SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge POLITICO Exclusive: Supreme Court Has Voted to Overturn Abortion Rights, Draft Opinion Shows
Main Page The Lounge POLITICO Exclusive: Supreme Court Has Voted to Overturn Abortion Rights, Draft Opinion ShowsGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Too old to run, too mean to quit! |
I don't do beer, but I have to clean my screen to get the coffee off from it!!!  Elk There has never been an occasion where a people gave up their weapons in the interest of peace that didn't end in their massacre. (Louis L'Amour) "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. " -Thomas Jefferson "America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." Alexis de Tocqueville FBHO!!! The Idaho Elk Hunter | |||
|
Member |
Is this a rioting, looting, police car burning issue, or just a screaming, crying, pussy hat hissy fit? CMSGT USAF (Retired) Chief of Police (Retired) | |||
|
| Member |
Pretty close. The case before the Court is Mississippi's ban on abortion after 15 weeks. The plaintiff in that case wants the law overturned because it is unconstitutional under Roe and Casey, which hold that the 14th Amendment protects a woman's right to have an abortion early in her pregnancy. The draft opinion, if it reflects the ultimate judgment of the Court, would overturn Roe and Casey. The result would be that there is no constitutional protection for abortion and, therefore, no basis to challenge any state's law as being unconstitutional. Going forward, the states would be free to ban abortion outright, allow it in any circumstance, or anything in between. Those laws could be challenged in the states if they are inconsistent with the state's constitution, but that would be a purely state issue that would be decided by the state's supreme court. There would no longer be a basis for the SCOTUS to hear any abortion cases because, since there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion, there is nothing for them to decide. That could change in several ways. The most likely ones are: 1. Federal agencies, possibly through Planned Parenthood, continue to operate abortion facilities in restrictive states that do not follow the state's laws. They argue that they are providing healthcare services and under the supremacy clause they are free to do so without interference from the states. This would set up an interesting constitutional issue. 2. Someone challenges a state law allowing, say, late-term abortion of an otherwise healthy child on the ground that the child has constitutionally-protected rights prior to birth. This would also be interesting, but I'm skeptical whether the SCOTUS would weigh in on it. 3. Congress passes a law protecting abortions at the federal level. The SCOTUS has historically been unwilling to tell Congress it doesn't have the power to do something, but I could see this one going the distance. There are others, of course, but I don't think this issue will be entirely left to the states even if Roe and Casey are overturned. | |||
|
| wishing we were congress |
Will Chamberlain has a twitter account He is making an educated guess at who the leaker is Elizabeth Deutsch. She's currently a law clerk for Justice Breyer https://twitter.com/willchambe.../1521685968939630592 "in my humble opinion, she's the most likely person to have leaked the draft Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs, purporting to overturn Roe v. Wade." Yale undergrad, Yale law, and 2 British Master's degrees One degree in "Gender" wrote a legal paper on reproductive rights and abortion she argued that Obamacare's non-discrimination provision should be interpreted to *force* Catholic hospitals to perform "emergency abortions." "No Contraception? No Equality" by ELIZABETH DEUTSCH via NYT Deutsch married Isaac Arnsdorf Arnsdorf was just hired by Wash Post as a national political reporter (on the Trump beat) Arnsdorf used to work at Politico. He wrote a number of anti-Trump articles with Josh Gerstein Gerstein is the Politico reporter who broke the story much more detail at the twitter link We have a currently-serving Supreme Court law clerk whose career has been almost solely focused on abortion. She wrote her law school note on abortion. She wrote op-eds about reproductive rights. She spent a year working on abortion for the ACLU. She clerked for a stridently pro-choice appellate judge. And it just so happens that her husband is a journalist, who shared bylines with Josh Gerstein at Politico, and it looks like they are still buds. | |||
|
Member |
It's warming up, so riot season is rapidly approaching, plus it's mid-term election year. It's going to take very little for Antifa & BLM to set off a Summer of riots, but I doubt Roe v Wade will be the trigger. ------------------------------------------------ "It's hard to imagine a more stupid or dangerous way of making decisions, than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." Thomas Sowell | |||
|
| Donate Blood, Save a Life!  |
This, I believe, is the intent, whether it would be found constitutional following years of court battles or not. Schumer said it yesterday and the ultra-left progressives are going to be full-court pressing Senators Sinema and Manchin to abandon the senate filibuster to allow them to do it. Beyond that though, if the filibuster can be eliminated, it would allow President Biden to pass more of his agenda ahead of the midterms and allow Democrat candidates to point to "accomplishments," no matter how dubious, in the leadup to the election to garner votes from less politically astute voters. Getting the pro-abortion crowd riled up one to two months before the actual opinion was to be released would give them more time to "accomplish" all of that. *** "Aut viam inveniam aut faciam (I will either find a way or make one)." -- Hannibal Barca | |||
|
Nullus Anxietas |
With the current Court, at least, I suspect that dog won't hunt. But... Democrat majorities in both House and Senate, and Democrat President. Why are they not working on that already? Should be a slam-dunk for them, no? "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,,,, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living." -- Seneca the Younger, Roman Stoic philosopher | |||
|
| Member |
It would be 3-5 years before it got there -- who knows what the Court will look like then. Thomas will almost certainly be gone. It's far from a slam dunk because there isn't a clear consensus on the issue and with elections coming up they won't want to do much. They'll complain a lot and Tweet themselves and their base into a frenzy, but do nothing (which pretty much sums Congress up these days.) | |||
|
| Nullus Anxietas |
Exactly. Thus my question was actually rhetorical. "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,,,, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living." -- Seneca the Younger, Roman Stoic philosopher | |||
|
| Member |
Remember when Trump ordered the US embassy in Israel be moved to Jerusalem? World War III was the predicted outcome. We’d better not do that, the appeasers chimed, because it will fan the flames of irrationality. Trump called their bluff. It is way past the time to stop paying attention to the lunatic left who consistently threaten temper tantrums and “days of rage” whenever it appears that they are not going to get their way. If this draft ruling represents the final ruling it is a great victory on two grounds: 1. A victory on moral grounds of the right to life and 2. A stinging rebuke to those desiring to use the Court to castrate our republic. From Tombstone: “Skin that smokewagon and see what happens.” This should be our attitude. Not in the dispensation of violence but a resolute refusal to be bullied. Call their bluff. Silent | |||
|
| Thank you Very little  |
 | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine  |
Sources? Cites? The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
delicately calloused |
I think his source is Jim Jordan. lolThis message has been edited. Last edited by: parabellum, You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier | |||
|
Ammoholic |
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0...abortion-rights.htmlThis message has been edited. Last edited by: parabellum, Jesse Sic Semper Tyrannis | |||
|
The Unmanned Writer |
I was thinking 2-3 years due in part to the topic but with same results - who's sitting on the bench? Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it. "If dogs don't go to Heaven, I want to go where they go" Will Rogers | |||
|
Get Off My Lawn |
^^^^^^^^^ In 1981, Biden a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, voted to advance the Hatch Amendment, a few years later voting no in the final vote. But at the time, he was also a staunch opponent of federal funded abortions, supporting the Hyde Amendment. "I’m not going to read Time Magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek, I’m not going to read any of these magazines; I mean, because they have too much to lose by printing the truth"- Bob Dylan, 1965 | |||
|
| wishing we were congress |
you folks calling for "sources" about biden and 1981, it takes about 10 seconds to find sources more detail from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0...abortion-rights.html It was a new era in Washington in 1981, and abortion rights activists were terrified. With an anti-abortion president, Ronald Reagan, in power and Republicans controlling the Senate for the first time in decades, social conservatives pushed for a constitutional amendment to allow individual states to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that had made abortion legal nationwide several years earlier. The amendment — which the National Abortion Rights Action League called “the most devastating attack yet on abortion rights” — cleared a key hurdle in the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 1982. Support came not only from Republicans but from a 39-year-old, second-term Democrat: Joseph R. Biden Jr. “I’m probably a victim, or a product, however you want to phrase it, of my background,” Mr. Biden, a Roman Catholic, said at the time. The decision, he said, was “the single most difficult vote I’ve cast as a U.S. senator.” The bill never made it to the full Senate, and when it came back up the following year, Mr. Biden voted against it. His back-and-forth over abortion would become a hallmark of his political career. | |||
|
| Thank you Very little |
Kinda thought that was obvious... This message has been edited. Last edited by: parabellum, | |||
|
| wishing we were congress |
Still not confirmed, but here is more info Isaac Arnsdorf - husband of Elizabeth Deutsch (clerk for Justice Breyer) Josh Gerstein - Politico reporter who broke the leaked story  | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine |
Do I have to explain why an active politician may not be a reliable reporter?This message has been edited. Last edited by: parabellum, The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 34 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge POLITICO Exclusive: Supreme Court Has Voted to Overturn Abortion Rights, Draft Opinion Shows
Main Page The Lounge POLITICO Exclusive: Supreme Court Has Voted to Overturn Abortion Rights, Draft Opinion Shows© SIGforum 2024