“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: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.

No, no one has made any formal legal claim that abortion rights is tied to "bodily autonomy". Roe was decided on the right to privacy. If your concern about laws being overturned is valid, then the same could be said of any law - the law outlawing slavery, the law establishing protected classes. Why have any laws? I am shocked that you think the constitution cannot be amended through congress action... or maybe not. While laws can indeed be changed, it is far more durable than relying on judges to interpret vaguely written laws, or construct rights out of nothing. No respected legal scholar believes Roe "was the correct way" to affirm the right to abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

You're confusing euthanasia with abortion.

[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.

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.

No, no one has made any formal legal claim that abortion rights is tied to "bodily autonomy". Roe was decided on the right to privacy. If your concern about laws being overturned is valid, then the same could be said of any law - the law outlawing slavery, the law establishing protected classes. Why have any laws? I am shocked that you think the constitution cannot be amended through congress action... or maybe not. While laws can indeed be changed, it is far more durable than relying on judges to interpret vaguely written laws, or construct rights out of nothing. No respected legal scholar believes Roe "was the correct way" to affirm the right to abortion.

I posted a comment on this months ago, but Roe was written at a time when no one talked about women’s bodies. Privacy was a euphemism.

Also. The Constitution was amended to abolish slavery, in case you missed that in law school. Lightweight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You're confusing euthanasia with abortion.

Rights are not absolute. They are subject to constraint by the state in compelling circumstances. The test that the SCOTUS just threw out by erasing women’s rights. Euthanasia and abortion are both private medical decisions—state needs to justify itself more compellingly than they do for issuing parking tickets.

[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.

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.

No, no one has made any formal legal claim that abortion rights is tied to "bodily autonomy". Roe was decided on the right to privacy. If your concern about laws being overturned is valid, then the same could be said of any law - the law outlawing slavery, the law establishing protected classes. Why have any laws? I am shocked that you think the constitution cannot be amended through congress action... or maybe not. While laws can indeed be changed, it is far more durable than relying on judges to interpret vaguely written laws, or construct rights out of nothing. No respected legal scholar believes Roe "was the correct way" to affirm the right to abortion.

I posted a comment on this months ago, but Roe was written at a time when no one talked about women’s bodies. Privacy was a euphemism.

Also. The Constitution was amended to abolish slavery, in case you missed that in law school. Lightweight.

DP: I am getting a bit lost here, but what's clear is that Dems can move the agenda forward by
a) getting a federal law passed (which they could and should have done decades ago)
b) getting a Constitutional amendment passed

What the CANNOT do, unless they are Dem no more, is to change the rules of the game because they don't like the current score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You're confusing euthanasia with abortion.

Rights are not absolute. They are subject to constraint by the state in compelling circumstances. The test that the SCOTUS just threw out by erasing women’s rights. Euthanasia and abortion are both private medical decisions—state needs to justify itself more compellingly than they do for issuing parking tickets.

In the case of abortion that justification is obvious: to protect the life of the unborn (which includes many future women). Even the Romans two thousand years ago recognized that simple fact.

[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.

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.

No, no one has made any formal legal claim that abortion rights is tied to "bodily autonomy". Roe was decided on the right to privacy. If your concern about laws being overturned is valid, then the same could be said of any law - the law outlawing slavery, the law establishing protected classes. Why have any laws? I am shocked that you think the constitution cannot be amended through congress action... or maybe not. While laws can indeed be changed, it is far more durable than relying on judges to interpret vaguely written laws, or construct rights out of nothing. No respected legal scholar believes Roe "was the correct way" to affirm the right to abortion.

I posted a comment on this months ago, but Roe was written at a time when no one talked about women’s bodies. Privacy was a euphemism.

Also. The Constitution was amended to abolish slavery, in case you missed that in law school. Lightweight.

DP: I am getting a bit lost here, but what's clear is that Dems can move the agenda forward by
a) getting a federal law passed (which they could and should have done decades ago)
b) getting a Constitutional amendment passed

What the CANNOT do, unless they are Dem no more, is to change the rules of the game because they don't like the current score.

Actually what they can do is use the power they have to add Justices to the court. That’s not changing the rules, it’s playing the game.

[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.

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.

No, no one has made any formal legal claim that abortion rights is tied to "bodily autonomy". Roe was decided on the right to privacy. If your concern about laws being overturned is valid, then the same could be said of any law - the law outlawing slavery, the law establishing protected classes. Why have any laws? I am shocked that you think the constitution cannot be amended through congress action... or maybe not. While laws can indeed be changed, it is far more durable than relying on judges to interpret vaguely written laws, or construct rights out of nothing. No respected legal scholar believes Roe "was the correct way" to affirm the right to abortion.

I posted a comment on this months ago, but Roe was written at a time when no one talked about women’s bodies. Privacy was a euphemism.

Also. The Constitution was amended to abolish slavery, in case you missed that in law school. Lightweight.

DP: I am getting a bit lost here, but what's clear is that Dems can move the agenda forward by
a) getting a federal law passed (which they could and should have done decades ago)
b) getting a Constitutional amendment passed

What the CANNOT do, unless they are Dem no more, is to change the rules of the game because they don't like the current score.

Actually what they can do is use the power they have to add Justices to the court. That’s not changing the rules, it’s playing the game.

That's obviously changing the rules, and inviting serious trouble next time that Republicans get a majority in Congress.

You kill Democracy by killing the Judiciary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You're confusing euthanasia with abortion.

Rights are not absolute. They are subject to constraint by the state in compelling circumstances. The test that the SCOTUS just threw out by erasing women’s rights. Euthanasia and abortion are both private medical decisions—state needs to justify itself more compellingly than they do for issuing parking tickets.

In the case of abortion that justification is obvious: to protect the life of the unborn (which includes many future women). Even the Romans two thousand years ago recognized that simple fact.

Great—so then why did SCOTUS have to throw out the test?

Because they wanted to place no limits on what the state can tell women to do with their bodies. The way the Court has to balance interests in cases where fundamental rights are at stake is different than the way they have to balance interests in cases where they are not. In Dobbs, the Court just said, that’s too hard so we are saying women have no rights to private medical decisions regarding their fertility. It absolutely radical and insane.

[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: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.

No, no one has made any formal legal claim that abortion rights is tied to "bodily autonomy". Roe was decided on the right to privacy. If your concern about laws being overturned is valid, then the same could be said of any law - the law outlawing slavery, the law establishing protected classes. Why have any laws? I am shocked that you think the constitution cannot be amended through congress action... or maybe not. While laws can indeed be changed, it is far more durable than relying on judges to interpret vaguely written laws, or construct rights out of nothing. No respected legal scholar believes Roe "was the correct way" to affirm the right to abortion.

I posted a comment on this months ago, but Roe was written at a time when no one talked about women’s bodies. Privacy was a euphemism.

Also. The Constitution was amended to abolish slavery, in case you missed that in law school. Lightweight.

DP: I am getting a bit lost here, but what's clear is that Dems can move the agenda forward by
a) getting a federal law passed (which they could and should have done decades ago)
b) getting a Constitutional amendment passed

What the CANNOT do, unless they are Dem no more, is to change the rules of the game because they don't like the current score.

Actually what they can do is use the power they have to add Justices to the court. That’s not changing the rules, it’s playing the game.

That's obviously changing the rules, and inviting serious trouble next time that Republicans get a majority in Congress.

You kill Democracy by killing the Judiciary.

No it is not. The rules say you can add justices. We should.

[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.

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.

No, no one has made any formal legal claim that abortion rights is tied to "bodily autonomy". Roe was decided on the right to privacy. If your concern about laws being overturned is valid, then the same could be said of any law - the law outlawing slavery, the law establishing protected classes. Why have any laws? I am shocked that you think the constitution cannot be amended through congress action... or maybe not. While laws can indeed be changed, it is far more durable than relying on judges to interpret vaguely written laws, or construct rights out of nothing. No respected legal scholar believes Roe "was the correct way" to affirm the right to abortion.

I posted a comment on this months ago, but Roe was written at a time when no one talked about women’s bodies. Privacy was a euphemism.

Also. The Constitution was amended to abolish slavery, in case you missed that in law school. Lightweight.

So now you want us to infer what was implied by a decision that was itself an inference on what was not written?

Yes, I know slavery was outlawed by a constitutional amendment, that's why I said "the northern states", which was a reference to the pre-civil war era when the northern states outlawed slavery even though it was legal in southern states.

[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: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.

No, no one has made any formal legal claim that abortion rights is tied to "bodily autonomy". Roe was decided on the right to privacy. If your concern about laws being overturned is valid, then the same could be said of any law - the law outlawing slavery, the law establishing protected classes. Why have any laws? I am shocked that you think the constitution cannot be amended through congress action... or maybe not. While laws can indeed be changed, it is far more durable than relying on judges to interpret vaguely written laws, or construct rights out of nothing. No respected legal scholar believes Roe "was the correct way" to affirm the right to abortion.

I posted a comment on this months ago, but Roe was written at a time when no one talked about women’s bodies. Privacy was a euphemism.

Also. The Constitution was amended to abolish slavery, in case you missed that in law school. Lightweight.

DP: I am getting a bit lost here, but what's clear is that Dems can move the agenda forward by
a) getting a federal law passed (which they could and should have done decades ago)
b) getting a Constitutional amendment passed

What the CANNOT do, unless they are Dem no more, is to change the rules of the game because they don't like the current score.

Actually what they can do is use the power they have to add Justices to the court. That’s not changing the rules, it’s playing the game.

That's obviously changing the rules, and inviting serious trouble next time that Republicans get a majority in Congress.

You kill Democracy by killing the Judiciary.

Republican changed the game by holding Garland's nomination and moving fast on Amy's. They killed the Judiciary by packing the court with Federalist activists.

[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.

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.

No, no one has made any formal legal claim that abortion rights is tied to "bodily autonomy". Roe was decided on the right to privacy. If your concern about laws being overturned is valid, then the same could be said of any law - the law outlawing slavery, the law establishing protected classes. Why have any laws? I am shocked that you think the constitution cannot be amended through congress action... or maybe not. While laws can indeed be changed, it is far more durable than relying on judges to interpret vaguely written laws, or construct rights out of nothing. No respected legal scholar believes Roe "was the correct way" to affirm the right to abortion.

I posted a comment on this months ago, but Roe was written at a time when no one talked about women’s bodies. Privacy was a euphemism.

Also. The Constitution was amended to abolish slavery, in case you missed that in law school. Lightweight.

DP: I am getting a bit lost here, but what's clear is that Dems can move the agenda forward by
a) getting a federal law passed (which they could and should have done decades ago)
b) getting a Constitutional amendment passed

What the CANNOT do, unless they are Dem no more, is to change the rules of the game because they don't like the current score.

Actually what they can do is use the power they have to add Justices to the court. That’s not changing the rules, it’s playing the game.

That's obviously changing the rules, and inviting serious trouble next time that Republicans get a majority in Congress.

You kill Democracy by killing the Judiciary.

Republican changed the game by holding Garland's nomination and moving fast on Amy's. They killed the Judiciary by packing the court with Federalist activists.

LOL, that's how SCOTUS nominees have always been handled nearing the end of the term of a president if the senate is controlled by the opposing party, with very few exceptions. There is nothing new there. Packing the court with judges aligned with the presidents political ideology is also normal and expected.

None of this is new. It may be new to you, but that doesn't make it new.

[Anonymous]

The only rights we have are the norms republicans say we have right?

No, that’s not how the Constitution was drafted.

We have a multitude of rights the government can’t curtail without giving a damn good reason. Access to healthcare is one of them.

Time to expand the court!

[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.

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.

No, no one has made any formal legal claim that abortion rights is tied to "bodily autonomy". Roe was decided on the right to privacy. If your concern about laws being overturned is valid, then the same could be said of any law - the law outlawing slavery, the law establishing protected classes. Why have any laws? I am shocked that you think the constitution cannot be amended through congress action... or maybe not. While laws can indeed be changed, it is far more durable than relying on judges to interpret vaguely written laws, or construct rights out of nothing. No respected legal scholar believes Roe "was the correct way" to affirm the right to abortion.

I posted a comment on this months ago, but Roe was written at a time when no one talked about women’s bodies. Privacy was a euphemism.

Also. The Constitution was amended to abolish slavery, in case you missed that in law school. Lightweight.

DP: I am getting a bit lost here, but what's clear is that Dems can move the agenda forward by
a) getting a federal law passed (which they could and should have done decades ago)
b) getting a Constitutional amendment passed

What the CANNOT do, unless they are Dem no more, is to change the rules of the game because they don't like the current score.

Actually what they can do is use the power they have to add Justices to the court. That’s not changing the rules, it’s playing the game.

That's obviously changing the rules, and inviting serious trouble next time that Republicans get a majority in Congress.

You kill Democracy by killing the Judiciary.

Republican changed the game by holding Garland's nomination and moving fast on Amy's. They killed the Judiciary by packing the court with Federalist activists.

LOL, that's how SCOTUS nominees have always been handled nearing the end of the term of a president if the senate is controlled by the opposing party, with very few exceptions. There is nothing new there. Packing the court with judges aligned with the presidents political ideology is also normal and expected.

None of this is new. It may be new to you, but that doesn't make it new.

This