The Roe Countdown - Page 17

ponderingturtle · 3rd May 2022, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Nah, Obergefell, then Loving.

I think they will just go for a twofor.

JoeMorgue · 3rd May 2022, 07:08 AM

Gay Marriage will be next. Republicans still are butt hurt about losing that one.

cosmicaug · 3rd May 2022, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Originally Posted by Kestrel

The draft contends that Roe v. Wade was wrong to restrict the power of state legislatures in private matters. Does that same reasoning also apply to the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut or even Loving v. Virginia?

Those are clearly next up for attack.

A difference here is that Loving vs. Virginia predated Griswold & Lawrence vs. Texas by quite a bit & was not premised on an inferred right to privacy.

JoeMorgue · 3rd May 2022, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

A difference here is that Loving vs. Virginia predated Griswold & Lawrence vs. Texas by quite a bit & was not premised on an inferred right to privacy.

None of that matters. The Republicans want symbolic victories over the Left combined with a "We can do anything we want" message. Actual legal decisions are not really the point.

Abortion, gays, women, blacks... they'll get their turn without worry or care about precedent or greater scope.

Hell if they can find a way to make the Death Penalty mandatory watch them do it, really round out the trifecta of big issues they are on the losing side of.

ponderingturtle · 3rd May 2022, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

In the case of Loving v. Virginia, it definitely does not.

Sure it does, there is no explicitly stated right in the constitution to be able to marry anyone you choose to, so the state can step in and put what restrictions it wants on it. It isn't like any cases other that Roe were cited in this decision so it works for pretty much anything.

Ziggurat · 3rd May 2022, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yeah because it's totally liberals who storm government buildings when political decisions don't go their way.

That's precisely what's being advocated here. And my point is that this would be a very, very bad development. Do you disagree?

SuburbanTurkey · 3rd May 2022, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

"Liberal agenda"? We were talking about threats of violence to coerce the Supreme Court. You managed to straw man yourself. Impressive.

Either that, or you're admitting that threats of violence ARE the liberal agenda.

I was mostly referring to normal Social Contract stuff. Populations can refuse to be governed by unpopular laws if they choose, often the most effective strategies are nonviolent. Mass demonstrations and refusal to cooperate in the normal operation of society is ideally what you'd want to see in this kind of situation, though I wouldn't shed any tears for minor property damage and disorder that often accompanies such spirited protest. The populace can inflict quite severe blows without drawing a single drop of blood, if they are animated enough.

Undoubtedly this would spiral into violence, but it would be the state and/or right wing paramilitary types initiating it as usual.

The use of stochastic terrorism is something that you usually see with minority, authoritarian movements that have no hope of ever actually amassing broad popular support. You know, like your average right winger that decides to shoot up an abortion clinic.

ETA: I don't think you understand me at all if you think I'm suggesting that liberals are anywhere cool enough to even consider doing anything like direct action. If anything, their response will be to quell immediate anger and try to siphon off energy into donation/election schemes that promise a lot and deliver little.

ponderingturtle · 3rd May 2022, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

On further review, I would like to revise and extend my remarks.

I could easily see it being restricted, in the sense of certain methods being banned, or limitations placed on sale. Griswold overturned a complete ban on contraception. I can't imagine any state ever passing a complete ban, but I can see states restricting their use in some ways. The obvious case is any variant of a "morning after" pill, or any method aimed at preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. I could see some states passing such laws, and I think this court would uphold those laws if the states passed them.

ETA: Ninja'd by The Don

Don't you pay attention to the officials running for election in your own state, they are targeting Griswold

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...an/6879175001/

""Each of the radical Republicans running for Michigan AG want to overturn the right for married couples to use contraception without being prosecuted," Nessel tweeted."

crescent · 3rd May 2022, 07:15 AM

I reading some speculation regarding the mechanics of the Supremes' voting process and the motive for the leak. There is speculation that the leak might have been done as a way of "locking in" the vote (which has not yet actually occurred, there has been no actual decision made yet). The line of reasoning goes that Alito had a majority of the court tentatively line up but was worried that the more left-leaning side of the bench might still be able to craft a dissent effective enough to peel off a vote or two.

So leak the "vote", that way the cat is out of the bag and the justices might be less likely to change the "vote" (which has not yet actually been made yet anyway).

I don't buy that line of reasoning - the right to an abortion has strong public support. Intense public pressure could have the opposite effect of what the "leak to lock in the vote" logic proposes, it could result in pressure to change an SC Justice mind or two.

If that second scenario comes true (justices change their minds before any sort of formal vote), that would sow distrust, or at least be used as an excuse to claim that SC has lost integrity:

Andy McCarthy:

Quote:

If this story is true, the Court should issue its opinion right away. Otherwise the disgraceful leak wins. I would say that if my side lost. If we lose the integrity of the Court’s process, we lose the Court. That should be intolerable to all of us who live the country.

I don't buy that line of logic either. If the SC has not issued the final opinion, then the decision has not yet been legally made. There is a point where it may be too late for a justice to change his/her opinion, but that step in the process has not yet been reached.

My guess is that the leak might have been sort of semi-unintentional. This is a big thing, any naive staffer might have just found to too much to sit on and just had to tell someone.

Or a left leaning staffer leaking because they thought that public pressure could change a mind or two before its not too late. But then again, the Ginny Thomas theory also seems pretty viable.

JoeMorgue · 3rd May 2022, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That's precisely what's being advocated here. And my point is that this would be a very, very bad development. Do you disagree?

I'm insulted that you think I'm going to fall for you pretending that's the point.

angrysoba · 3rd May 2022, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Gay Marriage will be next. Republicans still are butt hurt about losing that one.

Do you think they will go for federal bans or make each of these things "states rights"?

Arguably the latter is worse given that States Rights Started The Civil War^TM

Meadmaker · 3rd May 2022, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by alfaniner

I for one am glad for the leak. Rather than being blindsided by the actual ruling, it allows for discussion and protest before the fact.

I tend to agree.

Although, it is a dangerous precedent. It's mostly a good idea not to see what's going on in advance, because in some cases there might be some actual uncertainty in a justice's mind. Could one of them change his mind. I've always wondered about the inner workings of the court. At what point do they actually cast their vote on a case, and when is it set in stone? I really have no idea.

From the outside, it's clear. When they pass out the papers, it's done. Before that, it doesn't exist. I don't know if it is still "passing out the papers", or if today it is done via hitting "publish" on the web site. I remember when Webster was being decided (or maybe Casey? I think Webster) I happened to be watching live and someone literally came out of the building carrying a box and was mobbed by reporters trying to grab a copy. I don't know if that's still how they do it today.

Anyway, though, that clear line is, mostly, a good idea. However, leaking it in this case is kind of a good thing, in my opinion. The very personal nature of the case, the immediate impact, all of that makes me think it's a good idea for people to know that this is on the way.

Now, the extremely interesting situation would be if, after all is said and done, a couple of justices actually changed their mind and when the real opininon comes out, Roe is upheld. However, I think that's a purely hypothetical scenario. I think Roe certainly will be overturned. It will be interesting, to legal scholars, to compare the draft version and the final version, to see any differences. For most people, though, what they care about is the bottom line, and the bottom line will be that Roe v. Wade is in the history books.

And I think the nature of this decision is such that it's good to have some warning that it's coming.

Beelzebuddy · 3rd May 2022, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That's precisely what's being advocated here. And my point is that this would be a very, very bad development. Do you disagree?

I'm given to understand from Madison Cawthorne's hearings (referencing Reconstruction-era rulings) that advocating for insurrection is a perfectly legal and American thing to do. Why are you so insistent that being an American is a very, very bad development?

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Do you think they will go for federal bans or make each of these things "states rights"?

First the one and then the other. Do you think "leaving it up to the states" to ban will slow down a federal ban later? Integrity only matters when a Democrat does it.

JoeMorgue · 3rd May 2022, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Do you think they will go for federal bans or make each of these things "states rights"?

Arguably the latter is worse given that States Rights Started The Civil War^TM

*Shrugs* Could go either way. The "We can do what we want" message is what is really important and that's going to be in the text instead of the subtext more and more as time goes on.

The Don · 3rd May 2022, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Do you think they will go for federal bans or make each of these things "states rights"?

Arguably the latter is worse given that States Rights Started The Civil War^TM

They'd like a federal ban, but I'm not sure they'll be able to achieve it.

In my view it will be States' rights but States could choose not to recognise marriages which are not legal in their jurisdiction hoping that corporations will then do the heavy lifting for them in states where things they don't like are legal. A company based in a state where gay marriage is illegal cannot be forced to provide benefits to a same sex spouse in a state where gay marriage is legal.

Suddenly · 3rd May 2022, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

The 14th amendment being codified into the constitution (as a direct consequence of the failure of a "states right" approach to government leading to bloody civil war) is a fact that conservative jurists prefer to ignore or view narrowly to the point of being without meaning.

There is an interesting and compelling case to be made that in the Civil War it was the union that were the rebels rather than the confederacy. That the union victory and the 14th amendment essentially created a new government, and since then history has been mostly southern conservatives trying to undo that revolution and return to the more oligarchic, less democratic, and less centralized government intended by the "founding fathers."

It would be nice for the "pro-Union" side to recognize this as then they would stop giving any credence to what the original framers intent was and instead recognize that Abraham Lincoln and the rest of the reconstructionist Republicans and their allies are the real "founding fathers" of what is now the United States. It's interesting to contemplate an alternative timeline where this is so...

Ziggurat · 3rd May 2022, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I was mostly referring to normal Social Contract stuff. Populations can refuse to be governed by unpopular laws if they choose, often the most effective strategies are nonviolent.

How relevant is that here? Blue states will keep abortion legal regardless of what the court says. Red states are only going to make it illegal where those laws are popular within the state.

angrysoba · 3rd May 2022, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

First the one and then the other. Do you think "leaving it up to the states" to ban will slow down a federal ban later? Integrity only matters when a Democrat does it.

I don't know.

But I don't think it comes down to integrity at all, but political strategizing.

For example, "states's rights" makes sense to a party that wants to pander to the evangelicals of the south, but also the more urbane (talking relatively, here) northerners.

If they pick up votes by banning abortions and gay marriage in the south, but allowing both in, say, northern states and Florida, then surely they are more likely to do that.

cosmicaug · 3rd May 2022, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

How relevant is that here? Blue states will keep abortion legal regardless of what the court says. Red states are only going to make it illegal where those laws are popular within the state.

He thinks the GOP is focusing on following the mandates of what the general population wants. How adorable!

The Don · 3rd May 2022, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I don't know.

But I don't think it comes down to integrity at all, but political strategizing.

For example, "states's rights" makes sense to a party that wants to pander to the evangelicals of the south, but also the more urbane (talking relatively, here) northerners.

If they pick up votes by banning abortions and gay marriage in the south, but allowing both in, say, northern states and Florida, then surely they are more likely to do that.

It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.

There are true believers on both sides and I don't think that the Democratic Party would be willing to adopt an anti-abortion stance in certain states even if it might gain them votes. Some in the GOP are driven by a desire to, as they see it, save the lives of innocent unborn children regardless of the political cost or benefit. Others are more cynical (or pragmatic if you prefer) to consider such matters on a state by state basis.

Suddenly · 3rd May 2022, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I don't know.

But I don't think it comes down to integrity at all, but political strategizing.

For example, "states's rights" makes sense to a party that wants to pander to the evangelicals of the south, but also the more urbane (talking relatively, here) northerners.

If they pick up votes by banning abortions and gay marriage in the south, but allowing both in, say, northern states and Florida, then surely they are more likely to do that.

"States rights" has always been a neo-Confederate buzzword that only means they don't want the federal government interfering with the state's ability to be as repressive as it wants. It wasn't like the south was out there protesting the fugitive slave act or anything.

A nationwide abortion ban would be on brand. It is probably inevitable because the GOP is going to need a way to keep using abortion to rile up the base and that's the obvious way to do it.

I mean, it would be hard to find Constitutional justification for such a ban as they'd need to connect it to interstate commerce, but I doubt the conservatives will still be concerned about the commerce clause being too broad.

bruto · 3rd May 2022, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

A difference here is that Loving vs. Virginia predated Griswold & Lawrence vs. Texas by quite a bit & was not premised on an inferred right to privacy.

Just nitpicking, but I think Griswold predates Loving.

angrysoba · 3rd May 2022, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by Suddenly

"States rights" has always been a neo-Confederate buzzword

Oh yes, I know. That's why I joked about how it shouldn't be invoked given that it started the Civil War.

JoeMorgue · 3rd May 2022, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

How relevant is that here? Blue states will keep abortion legal regardless of what the court says. Red states are only going to make it illegal where those laws are popular within the state.

The same reason just having some states have slaves and others not was still a problem.

Random · 3rd May 2022, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

How relevant is that here? Blue states will keep abortion legal regardless of what the court says. Red states are only going to make it illegal where those laws are popular within the state.

...Uh, what? Have you seen the modern Republican party? Popular? What do they care about that?

With gerrymandering, disproportionate Senate representation, and our idiotic Electoral Vote/House Delegation Backup Vote system, it is entirely possible for a majority of voters nationwide to vote Democrat, and for Republicans to win a trifecta.

They will then vote for a nationwide abortion ban. Democrats will try to filibuster in the Senate, and the Republicans will respond by throwing out the filibuster. (The C-Span camera will briefly swing to Joe Manchin, and a sad trombone sound will play) And that's it for legal abortion in the US. Solid chance of it happening in 2025.

The modern Republican party is not about policy, it is about being the party in power, nothing more. Individual members are either true believers, or are willing to go along with the true believers for fear of being thrown out of the party. That's how authoritarian/fascist movements work.

It will all come crashing down on its own eventually, but it would do unimaginable damage in the meantime, so it is better to oppose them from the start.

JoeMorgue · 3rd May 2022, 07:48 AM

Cue 30 pages of "Durrr show me where the Republicans aren't being honest, no the fact that they have never once been honest doesn't count."

crescent · 3rd May 2022, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

....Red states are only going to make it illegal where those laws are popular within the state.

I have serious doubts about that. It's a "majority of the majority" thing - they'll pass the laws if the law has the support of the majority of the people in the majority party. Party-line discipline will ensure that.

So my guess is that Republican-led states that have not yet outlawed abortion will do so now - even if that's unpopular with the governed. The GOP has been working too long towards this goal to go any other way.

Later, there may be some backtracking, but probably only after the usual tragedies get well documented. A few women will need to die from ectopic pregnancies or in childbirth. A few conservative legislators, judges, and ministers will need to see their wives, daughters, and mistresses prosecuted for getting abortions and be prosecuted themselves for helping to obtain them.

Then they'll backtrack. But not before then. They've spent too long digging this hole to think about getting out of it regardless of what the people who elected them actually think. Too much momentum for reality to have any impact yet.

Ziggurat · 3rd May 2022, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by Random

They will then vote for a nationwide abortion ban. Democrats will try to filibuster in the Senate, and the Republicans will respond by throwing out the filibuster. (The C-Span camera will briefly swing to Joe Manchin, and a sad trombone sound will play) And that's it for legal abortion in the US. Solid chance of it happening in 2025.

Not really.

cosmicaug · 3rd May 2022, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by bruto

Just nitpicking, but I think Griswold predates Loving.

Oops! I must have gotten it confused with something else (probably the sex toys thing in Texas so not even a SCOTUS thing).

The Don · 3rd May 2022, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by crescent

I have serious doubts about that. It's a "majority of the majority" thing - they'll pass the laws if the law has the support of the majority of the people in the majority party. Party-line discipline will ensure that.

So my guess is that Republican-led states that have not yet outlawed abortion will do so now - even if that's unpopular with the governed. The GOP has been working too long towards this goal to go any other way.

Later, there may be some backtracking, but probably only after the usual tragedies get well documented. A few women will need to die from ectopic pregnancies or in childbirth. A few conservative legislators, judges, and ministers will need to see their wives, daughters, and mistresses prosecuted for getting abortions and be prosecuted themselves for helping to obtain them.

I doubt it. Those with power, money influence or any combination of the three will continue to be able to secure safe abortions should the need arise.

Originally Posted by crescent

Then they'll backtrack. But not before then. They've spent too long digging this hole to think about getting out of it regardless of what the people who elected them actually think. Too much momentum for reality to have any impact yet.

I doubt they'll backtrack. If anyone points out their hypocrisy then they'll simply deny that they ever secured an abortion - either there was no abortion or the woman did it without their knowledge - or distract by jangling some keys somewhere.

Segnosaur · 3rd May 2022, 08:09 AM

Meanwhile, Susan Collins is urgently working on her "concerned" face, as she is totally shocked that Drunky McRapeface (whom she voted to confirm), might have actually LIED to her over abortion rights.

Segnosaur · 3rd May 2022, 08:11 AM

I wonder if the "Second Amendment" people can do something about the anti-abortion judges on the supreme court.

(And by that I mean show how to rally popular opinion. Isn't that the way its done? Bring up the second amendment then claim "Oh I didn't actually suggest violence".)

ponderingturtle · 3rd May 2022, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by Suddenly

There is an interesting and compelling case to be made that in the Civil War it was the union that were the rebels rather than the confederacy.

Except for all the stuff about actually rebelling and starting a war and so on that the south so clearly did. And they did firmly refute that idea that all men were created equal so there is that as well.

Shalamar · 3rd May 2022, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yeah because it's totally liberals who storm government buildings when political decisions don't go their way.

"It's only wrong when Liberals do it."

Conservatives want one party conservative rule.

JoeMorgue · 3rd May 2022, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Shalamar

"It's only wrong when Liberals do it."

Conservatives want one party conservative rule.

True as evidence by all the doctors who got murdered by angry pregnant women because they wouldn't give them an abortion which stands at... *checks notes* none.

Every Republican Accusation is a Confession.

SuburbanTurkey · 3rd May 2022, 08:24 AM

It's pretty wild that the conservatives have finally realized a multi-decade political project (against all odds) and all they can do is complain about somebody didn't follow the clubhouse rules when leaking this decision.

These ghouls will never be happy. They're snatching away the rights of millions of people and they can't help but cry about how they're the real victims because someone tattled.

No matter how bad things get and how much they get their way, it will never be enough.

bruto · 3rd May 2022, 08:26 AM

I would add that I suspect Griswold will be the first to fall after Roe, because it's based on the same issue of privacy, and because birth control is firmly in the radar of those who are agitating against abortion. Some persons such as Warp12 have the idea that they can support one thing without the other, and so they themselves can, but I think it's a pipe dream to believe the politicians in charge are not going to continue in the direction they've made clear they're heading, and history suggests that a sizeable portion of the supporters of one thing will settle for the other, rationalizing the collateral damage.

Loving and Obergefell have a different basis, so I think that although they're almost certain to be attacked too, it will be a different battle, and though I cannot think of anti-miscegenation laws as anything but utterly loathsome and worthy of absolute contempt and calumny, it would not surprise me very much if the ever-drainward spiral of Republican thought takes the party there.

Let the bible waving bloviators explain how interracial rights are an unfortunate victim of the righteous need to keep marriage safe from the godless gay brigades and their gadarene groupies will leap as one, yelling "we had to, we had to." Every right you kill and bury is labelled a new kind of freedom if you wrap it in a flag.

JoeMorgue · 3rd May 2022, 08:29 AM

Again the Right has literally no use for the kind of argumentative and moral consistently the Left is (at times overly) slavish toward. It won't bother them in the least that they have a half dozen different, contradicting, vague, and shifting reasons for doing anything.

Fast Eddie B · 3rd May 2022, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

"If the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant you a given right, you are in fact forbidden that behavior" is a frightening interpretation.

I think a more proper construct would be: “If the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant you a given right, then any individual state may choose to criminalize that behavior".

kookbreaker · 3rd May 2022, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Not really.

Stop pretending you aren’t shilling for a party of authoritarian power-mad scumbags. I don’t think even you believe it anymore.

Before 31 December 2020	20	18.35%
Before 31 December 2022	27	24.77%
Before 31 December 2024	9	8.26%
SCOTUS will not pick a case up	16	14.68%
SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn	37	33.94%
Voters: 109. You may not vote on this poll

3rd May 2022, 07:08 AM	#641
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,548	Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy Nah, Obergefell, then Loving. I think they will just go for a twofor.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

3rd May 2022, 07:08 AM	#642
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 40,000	Gay Marriage will be next. Republicans still are butt hurt about losing that one.
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

3rd May 2022, 07:08 AM	#643
cosmicaug Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,772	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Originally Posted by Kestrel The draft contends that Roe v. Wade was wrong to restrict the power of state legislatures in private matters. Does that same reasoning also apply to the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut or even Loving v. Virginia? Those are clearly next up for attack. A difference here is that Loving vs. Virginia predated Griswold & Lawrence vs. Texas by quite a bit & was not premised on an inferred right to privacy.
	__________________ -- August Pamplona

3rd May 2022, 07:11 AM	#644
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 40,000	Originally Posted by cosmicaug A difference here is that Loving vs. Virginia predated Griswold & Lawrence vs. Texas by quite a bit & was not premised on an inferred right to privacy. None of that matters. The Republicans want symbolic victories over the Left combined with a "We can do anything we want" message. Actual legal decisions are not really the point. Abortion, gays, women, blacks... they'll get their turn without worry or care about precedent or greater scope. Hell if they can find a way to make the Death Penalty mandatory watch them do it, really round out the trifecta of big issues they are on the losing side of.
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. Last edited by JoeMorgue; 3rd May 2022 at 07:12 AM.

3rd May 2022, 07:11 AM	#645
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,548	Originally Posted by Meadmaker In the case of Loving v. Virginia, it definitely does not. Sure it does, there is no explicitly stated right in the constitution to be able to marry anyone you choose to, so the state can step in and put what restrictions it wants on it. It isn't like any cases other that Roe were cited in this decision so it works for pretty much anything.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

3rd May 2022, 07:13 AM	#646
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 51,738	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Yeah because it's totally liberals who storm government buildings when political decisions don't go their way. That's precisely what's being advocated here. And my point is that this would be a very, very bad development. Do you disagree?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

3rd May 2022, 07:14 AM	#647
SuburbanTurkey Guest Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Null Posts: 15,479	Originally Posted by Ziggurat "Liberal agenda"? We were talking about threats of violence to coerce the Supreme Court. You managed to straw man yourself. Impressive. Either that, or you're admitting that threats of violence ARE the liberal agenda. I was mostly referring to normal Social Contract stuff. Populations can refuse to be governed by unpopular laws if they choose, often the most effective strategies are nonviolent. Mass demonstrations and refusal to cooperate in the normal operation of society is ideally what you'd want to see in this kind of situation, though I wouldn't shed any tears for minor property damage and disorder that often accompanies such spirited protest. The populace can inflict quite severe blows without drawing a single drop of blood, if they are animated enough. Undoubtedly this would spiral into violence, but it would be the state and/or right wing paramilitary types initiating it as usual. The use of stochastic terrorism is something that you usually see with minority, authoritarian movements that have no hope of ever actually amassing broad popular support. You know, like your average right winger that decides to shoot up an abortion clinic. ETA: I don't think you understand me at all if you think I'm suggesting that liberals are anywhere cool enough to even consider doing anything like direct action. If anything, their response will be to quell immediate anger and try to siphon off energy into donation/election schemes that promise a lot and deliver little.
	Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 3rd May 2022 at 07:23 AM.

3rd May 2022, 07:14 AM	#648
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,548	Originally Posted by Meadmaker On further review, I would like to revise and extend my remarks. I could easily see it being restricted, in the sense of certain methods being banned, or limitations placed on sale. Griswold overturned a complete ban on contraception. I can't imagine any state ever passing a complete ban, but I can see states restricting their use in some ways. The obvious case is any variant of a "morning after" pill, or any method aimed at preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. I could see some states passing such laws, and I think this court would uphold those laws if the states passed them. ETA: Ninja'd by The Don Don't you pay attention to the officials running for election in your own state, they are targeting Griswold https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...an/6879175001/ ""Each of the radical Republicans running for Michigan AG want to overturn the right for married couples to use contraception without being prosecuted," Nessel tweeted."
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

3rd May 2022, 07:15 AM	#649
crescent Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Colorado Posts: 4,905	I reading some speculation regarding the mechanics of the Supremes' voting process and the motive for the leak. There is speculation that the leak might have been done as a way of "locking in" the vote (which has not yet actually occurred, there has been no actual decision made yet). The line of reasoning goes that Alito had a majority of the court tentatively line up but was worried that the more left-leaning side of the bench might still be able to craft a dissent effective enough to peel off a vote or two. So leak the "vote", that way the cat is out of the bag and the justices might be less likely to change the "vote" (which has not yet actually been made yet anyway). I don't buy that line of reasoning - the right to an abortion has strong public support. Intense public pressure could have the opposite effect of what the "leak to lock in the vote" logic proposes, it could result in pressure to change an SC Justice mind or two. If that second scenario comes true (justices change their minds before any sort of formal vote), that would sow distrust, or at least be used as an excuse to claim that SC has lost integrity: Andy McCarthy: Quote: If this story is true, the Court should issue its opinion right away. Otherwise the disgraceful leak wins. I would say that if my side lost. If we lose the integrity of the Court’s process, we lose the Court. That should be intolerable to all of us who live the country. I don't buy that line of logic either. If the SC has not issued the final opinion, then the decision has not yet been legally made. There is a point where it may be too late for a justice to change his/her opinion, but that step in the process has not yet been reached. My guess is that the leak might have been sort of semi-unintentional. This is a big thing, any naive staffer might have just found to too much to sit on and just had to tell someone. Or a left leaning staffer leaking because they thought that public pressure could change a mind or two before its not too late. But then again, the Ginny Thomas theory also seems pretty viable.

3rd May 2022, 07:15 AM	#650
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 40,000	Originally Posted by Ziggurat That's precisely what's being advocated here. And my point is that this would be a very, very bad development. Do you disagree? I'm insulted that you think I'm going to fall for you pretending that's the point.
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

3rd May 2022, 07:16 AM	#651
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 32,928	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Gay Marriage will be next. Republicans still are butt hurt about losing that one. Do you think they will go for federal bans or make each of these things "states rights"? Arguably the latter is worse given that States Rights Started The Civil War^TM
	__________________ Слава Україні! **** Putin!

3rd May 2022, 07:16 AM	#652
Meadmaker Guest Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 29,033	Originally Posted by alfaniner I for one am glad for the leak. Rather than being blindsided by the actual ruling, it allows for discussion and protest before the fact. I tend to agree. Although, it is a dangerous precedent. It's mostly a good idea not to see what's going on in advance, because in some cases there might be some actual uncertainty in a justice's mind. Could one of them change his mind. I've always wondered about the inner workings of the court. At what point do they actually cast their vote on a case, and when is it set in stone? I really have no idea. From the outside, it's clear. When they pass out the papers, it's done. Before that, it doesn't exist. I don't know if it is still "passing out the papers", or if today it is done via hitting "publish" on the web site. I remember when Webster was being decided (or maybe Casey? I think Webster) I happened to be watching live and someone literally came out of the building carrying a box and was mobbed by reporters trying to grab a copy. I don't know if that's still how they do it today. Anyway, though, that clear line is, mostly, a good idea. However, leaking it in this case is kind of a good thing, in my opinion. The very personal nature of the case, the immediate impact, all of that makes me think it's a good idea for people to know that this is on the way. Now, the extremely interesting situation would be if, after all is said and done, a couple of justices actually changed their mind and when the real opininon comes out, Roe is upheld. However, I think that's a purely hypothetical scenario. I think Roe certainly will be overturned. It will be interesting, to legal scholars, to compare the draft version and the final version, to see any differences. For most people, though, what they care about is the bottom line, and the bottom line will be that Roe v. Wade is in the history books. And I think the nature of this decision is such that it's good to have some warning that it's coming.
Meadmaker Guest Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 29,033

3rd May 2022, 07:18 AM	#653
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 8,988	Originally Posted by Ziggurat That's precisely what's being advocated here. And my point is that this would be a very, very bad development. Do you disagree? I'm given to understand from Madison Cawthorne's hearings (referencing Reconstruction-era rulings) that advocating for insurrection is a perfectly legal and American thing to do. Why are you so insistent that being an American is a very, very bad development? Originally Posted by angrysoba Do you think they will go for federal bans or make each of these things "states rights"? First the one and then the other. Do you think "leaving it up to the states" to ban will slow down a federal ban later? Integrity only matters when a Democrat does it.
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 8,988	Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 3rd May 2022 at 07:20 AM.

3rd May 2022, 07:19 AM	#654
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 40,000	Originally Posted by angrysoba Do you think they will go for federal bans or make each of these things "states rights"? Arguably the latter is worse given that States Rights Started The Civil War^TM Shrugs Could go either way. The "We can do what we want" message is what is really important and that's going to be in the text instead of the subtext more and more as time goes on.
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

3rd May 2022, 07:22 AM	#655
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 34,452	Originally Posted by angrysoba Do you think they will go for federal bans or make each of these things "states rights"? Arguably the latter is worse given that States Rights Started The Civil War^TM They'd like a federal ban, but I'm not sure they'll be able to achieve it. In my view it will be States' rights but States could choose not to recognise marriages which are not legal in their jurisdiction hoping that corporations will then do the heavy lifting for them in states where things they don't like are legal. A company based in a state where gay marriage is illegal cannot be forced to provide benefits to a same sex spouse in a state where gay marriage is legal.

3rd May 2022, 07:22 AM	#656
Suddenly No Punting Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Not In Follansbee Posts: 4,864	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey The 14th amendment being codified into the constitution (as a direct consequence of the failure of a "states right" approach to government leading to bloody civil war) is a fact that conservative jurists prefer to ignore or view narrowly to the point of being without meaning. There is an interesting and compelling case to be made that in the Civil War it was the union that were the rebels rather than the confederacy. That the union victory and the 14th amendment essentially created a new government, and since then history has been mostly southern conservatives trying to undo that revolution and return to the more oligarchic, less democratic, and less centralized government intended by the "founding fathers." It would be nice for the "pro-Union" side to recognize this as then they would stop giving any credence to what the original framers intent was and instead recognize that Abraham Lincoln and the rest of the reconstructionist Republicans and their allies are the real "founding fathers" of what is now the United States. It's interesting to contemplate an alternative timeline where this is so...

3rd May 2022, 07:25 AM	#657
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 51,738	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey I was mostly referring to normal Social Contract stuff. Populations can refuse to be governed by unpopular laws if they choose, often the most effective strategies are nonviolent. How relevant is that here? Blue states will keep abortion legal regardless of what the court says. Red states are only going to make it illegal where those laws are popular within the state.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

3rd May 2022, 07:27 AM	#658
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 32,928	Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy First the one and then the other. Do you think "leaving it up to the states" to ban will slow down a federal ban later? Integrity only matters when a Democrat does it. I don't know. But I don't think it comes down to integrity at all, but political strategizing. For example, "states's rights" makes sense to a party that wants to pander to the evangelicals of the south, but also the more urbane (talking relatively, here) northerners. If they pick up votes by banning abortions and gay marriage in the south, but allowing both in, say, northern states and Florida, then surely they are more likely to do that.
	__________________ Слава Україні! **** Putin!

3rd May 2022, 07:29 AM	#659
cosmicaug Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,772	Originally Posted by Ziggurat How relevant is that here? Blue states will keep abortion legal regardless of what the court says. Red states are only going to make it illegal where those laws are popular within the state. He thinks the GOP is focusing on following the mandates of what the general population wants. How adorable!
	__________________ -- August Pamplona

3rd May 2022, 07:32 AM	#660
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 34,452	Originally Posted by angrysoba I don't know. But I don't think it comes down to integrity at all, but political strategizing. For example, "states's rights" makes sense to a party that wants to pander to the evangelicals of the south, but also the more urbane (talking relatively, here) northerners. If they pick up votes by banning abortions and gay marriage in the south, but allowing both in, say, northern states and Florida, then surely they are more likely to do that. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out. There are true believers on both sides and I don't think that the Democratic Party would be willing to adopt an anti-abortion stance in certain states even if it might gain them votes. Some in the GOP are driven by a desire to, as they see it, save the lives of innocent unborn children regardless of the political cost or benefit. Others are more cynical (or pragmatic if you prefer) to consider such matters on a state by state basis.

3rd May 2022, 07:36 AM	#661
Suddenly No Punting Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Not In Follansbee Posts: 4,864	Originally Posted by angrysoba I don't know. But I don't think it comes down to integrity at all, but political strategizing. For example, "states's rights" makes sense to a party that wants to pander to the evangelicals of the south, but also the more urbane (talking relatively, here) northerners. If they pick up votes by banning abortions and gay marriage in the south, but allowing both in, say, northern states and Florida, then surely they are more likely to do that. "States rights" has always been a neo-Confederate buzzword that only means they don't want the federal government interfering with the state's ability to be as repressive as it wants. It wasn't like the south was out there protesting the fugitive slave act or anything. A nationwide abortion ban would be on brand. It is probably inevitable because the GOP is going to need a way to keep using abortion to rile up the base and that's the obvious way to do it. I mean, it would be hard to find Constitutional justification for such a ban as they'd need to connect it to interstate commerce, but I doubt the conservatives will still be concerned about the commerce clause being too broad.

3rd May 2022, 07:38 AM	#662
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 32,559	Originally Posted by cosmicaug A difference here is that Loving vs. Virginia predated Griswold & Lawrence vs. Texas by quite a bit & was not premised on an inferred right to privacy. Just nitpicking, but I think Griswold predates Loving.
	__________________ I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver) "There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)

3rd May 2022, 07:40 AM	#663
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 32,928	Originally Posted by Suddenly "States rights" has always been a neo-Confederate buzzword Oh yes, I know. That's why I joked about how it shouldn't be invoked given that it started the Civil War.
	__________________ Слава Україні! **** Putin!

3rd May 2022, 07:41 AM	#664
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 40,000	Originally Posted by Ziggurat How relevant is that here? Blue states will keep abortion legal regardless of what the court says. Red states are only going to make it illegal where those laws are popular within the state. The same reason just having some states have slaves and others not was still a problem.
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

3rd May 2022, 07:46 AM	#665
Random Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,405	Originally Posted by Ziggurat How relevant is that here? Blue states will keep abortion legal regardless of what the court says. Red states are only going to make it illegal where those laws are popular within the state. ...Uh, what? Have you seen the modern Republican party? Popular? What do they care about that? With gerrymandering, disproportionate Senate representation, and our idiotic Electoral Vote/House Delegation Backup Vote system, it is entirely possible for a majority of voters nationwide to vote Democrat, and for Republicans to win a trifecta. They will then vote for a nationwide abortion ban. Democrats will try to filibuster in the Senate, and the Republicans will respond by throwing out the filibuster. (The C-Span camera will briefly swing to Joe Manchin, and a sad trombone sound will play) And that's it for legal abortion in the US. Solid chance of it happening in 2025. The modern Republican party is not about policy, it is about being the party in power, nothing more. Individual members are either true believers, or are willing to go along with the true believers for fear of being thrown out of the party. That's how authoritarian/fascist movements work. It will all come crashing down on its own eventually, but it would do unimaginable damage in the meantime, so it is better to oppose them from the start.
Random Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,405	__________________ The road to Fascism is paved with people saying, "You're overreacting!".

3rd May 2022, 07:48 AM	#666
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 40,000	Cue 30 pages of "Durrr show me where the Republicans aren't being honest, no the fact that they have never once been honest doesn't count."
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

3rd May 2022, 07:54 AM	#667
crescent Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Colorado Posts: 4,905	Originally Posted by Ziggurat ....Red states are only going to make it illegal where those laws are popular within the state. I have serious doubts about that. It's a "majority of the majority" thing - they'll pass the laws if the law has the support of the majority of the people in the majority party. Party-line discipline will ensure that. So my guess is that Republican-led states that have not yet outlawed abortion will do so now - even if that's unpopular with the governed. The GOP has been working too long towards this goal to go any other way. Later, there may be some backtracking, but probably only after the usual tragedies get well documented. A few women will need to die from ectopic pregnancies or in childbirth. A few conservative legislators, judges, and ministers will need to see their wives, daughters, and mistresses prosecuted for getting abortions and be prosecuted themselves for helping to obtain them. Then they'll backtrack. But not before then. They've spent too long digging this hole to think about getting out of it regardless of what the people who elected them actually think. Too much momentum for reality to have any impact yet.
	Last edited by crescent; 3rd May 2022 at 07:55 AM.

3rd May 2022, 07:54 AM	#668
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 51,738	Originally Posted by Random They will then vote for a nationwide abortion ban. Democrats will try to filibuster in the Senate, and the Republicans will respond by throwing out the filibuster. (The C-Span camera will briefly swing to Joe Manchin, and a sad trombone sound will play) And that's it for legal abortion in the US. Solid chance of it happening in 2025. Not really.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

3rd May 2022, 08:08 AM	#669
cosmicaug Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,772	Originally Posted by bruto Just nitpicking, but I think Griswold predates Loving. Oops! I must have gotten it confused with something else (probably the sex toys thing in Texas so not even a SCOTUS thing).
	__________________ -- August Pamplona

3rd May 2022, 08:09 AM	#670
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 34,452	Originally Posted by crescent I have serious doubts about that. It's a "majority of the majority" thing - they'll pass the laws if the law has the support of the majority of the people in the majority party. Party-line discipline will ensure that. So my guess is that Republican-led states that have not yet outlawed abortion will do so now - even if that's unpopular with the governed. The GOP has been working too long towards this goal to go any other way. Later, there may be some backtracking, but probably only after the usual tragedies get well documented. A few women will need to die from ectopic pregnancies or in childbirth. A few conservative legislators, judges, and ministers will need to see their wives, daughters, and mistresses prosecuted for getting abortions and be prosecuted themselves for helping to obtain them. I doubt it. Those with power, money influence or any combination of the three will continue to be able to secure safe abortions should the need arise. Originally Posted by crescent Then they'll backtrack. But not before then. They've spent too long digging this hole to think about getting out of it regardless of what the people who elected them actually think. Too much momentum for reality to have any impact yet. I doubt they'll backtrack. If anyone points out their hypocrisy then they'll simply deny that they ever secured an abortion - either there was no abortion or the woman did it without their knowledge - or distract by jangling some keys somewhere.

3rd May 2022, 08:09 AM	#671
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 18,761	Meanwhile, Susan Collins is urgently working on her "concerned" face, as she is totally shocked that Drunky McRapeface (whom she voted to confirm), might have actually LIED to her over abortion rights.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

3rd May 2022, 08:11 AM	#672
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 18,761	I wonder if the "Second Amendment" people can do something about the anti-abortion judges on the supreme court. (And by that I mean show how to rally popular opinion. Isn't that the way its done? Bring up the second amendment then claim "Oh I didn't actually suggest violence".)
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

3rd May 2022, 08:14 AM	#673
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,548	Originally Posted by Suddenly There is an interesting and compelling case to be made that in the Civil War it was the union that were the rebels rather than the confederacy. Except for all the stuff about actually rebelling and starting a war and so on that the south so clearly did. And they did firmly refute that idea that all men were created equal so there is that as well.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

3rd May 2022, 08:15 AM	#674
Shalamar Dark Lord of the JREF Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Somewhere Else Posts: 5,505	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Yeah because it's totally liberals who storm government buildings when political decisions don't go their way. "It's only wrong when Liberals do it." Conservatives want one party conservative rule.
	__________________ "The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."