Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see how this plays politically. I don’t see how it is positive for Rs. Might be neutral or might be really bad for them.

The Rs have successfully been using the potential to flip the court to overturn Roe to get out the base for decades. The Democrats haven’t been able to use it so effectively because Roe has been taken as a given by most voters. That is, if you were pro-choice, you could ignore the pro-life views of a republican you might vote for because he couldn’t act on them anyway. That will no longer be true. A vote for a republican will be a vote for abortion bans.

+1. The GOP wants the midterms to be all about inflation and the economy. Overturning Roe will give Democrats a big chance to change the narrative. Will they be able to do it?

Again, it hugely depends on the “mainstream” media. They’re the ones still framing this to the advantage of the GOP, still pretending this won’t be that bad.

The GOP is trying to install some sort of theocracy-oligarchy-fascist dictatorship whatever government. I don’t think any faction particularly cares which horrible thing works out, they just hate democracy and equal rights. They hate every thing that America stands for, and the media is still farting around pretending that it’s just a fun horse race. I am beyond disgusted.

Maybe, but I think this may be breaking through. I'm an in-house lawyer. Today, three women separately came into my office completely unprompted. Each said they thought Roe was settled law and hadn't the justices promised that when they got confirmed, and how was this possible. Most people on the pro-choice side have been operating with the assumption that their votes don't actually affect the abortion issue. That it was basically off-limits for politicians, so they were free to vote for who they wanted to based on other issues like the economy, taxes, welfare, immigration, etc. No one will be able to believe that any more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m making myself read the damn thing and I don’t think I’ve ever been more disgusted. Apparently women have no fundamental rights to bodily autonomy that are rooted in the country’s history. Well. That sounds about right.

Expand the court.

Also historians are pointing out that Alito’s main assumption is incorrect. In most states, abortion was legal before quickening. Deeply rooted in history.

Well then, historians don’t know that the absence of criminal prohibitions is not the same as the presence of a deeply rooted right. If it were tuxedo Wednesdays would be a fundamental right

His argument specifically states that abortion has historically been illegal. That is false and shoddy history intentionally distorted to provide a veneer of respectability to a patently political act. Yet history is his main argument. It's just like their inability to understand deism or anything else complex and nuanced about the past.

If you think Alito’s argument can be boiled down to the proposition that you have a constitutional right to engage in any activity that has not been “historically…illegal” and that abortion is not such a right then you’re just misreading the opinion.

He’s saying there is no right because abortion once was criminalized. The logical deduction from his own argument is that what was not criminalized must be a right. It’s his stupid game, not mine, but he loses at his own game because abortion wasn’t criminalized before quickening in deeply rooted history.

+1 Alito’s “facts” are totally wrong. Good thread on this here:

“It was only illegal in lots of places, not all places” does not show that it was deeply rooted throughout the country. Marijuana is legal in some places today, but no one would say that the right to toke up is on footing similar to, say, the right to counsel.

That Twitter thread counts several more states off Alito’s list where abortion was illegal after quickening but not before, as was the common law tradition. The current law is Roe, which recognizes a right. To overturn Roe, Alito has to prove it’s not a right. His argument that it isn’t a right because it isn’t “deeply rooted” is (a) stupidly illogical and (b) stupidly incorrect. “Deeply rooted” is some nonsense from a 1997 case, so it isn’t a deeply rooted concept itself. But abortion before quickening was legal and is, in fact, deeply rooted. Abortion was and is a right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see how this plays politically. I don’t see how it is positive for Rs. Might be neutral or might be really bad for them.

The Rs have successfully been using the potential to flip the court to overturn Roe to get out the base for decades. The Democrats haven’t been able to use it so effectively because Roe has been taken as a given by most voters. That is, if you were pro-choice, you could ignore the pro-life views of a republican you might vote for because he couldn’t act on them anyway. That will no longer be true. A vote for a republican will be a vote for abortion bans.

+1. The GOP wants the midterms to be all about inflation and the economy. Overturning Roe will give Democrats a big chance to change the narrative. Will they be able to do it?

Part of the right releasing this now is to get the shock and outrage over early so people won't remember in October and November.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m making myself read the damn thing and I don’t think I’ve ever been more disgusted. Apparently women have no fundamental rights to bodily autonomy that are rooted in the country’s history. Well. That sounds about right.

Expand the court.

Also historians are pointing out that Alito’s main assumption is incorrect. In most states, abortion was legal before quickening. Deeply rooted in history.

Well then, historians don’t know that the absence of criminal prohibitions is not the same as the presence of a deeply rooted right. If it were tuxedo Wednesdays would be a fundamental right

His argument specifically states that abortion has historically been illegal. That is false and shoddy history intentionally distorted to provide a veneer of respectability to a patently political act. Yet history is his main argument. It's just like their inability to understand deism or anything else complex and nuanced about the past.

If you think Alito’s argument can be boiled down to the proposition that you have a constitutional right to engage in any activity that has not been “historically…illegal” and that abortion is not such a right then you’re just misreading the opinion.

He’s saying there is no right because abortion once was criminalized. The logical deduction from his own argument is that what was not criminalized must be a right. It’s his stupid game, not mine, but he loses at his own game because abortion wasn’t criminalized before quickening in deeply rooted history.

+1 Alito’s “facts” are totally wrong. Good thread on this here:

“It was only illegal in lots of places, not all places” does not show that it was deeply rooted throughout the country. Marijuana is legal in some places today, but no one would say that the right to toke up is on footing similar to, say, the right to counsel.

For the 857th time, abortion before quickening was legal in the US prior to Emancipation.

Literally no one thinks the test for substantive due process is whether or not something was legal prior to emancipation. You’ve clearly found what you think is a killer point, but it’s just total sophistry.

If you don’t understand WHY that fact is important, I cannot help you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m making myself read the damn thing and I don’t think I’ve ever been more disgusted. Apparently women have no fundamental rights to bodily autonomy that are rooted in the country’s history. Well. That sounds about right.

Expand the court.

Also historians are pointing out that Alito’s main assumption is incorrect. In most states, abortion was legal before quickening. Deeply rooted in history.

Well then, historians don’t know that the absence of criminal prohibitions is not the same as the presence of a deeply rooted right. If it were tuxedo Wednesdays would be a fundamental right

His argument specifically states that abortion has historically been illegal. That is false and shoddy history intentionally distorted to provide a veneer of respectability to a patently political act. Yet history is his main argument. It's just like their inability to understand deism or anything else complex and nuanced about the past.

If you think Alito’s argument can be boiled down to the proposition that you have a constitutional right to engage in any activity that has not been “historically…illegal” and that abortion is not such a right then you’re just misreading the opinion.

He’s saying there is no right because abortion once was criminalized. The logical deduction from his own argument is that what was not criminalized must be a right. It’s his stupid game, not mine, but he loses at his own game because abortion wasn’t criminalized before quickening in deeply rooted history.

+1 Alito’s “facts” are totally wrong. Good thread on this here:

“It was only illegal in lots of places, not all places” does not show that it was deeply rooted throughout the country. Marijuana is legal in some places today, but no one would say that the right to toke up is on footing similar to, say, the right to counsel.

For the 857th time, abortion before quickening was legal in the US prior to Emancipation.

Literally no one thinks the test for substantive due process is whether or not something was legal prior to emancipation. You’ve clearly found what you think is a killer point, but it’s just total sophistry.

Do you understand what Alito is basing his sham of a decision on? Do you even know what this thread is about?

Yeah

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m making myself read the damn thing and I don’t think I’ve ever been more disgusted. Apparently women have no fundamental rights to bodily autonomy that are rooted in the country’s history. Well. That sounds about right.

Expand the court.

Also historians are pointing out that Alito’s main assumption is incorrect. In most states, abortion was legal before quickening. Deeply rooted in history.

Well then, historians don’t know that the absence of criminal prohibitions is not the same as the presence of a deeply rooted right. If it were tuxedo Wednesdays would be a fundamental right

His argument specifically states that abortion has historically been illegal. That is false and shoddy history intentionally distorted to provide a veneer of respectability to a patently political act. Yet history is his main argument. It's just like their inability to understand deism or anything else complex and nuanced about the past.

If you think Alito’s argument can be boiled down to the proposition that you have a constitutional right to engage in any activity that has not been “historically…illegal” and that abortion is not such a right then you’re just misreading the opinion.

He’s saying there is no right because abortion once was criminalized. The logical deduction from his own argument is that what was not criminalized must be a right. It’s his stupid game, not mine, but he loses at his own game because abortion wasn’t criminalized before quickening in deeply rooted history.

+1 Alito’s “facts” are totally wrong. Good thread on this here:

“It was only illegal in lots of places, not all places” does not show that it was deeply rooted throughout the country. Marijuana is legal in some places today, but no one would say that the right to toke up is on footing similar to, say, the right to counsel.

For the 857th time, abortion before quickening was legal in the US prior to Emancipation.

Literally no one thinks the test for substantive due process is whether or not something was legal prior to emancipation. You’ve clearly found what you think is a killer point, but it’s just total sophistry.

Do you understand what Alito is basing his sham of a decision on? Do you even know what this thread is about?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see how this plays politically. I don’t see how it is positive for Rs. Might be neutral or might be really bad for them.

The Rs have successfully been using the potential to flip the court to overturn Roe to get out the base for decades. The Democrats haven’t been able to use it so effectively because Roe has been taken as a given by most voters. That is, if you were pro-choice, you could ignore the pro-life views of a republican you might vote for because he couldn’t act on them anyway. That will no longer be true. A vote for a republican will be a vote for abortion bans.

+1. The GOP wants the midterms to be all about inflation and the economy. Overturning Roe will give Democrats a big chance to change the narrative. Will they be able to do it?

Again, it hugely depends on the “mainstream” media. They’re the ones still framing this to the advantage of the GOP, still pretending this won’t be that bad.

The GOP is trying to install some sort of theocracy-oligarchy-fascist dictatorship whatever government. I don’t think any faction particularly cares which horrible thing works out, they just hate democracy and equal rights. They hate every thing that America stands for, and the media is still farting around pretending that it’s just a fun horse race. I am beyond disgusted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m making myself read the damn thing and I don’t think I’ve ever been more disgusted. Apparently women have no fundamental rights to bodily autonomy that are rooted in the country’s history. Well. That sounds about right.

Expand the court.

Also historians are pointing out that Alito’s main assumption is incorrect. In most states, abortion was legal before quickening. Deeply rooted in history.

Well then, historians don’t know that the absence of criminal prohibitions is not the same as the presence of a deeply rooted right. If it were tuxedo Wednesdays would be a fundamental right

His argument specifically states that abortion has historically been illegal. That is false and shoddy history intentionally distorted to provide a veneer of respectability to a patently political act. Yet history is his main argument. It's just like their inability to understand deism or anything else complex and nuanced about the past.

If you think Alito’s argument can be boiled down to the proposition that you have a constitutional right to engage in any activity that has not been “historically…illegal” and that abortion is not such a right then you’re just misreading the opinion.

He’s saying there is no right because abortion once was criminalized. The logical deduction from his own argument is that what was not criminalized must be a right. It’s his stupid game, not mine, but he loses at his own game because abortion wasn’t criminalized before quickening in deeply rooted history.

+1 Alito’s “facts” are totally wrong. Good thread on this here:

“It was only illegal in lots of places, not all places” does not show that it was deeply rooted throughout the country. Marijuana is legal in some places today, but no one would say that the right to toke up is on footing similar to, say, the right to counsel.

For the 857th time, abortion before quickening was legal in the US prior to Emancipation.

Literally no one thinks the test for substantive due process is whether or not something was legal prior to emancipation. You’ve clearly found what you think is a killer point, but it’s just total sophistry.

Anonymous wrote:Why is it ever ok to legislate that a human has to give it's body to keep another alive.

Yes, no human is legally bound to use their own body to keep another alive. No forcible organ donation ir blood donation at all

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see how this plays politically. I don’t see how it is positive for Rs. Might be neutral or might be really bad for them.

The Rs have successfully been using the potential to flip the court to overturn Roe to get out the base for decades. The Democrats haven’t been able to use it so effectively because Roe has been taken as a given by most voters. That is, if you were pro-choice, you could ignore the pro-life views of a republican you might vote for because he couldn’t act on them anyway. That will no longer be true. A vote for a republican will be a vote for abortion bans.

+1. The GOP wants the midterms to be all about inflation and the economy. Overturning Roe will give Democrats a big chance to change the narrative. Will they be able to do it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Democrat, pro-choice, and a law professor. With that said, I agree with Justice Ginsburg: the logic of Roe was haphazardly pieced together. Casey is proof of that. My sincere hope is the final decision gives some limited federal protection at the federal level, kicks it back to the states, and opens the door for an equal protections argument in the future.

In other words, you do not believe women have the right to bodily autonomy or to make their own medical decisions.

I do, but the Roe legal argument was not super great. Roe should be about equal protection, not privacy.

How does equal protection work in this context when no one else is similarly situated with women in relation to pregnancy?

Women's ability to equally participate in economic and social life is dependent, in part, on their control over their reproduction.

And, women having that control sets the stage such that men who want to secure a comittment from them must strive hard to earn it by being smart, financially successful and decent partners all around

So, in a very real way, women having a choice drives our economy, drives men to work harder and weeds out the ones who fail

The men who are being weeded out are the ones who want women to be forced to have their babies.

Instead of achieving that, they will just ensure no woman ever even deems them worth the risk of a mercy F=ck

Why is it ever ok to legislate that a human has to give it's body to keep another alive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m making myself read the damn thing and I don’t think I’ve ever been more disgusted. Apparently women have no fundamental rights to bodily autonomy that are rooted in the country’s history. Well. That sounds about right.

Expand the court.

Also historians are pointing out that Alito’s main assumption is incorrect. In most states, abortion was legal before quickening. Deeply rooted in history.

Well then, historians don’t know that the absence of criminal prohibitions is not the same as the presence of a deeply rooted right. If it were tuxedo Wednesdays would be a fundamental right

His argument specifically states that abortion has historically been illegal. That is false and shoddy history intentionally distorted to provide a veneer of respectability to a patently political act. Yet history is his main argument. It's just like their inability to understand deism or anything else complex and nuanced about the past.

If you think Alito’s argument can be boiled down to the proposition that you have a constitutional right to engage in any activity that has not been “historically…illegal” and that abortion is not such a right then you’re just misreading the opinion.

He’s saying there is no right because abortion once was criminalized. The logical deduction from his own argument is that what was not criminalized must be a right. It’s his stupid game, not mine, but he loses at his own game because abortion wasn’t criminalized before quickening in deeply rooted history.

+1 Alito’s “facts” are totally wrong. Good thread on this here:

“It was only illegal in lots of places, not all places” does not show that it was deeply rooted throughout the country. Marijuana is legal in some places today, but no one would say that the right to toke up is on footing similar to, say, the right to counsel.

For the 857th time, abortion before quickening was legal in the US prior to Emancipation.

Republicans don't do facts. Or principles Or integrity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m making myself read the damn thing and I don’t think I’ve ever been more disgusted. Apparently women have no fundamental rights to bodily autonomy that are rooted in the country’s history. Well. That sounds about right.

Expand the court.

Also historians are pointing out that Alito’s main assumption is incorrect. In most states, abortion was legal before quickening. Deeply rooted in history.

Well then, historians don’t know that the absence of criminal prohibitions is not the same as the presence of a deeply rooted right. If it were tuxedo Wednesdays would be a fundamental right

His argument specifically states that abortion has historically been illegal. That is false and shoddy history intentionally distorted to provide a veneer of respectability to a patently political act. Yet history is his main argument. It's just like their inability to understand deism or anything else complex and nuanced about the past.

If you think Alito’s argument can be boiled down to the proposition that you have a constitutional right to engage in any activity that has not been “historically…illegal” and that abortion is not such a right then you’re just misreading the opinion.

He’s saying there is no right because abortion once was criminalized. The logical deduction from his own argument is that what was not criminalized must be a right. It’s his stupid game, not mine, but he loses at his own game because abortion wasn’t criminalized before quickening in deeply rooted history.

+1 Alito’s “facts” are totally wrong. Good thread on this here:

“It was only illegal in lots of places, not all places” does not show that it was deeply rooted throughout the country. Marijuana is legal in some places today, but no one would say that the right to toke up is on footing similar to, say, the right to counsel.

For the 857th time, abortion before quickening was legal in the US prior to Emancipation.