BlueFredneck
12/01/2021 12:18
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
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.
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.
Anonymous
12/01/2021 12:18
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
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.
No, the point is that the right for a woman to choose to have an abortion (just like her decision to use birth control) is protected by the Constitution.
Only insofar as the Sup Ct says so. It's not enumerated.
Anonymous
12/01/2021 12:16
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
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.
Not really. Stare decisis doesn't mean you can't ever overturn precedent. It means you lean strongly in favor of upholding precedent unless there's a good reason not to. Dred Scott was once settled law, and it was overturned - in that case for the good. This case definitely looks very political and exposes the court as the political body it is, but it doesn't change the nature of precedent. I don't think.
Anonymous
12/01/2021 12:11
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
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.
Anonymous
12/01/2021 12:10
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
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.
Yup.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1015938.page
Anonymous
12/01/2021 12:08
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Prelogar and Rickelman are killing it.
But maybe that doesn't matter.
Rikelman is an incredible attorney. Her presentation style is so smooth, effortlessly parrying critiques from the Justices. Really impressive.
So impressive.
Anonymous
12/01/2021 12:08
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
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.
No, the current Court will protect Heller, and maybe even expand it. They'll just point to the fact that guns have their very own Amendment, but abortion doesn't.
Anonymous
12/01/2021 12:08
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
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.
Anonymous
12/01/2021 12:07
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
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.
Anonymous
12/01/2021 12:04
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
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.
Anonymous
12/01/2021 12:03
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
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.
Anonymous
12/01/2021 12:01
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
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.
No, the point is that the right for a woman to choose to have an abortion (just like her decision to use birth control) is protected by the Constitution.[/quot
Uggg. Yes. Just like the constitution protects free speech. But there are lots of state and local rules regarding speech. Here, the states have been testing Casey all over the map. Some have put in place very restrictive rules. A likely violation of Casey. Others, like Virginia, allow abortion very late in pregnancy. Also likely a violation of Casey. So the Supremes are being asked to go ahead and let the each state decide for themselves. To day “we are out— we aren’t legislators.” That is what Mississippi wants. The pro-choice position is seeking the court to reiterate that it has to be tied to viability. But, that is because that is the only reasonable way to protect the constitutional rights of the woman AND the child. But that can be done at the state level too and that is what the justices are grappling with.
Anonymous
12/01/2021 12:01
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
Anonymous wrote:The main point here, as the Justices have said, is that Congress needs to do its job and pass a law.
A federal law won’t work since Casey left it up to the states.
Anonymous
12/01/2021 12:00
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why this isn't viewed as a first amendment separation of church and state issue. Life begins at conception is a religious-based belief, isn't it? If you don't believe that, then why should the state be able to require you adhere to a religious belief you don't accept?
That makes sense. The scientific proof simply isn’t there.
Anonymous
12/01/2021 12:00
Subject: SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)
Anonymous wrote:Prelogar and Rickelman are killing it.
But maybe that doesn't matter.
Rikelman is an incredible attorney. Her presentation style is so smooth, effortlessly parrying critiques from the Justices. Really impressive.