The Roe Countdown

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Don't know, both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have surprised me recently by coming down on the Liberal side of cases. In fact up to now, Kavanaugh seems to have been playing the game as a strict Constitutionist. He might surprise both sides.

Just in case people want proof, here are two cases in which the Supreme Court found against Trump recently. Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion in one case and signed on to the majority to the other, while Gorsuch signed on to the concurring Kavanaugh opinion on one and signed onto the majority opinion on the other alone with Kavanaugh.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes

Aside: Bad idea, actually. Move a few jobs that require an education into, say, five pure Red states, and you can swing the electoral college toward civilized policies. Wyoming, Idaho, Montana and the Dakotas could all be swung with little effort. The alternative is "By 2040, two-thirds of Americans will be represented by 30 percent of the Senate"

Time to invade them there backwaters and teach 'em some modrin notions, by golly, or it'll be pitchforks and lynch mobs for government.

Disagree - that'S what we tried with Afghanistan (and yes, I'm comparing Red States with Afghanistan).

Instead, we should drain them of all their brain power, take their best and brightest, let them get wealthy elsewhere and then let them come home and force change they learned in the Blue States through might of pocketbook.

[Hlafordlaes]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Disagree - that'S what we tried with Afghanistan (and yes, I'm comparing Red States with Afghanistan).

Instead, we should drain them of all their brain power, take their best and brightest, let them get wealthy elsewhere and then let them come home and force change they learned in the Blue States through might of pocketbook.

Problem is, nobody in their right mind seems to return to a Red state unless enamored of its culture, or now retiring and getting cranky-scared-Republican. Nevertheless, agreed, my thinking is wishful in terms of getting people/business to move to Red states.

Best move in this regard was transferring the Dept of Agriculture to the boonies (thanks, Donnie!). Might be best to transfer all major executive agencies to empty states, as this would eventually lead to a better balance and higher level of basic education in the area.

[Orphia Nay]

The Satanic Temple [TST] are appealing to the US Supreme Court on the Missouri decision in their Jane Doe case.

https://manage.kmail-lists.com/subscriptions/web-view

Quote:

The lawsuit was filed when TST member Judy Doe sought to terminate her pregnancy in the state of Missouri. She was faced with legal requirements that contravene her religious beliefs and were not medically necessary. Missouri mandated that she receive literature that asserts that abortion terminates the life of a separate, unique, living human being, and she was required to endure a three-day waiting period designed to instill guilt and shame for her decision.

TST claimed that the mandatory reading materials violate TST’s deeply-held beliefs of bodily autonomy and scientifically-reasoned personal choice. TST argued that this created an "undue burden" and violated Doe's right to free exercise of religion. Although the Court openly acknowledged that those issues were raised, the Court said that those claims were not explicitly alleged in the initial complaint. No legal precedent exists to support their evasion, and the history of jurisprudence demonstrates that decisions are made based on the merits of a case.

"Bolding mine". Note, TST is listed as "the only federally recognized international (non-theistic) religious Satanic organization". They are tax-exempt for religious purposes.

Their tenets are on this page: https://thesatanictemple.com/

[The Great Zaganza]

yep, it's another lawsuit to demonstrate that what SCOTUS means with Freedom of Religion is the Freedom of Christianity but none of the others.

[SuburbanTurkey]

I think the premise is a bit flawed. It's entirely possible that Roe will be outright overtruned by our new 6-3 court of Federalist society ghouls, but I don't think that's the most likely outcome.

Such people are more likely to just totally undercut Roe while still leaving it standing. They'll take cases like those we have already seen that make running abortion clinics technically impossible due to insurmountable red tape. Red states will regulate clinics out of existence, add burdens to patients such as waiting periods and fetus funerals, and generally shorten the window in which pregnancies can be terminated. Roe will remain the law of the land by letter, but will be dead in many states in practice.

It's possible the conservatives go for the 100% destruction by overturning, but I suspect they'll settle for a strategic victory of simply making it toothless through a series of undermining challenges, while still maintaining the appearance of respecting precedent.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Myriad

The most likely scenario along those lines is outlawing interstate travel for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.

To which the blue states respond by strengthening medical privacy laws to make it illegal (if it's not already) to provide any information or cooperate with any investigation of whether an abortion was performed.

To which the Federal government responds with threats of funding cuts.

And so it goes.

I hate what many republicans want to do to outlaw abortion, but is this scenario even possible, let alone practical? How can it even be proven that one is travelling to another state to obtain an abortion?

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by lionking

I hate what many republicans want to do to outlaw abortion, but is this scenario even possible, let alone practical? How can it even be proven that one is travelling to another state to obtain an abortion?

If everyone involved exercised due discretion, it would be extremely difficult to prove. Hence, the role of privacy laws in my scenario.

On the other hand, due discretion might not be a reasonable expectation nowadays. "Curses, I would have got away with it if only those meddling investigators hadn't read my Facebook timeline!"

The real problem in such a scenario wouldn't be actual prosecutions for illegal travel for out of state abortions. Sure, there would be a couple of show trials where the guy and his rich parents, sob sob, really wanted the child and would gladly have adopted it or paid all the support expenses and so forth, and the woman unwisely returned home afterward instead of staying in the state where the abortion was done. But the main issue would be much larger numbers of underage pregnant girls forced into various involuntary custodial arrangements (with their parents' or state guardians' consent, not their own) on the basis of preventing such things from happening.

Women's aid organizations would resort to underground railroad tactics, which would be libeled as "trafficking." Worst of all, actual traffickers would take advantage too.

You don't need any convictions for breaking the actual law, for the prevention and enforcement efforts surrounding it to create a total **** show.

[JoeMorgue]

They won't overturn Roe Vs Wade. No point and not worth the backlash.

Yes anti-abortion zealots who actually want abortion actually gone are a huge part of their base, but for the Republicans that means the specter of Evil Dems support Baby Killing is more useful than the topic being resolved, even in their favor.

They'll continue their standard "Death of a thousand cuts" on abortion, making women jump through more and more hoops, putting more and more restrictions on it.

[lionking]

I would like to think that liberal democracies around the world would have common opinions about things like access to abortions, yet this seems to not be the case. While there are no doubt methodological problems with surveys from country to country, it seems that 80% of Australians believe in the right of women to choose to have an abortion in all cases. This drops to 38% in the UK and 30% in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societ...bortion#Europe

[JoeMorgue]

The the whole "I support abortions.... but" thing is just hair splitting, egged on by anti-abortion activists making up insane nightmare scenarios so far outside the statistical realm of anything actually happening as to be functionally equal to worrying about transporter accidents.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The the whole "I support abortions.... but" thing is just hair splitting, egged on by anti-abortion activists making up insane nightmare scenarios so far outside the statistical realm of anything actually happening as to be functionally equal to worrying about transporter accidents.

Sure, but why do some countries buy the nightmare scenarios and others don’t? Australia has a lot of religious nuts, but they don’t hold sway.

I’m probably derailing this thread, but I’m really curious why Roe vs Wade is so divisive in the US.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by lionking

Sure, but why do some countries buy the nightmare scenarios and others don’t? Australia has a lot of religious nuts, but they don’t hold sway.

I’m probably derailing this thread, but I’m really curious why Roe vs Wade is so divisive in the US.

Because in Australia, the UK, other vaguely comparable Western style secular democracies... you guys don't have anything directly comparable to the United State's "Religious Right" and I'm not sure if I can even properly explain it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right

[lionking]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Because in Australia, the UK, other vaguely comparable Western style secular democracies... you guys don't have anything directly comparable to the United State's "Religious Right" and I'm not sure if I can even properly explain it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right

It’s still puzzling. Abortion is not, never has been and never will be an election issue in Australia. I know it is in the US.....

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by lionking

I hate what many republicans want to do to outlaw abortion, but is this scenario even possible, let alone practical? How can it even be proven that one is travelling to another state to obtain an abortion?

The real practical effect is that they will make it explicit that anyone assisting a person crossing state lines for an abortion is likewise guilty, and then good luck finding a provider that will accept anyone that can't prove residence.

[The Great Zaganza]

They will overturn Roe, just so they can say they did.
They might replace it with something indistinguishable, but Roe has to go to placate the people they whipped into a frenzy about this single ruling.

[AnonyMoose]

I expect the witch burnings to begin soon after Trump's re-election.

RIP Ruth. Unfortunately your entire life's work and service to your country will be pissed away in one fell swoop of a republican pen.

And thus, I end my post with: RIP USA

[cosmicaug]

Trump talked with Amy Comey today.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/21/politics/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court/index.html

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by lionking

It’s still puzzling. Abortion is not, never has been and never will be an election issue in Australia. I know it is in the US.....

It should be pointed out that it also wasn't a Christian concern in the USA (other than with some Catholics) until it was.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

They won't overturn Roe Vs Wade. No point and not worth the backlash.

Yes anti-abortion zealots who actually want abortion actually gone are a huge part of their base, but for the Republicans that means the specter of Evil Dems support Baby Killing is more useful than the topic being resolved, even in their favor.

They'll continue their standard "Death of a thousand cuts" on abortion, making women jump through more and more hoops, putting more and more restrictions on it.

I agree. Much of the anti-abortion policy is about cornering the religious right vote. But it isn’t the entirety of their vote and there are plenty of Republicans who would see it as too extreme to put a federal ban on abortion.

Besides, even the Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices are not reliably going to switch to banning abortions if they had supported it in the past.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by lionking

I would like to think that liberal democracies around the world would have common opinions about things like access to abortions, yet this seems to not be the case. While there are no doubt methodological problems with surveys from country to country, it seems that 80% of Australians believe in the right of women to choose to have an abortion in all cases. This drops to 38% in the UK and 30% in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societ...bortion#Europe

There is something wrong with those figures if it is spitting out numbers that suggest the UK population is against abortion. As with Australia it is not an election issue. Banning abortion is considered a fringe issue (as in one that only religious crazies hold. I don’t believe for a second that the same questions with the same framing resulted in 80% in Australia and 38% in the UK.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

It should be pointed out that it also wasn't a Christian concern in the USA (other than with some Catholics) until it was.

Well they needed to hide their outrage at having to allow in blacks to their schools behind something to look less racist.

[welshdean]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

There is something wrong with those figures if it is spitting out numbers that suggest the UK population is against abortion. As with Australia it is not an election issue. Banning abortion is considered a fringe issue (as in one that only religious crazies hold. I don’t believe for a second that the same questions with the same framing resulted in 80% in Australia and 38% in the UK.

I thought the same, scroll a little further down, they become more realistic in the 2005 survey, but still...

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by welshdean

I thought the same, scroll a little further down, they become more realistic in the 2005 survey, but still...

Yeah, the surveys are completely different with completely different wording.

My hunch is that the UK and Australia's attitudes to abortion are more or less the same.

According to that source...

Quote:

36% responded that they believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances, 55% that it should be legal in certain circumstances, and 3% that it should be illegal in all circumstances

So in the UK, support for abortion is 91%

Of course, if people want to create dishonest polls or present their findings dishonestly, that will be easy to do:

"Do you think people should be able to have an abortion at 8 months or that parents should get a choice between a boy or an abortion?" No? We'll put you down as "Abortion only in limited circumstances then, right?" etc... Then the same people can show their results and say, "lookee here, the people are against abortion on demand" etc...

[theprestige]

Back to the topic: In order to do something about Roe, the court needs to hear a case that turns on some point of constitutional interpretation central to the Roe decision.

So we can ask, what was the central question answered by the court in Roe? How easy would it be to reverse that answer? What kind of case would give the court the opportunity?

Is it possible that some lower court has already heard such a case and issued a ruling that overturns Roe, but their own ruling was overturned on appeal before reaching the Supreme Court?

Now that I think about it, I'm a little surprised there's no "Roe watch" on the courts. Appeals that, if they made it to the Supreme Court, would amount to a re-litigation of Roe v Wade.

Have any such cases emerged in past forty years or so? Or has the aura of RBG's immaculate jurisprudence held them at bay all this time?

[JoeMorgue]

- The central judicial... err theme I guess you could call of Roe V Wade was the decision by SCOTUS that having an abortion fell under Due Process Clause of of the 14th Amendment. It was, in legal terms, a declaration that women getting an abortion is nobody else's business.

- Roe V Wade was reaffirmed in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v Casey and used as precedent in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Stenberg v. Carhart, Gonzales v. Carhart, and Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.

[Venom]

I wonder how many progressive accelerationists hope Roe v. Wade gets overturned so that complacent neoliberals can finally wake up from taking it for granted for decades.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

- The central judicial... err theme I guess you could call of Roe V Wade was the decision by SCOTUS that having an abortion fell under Due Process Clause of of the 14th Amendment. It was, in legal terms, a declaration that women getting an abortion is nobody else's business.

Yes, essentially it is based on the idea of the right to privacy.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Venom

I wonder how many progressive accelerationists hope Roe v. Wade gets overturned so that complacent neoliberals can finally wake up from taking it for granted for decades.

Accelerationism, generally speaking, is a fringe position. The vast majority of progressvies or leftists are not encouraged by the prospect of material conditions getting worse for so many people.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

- The central judicial... err theme I guess you could call of Roe V Wade was the decision by SCOTUS that having an abortion fell under Due Process Clause of of the 14th Amendment. It was, in legal terms, a declaration that women getting an abortion is nobody else's business.

- Roe V Wade was reaffirmed in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v Casey and used as precedent in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Stenberg v. Carhart, Gonzales v. Carhart, and Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Yes, essentially it is based on the idea of the right to privacy.

Thanks. So what kind of case would the court need to hear, in order to have an opportunity to overturn Roe?

Would it have to be a case about women's health, or health at all? Could it be any case that turns on the right to privacy or due process under the 14th Amendment?

[theprestige]

Going back to the OP:

Originally Posted by The Atheist

When does Roe v Wade get thrown out?

With a SCOTUS now built on solidly anti-abortion conservatives, I can see a 5-4 vote devolving legislation to states happening in the very near future.

I reckon the Red Team will be looking for a judgement before the 2020 election, so my pick is within one year. I believe there's a case of one state in the courts right now, so should be an easy one for SCOTUS to pick up, since every judge so far has denied legislative attempts to block abortion.

So much for that prediction. I wonder what case The Atheist had in mind, and what happened to it.

Given the complete lack of "Red Team" action on this front in the past year+ since TA made his prediction, I'm going to make a prediction of my own: In the year following RBG's replacement, there will be a similar lack of action on this front.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I wonder what case The Atheist had in mind, and what happened to it.

They declined to hear it.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Given the complete lack of "Red Team" action on this front in the past year+ since TA made his prediction, I'm going to make a prediction of my own: In the year following RBG's replacement, there will be a similar lack of action on this front.

The lack of action is down to recognition that the court was still 5-4 in favour of retaining Roe. With 4-5, I'll gladly take bets they will try during 2021.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

They declined to hear it.



The lack of action is down to recognition that the court was still 5-4 in favour of retaining Roe. With 4-5, I'll gladly take bets they will try during 2021.

A year and a half ago, you were convinced the court was "built on solidly anti-abortion conservatives" that would deliver "a 5-4 vote devolving legislation to states" within the year.

What makes you so certain the new roster will be any more solidly anti-abortion than the old one?

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Yes, essentially it is based on the idea of the right to privacy.

That is the really scary part. HIPPA probably wouldn’t survive a post Roe v. Wade challenge.
And all those silly anti-sodomy laws still on the books would be completely enforceable.
Want to buy a sex toy in Utah or Alabama or South Carolina? Enfoceably illegal again!

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by theprestige

A year and a half ago, you were convinced the court was "built on solidly anti-abortion conservatives" that would deliver "a 5-4 vote devolving legislation to states" within the year.

Roberts found a backbone.

Originally Posted by theprestige

What makes you so certain the new roster will be any more solidly anti-abortion than the old one?

He won't have the casting vote any more.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Roberts found a backbone.



He won't have the casting vote any more.

The casting vote?

Again, a year and a half ago, you were confident Roberts would be spineless in the service of overturning Roe v Wade.

Now you're similarly confident again. What makes your confidence warranted this time around?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Again, a year and a half ago, you were confident Roberts would be spineless in the service of overturning Roe v Wade.

Yes, I was wrong. I under-rated Roberts.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Now you're similarly confident again. What makes your confidence warranted this time around?

3 Trump lackeys changes the dynamic of the court, although, as my supportive thread on Gorsuch indicates, he may well be better than that, too.

But I'm not betting on it.

[Hlafordlaes]

Originally Posted by dudalb

You seem to be happy with the idea of the US toally going down the tube.
Just remember this:The undertow of that happening will impact a lot of countries..including Kiwiland.

So you do agree that when a major and influential society normalizes a behavior, or the condemnation of it, this influences behaviors around the world. Like, say, ayatollahs issuing fatwas of death.

Originally Posted by dudalb

A lot of this is based on TA's past history; he has done a LOT of USA bashing in the past....

In light of Abu Ghraib and the BushII normalization of torture, the use of false premises to violate national sovereignty (IraqII, later imitated by Russia in Ukraine), knowing and purposeful use of coercive and dehumanizing treatment to discourage asylum seekers with rights under signed treaties, and a long list of Trump's outrageous support for dictators, "fatwahs" calling for the suppression of a free ("fake") press, and constant scoffing at constitutional law... one might think it's time for 2+2.

Not your pappy's post-WWII hero nation, if it ever was in fact.

***
As for Roe, I expect Trump's nominee to not only be an anti-constitutional nitwit and absolutist, but thanks to highly unwise and loose lips from Democrats, to expand SCOTUS to 15 judges and truly pack the court for a generation or more.

Give them time, and the rule of law will become, as they understand it, the rule of White Man "law" over all things, including "bitches and misfits."

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Thanks. So what kind of case would the court need to hear, in order to have an opportunity to overturn Roe?

Would it have to be a case about women's health, or health at all? Could it be any case that turns on the right to privacy or due process under the 14th Amendment?

No idea.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes

As for Roe, I expect Trump's nominee to not only be an anti-constitutional nitwit and absolutist, but thanks to highly unwise and loose lips from Democrats, to expand SCOTUS to 15 judges and truly pack the court for a generation or more.

You expect Trump's nominee to expand SCOTUS and pack the court?