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

[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?

DP. People fear change. Part of why abortion is proving to be an effective issue for democrats so far this election cycle is that people are afraid of what might happen now that abortion laws have changed, and would prefer to stick to the pre-Dobbs status quo. Campaigning on fundamental changes to SCOTUS will have the opposite effect for many people, driving them away from democrats because they would fear this change and the unknowns that would flow from it.

[Anonymous]

The forced birther on here who is trying his or her best to appear rational and thoughtful can’t help but show how little they think of women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree on B. What was galvanizing was Mitch McConnell denying a sitting president a vote on Supreme Court Justice, and then going unchallenged. The way to challenge that power grab was to expand the court in response. A proportional response.

It’s time for people to stop peeing their pants in fear.

[Anonymous]

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

It is not a right in ANY country to practice abortion at will -- except perhaps in China or North Korea.

Some Americans are so ignorant it's painful.

You had decades to get a law in place. Still, better today than never.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. People fear change. Part of why abortion is proving to be an effective issue for democrats so far this election cycle is that people are afraid of what might happen now that abortion laws have changed, and would prefer to stick to the pre-Dobbs status quo. Campaigning on fundamental changes to SCOTUS will have the opposite effect for many people, driving them away from democrats because they would fear this change and the unknowns that would flow from it.

This is at least an explanation but I don’t know that you are correct. People understand that an out of control SCOTUS took their rights away. Just needs repeating. Then the solution, restoring balance to the court, doesn’t sound scary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

It is not a right in ANY country to practice abortion at will -- except perhaps in China or North Korea.

Some Americans are so ignorant it's painful.

You had decades to get a law in place. Still, better today than never.

The US constitution doesn’t give us rights you numbskull. It protects the ones the creator gave us, including the right to decide what happens with my healthcare, subject to constraint by the state in only the most compelling cases. That is the correct reading of the law, and one the SCOTUS chose to completely trash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree on B. What was galvanizing was Mitch McConnell denying a sitting president a vote on Supreme Court Justice, and then going unchallenged. The way to challenge that power grab was to expand the court in response. A proportional response.

It’s time for people to stop peeing their pants in fear.

That was not galvanizing - LOL. Do you not recall who won the Presidential Election a few months later?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP. People fear change. Part of why abortion is proving to be an effective issue for democrats so far this election cycle is that people are afraid of what might happen now that abortion laws have changed, and would prefer to stick to the pre-Dobbs status quo. Campaigning on fundamental changes to SCOTUS will have the opposite effect for many people, driving them away from democrats because they would fear this change and the unknowns that would flow from it.

Restoring balance to the court, affirming the right to choose, IS returning to the status quo though.

[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.

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.

The irony. Either the constitution contained a protection for abortion or it didn't, the reality of this didn't change in this regard. As you said, only the justices changed. Clearly, the constitution did not change. If you want the constitution to align with some desired goal, the way to do it is to amend the constitution or pass legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree on B. What was galvanizing was Mitch McConnell denying a sitting president a vote on Supreme Court Justice, and then going unchallenged. The way to challenge that power grab was to expand the court in response. A proportional response.

It’s time for people to stop peeing their pants in fear.

That was not galvanizing - LOL. Do you not recall who won the Presidential Election a few months later?

Yeah, that was my point. The power grab turned republican voters on. And Dems were afraid to even whisper “pack the court” in response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

It is not a right in ANY country to practice abortion at will -- except perhaps in China or North Korea.

Some Americans are so ignorant it's painful.

You had decades to get a law in place. Still, better today than never.

The US constitution doesn’t give us rights you numbskull. It protects the ones the creator gave us, including the right to decide what happens with my healthcare, subject to constraint by the state in only the most compelling cases. That is the correct reading of the law, and one the SCOTUS chose to completely trash.

This is getting more fascinating by the day.

Are there some meds/ therapy for mass delusion?

[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.

Just wait til it happens to someone YOU love.


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: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.

BS. Show me the law in the US back in the time that the constitution was written that made abortion legal across it. The consideration here cannot be "it was legal somewhere". By that logic, slavery was a constitutionally protected right and the northern states were violating people's rights to engage in slavery.

Your second claim about the courts invalidating federal law is only a concern if congress tries to pass laws using powers it does not have under the constitution. Clearly, congress has passed numerous laws with regards to health care under its commerce powers. Your concerns in this regard are, therefore, ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Are Trump’s lawyers in here trying to argue constitutional law? Or maybe it’s just an Alito clerk.

[Anonymous]

Omg, yes let’s take about the right to own… other people’s bodies… that the southern states fought and lost a war over.

What you decide to do with your own body is the most basic of freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.