Anonymous
09/12/2022 14:55
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: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.
Ummmmmmm.........I had a constitutional right my entire reproductive life that is now stripped away from my and your daughters. So there is that.
Anonymous
09/12/2022 14:52
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: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.
Anonymous
09/12/2022 14:46
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Honestly—why don’t Dems just say it and run on it? We need more senators so we can restore balance to the court. Haven’t seen any attempt at this messaging but I think it’s a winner. Dem senators need to get in line with it—it’s got to happen.
Because they've already said it. Some of us said over, and over, and over, and over again that THIS WOULD BE THE RESULT with a Republican Senate and President. We def sounded this alarm in the lead up to 2016.
And we were ignored b/c people "didn't like Hillary."
So.
Here.We.Are. And we can't undo it at this point. Not in the short term. Only in the very long term. We are stuck with this for a generation.
Anonymous
09/12/2022 10:17
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Honestly—why don’t Dems just say it and run on it? We need more senators so we can restore balance to the court. Haven’t seen any attempt at this messaging but I think it’s a winner. Dem senators need to get in line with it—it’s got to happen.
Anonymous
09/12/2022 09:50
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: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.
Jennifer Ruben has a piece in the post this morning—she is spot on.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/12/roberts-criticism-supreme-court-whining/
We need to expand the court.
Every time a party obstructs a president from seating a justice, they should expect the court to be expanded to restore the balance. This shouldn’t be controversial.
Anonymous
09/11/2022 08:51
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: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.
Anonymous
09/11/2022 00:15
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: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?
#Paranoia
Anonymous
09/10/2022 23:51
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: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?
Anonymous
09/10/2022 23:31
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
When Courts find flimsy reasons to take away peoples rights it makes them illegitimate. It’s not a difference of opinion. It’s an assault on freedom. People will rightfully feel it that way.
Anonymous
09/10/2022 22:20
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Roberts is beyond out of touch with reality.
Most of them are. But yeah let's keep giving bookish eggheads lifetime appointments with tremendous power.
Anonymous
09/10/2022 21:50
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Roberts is beyond out of touch with reality.
Anonymous
09/10/2022 21:37
Subject: Re:“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Guys please have some compassion for Roberts. He had to drive.past.barricades that he ordered to be installed on the Supreme Court grounds. Barricades. He is the true victim here, not women who are forced to stay pregnant with unviable fetuses. Won’t someone please think of the poor, originalist Supreme Court justices who like to cherry pick random historical writings to match their pre-conceived opinions?!? They have to DRIVE PAST METAL
Anonymous
09/10/2022 20:20
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
The women who have suffered need to start sharing their stories.
Anonymous
09/10/2022 20:09
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
We need stories like this to appear every day through the next election and until we can enshrine abortion rights in our state constitutions.
Abortion bans endanger women's lives and also lead to women's bodies being maimed. In Texas, a woman lost her uterus because of having to wait for care for a wanted, dying fetus. Now she will never be able to give birth, because of Texas's inhumane laws. This is outrageous.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/10/us/abortion-bans-medical-care-women.html
Abortion bans endanger women's lives and also lead to women's bodies being maimed. In Texas, a woman lost her uterus because of having to wait for care for a wanted, dying fetus. Now she will never be able to give birth, because of Texas's inhumane laws. This is outrageous.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/10/us/abortion-bans-medical-care-women.html
In Wisconsin, a group of doctors and lawyers is trying to come up with guidelines on how to comply with a newly revived 173-year-old law that prohibits abortion except to save the life of a pregnant woman. They face the daunting task of defining all the emergencies and conditions that might result in a pregnant woman’s death, and the fact that doctors could be punished with six years in prison if a prosecutor disagrees that abortion was necessary.
A similar task force at an Arizona hospital recommends having a lawyer on call to help doctors determine whether a woman’s condition threatens her life enough to justify an abortion. Already, the hospital has added questions to its electronic medical forms so they can be used to argue that patients who had abortions would have died without them.
And in Texas, oncologists say they now wait for pregnant women with cancer to get sicker before they treat them, because the standard of care would be to abort the fetus rather than allow treatments that damage it, but a state law allows abortion only “at risk of death.” Some hospitals have established committees to evaluate whether a pregnancy complication is severe enough to justify an abortion.
Two months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion, the medical consequences extend far beyond abortion clinics and women seeking to end unwanted pregnancies. Doctors who never thought of themselves as “abortionists,” to use the language of the court’s decision, say the criminalization of abortion is changing how they treat women who arrive in emergency rooms and on labor and delivery floors with wanted but complicated pregnancies.
Forensic nurses who care for sexual assault victims in the emergency room said they would no longer provide morning-after contraception for fear it would be considered an abortion drug. Because the old law punishes those who “aid and abet” an abortion, an anesthesiologist worried that he might be prosecuted for putting a patient to sleep for an abortion. A neonatologist worried about liability for declining to resuscitate a fetus judged no longer viable.
“We already work under a cloud of getting sued. That’s what we signed up for,” Dr. Kwatra said. “This is different. This is criminal liability, not civil liability. This is jail time.”
One study of two Dallas hospitals in the nine months after the Texas ban took effect found that women had to wait an average of nine days for their conditions to be considered life threatening enough to justify abortion. Many suffered serious health consequences while they waited, including hemorrhaging and sepsis, and one woman had to have a hysterectomy as a result.
Anonymous