Anonymous
05/03/2022 23:35
Subject: Re:“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:
What a laughable thing to say. Under what authority does the federal government have the power to ban abortion?
Under what authority does the federal government have the power to ban anything?
The federal government bans lots of things. Are you kidding?
Anonymous
05/03/2022 23:34
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Lol, hope you educated on the fact that Roe was already largely overturned by Casey, and both are regarded as terrible decisions. Remind the women that legal slavery was at one point settled law in the US.
Yes, I’ll make sure to tell them that republicans think abortion is the same as slavery. I’m sure that will get them voting for republicans.
Anonymous
05/03/2022 23:26
Subject: Re:“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Until there’s a federal ban that this opinion rolls out the red carpet for.
What a laughable thing to say. Under what authority does the federal government have the power to ban abortion?
Under what authority does the federal government have the power to ban anything?
Anonymous
05/03/2022 23:19
Subject: Re:“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Until there’s a federal ban that this opinion rolls out the red carpet for.
What a laughable thing to say. Under what authority does the federal government have the power to ban abortion?
Whatever they please. Who will tell them no? The Supreme Court?
Anonymous
05/03/2022 23:19
Subject: Re:“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Until there’s a federal ban that this opinion rolls out the red carpet for.
What a laughable thing to say. Under what authority does the federal government have the power to ban abortion?
Alito will invent one.
Anonymous
05/03/2022 23:18
Subject: Re:“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:
Until there’s a federal ban that this opinion rolls out the red carpet for.
What a laughable thing to say. Under what authority does the federal government have the power to ban abortion?
Anonymous
Anonymous
05/03/2022 23:07
Subject: Re:“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous
05/03/2022 22:58
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote: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.
Lol, hope you educated on the fact that Roe was already largely overturned by Casey, and both are regarded as terrible decisions. Remind the women that legal slavery was at one point settled law in the US.
Anonymous
05/03/2022 22:56
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote: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.
I agree it is incredibly dumb, but Alito's argument is that it could not be a deeply rooted right because it was (according to him) criminal in a bunch of states at the time of the 14th amendment.
Yea… because that's the standard. If you don't like it, pass a law.
You just said that literally no one thinks that's the test for substantive due process.
Anonymous
05/03/2022 22:55
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
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.
I agree it is incredibly dumb, but Alito's argument is that it could not be a deeply rooted right because it was (according to him) criminal in a bunch of states at the time of the 14th amendment.
Yea… because that's the standard. If you don't like it, pass a law.
Anonymous
05/03/2022 22:53
Subject: Re:“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous
05/03/2022 22:52
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
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.
I agree it is incredibly dumb, but Alito's argument is that it could not be a deeply rooted right because it was (according to him) criminal in a bunch of states at the time of the 14th amendment.
Anonymous
05/03/2022 22:50
Subject: Re:“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:" The rights not delegated to the states are reserved by the people "
It is outrageous that the State would EVER have been regulated control over women's bodies
The state should make no law on this because its a choice between a woman and her Doctor
Period. No one else belongs in the debate
Reserved by the people is different from being guaranteed by the Constitution. It simply means the Federal government cannot infringe on those rights. Not providing federal protection for something is not the same as infringing.
Anonymous
05/03/2022 22:50
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Maybe extreme projections based on this outcome, maybe not: https://eand.co/america-has-a-theocracy-now-its-called-the-supreme-court-7ddfb4ba165d
Either way, this is a fair point:
Either way, this is a fair point:
What really happened last night? A Supreme Court was appointed in the majority by Presidents who didn’t win the popular vote, rejected by the parts of Congress representing the majority of people, and took office anyways. And they eliminated the bodily autonomy of every woman in society, for religious reasons.
That’s already easily one of the most anti-democratic things I’ve ever seen happen in any society, ever, period. The only things it remotely compares to — well, I’ll cover those in a bit, when we discuss how theocracy progresses, or more accurately, regresses. But it hardly stopped there.