Congress writes a law protecting abortion access it would likely be declared unconstitutional by the court. The court could not do this if it recognized that bodily autonomy is a right because Congress and state legislatures can’t pass laws that violate rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly—why don’t Dems just say it and run on it? We need more senators so we can restore balance to the court. Haven’t seen any attempt at this messaging but I think it’s a winner. Dem senators need to get in line with it—it’s got to happen.

Because they've already said it. Some of us said over, and over, and over, and over again that THIS WOULD BE THE RESULT with a Republican Senate and President. We def sounded this alarm in the lead up to 2016.

And we were ignored b/c people "didn't like Hillary."

So.

Here.We.Are. And we can't undo it at this point. Not in the short term. Only in the very long term. We are stuck with this for a generation.

Are the Dems in the Senate really such cowards? It just makes me sick. End the filibuster and restore balance to SCOTUS. Why isn’t this what they’re running on?

A) Generally, yes.
B) That would be an absolutely galvanizing action to the Right. Somehow, it became ingrained that SCOTUS is only 9 people, when we all know that it has changed numbers over time. But any change to that would somehow be viewed as not allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.

What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.

Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.

Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.

Federal laws are not sacred. Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about.

Very true. Also very true that having a law in place would make it much much much harder to attack abortion, and that even many moderate Republicans would support it -- again, it was REPUBLICANS in MISSISSIPPI who passed a law allowing abortion within the first 15 weeks.

You are gaslighting. Mississippi legislated to reduce access from the Roe/Casey viability standard to 15 weeks because they couldn’t ban it with Roe/Casey as the caselaw. 15 weeks is not their position. That law was just to get the question to SCOTUS.

It actually would be easier for the 5 SC Justices to overturn a federal law than it was to overturn Roe. With Roe they had to overturn a 50-year precedent. With a new law they don’t have that burden. They just say Congress doesn’t have the authority in the Constitution.

WTH are you talking about?

She is talking about how easy it is for the courts to invalidate federal laws republicans don’t like. She’s right. Particularly when the courts are packed with federalists. The states will sue, they will win, federal law won’t hold. We need the court to give women their rights back.

LOL, what law was invalidated by the Dobbs decision? As a gentle reminder, the court does not write laws - they cannot give rights to women that didn't exist in the first place either naturally or statutorily.

Ummmmmmm.........I had a constitutional right my entire reproductive life that is now stripped away from my and your daughters. So there is that.

Based on what? A court case that even Ginsburg agrees was poorly decided? You did not have a constitutional right to abortion. The court fabricated a right out of irrational logic - which was just as easily vacated by a subsequent decision.

Who cares what RGB thought about it? It was standing precedent for 50 years. And reaffirmed multiple times. In all cases, Republicans participated in those decisions finding abortion a protected right. This wasn't some decision issued in 2010 that hadn't been revisited.

All of the incoming SCOTUS justices said it was settled law. Stare Decisis requires more than just your personal objections to the decision to overturn. They changed it because they could. THe law changed b/c the composition of the court changed. Which is why many people think it was activist, biased, and the court's stature greatly diminished. It was a BS political decision, pure and simple.

[Anonymous]

RBG didn’t disagree with the decision. She would have reasoned it differently. So what?
It is a right.