Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows - POLITICO
By: Justice Samuel Alito (POLITICO)
say goodbye to the midterms and 2024, trumpsters.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.
The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision - Planned Parenthood v. Casey - that largely maintained the right. "Roe was egregiously wrong from the start," Alito writes.
"We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," he writes in the document, labeled as the "Opinion of the Court." "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives."
Deliberations on controversial cases have in the past been fluid. Justices can and sometimes do change their votes as draft opinions circulate and major decisions can be subject to multiple drafts and vote-trading, sometimes until just days before a decision is unveiled. The court's holding will not be final until it is published, likely in the next two months.
The immediate impact of the ruling as drafted in February would be to end a half-century guarantee of federal constitutional protection of abortion rights and allow each state to decide whether to restrict or ban abortion. It's unclear if there have been subsequent changes to the draft.
No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending. The unprecedented revelation is bound to intensify the debate over what was already the most controversial case on the docket this term.
The draft opinion offers an extraordinary window into the justices' deliberations in one of the most consequential cases before the court in the last five decades. Some court-watchers predicted that the conservative majority would slice away at abortion rights without flatly overturning a 49-year-old precedent. The draft shows that the court is looking to reject Roe's logic and legal protections.
A person familiar with the court's deliberations said that four of the other Republican-appointed justices - Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett - had voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices after hearing oral arguments in December, and that line-up remains unchanged as of this week.
The three Democratic-appointed justices - Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - are working on one or more dissents, according to the person. How Chief Justice John Roberts will ultimately vote, and whether he will join an already written opinion or draft his own, is unclear.
The document, labeled as a first draft of the majority opinion, includes a notation that it was circulated among the justices on Feb. 10. If the Alito draft is adopted, it would rule in favor of Mississippi in the closely watched case over that state's attempt to ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
A Supreme Court spokesperson declined to comment or make another representative of the court available to answer questions about the draft document.
POLITICO received a copy of the draft opinion from a person familiar with the court's proceedings in the Mississippi case along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document. The draft opinion runs 98 pages, including a 31-page appendix of historical state abortion laws. The document is replete with citations to previous court decisions, books and other authorities, and includes 118 footnotes. The appearances and timing of this draft are consistent with court practice.
The disclosure of Alito's draft majority opinion - a rare breach of Supreme Court secrecy and tradition around its deliberations - comes as all sides in the abortion debate are girding for the ruling. Speculation about the looming decision has been intense since the December oral arguments indicated a majority was inclined to support the Mississippi law.
Under longstanding court procedures, justices hold preliminary votes on cases shortly after argument and assign a member of the majority to write a draft of the court's opinion. The draft is often amended in consultation with other justices, and in some cases the justices change their votes altogether, creating the possibility that the current alignment on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization could change.
The chief justice typically assigns majority opinions when he is in the majority. When he is not, that decision is typically made by the most senior justice in the majority.
'Exceptionally weak'
A George W. Bush appointee who joined the court in 2006, Alito argues that the 1973 abortion rights ruling was an ill-conceived and deeply flawed decision that invented a right mentioned nowhere in the Constitution and unwisely sought to wrench the contentious issue away from the political branches of government.
Alito's draft ruling would overturn a decision by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that found the Mississippi law ran afoul of Supreme Court precedent by seeking to effectively ban abortions before viability.
Roe's "survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant to the plainly incorrect," Alito continues, adding that its reasoning was "exceptionally weak," and that the original decision has had "damaging consequences."
"The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions," Alito writes.
Alito approvingly quotes a broad range of critics of the Roe decision. He also points to liberal icons such as the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, who at certain points in their careers took issue with the reasoning in Roe or its impact on the political process.
Alito's skewering of Roe and the endorsement of at least four other justices for that unsparing critique is also a measure of the court's rightward turn in recent decades. Roe was decided 7-2 in 1973, with five Republican appointees joining two justices nominated by Democratic presidents.
The overturning of Roe would almost immediately lead to stricter limits on abortion access in large swaths of the South and Midwest, with about half of the states set to immediately impose broad abortion bans. Any state could still legally allow the procedure.
"The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion," the draft concludes. "Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives."
The draft contains the type of caustic rhetorical flourishes Alito is known for and that has caused Roberts, his fellow Bush appointee, some discomfort in the past.
At times, Alito's draft opinion takes an almost mocking tone as it skewers the majority opinion in Roe, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, a Richard Nixon appointee who died in 1999.
"Roe expressed the 'feel[ing]' that the Fourteenth Amendment was the provision that did the work, but its message seemed to be that the abortion right could be found somewhere in the Constitution and that specifying its exact location was not of paramount importance," Alito writes.
Alito declares that one of the central tenets of Roe, the "viability" distinction between fetuses not capable of living outside the womb and those which can, "makes no sense."
In several passages, he describes doctors and nurses who terminate pregnancies as "abortionists."
When Roberts voted with liberal jurists in 2020 to block a Louisiana law imposing heavier regulations on abortion clinics, his solo concurrence used the more neutral term "abortion providers." In contrast, Justice Clarence Thomas used the word "abortionist" 25 times in a solo dissent in the same case.
Alito's use of the phrase "egregiously wrong" to describe Roe echoes language Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart used in December in defending his state's ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The phrase was also contained in an opinion Kavanaugh wrote as part of a 2020 ruling that jury convictions in criminal cases must be unanimous.
In that opinion, Kavanaugh labeled two well-known Supreme Court decisions "egregiously wrong when decided": the 1944 ruling upholding the detention of Japanese Americans during World War II, Korematsu v. United States, and the 1896 decision that blessed racial segregation under the rubric of "separate but equal," Plessy v. Ferguson.
The high court has never formally overturned Korematsu, but did repudiate the decision in a 2018 ruling by Roberts that upheld then-President Donald Trump's travel ban policy.
The legacy of Plessy v. Ferguson
Plessy remained the law of the land for nearly six decades until the court overturned it with the Brown v. Board of Education school desegregation ruling in 1954.
Quoting Kavanaugh, Alito writes of Plessy: "It was 'egregiously wrong,' on the day it was decided."
Alito's draft opinion includes, in small type, a list of about two pages' worth of decisions in which the justices overruled prior precedents - in many instances reaching results praised by liberals.
The implication that allowing states to outlaw abortion is on par with ending legal racial segregation has been hotly disputed. But the comparison underscores the conservative justices' belief that Roe is so flawed that the justices should disregard their usual hesitations about overturning precedent and wholeheartedly renounce it.
Alito's draft opinion ventures even further into this racially sensitive territory by observing in a footnote that some early proponents of abortion rights also had unsavory views in favor of eugenics.
"Some such supporters have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African American population," Alito writes. "It is beyond dispute that Roe has had that demographic effect. A highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are black."
Alito writes that by raising the point he isn't casting aspersions on anyone. "For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion," he writes.
Alito also addresses concern about the impact the decision could have on public discourse. "We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public's reaction to our work," Alito writes. "We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today's decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision."
In the main opinion in the 1992 Casey decision, Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and Davis Souter warned that the court would pay a "terrible price" for overruling Roe, despite criticism of the decision from some in the public and the legal community.
"While it has engendered disapproval, it has not been unworkable," the three justices wrote then. "An entire generation has come of age free to assume Roe's concept of liberty in defining the capacity of women to act in society, and to make reproductive decisions; no erosion of principle going to liberty or personal autonomy has left Roe's central holding a doctrinal remnant."
When Dobbs was argued in December,Roberts seemed out of sync with the other conservative justices, as he has been in a number of cases including one challenging the Affordable Care Act.
At the argument session last fall, Roberts seemed to be searching for a way to uphold Mississippi's 15-week ban without completely abandoning the Roe framework.
"Viability, it seems to me, doesn't have anything to do with choice. But, if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?" Roberts asked during the arguments. "The thing that is at issue before us today is 15 weeks."
Nods to conservative colleagues
While Alito's draft opinion doesn't cater much to Roberts' views, portions of it seem intended to address the specific interests of other justices. One passage argues that social attitudes toward out-of-wedlock pregnancies "have changed drastically" since the 1970s and that increased demand for adoption makes abortion less necessary.
Those points dovetail with issues that Barrett - a Trump appointee and the court's newest member - raised at the December arguments. She suggested laws allowing people to surrender newborn babies on a no-questions-asked basis mean carrying a pregnancy to term doesn't oblige one to engage in child rearing.
"Why don't the safe haven laws take care of that problem?" asked Barrett, who adopted two of her seven children.
Much of Alito's draft is devoted to arguing that widespread criminalization of abortion during the 19th and early 20th century belies the notion that a right to abortion is implied in the Constitution.
The conservative justice attached to his draft a 31-page appendix listing laws passed to criminalize abortion during that period. Alito claims "an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment…from the earliest days of the common law until 1973."
"Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Zero. None. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right," Alito adds.
Alito's draft argues that rights protected by the Constitution but not explicitly mentioned in it - so-called unenumerated rights - must be strongly rooted in U.S. history and tradition. That form of analysis seems at odds with several of the court's recent decisions, including many of its rulings backing gay rights.
Liberal justices seem likely to take issue with Alito's assertion in the draft opinion that overturning Roe would not jeopardize other rights the courts have grounded in privacy, such as the right to contraception, to engage in private consensual sexual activity and to marry someone of the same sex.
"We emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right," Alito writes. "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."
Alito's draft opinion rejects the idea that abortion bans reflect the subjugation of women in American society. "Women are not without electoral or political power," he writes. "The percentage of women who register to vote and cast ballots is consistently higher than the percentage of men who do so."
The Supreme Court remains one of Washington's most secretive institutions, priding itself on protecting the confidentiality of its internal deliberations.
"At the Supreme Court, those who know don't talk, and those who talk don't know," Ginsburg was fond of saying.
That tight-lipped reputation has eroded somewhat in recent decades due to a series of books by law clerks, law professors and investigative journalists. Some of these authors clearly had access to draft opinions such as the one obtained by POLITICO, but their books emerged well after the cases in question were resolved.
The justices held their final arguments of the current term on Wednesday. The court has set a series of sessions over the next two months to release rulings in its still-unresolved cases, including the Mississippi abortion case.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
91 visitors
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted.
so much for the party that allegedly protects individual freedom and liberty.
click on seeded content to find/read the draft opinion, key passages, and the breach...
These are the kickers for me:
First of all, that admits that from the founding until the late 19th Century, abortion was LEGAL in most of the US.
Secondly, based on Alioto's argument, we have no right to Life or Liberty since neither is enumerated in the Constitution.
Here's another:
Isn't that special? Alito's opinion obliterates the 'right to privacy' but claims that doesn't concern 'other rights'. Based on this opinion, there is no grounds for Griswold to stand. There is a long list of other opinions that rely on the court's rulings on the right to privacy.
This is a Pandora's box and Alito's pretense that the court has no idea of its possible effects and no obligation to review it is utter bullshit.
51% of americans will lose a constitutional right that is supported by over 70% of americans.
The question becomes is this particular issue strong enough to over ride all others and change votes in November. It would seem that those that feel most strongly about this as an issue may already be voting dem. Both sides seem to want to believe they have an issue that will make a one issue voter. Be it second amendment or abortion they may be overstating the importance of the issues to people that it will not really effect on a personal level. It may sway a number of voters on the fence anyway but it may be less than the passionate seem to think. Only time will tell, the rest is conjecture.
Agreed, there's a lot of hair pulling over this and a segment of our population is convinced this is the primary issue for November. But then again people gotta live for their drama...
As this was just an early draft from early February, we just don't know what the final opinion will be when it's released somewhere in the next two months. That still leaves several months before November. There's been some talk on this board about how this will dominate the news cycles, hard to think that it would last that long and overshadow what happens right in front of people every time they go to the grocery store or the gas station, or have to explain to their children that this year is another "staycation" as they cannot afford to go to DisneyLand this year due to inflation.
We just don't know how this will play out in November.
Another thought on this...
If SCOTUS does overturn Roe v Wade, will Congress blow up to codify abortion rights? Passing such a law in the House is easy as the Dem's hold the numerical advantage there, would they use the nuclear option in the Senate to handle that vote with a simple majority? And I think there are several Republicans who would join with the Democrats on that vote TBH. In my mind, this would simply be a correction by placing abortion rights back in the legislature and removing it from the courts which IMO should not have been involved in the first place. I do agree that Roe v Wade was the wrong decision and that it should be settled in the legislature but while Congressmen and Senators may talk bravely they are in fact cowards afraid to do anything that might "piss" off someone and thereby cost them a vote.
Action like that could be a huge win for the Democrats for November as they can proudly proclaim that they "saved" abortion rights.
The problem with this point of view, is yes a conservative-majority on the SCOTUS hinted that it will remove itself from a discussion of a right to privacy; doing so my erasing the right as understood (when official). Rights are inherent—permanent, not 'fodder' for whims of voters and 'scores' of elected politicians who need a quick 'fix' in some political season!
Something else to remember. It is not like the Supreme Court is making abortion illegal, it is kicking it back to the states. This means the impact on people will be restricted to people in those states that can't go to another state for some reason (assuming I understand the ramifications of this ruling). It may also be (or not be) the case that people that live in these states abortion may be limited may not have as big an issue with it as the people on the outside looking in.
I agree that this may have had a bigger impact on the election if it came out closer to November. It seems peoples attention span is not that long unless it personally hits them every week (or every time they go to the store).It will be interesting how this will remain (or brought back up) front and center in November.
Time will tell.
Good point. I am sure our elected officials are all ready looking into (maybe polling)what this would mean for their careers, it is not like they are concerned about the people first.
While access to healthcare and privacy is a basic human right (as stated in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was signed by the United States in 1948) , it is not a constitutional right per se. Originalists have stated that outside of what is enumerated in the Constitution there is no other constitutional right to privacy. Starting in the 1920's courts started to read the 14th Amendment more broadly to encompass child rearing, marriage, procreation and termination of medical treatments. However the right to privacy remains an open question legally. SCOTUS is supposed to reach their opinions based on constitutional law.
IMO the court is not the proper place to handle this. This needs to be codified in law. If codified in law we can be assured that there are states who would take the challenge of this to court, very likely going all the way up to SCOTUS. If SCOTUS ruled that the law itself was constitutional (as Congress is the outfit that makes laws) that would be a stronger precedent.
Judging from the facebook page of Sen. Todd Young [one of my Senators], abortion is THE issue he is running on. The vast majority of his posts for the last couple of months have been hammering home the fact that he is the 'pro-life' candidate. So, it sure looks like Young thinks there are those that will be voting Republican based on this issue. Young's only other 'go to' issue is attacking China ad nauseam.
And they claim we're the ONE issue voters.
Interesting. That may or may not be the case that it is the most important issue for the voters where you are but I can see that each area will run on what they feel will get them elected. I could be wrong but it seems strange to me that there are that many one issue voters out there. While this issue sparks on passion on both sides of the issue it still seems it is not an issue that affects the vast majority of Americans on a personal level. So even though they will poll as either for or against abortion will they actually vote based solely on that? Sounds like Young may believe so.
They do?
A right to privacy, a human right, is "impractical" if it is transitory, period. This can't be subject to the whims of politicians. It will be a first-class mess! With all forms of obfuscations and confusing policy-making states-side.
That is the point, privacy is commonsense law. That it is not 'contracted' in the constitution is congress' continual fault, and the courts were compelled to act due to congress' (prior 1973) inability to come to a consensus on privacy (ICO a woman's body). Also, congress' ineptness reinforces the reality that politicians are not the best choice to decide the question of privacy (a woman's body), and human rights!
What you are saying is that both branches can support each other's decision to affirm privacy. I get that.
But, conservative states are 'conditioned' to not agree with helping out with the legislation.
I think we need to be very careful with this. The courts should not be making law as they are not elected into office by the will of the people, that by design is the province of Congress. If we allow unelected people to make law, are we still a Republic?
That Congress is unable to is make a law on this proof that the will of the people is not made up on this either, however you cannot ignore party politics in the question either.
But I think, especially in an election year, that there are some Republicans who would vote in favor of codifying abortion.
Yet the 'vast majority of Americans' when asked, support abortion, some 70%+. Women/females being the majority [170+ million] and another 100+ million men who married/fathered them sure as hell have a stake in this 'on a personal level'.
I find it the height of hypocrisy that the right decries the very idea that the government could force them to wear a mask yet they seemingly have no issue with women being forced to carry a pregnancy to term against their will and in all too many cases, to the detriment of their health or life.
Voting on the issue of a women's right to choose isn't JUST about abortion.
Blows my mind.
Pissed me off.
That too.
. . . which is why courts express their judgements through opinions. And the larger question is this: Why should an inalienable right be subjected to politic whim?
In the case of Roe v Wade, the court did basically make a law in that it determined that abortion would be legal and protected in all states. As I explained up in 1.2.7 this was the wrong approach and should have been codified by Congress into law.
What is an inalienable right? As I understand it, it is a right that cannot be transferred to someone else, cannot be taken away and cannot be denied. But if you are saying that abortion is an inalienable right for a woman to have are you not taking away the inalienable right to life from the unborn?
The ethos of the United States is built on the belief that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. Yet the state can take the life of a criminal via execution. Some states have a death penalty, some do not but it would appear that this inalienable right is subject to political whim.
The Supreme court wants to kick it back to the states so laws can be written (if they chose) based on the will of the people that voted politicians in. That may change based on the will of the people depending on who they vote in. It will still be decided by the will of the people that voted the politicians in and not by a whim of the politicians. The politicians will still get voted out if they don't do what the people want. I see more harm in legislating by the bench than I do letting the states decide for themselves based on what the people in the states vote for.
The unborn? Really? What makes you think that a zygote, blastocyst or embryo should have equal rights with a woman?
Oh and as I stated before, there is NO 'right to life' in the Constitution, so per Alito, NO ONE has that right.
Exactly, even our Declaration of Independence leaves ambiguity on what created means and when are they endowed:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Republicans and conservatives don't care about their hypocrisy, they don't respect democrats and liberals anyway.
No, the Supreme Court can not make law (they have no enforcement 'arm'). I repeat, it issues opinions. Which is why it details at-length its rationale and dissents to show it has taken all sides under advisement. The reason SCOTUS opinions have the 'force' of law is constitutionally the other two branches of the 'triad' defer to the highest court's wisdom in matters of legal concern.
That brings me to why SCOTUS made a legal call in 1973 Roe vs. Wade, a case with standing was found and presented to the Justices and upon discovery that Congress would not provide remedy for the citizenry - the high court - found grounds to act and rule on privacy issues. The rest is the history we see, know, and can read.
Right down the center of what?
The question and its answer is not complicated:
1. Does life begin at conception or at 'viability'?
2. At what point is the "unborn" a citizen of this nation entitled to its rights and privileges: A. Inception. B. After reaching viability (the court rendered "threshold" point)?
Courts determined viability, thereby giving a girl or woman a 'window' to make a lifelong decision about the trajectory (course) of her privacy and life.
The answer to "2" is actually to be decided by congress but for 'forever' politicians side-step their duty to perform and make the call. And so the issue festered until 1973 SCOTUS confronted and opined on the issue - putting the other two branches of government in position to accept their judgement.
And it gets treated as law, does it not? We have some Congressmen who are speaking right now about how SCOTUS does not have the right to overturn Roe v Wade as "settled law".
This opinion when drafted back in 73 has been treated as law for all these years when it's just an opinion of SCOTUS. And I agree with several other scholars (not that I consider myself a scholar) who have stated that the legal opinion was incorrectly settled as it relied on an interpretation of privacy that exceeds what is listed in the Constitution. Originalists have stated that outside of what is enumerated in the Constitution there is no other constitutional right to privacy. Starting in the 1920's courts started to read the 14th Amendment more broadly to encompass child rearing, marriage, procreation and termination of medical treatments. However the right to privacy remains an open question legally. The right to privacy is not settled law.
I believe that this should be handled by Congress but 50 years ago they gave up and tossed it over the fence to allow SCOTUS to handle it.
Having trouble responding to the actual post so you have to deflect and try to make it about me. Weak, very weak.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. It seems that if you were able to ask the founders they would say that an unborn person is endowed with these unalienable rights at the moment of creation. But how I answered you back in 1.2.22 was more looking for a point of balance. The right to abort for a woman is a death sentence for the unborn regardless of what you call it. We cannot ask the unborn for their opinion on this. So is the unborn a person worthy of consideration or is it simply property of the mother until birth?
In answer to question 1, I really cannot answer that. In order to know that answer I would need to be God. That's a question that has been asked and discussed for centuries and many different groups have held different ideas / opinions on the subject but we don't know of any of them that are the truth.
My opinion to question 2 is that the Court gave an opinion because Congress refused to. It's been treated as law but it's not the law. All this could be avoided if Congress would do their job. But I believe that Congress does not want to resolve this issue because it's much more useful for them to leave this as an open issue and have us, the people, upset and angry at each other so that Congress continue to use this as a club to gain more money and power from us. It's the politicians creed, never let a good crisis go to waste.
Do you see (more) harm in allowing the legislating body (congress) fail to perform its duties, causing the citizens under their leadership to despair and 'want'?
First, some issues rise above the level of political whim. That is, if you get a right-right then leave it alone for all time. It is not a 'hot potato' to be plated up indefinitely.
Second, states are 'notorious' for bias-thinking that heavily favor local or regional thinking. Subsequently, there is an order of magnitude concern. This is a matter that cannot be trusted to the dictates of one state or another. Much like the issue of slavery. If something of this magnitude is right or wrong in one state, it should carry uniformity across all states.
Thirdly, there is a question of separate but unequal that will arise and need deciding how to 'execute.' Girls and women who cross state boundaries from a state where abortion is illegal into a state where abortion is legal, have an abortion, and returns to her state can be accused of ending "the inception" of a life began in her home state. I can picture some male suitor claiming harm for her action.
There can be a conflict brewing between the federal use of the commerce clause in this, as states are required to accept documents from their fellow states that are deemed legitimate. (Conservative states will no doubt deny acceptance of legitimate abortion 'papers.')
Those Congressmen should not have graduated eighth grade, let alone been actually elected to anything of import.
Agreed, they should know better. At a minimum they should understand what the body they are part of is supposed to do and what the other bodies of the Federal government are supposed to do, and what the limitations are for each branch. But they ignore the entire checks and balances thing...
If 100 years of jurisprudence doesn't create 'settled law', what will? WTF does it take?
One could argue [and the courts have] that the founders enumerated a right to privacy in the 4th Amendment by prohibiting an 'unreasonable search'.
Why say 'Exactly' and then post a totally unrelated comment? I noted no ambiguity.
How am I supposed to know, I'm not on the Supreme Court and I'm not a constitutional scholar. And I suspect you are not either. All I have is the information provided where it states that legally the right to privacy is still an open question and is not settled law. I don't have all the information but I don't remember seeing the 4th Amendment included in any research over Roe v Wade, if you have other information that shows it was please share.
We don't know for sure if this will be the opinion coming out of SCOTUS, all we can do for now is wait. But if this is the opinion, then there are really only two other courses of action. Reach out to Congress to stop being so cowardly and codify this into law or sit back and watch us return to the 60's where women have to either travel to other states which allow abortion or risk their lives in the back-alley clinic lottery. I still believe that the basic fault of this is on Congress for their cowardly refusal to codify this into law 50 years ago and allowing SCOTUS to make a ruling which was then treated like the law of the land.
Answer the question.
It is a misnomer, as in figure of speech. Make no mistake. SCOTUS knows it does not have authority to make law directly. That would be a constitutional violation and so every so-called, law, made would be stripped away. A court could not survive such poor judgement and execution of its function.
Thus the correct term is "opinion." All the other language is loose and used to convey a message.
SCOTUS can not and does not enforce its opinions.
BTW, this verbiage, "settled law" could mean in the minds of the high court, the law in question and its accompanying law, is "settled" - has been exhaustively reviewed. This is just my opinion.
SCOTUS settled it in 1973:
Now to be fair and clear: Democrats have already acted in the House to pass abortion into law. I do not have a timeline on how far back in time this desire to remedy the abortion issue goes for democrats, nevertheless! Republicans, definitely will not 'close' the issue and so we, the people, continue to be upset and angry at this 'festering' wound REPUBLICANS and CONSERVATIVES won't act to pass into law or defeat properly in congress!
Call it out, for real.
This is what has occurred when a branch of government neglects to do its 'job' and of all jobs lacking completion—it's congress -the people's representative who are caught up in the deep, murky, underbelly of politics for decades while "the people" languish.
The irony is devastating. What is being done to the people wrongly is at the hands of those who swore to have their backs in D.C.!
Now then, when congress is out of proper alignment; the president(s) is out of alignment; and the court is found (off-kilter on the grid) with no justification for not hearing the 'cries' of a persistent public about an injustice being done to it in many, many, states. The courts resolve to take up the 'slack' of congress. It chooses to "see what it can do" resulting in opinions (for which congress accepts willingly or begrudging, but always with relief!)
We will have to have THIS discussion one day too -you, me, us!
The right to privacy is commonsense. And it is implied in nature and in law.
“Even a dog knows the difference between being kicked and being stumbled over.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes
For example, it is implied in the constitution that: freedom of speech does not give any citizen the right to yell fire in a crowded facility and cause a stampede. It is implied in the constitution that pornography can be legal and viewed by the citizen in the privacy of public buildings and in their own homes but 'snuff' and 'skat' videos are obscenity and illeg al.
Our founders surely considered future generations, especially their "nuclear age" descendants, would have the commonsense to understand that they, the founders, did not want them to be constrained in the future by 18th century values and constitutional governance. Now look at us, failing the test of the future. Looking longingly into the past trying to climb back into its 'womb.'
[deleted]
No, this is not a fair reply. You initially asked in question 1 back in 1.2.29
I gave my reply to that question. You can't change the question of when does life begin in order to prove my reply invalid and your reply the valid one. Your reply only goes into when does the unborn become viable which to me means capable of surviving outside of the womb. The average of that is around 21 weeks.
But please don't change the questions like this.
I don't have time right now for an exhaustive search. Google search for the past 20 minutes have only shown fairly recent attempts, such as in 2021 the House Democrats passed a bill on abortion that received no Republican support. But do you have any records or links where Congress worked on abortion laws anywhere in the past 60 years?
I still believe this is a legislative issue that needs to be resolved but if Congress will not act and if the leaked draft of the opinion of SCOTUS is close to what the final opinion will be where Roe v Wade is overturned the only other option then is that the issue of abortion is once again returned to the individual states. I doubt we will go back to the early 1900's when abortion was illegal in every state, but it will be like the 60's where some states allowed and some states restricted.
As legislation and government is the art of compromise, why can't some sort of compromise bill be found The bill in 2021 (H.R. 3755) seemed very one-sided to me where there was nothing for the other side to gain. Abortion IMO is to touchy a subject to attempt to pass a bill that only recognizes one side of the issue unless that one side has a veto-proof Congress.
Something being "commonsense" is not the same as "settled law". Especially for a topic that is so fought over. The right to privacy is spelled out in the Constitution and originalists argue that in keeping with the spirit of the constitution that is what is protected. It was only in later years that the courts expanded the usage of privacy but that expansion was not agreed to universally. Even SCOTUS was not in universal agreement on the use of privacy in Roe v Wade as it only had the support of 7 Justices. If legal minds and constitutional scholars say it is not settled law, who am I to argue?
The law is all over the place when it comes to a pregnant woman. For example, if a pregnant woman is murdered the murder can be charged with two murders. Yet if a pregnant woman obtains an abortion she is not charged with murder. Why is it yes for one and no for the other? Is the unborn entitled to any rights or is the unborn simply the "property" of the woman until birth?
Where is this information provided Snuffy? As far as I can tell YOU are the only one using the term 'settled law'. It isn't anywhere in the draft opinion OR the article. The term 'open question' is only in the draft opinion once yet NOT in relation to the right to privacy.
So you are the only one that knows why you think that 100 years of jurisprudence leaves an 'open question' and doesn't create 'settled law'.
'We' can do a hell of a lot more than just wait for the opinion to be released.
It may behoove you to review the major decision of the court and recognize that some of the most landmark decisions, like Brown v. Board, Miranda v. Arizona, Loving v. Virginia, Lawrence v. Texas, DC v. Heller, US v. Windsor, Obergefell v. Hodges have NOT been codified by Congress.
Is it your posit that all of those issues are still 'open questions' and NONE of those decisions create 'settled law'?
Alito tries to make the ridiculous argument that a SCOTUS decision must bring a 'national settlement of the issue' and end 'debate and division' to be safe from being overturned. THAT posit puts just about every SCOTUS decision on the table to be overturned and leaves the lives of the people of the US in chaos. Of course, based on Alito's draft decision, adverse effects of SCOTUS decisions are immaterial.
What leads you to that unfounded conclusion Snuffy?
It's ironic that you cite the preamble of the DoI while ignoring the fact that we all know that the whole 'ALL men' thingy was utter bullshit AND it leaves out women too. So why would you think that they would say that included 'an unborn person'?
Secondly, the DoI isn't the 'law of the land' and AGAIN, there is NO 'unalienable' Constitutional right to life or liberty. The 5th Amendment states clearly that one CAN be deprived of life and liberty by the federal government. THAT is what the founders said.
One must be born to die.
Based on Alito's draft decision, 'we' won't be asking women their opinion either.
Not Constitutionally.
There is a HUGE difference between 'consideration' and primacy.
Your posit seems to be that once a woman is impregnated, she becomes a vessel and loosed her 'personhood' until she brings the pregnancy to term.
Not property, more of an encumbrance.
BTW, there is more nuance than your either-or question.
Do you actually believe that an act of Congress codifying abortion would NOT be challenged in the court? If not, you recognize that this would all be about challenging 50 year old legislation rather than a 50 year old SCOTUS decision. The right will NEVER consider either 'settled'.
Many states turned this into a "hot potato" when they began enacting laws for abortion up to the time of birth. They didn't leave their right alone, they kept pushing and here we are.
All good points Dulay.
You all act like a woman changes her mind at the time she is set to deliver and then aborts her child.
[deleted]
You can find all sorts of opinions on settled law all over the place, it's not hard to find.
There are some opinions that bend that settled law is really a meaningless term that is usually just bandied about during SCOTUS confirmation hearings, there are other opinions that settled law is a meaningful concept, even thought it does not embody any single unified idea.
“Alito tries to make the ridiculous argument that a SCOTUS decision must bring a 'national settlement of the issue' and end 'debate and division' to be safe from being overturned.”
Thus turning the conservative argument against having the judiciary legislate on its head.
Snuffy, I changed nothing. The question of viability is what SCOTUS needed to act upon. For purposes of discussion, life begins at conception. But the question for abortion purposes (inalienable rights exist in this world not in the womb), is what is important to this discussion trek we're on - right?
Do not get bogged down in terminology!
The court needed to decide when the conceived is viable outside the womb. Because when the unborn is determined viable it has (unalienable) rights (crossed a 'threshold point') in our legal system from abortion.
That is the only thing I meant by the question I asked.
That's a strawman. We aren't talking about the death of the 'mother', are we?
Oh, and BTFW, those enhanced penalties INTENTIONALLY exclude abortion.
I asked for YOUR reasoning for using the term and where you claim it was provided in the seed or the draft. Your deflecting.
Blah, blah, blah.
You made the term 'settled law' a cornerstone for your argument Snuffy, so I presume that you are not among those of the opinion that it's meaningless. Therefore, you must be among those of the opinion that it's meaningful but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that Alito's posit renders it meaningless for a plethora of cases that the people of the US have relied on to make decisions on how to live their lives.
Passed House (09/24/2021)
Women's Health Protection Act of 2021
This bill prohibits governmental restrictions on the provision of, and access to, abortion services.
Specifically, governments may not limit a provider's ability to
Furthermore, governments may not require a provider to
In addition, governments may not (1) require patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or disclose their reasons for obtaining such services, or (2) prohibit abortion services before fetal viability or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health.
The bill also prohibits other governmental measures that are similar to the bill's specified restrictions or that otherwise single out and impede access to abortion services, unless a government demonstrates that the measure significantly advances the safety of abortion services or health of patients and cannot be achieved through less restrictive means.
The Department of Justice, individuals, or providers may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations.
The bill applies to restrictions imposed both prior and subsequent to the bill's enactment.
Snuffy, you will have to indicate what (if anything) you disagree with in this House bill (now held up in the Senate). Yes, I can imagine there are issues to be explained further, but on its face, democrats are acting in the House and waiting to act in the Senate. So what, if anything, do you perceive as a hold up in this bill for republicans and conservatives?
Please identify this privacy clause in the constitution, it would be helpful to see what you see.
And the push-back was effective. But this is an attempt to cripple, if not end, abortion and privacy for women over childbirth. That is Unsat. And disproportionate.
And abortion up to the point of viability is compromise, yes or no?
Your question is unintentionally misleading. The court determines (as a compromise between interest of girl, woman, state) that abortion can take place up the point of viability - not birth. At viability, said girl or woman begins in earnest the role of 'mothering' the unborn with her with its rights established by the state (and upheld by mother and state).
You're still stuck on unanimity. There is no Constitutional basis for it. The founders knew full well that was unattainable. The founders voted on the Articles of the Constitution, majority ruled, and created the 'law of the land'. The majority of the court codifies 'settled law'.
A citizen I presume. Argue away.
Consent.
Again, with that loaded question...
you'll never convince these fucking thumpers of anything, because... geezus. the best thing you can do for them is show them where the front of the line is. yard art, cat food, or bonfires are the traditional methods that they will accept. I'm locking this seed.
with the help of a federalist dominated SCOTUS judiciary, radical unamerican xtian nationalists are attempting to breach the establishment clause of the 1st amendment and violate the constitution by imposing xtian religious doctrine into law.
Am still trying to figure out why the man who cheated on every wife he had, made 'coy illusions' about dating his daughter and conducted his adult life with sexual conquests at every opportunity would----- when given that opportunity------appoint judges that would take away (the way out) for men like him to 'take care of' an inconvenient situation.
Note: I did not acknowledge nor even mention the predicament women may find themselves in.
TGOP. The freedom party.
Some of us are trying to figure out why you even mention this person (although I could speculate and probably be right). It's not like he has anything to do with this.
Because he created this Supreme Court
[deleted]
How many justices did he nominate? 3. If a Democratic POTUS had nominated 3 justices you would be bitching about the liberal court and activist judges.
fortunately my home state of colorado has effectively locked down abortion rights into law and out of reach of unamerican thumper trash last month. I expect to see a state constitutional amendment on the ballot to ensure that with yesterdays SCOTUS opinion.
He nominated 3 out of 9. Far from your claim "he created this Supreme Court".
And here you all are freaking out over something that isn't even signed. A draft. For all you know there are opposing dissents floating around the SCOTUS. Hell for all we know the document [deleted is an opposing dissent.]
And that's all the leaked document from SCOTUS suggests, that the decision on abortion be pushed back to the individual states. The leaked opinion (which is NOT the final opinion) will not make abortion illegal.
You are lucky. Even in NYS abortion is still on the chopping block every now and then. But we keep fighting every step of the way. I travel to Albany every year with PP to let them know we are still fighting for the rights of women.
That is the funny thing. The way many of the Dems and much of the media is framing it as making abortion illegal is to try and rev up the base. In reality the worst it will do is make abortion limited in states that elected legislatures to represent what they want.
Oh the horror.
Please. If this is the extent of your comprehension on this subject---------------------drop it.
That's the extent of comprehension of those living in an alternate reality.
They pay for their mistresses and the family members they impregnate abortions.
This quote identifies the flaw. Abortion should be a personal choice, not the choice of the state.
Hmm. In a Constitutional Republic----I am not sure----but----I think you exposed a flaw in the argument by conservatives for 'States Rights?'
Or did I not understand?
What? How elitist is this? These conservatives just told me, you, us, to our faces that when they cast their future (upcoming) votes they "won't pretend to know" or care what the cries and howls will be about it! SCOTUS is going on record that for a generation-girls and women- DO NOT COME TO THEIR COURT FOR RELIEF! Go to your various states and federal legislatures - not 'us'! The 'welcome mat' soon will be rolled up and stowed away.
Okay! CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW INDEPENDENTS?!!! This country is going back; way back, and it begins with many of you not lifting a damn finger to slow it down or halt it.
[deleted]
We won't know for sure until the actual release that should happen in the next couple of months. Justices have been known to have voted one way initially and after review and discussion with their fellow justices they can change their vote. From what I understand, this opinion was written in February so it may not even be current. There's a lot we don't know although what was released is enough to get both sides jumping on it.
As for how much of a hit this causes to Republicans in November I really can't say. We don't know what the actual opinion will be until it's released and November is still a long ways off so a lot could change. But IMO, if the Republicans want to do away with abortion then they MUST fix the other side of the equation. People will continue to have sex, it's not gonna stop and if a pregnancy cannot be terminated by abortion and the woman must carry the child to term but does not want to raise the child, then the Republicans MUST come up with the solution to that on the other side. They cannot perform normal political practices of only working on one side of the issue.
And for the record, I am in favor of a woman being able to have as many abortions as she can afford.
Thusly I assume pregnancy termination should only be reserved for those with 'means?' Did I get that right?
Nope, not 100% right. As per Hyde law, federal money cannot be used to pay for an abortion. Outside of that, if someone's health insurance pays for it then that's covered. If there are private grants that can pay for it, then it's covered. TBH I don't follow it closely but I've not heard of women being turned away because they couldn't pay for the abortion. The provider almost always finds a way to cover it.
But by no means am I saying abortion only goes to the rich, no fucking way am I implying that.
No. Here in Ohio an insurance provider cannot pay for or subsidize pregnancy terminations. Passed by our GOP and signed by the governor.
When this law goes into effect----If it goes into effect----then only those with 'means' will be able to acquire the service. Which of course, would make your implication flawed.
So you're going to attack me because I'm not up to date on the law in Ohio, a state I don't live in, and twist my words when I said I am not implying that abortions should only go to the rich.... How incredibly tolerant of you to attack just because I'm not in your fucking echo chamber.
Just because you find an exception does not mean what I'm implying is invalid. All I'm saying is that abortions should not only go to the rich... That's what I'm implying...
Imply - to communicate an idea or feeling without saying it directly
I am watching to make sure it doesn't turn into an echo chamber.
oh poo, that's no fun.
You're correct. Only the republicans/gop/gqp/alleged conservatives are allowed to pay for their mistresses and the family members who they impregnate (usually underage) abortions.
They all are.
lots of trips in the church bus back and forth to the airport for underage female church goers ...
Did not attack you. What is wrong with you. Read what I said in 5.1.2 and if there is an error or you have a disagreement, please point it out. Why are the MAGA so touchy?
This started with my initial comment in 5 that included
In 5.1 you said
implying to me that I was saying only the rich should be able to get abortions.
My reply in 5.1.1 further expanded my reasoning where I included "if someones health insurance pays for it"
And I affirmed that I was NOT implying that only the rich should get abortions.
In 5.1.2 you came back with Ohio does not allow insurance providers to pay for abortions and stated "would make your implication flawed."
That is the attack, you called me a liar. Those are your words.
The gop will now suffer horrific losses at midterms!
Hopefully. But here in Ohio the GOP has gerrymandered itself into immortality. Even ignored the 2018 vote by nearly 70% for bipartisan/independent redistricting commissions. And got away with it. Hell, we even re-elected our Speaker of the House under indictment for the First Energy taxpayer fraud and bribery scandal. His name is Householder although he has been removed, albeit grudgingly. Ohio is corrupt.
Unless women, all women, take a stand and vote. Ohio is redder than Texas.
The midterms will be an indicator of whether or not American women would rather be free or slaves.
Republican Pin-up Wife
Exactly, vote no on those Senators and Representatives that want to enslave woman.
[deleted]
I was like that..and I broke my toe
I guess the lesson would be don't kick ass when you're knocked up.
The alleged conservatives/republicans/gop/gqp appear to KNOW that they've got this!
[deleted]
Maybe. But gerrymandering is a brick on the scales.
IMO it will be proof that the "dumbing down of America" will have succeeded in the event that the midterm voters don't vote against those representing the party that is demolishing the reputation of American democracy by doing whatever it can to restrict the right to vote, the one that harbours Qanon weirdos, the one wherein so many still believe the 2020 election was stolen, the one that wants to turn American women into "handmaidens" as described by Atwood, the one that alienates its members (like Liz Cheney) who actually have principles. I don't think the Democrats are so perfect either, but then I can only vote in Canadian elections and I know there are lots of NT members who don't give a shit about the opinion of a person who isn't an American anyway, even if it COULD be somewhat more objective.
I don't know, we'll see.
For one thing, this is a very early draft that was put together in early February so may not be current or accurate. Additionally Justices have been known to vote one way in discussions and after discussions and research they change their votes. So we won't know for sure what this really is until the actual opinion is released in a couple of months. Then November is still several months after that and that's a long time in politics. A lot can happen between now and November that will also impact the vote from the economy to crime to the Ukraine.
But at a minimum, this is a huge club that the Republicans have handed to the Democrats to use in their campaigns.
The 'huge club' you mentioned is but one of many that may be used.
yep, both sides have a lot of big clubs for the upcoming elections. Not looking forward to another summer of negative and attack campaign ads that blanket the air waves...
You will be long dead before that happens, both parties have moved to the arena of wedge issues with the GoP having mastered the 'art' over the past 30+ years and the DNC playing catch up. Perhaps a vacation either to the North or the South is in store.
Yeah but according to you both sides are equally bad!
And they are. You got a point to make [deleted ?]
But they're not.
[deleted]
Got any GOP clubs besides Trump rallies with MAGA merch?
It's good to see the bright side.
If this is true it's a very sad day for women's rights.
For the party that says they support individual rights, this decision shows as usual that they are full of shit.
Not shit. Autocracy.
The only rights the GOP gives a shit about are as follows:
1) I have a right to own a gun...that includes any number and size of weapons including a tank
2) Everyone has the freedom of worship as long as it's Christianity and then it must be my flavor of Christianity
3) LGBTQ people don't deserve rights. Except the right to breathe and even that's open for debate
By jove, I think you've got it TG!
The Republicans will get way more than they bargained for. If it happens it may cause the Republicans to fail at the midterms. There are more people in America who want to protect the right to choose than there are MAGA.
I'm not counting on that. People in the South hate abortion and want it overturned. They will continue to vote for the republicans
They hate it because it gives women some kind of control over their own lives. Can't have that.
It's more likely, because they are the "Bible belt" and as such are inclined to be conservative-leaning individuals. As you know, church leaders are powerful influencers. Girls and women are 'bout to take a devastating hit to their persons, its repression. I stand with you all in solidarity, because these conservatives will come for all liberal 'wins" over the decades.
Maybe the right-wingers, conservatives and their Republican party WANT to populate America with monster babies requiring special care until they die usually at a young age (before they can vote for more Republicans) and children carrying the genes of rapists, diseased and mentally defective fathers and more dull-witted incest babies. That should go a long way towards the dumbing down of and decline of America.
seems the right wing is again concerned about the declining numbers of aryan babies being born.
The right wing is all concerned before they are born, afterwards, not so much.
You nailed it.
I have been warning us all! Some conservatives have been telling you all along by their actions and their silence (dipping in and dipping out of discussions here) that they are working deceit against your, our best interests. This is just the first attack or should I say 'removal of their blessing' from SCOTUS. It does signal that what states want from this court - states can damn near count on them getting, because this SCOTUS will follow the 'enumerated rule' under the constitution. Liberals, do not come to the court for help with your problems! Go to congress or accept 'defeat'!
Let the hodge-podge of red and blue 'kingdoms' poxxing this country begin. What was once old is becoming new again. I am old enough to remember parts of what the old U.S. A. looked like!
[deleted]
Their silence screamed volumes about their deceit.
[deleted]
Yes, omission can be a form of a lie and vice-versa: oh, you didn't know? Cat thinks it has a mouse toy.
Like taking the 5th.
Gotta love those people that say we should sit & wait until the deed is done & then complain about it after we can't do a fucking thing about it. Then they will say we are whining.
I predict property insurance rates on evangelical churches will skyrocket...
Do you think the Supreme Court justices will change their mind because of outrage on cable news and protesting? I was under the impression that their job was to interpret the constitution as they see fit. It seems they are struggling with a credibility issue as it is, changing their mind because of a leaked ruling would pretty much destroy it.
Which is why we are not going to sit back and "wait". They've made their decision and it's not good for most of America
What do you plan to do that would change the decision? If they have made their decision do you think the Supreme court would change their decision about how they interpret the constitution based on feelings and some demonstrations? Or is the plan to try and talk congress to pack the court because you did not get your way?
I plan to vote in every election until the day I die. That's all I can do. All of my congress critters are republicans and anti-choice so writing letters to them won't do a goddamn thing.
But if you're suggesting that we should all just accept this then I suggest you go....(fill in the blank)
I am not suggesting anything. I suggest you vote and be as vocal as you like. I was actually interested in understanding what you meant by you were not going to "wait". That would lead me to believe you were under the impression you could change things now, before the actual decision came out. Looks like I misunderstood your intent.
You could have done it without the hostility though. Too early in the day for that. Have a nice day.
Don't talk to me about hostility. You've shown quite a bit over the last few weeks. You, Sir, are not as nice and genteel as you like to think you are.
I understand the feeling but I believe that if you feel that your senators and representatives are not representing you then it's even more important to write to them. They have to know all sides. If they only get letters that tell them how great they are doing, they will lose connection with reality and start to believe that their constituents all like what they are doing. If they only hear from the "Yes Men" how will they know what else people are thinking?
Remember Susan Collins said it wouldn't be?
That old hag should resign her Senate seat...
I've known people who have written to Tom Cotton who sends them back a form letter. He never adresses the core issue the constituent asked him about. My other senator is a do-nothing republican as is my congressional representative.
I could try but you have to understand Arkansas politics. It's very conservative and if you don't stand with them you may as well go live under a rock
I am exactly as nice and genteel as I think I am. I am not sure why you think you would have any idea at all how I think I am but I do recognize the deflection attempt.
I could not reply correctly due to an impasse issued, and I hope this doesn't get me a ticket but if it does I'll just have to live with it.
I think it's a shame that all you get back is a simple form letter and nothing changes. The feeling that you may as well live under a rock for all the consideration that your elected officials provide is IMO completely wrong. I understand that they are busy, but to ignore someone you are there to represent just because the political party is not the same???
But even for that I believe that your voice should be heard. It may not make a difference or it may be the twig that moves the river. But the feeling that is generated by giving up, I could not live with that. I would rather spit in the eye of death than give up. Or as one of my favorite movie characters said...
"Never Give Up, Never Surrender"!!!!!!
Snuffy, the impasse was to RDTC and not to you, so you have not broken the impasse rule.
ow, my collar is too tight and my leash is too short...
Never trust the republicans/todays'gqp/gop/alleged conservatives
Let me clarify. I misspoke. When an impasse is called the entire convo ends with the individual that called for it. No one should respond to them, but they can respond to anyone else on the thread.
Still not clear. I wasn't going to respond to anyone since I issued the impasse, but are you saying I can but nobody can respond to me?
I think we need another Meta article...lol
Ooo oo oo... I agree with She who must not be named (cuz I cannot respond to her in this thread, hehe)...
We needs more Meta articles... yes we do!!!!!!
When Richard Lugar was my Senator, he actually had his aids call me to address my issue. Donnelly was my Rep and then Senator and did the same and he actually did town halls all over the state. The 2 I have now are form letter kind of guys and Young stays in his GOP bubble.
A simple rule of thumb. If the site has removed the REPLY button on a comment, that means you are not supposed to reply to that comment.
There are myriad rules in effect that could disable REPLY; impasse is but one of them. So it is best to just let the site lead; if REPLY is disabled, it was done for a reason.
I just realized that there is no reply button to any of my comments in this thread
For sure. But today she----meaning the Stepford senator from Maine--------said that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied under oath and in private meetings with her.
Big whoop, right? snark
I have never used the impasse thing. There are a couple of folk on this forum that I simply will not reply no matter what they say. I call it 'personal ignore'.
Alito's poo-poooing of stare decisis is as troubling as the ruling itself. If precedent doesn't matter then each judge in the country is a king unto himself and the SCOTUS will be forced to overturn decision after decision as precedent is ignored in favor of each judges personal opinion. The conservatives have thrown the baby out with the bath water in order to justify this decision in the face of half a century of case law. Simultaneously you have a leaker doing deep harm to the integrity of the process itself. All in all a pretty dark day for the court.
For me personally, the SCOTUS has been a detriment and hostile to American idealism since Citizens United. I also believe it should be disbanded, reformed as an elective office and have 8-year one-time terms.
I like the idea but see problems with that. Would they have to be independants?
I disagree. Taxpayers pay their salaries, pensions, and everything else including the building, equipment, utilities etc. They are working on our dime. What they do affects us.
"Integrity of the process." ? ? ? You have to be joking, right? "I like beer. Do you blackout?" There is your integrity.
Hi AndrewK, welcome. This 'leaker' seems to have felt he or she had limited choice of action; 'leaking' is a desperation move as its weakness is that of a 'backlash' to ID some lone participant. To wit: He or she having accomplished the deed. Now then, what is this desperate moment? A highly probable offense by SCOTUS to ruin stare decisis by invalidation of itself!
What I find surprising is that Collins and Murkowski are surprised that they were lied to by nominees, after all, they are attempting to be confirmed to a lifetime position to the highest court in the land and they are lawyers, so they lied and or parsed words. WTF did they expect. ''Oh yes Senator Collins/Murkowski I plan on overturning Roe vs Wade, does that bother you?''
Trump said he was going to appoint justices that would overturn Roe vs Wade, wake the fuck up people.
The anti-choice forces believe that a 12 year old girl who gets pregnant because she is raped by her father should be forced to carry the rapist's baby through pregnancy and give birth to her father's child/grandchild. Republican family values!
Regardless of any risk to her life or health. Because that's what pro-life is all about, obviously.
Obviously.
Then they should support mandatory living organ donation. After all part of their liver or a kidney could save a life - doesn't matter if they want to do it or if it is going to make their life difficult for a couple of months - if they are a match - then damn get thee to the hospital & let them CUT YOU OPEN.
AFAIC every trumpster already is a potential organ donor.
I just saw this on Facebook and thought it was very fitting
"The anti-choice forces believe that a 12 year old girl who gets pregnant because she is raped by her father should be forced to carry the rapist's baby through pregnancy and give birth to her father's child/grandchild. Republican family values!"
And the source of your quote would be.......
How stupid to ask for a source......
[deleted]
Jeremy, the 'source' of the quote is the member who started this thread. Try to keep up...
Oh and BTFW, if you believe that a comment is a 'personal attack', per the CoC, do not reply to it [whine], flag it.
deleted
All these ridiculous proposed laws outlawing termination of ectopic pregnancies and criminalizing miscarriages aren't looking like the possibility of their passage is so far-fetched now. These people are gunning for women.
They also want to outlaw contraception, and they are not going to stop with women. You can be sure the Supreme Court decision about gay marriage is on their hit list, among other things.
If the Republicans take over Congress we can expect them to try to impose a nation-wide abortion ban.
At this point, I wouldn't put it past them to devolve our society back to before coverture was repealed. After all, if a woman can't be trusted to make decisions about her own bodily autonomy, she surely must need to be under her husbands 'protection and authority' right?
it's an attempt by the religious right to restrict women's equal rights and to subjugate them as second class citizens.
Take it from me, the Liberal Redneck is "h-la' insightful from start to ending!!!
If they keep this up the only women that will have anything to do with these assholes are trans-women...because they can't get pregnant
“...because they can't get pregnant.”
But that won’t stop the hate against any LGBTQ human being. Sadly, so much hate requires multiple outlets.
Very true. My stupid joke landed flat on its face.
I think I'll buy stock in blow up dolls
It was good and true
Blow up dolls are all men who are against abortion deserve
oh pooh, I just ended up on the cutting room floor. outside the local post office here in gooberville texas a local TV reporter just asked me what I thought could be done about ending political divisiveness in america. I told him "simple, stop electing fascists". thank god I'm headed back to colorado soon. clean air, clean water, and no death penalties for doing america favors.
Yeah....they can't air that kind of "hate" speech in Texas. The news station would assist the state police in posting your wanted poster in that very same post office...and every other PO in Texas
meh, I keep at least 2 handguns in my car and the roads are littered with carcasses of vermin here. if I gathered up the dumb ass cowboy hats, who would notice any more.
alright, I think this seed has run it's course and I'll be locking it after I have some lunch. go big or go home.
If you're going to go bear . . . . go grizzly