SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The main point here, as the Justices have said, is that Congress needs to do its job and pass a law.


Right. It's frustrating that Dems have already squandered so many opportunities where they held clear majorities to do that.


The House already passed it, the Senate filibustered it.

This year.

Not the Dems fault.


Wrong. It was passed but the house in September and only because of the Texas law— all show. Has not been taken up in the Senate. Manchin and Casey will not support it and they are Democrats. Clean up your facts.


What GOP wold get it to 58, thus putting the onus on Manchin and Casey?

Anonymous


I am looking forward to June 2022 when SCOTUS announces Roe is overturned or significantly curtailed, just in time for people to be paying attention to the Fall 2022 elections in the House and Senate.
Anonymous
BlueFredneck wrote:Plessy v Ferguson was 1896 and Brown v Board was 1954 - 58 years. SCOTUS will change its decisions from time to time. It's been 48 years since Roe.

Who, other than the usual suspects, will really get up in arms over this?

I'm sensing zero proof any voters who aren't already in the tank for D's will get animated over this, or this just makes blue states bluer. Big freaking deal if Dems win CA 70-30 instead of 65-35. I care about winning MI, GA, NC, PA, and AZ.

I will eat everything I'm saying if somehow SCOTUS upholds the Texas law. That's Ireland 1980 shiat right there, not to mention the ... weirdness of who has standing to sue here.

People outside the yuppie bubble just aren't going to get mad or activate themselves over parental notification, 15-20 week limits, or hospital admission policies.


Yeah it's interesting - I was trying to think through the political implications. If the court does the small slice here and doesn't fully overturn Roe, but just does allow 15 week bans, I think you're right. Texas is another ball of wax - maybe.
Anonymous
Looks like Roberts is angling to write the decision. He's going to have to shutdown the Texas case and the fetal heartbeat crap.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The main point here, as the Justices have said, is that Congress needs to do its job and pass a law.


Right. It's frustrating that Dems have already squandered so many opportunities where they held clear majorities to do that.


The House already passed it, the Senate filibustered it.

This year.

Not the Dems fault.

I knew the House did pass it. When did the Senate filibuster it?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Damn, the rightwing justices are really ready to trash stare decisis.

It will completely upend the American legal system, law school training, etc.

This is wildly radical and anarchist.


They need to be careful. If they overturn stare decisis and start the slippery slope that some Constitutional rights can be abridged, you can bet that there will be new restrictions on 2A from liberal states. If SCOTUS determines that RvW can be abridged, then there is no protection for 2A any longer. As long as the right to bear arms is preserved, states can then instituted many restrictions on what types of guns, how to register guns, when and where users are allowed to carry, etc.

If stare decisis no longer protects Roe or Casey, then it definitely will not protect Heller.

This assumes the conservative justices have been consistent in their decisions on the principals like stare decisis, federalism, right to life, etc, which they have not. They would find a way to vote keep Heller.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Damn, the rightwing justices are really ready to trash stare decisis.

It will completely upend the American legal system, law school training, etc.

This is wildly radical and anarchist.


They need to be careful. If they overturn stare decisis and start the slippery slope that some Constitutional rights can be abridged, you can bet that there will be new restrictions on 2A from liberal states. If SCOTUS determines that RvW can be abridged, then there is no protection for 2A any longer. As long as the right to bear arms is preserved, states can then instituted many restrictions on what types of guns, how to register guns, when and where users are allowed to carry, etc.

If stare decisis no longer protects Roe or Casey, then it definitely will not protect Heller.


Not quite because the right to gun ownership is actually stated in the Constitution. The challenge with abortion is that it’s not specifically addressed and thus falls under a penumbra type umbrella. This is way more similar to Plessy. Bad law at the beginning and over time it has resulted in more bad law. So important to recall that the horrors of the segregated south were because that lifestyle was found constitutional by the Supreme Court. Here, the law was badly decided and should be left to the states. It Plessy taught us anything, it has taught us that just because a law has been around for 50 years, that doesn’t make it right.

The reasons for overturning in watershed cases like Plessy, though, was not solely because of the horrors. It was because the court realized that the original decisions in those cases did not recognize individual liberties as granted in the constitution. That is the opposite here, where overturning Roe would be in-recognizing the individual Liberty of women.
Anonymous
^UN-recognizing
Anonymous
Wait till the court starts in on civil rights, worker and environmental regulations—the GOP retribution list is long. Much pain and suffering ahead for most people.

2016 mattered.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The main point here, as the Justices have said, is that Congress needs to do its job and pass a law.


Right. It's frustrating that Dems have already squandered so many opportunities where they held clear majorities to do that.


The House already passed it, the Senate filibustered it.

This year.

Not the Dems fault.

I knew the House did pass it. When did the Senate filibuster it?


There aren't 60 votes, so it is filibistered before it starts.

Anonymous
Senator Collins is furling her brow, right?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Wait till the court starts in on civil rights, worker and environmental regulations—the GOP retribution list is long. Much pain and suffering ahead for most people.

2016 mattered.

They’ll go for Obergefell next.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:

3 Supreme Court picks lost



1 held by McConnell.
1 pushed by Trump to get Kennedy to retire early.
1 jammed through by McConnell.


All, unprecedented.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Wait till the court starts in on civil rights, worker and environmental regulations—the GOP retribution list is long. Much pain and suffering ahead for most people.

2016 mattered.


Rucho v. Common cause was their most important decision. It laid the groundwork for minority rule at the state level regardless of a shifting electorate. I can't wait for it to be exploited when the new house maps come into force.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Looks like Roberts is angling to write the decision. He's going to have to shutdown the Texas case and the fetal heartbeat crap.


Not if he can't find another conservative justice to sign on to some kind of salvageable abortion right with a 15 week ban. Obviously Alito and Thomas will vote to overturn Roe/Casey completely. If Gorsuch, Kavanaugh & Barrett all agree, then Roberts is left writing a dissent. He's got a long road ahead of him in lobbying another conservative justice to join him.
post reply Forum Index » Political Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: