“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:

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

Expanding the court isn’t new either. Republicans used their power to change the balance of the court, Dems should use theirs.

[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.

LIAR. It was never handled this way before.

[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.

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.

LIAR. It was never handled this way before.

If you insist that this is a change, you'll need to show proof. Go list the SCOTUS nominations near the end of the term of a presidency and the action taken by an opposing-party-controlled senate. Go ahead. We'll wait for your evidence.

[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.

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.

LIAR. It was never handled this way before.

+1

JFC the Republican slide into and defense of fascism is gross.

[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.

Don’t forget that Trump compelled Kennedy to retire, just so we could get the credibly accused rapist Kavanaugh on the court.

So many wild-eyed regressive activists on the court. Damn shame that they shredded their credibility.

[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.

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.

LIAR. It was never handled this way before.

If you insist that this is a change, you'll need to show proof. Go list the SCOTUS nominations near the end of the term of a presidency and the action taken by an opposing-party-controlled senate. Go ahead. We'll wait for your evidence.

The “that's how SCOTUS nominees have always been handled” PP made the claim and should show proof.

[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:

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.

LIAR. It was never handled this way before.

If you insist that this is a change, you'll need to show proof. Go list the SCOTUS nominations near the end of the term of a presidency and the action taken by an opposing-party-controlled senate. Go ahead. We'll wait for your evidence.

The “that's how SCOTUS nominees have always been handled” PP made the claim and should show proof.

Doubt he or she is going to do any better than this GOP strategist did.

[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:

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.

LIAR. It was never handled this way before.

If you insist that this is a change, you'll need to show proof. Go list the SCOTUS nominations near the end of the term of a presidency and the action taken by an opposing-party-controlled senate. Go ahead. We'll wait for your evidence.

The “that's how SCOTUS nominees have always been handled” PP made the claim and should show proof.

First, that's an incomplete quote. Second that was in response to the original claim "Republican changed the game by holding Garland's nomination and moving fast on Amy's."

The person making the original claim has the burden of proof.

[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:

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.

LIAR. It was never handled this way before.

If you insist that this is a change, you'll need to show proof. Go list the SCOTUS nominations near the end of the term of a presidency and the action taken by an opposing-party-controlled senate. Go ahead. We'll wait for your evidence.

The “that's how SCOTUS nominees have always been handled” PP made the claim and should show proof.

Doubt he or she is going to do any better than this GOP strategist did.

That was the best the GOP could offer? Uh. Uh. Uh. Uh. How many times did she pause and halt and give a poor response? Keep this woman and all the others away from our daughters.

Go Al franken.

[Anonymous]

Republicans- “how dare you change the game and reform the court! That is radical and unacceptable. If you want a change, you must amend the constitution”

( democrats move to amend constitution)

Republicans-“ how dare you change the game and rewrite the constitution. That’s is radical and unacceptable!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republicans- “how dare you change the game and reform the court! That is radical and unacceptable. If you want a change, you must amend the constitution”

( democrats move to amend constitution)

Republicans-“ how dare you change the game and rewrite the constitution. That’s is radical and unacceptable!”

Look. The dog caught the car and the dog is in danger of getting run over. You can carry on about this or that but you are messing with our daughters and we will protect them and teach them how to protect themselves

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republicans- “how dare you change the game and reform the court! That is radical and unacceptable. If you want a change, you must amend the constitution”

( democrats move to amend constitution)

Republicans-“ how dare you change the game and rewrite the constitution. That’s is radical and unacceptable!”

This.

Republicans are good at one thing and one thing only. Using the power they have at their disposal.

Voters see clearly now that the GOP has used every avenue to achieve their radical and tyrannical agenda. If dem politicians promise to fight back just as hard, voters will step up and deliver for them.

[Anonymous]

I am 100% certain that legislation will be passed to provide national protection/restriction on abortion. In the end, Americans will enjoy durable protection for abortion up to a certain point in the pregnancy. Such a protection with be unequivocal and not up to the whims of activist judiciary.

Democrats should thank the SCOTUS justices for setup the country up for this eventuality. By tearing down the rotting house of cards, we now have the chance to build a solid foundation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am 100% certain that legislation will be passed to provide national protection/restriction on abortion. In the end, Americans will enjoy durable protection for abortion up to a certain point in the pregnancy. Such a protection with be unequivocal and not up to the whims of activist judiciary.

Democrats should thank the SCOTUS justices for setup the country up for this eventuality. By tearing down the rotting house of cards, we now have the chance to build a solid foundation.

Hahah, as opposed to the whims of voters! Nice try.

[Anonymous]

The leak investigation is still ongoing
“Supreme Court investigators probing the May leak of Justice Samuel Alito‘s draft opinion overruling Roe v. Wade have narrowed their inquiry to a small number of suspects including law clerks, but officials have yet to conclusively identify the alleged culprit, people familiar with the matter said.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-investigators-have-narrowed-leak-inquiry-to-small-number-of-suspects-11673635774