When will get the ruling? Doesn’t it take a few months after hearing the arguments or might they release their ruling sooner? I know they’ve had time to review before they actually hear arguments and likely have already made up their minds.

American Taliban are moving the line in the sand.

What are YOU going to do about it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the SC overturns Roe, is stare decisis basically a dead doctrine in American jurisprudence? Does precedent no longer matter?

It seems like this decision is MUCH, MUCH bigger than Roe.

It is. It also opens the door that just about any rule conjured by a court since the 1800's could be undone.

Racial.
Gender equality.

Heck, even anal sex.

Wow.

It is clear from the questioning that Roe is dead.

I hope everyone is girding for mobilizing voters and activism stat.

Anonymous wrote:If the SC overturns Roe, is stare decisis basically a dead doctrine in American jurisprudence? Does precedent no longer matter?

It seems like this decision is MUCH, MUCH bigger than Roe.

It is. It also opens the door that just about any rule conjured by a court since the 1800's could be undone.

Racial.
Gender equality.

Heck, even anal sex.

Anonymous wrote:When they overturn Roe, which sadly is likely, I hope Planned Parenthood sets up a shuttle service from anti-choice states.

I truly hope you are wrong, but I’m nervous listening to this. Especially the justices focus on having Rikelman explain why she thinks the court already decided xyz issue. “Well, the court has already decided that.”

When they overturn Roe, which sadly is likely, I hope Planned Parenthood sets up a shuttle service from anti-choice states.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rickelman cleanly shut down Thomas' whataboutisms.

I was thinking while Thomas was talking that if that was a post here I would report it for being off-topic.

Haha. Where is Jeff when you need him?

If the SC overturns Roe, is stare decisis basically a dead doctrine in American jurisprudence? Does precedent no longer matter?

It seems like this decision is MUCH, MUCH bigger than Roe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was Roberts helping solidify the argument with his question around 15 weeks v. viability?

Looks like they want to change the test to "undue burden" and shift the cutoff to earlier in the pregnancy than viability.

And that "viability" really isn't a line for either fetus or mother.

Anonymous wrote:Rickelman cleanly shut down Thomas' whataboutisms.

I was thinking while Thomas was talking that if that was a post here I would report it for being off-topic.

Anonymous wrote:Was Roberts helping solidify the argument with his question around 15 weeks v. viability?

Looks like they want to change the test to "undue burden" and shift the cutoff to earlier in the pregnancy than viability.

Was Roberts helping solidify the argument with his question around 15 weeks v. viability?

Rickelman cleanly shut down Thomas' whataboutisms.