The Roe Countdown

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by theprestige

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

troll

[Suddenly]

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?

The obvious way would be a state banning abortion or onerous restrictions on same and trying to enforce it. Then there is a suit to block the law, and the state writes a brief arguing Roe was wrongly decided. This would be the simple and direct route.

With Roberts being Chief Judge and having the 5th vote this front door approach is not likely to work. Make no mistake: the Roberts court is going to get rid of what is left of Roe, just that it would be a part of their comprehensive and systematic transformation of the law to serve the powerful rather than the powerless. Roe is small potatoes. They want that whole zone of privacy area of the law gone. They probably will bring their weaponization of religious freedom in there at some point. They have a lot of ominous irons in the fire.

If the new justice changes the balance of power there is every chance they have five votes to go through that front door.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

troll

Joke or aside. It's literally what he wrote.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

The obvious way would be a state banning abortion or onerous restrictions on same and trying to enforce it. Then there is a suit to block the law, and the state writes a brief arguing Roe was wrongly decided. This would be the simple and direct route.

With Roberts being Chief Judge and having the 5th vote this front door approach is not likely to work. Make no mistake: the Roberts court is going to get rid of what is left of Roe, just that it would be a part of their comprehensive and systematic transformation of the law to serve the powerful rather than the powerless. Roe is small potatoes. They want that whole zone of privacy area of the law gone. They probably will bring their weaponization of religious freedom in there at some point. They have a lot of ominous irons in the fire.

If the new justice changes the balance of power there is every chance they have five votes to go through that front door.

I get that the Republicans are the party of the religious right, but is that ALL they are? My assumption was that the GOP is more of a coalition of right-wing interests which are not always in harmony. In other words, yes the religious right - particularly Evangelicals, but also libertarians who don’t want government interference (would they really want an abolition of the right of privacy?), as well as business interests who take a less moralizing view of things and would prefer to continue to receive money from industries that the right rail against (alcohol, gambling, the “pink” dollar, etc...). I don’t think it is in their business interests to go full-Gilead.

But hey, I don’t live there. Much of what I say is born from incredulity. I personally find it hard to believe that almost half the country is in thrall to either the religious right or the weird personality cult around Trump.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I get that the Republicans are the party of the religious right, but is that ALL they are? My assumption was that the GOP is more of a coalition of right-wing interests which are not always in harmony. In other words, yes the religious right - particularly Evangelicals, but also libertarians who don’t want government interference (would they really want an abolition of the right of privacy?), as well as business interests who take a less moralizing view of things and would prefer to continue to receive money from industries that the right rail against (alcohol, gambling, the “pink” dollar, etc...). I don’t think it is in their business interests to go full-Gilead.

But hey, I don’t live there. Much of what I say is born from incredulity. I personally find it hard to believe that almost half the country is in thrall to either the religious right or the weird personality cult around Trump.

They aren't. This all makes more sense once it is accepted that the goal of the GOP is to concentrate power and wealth in as few hands as possible because they are terrified of losing political control to what they see as rabble who will cause society to collapse. Call it fascism or whatever, that is the goal. It was also the goal of most of the so called founding fathers, but so it goes.

The religious stuff is mostly to leverage a base. It has direct uses, such as when religious freedom is weaponized in order to frustrate civil rights laws and to help expand the rights of corporations. It also is a proxy for white nationalism in that these freedoms only seem to matter in the context of selected Christian ideals. Also, it is a pretense to restrict the reproductive autonomy of women, which is also seen as a threat.

The prosperity gospel is the best and most blatant example of melding this sort of oligarchical despotism with Christianity.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

3 Trump lackeys changes the dynamic of the court, although...

I could be wrong, of course, but I'm not under the impression that Trump is pro-life.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I could be wrong, of course, but I'm not under the impression that Trump is pro-life.

and that matters how?

He made a pact with the fanatical pro-life Women of the Right and got the nomination because of it.
And he can't win 2020 without them.
And ACB is their Chosen One.

What Trump thinks is that he doesn't care who's on the SC as long as he gets re-elected.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I could be wrong, of course, but I'm not under the impression that Trump is pro-life.

And Saddam Hussein was probably not a devout Muslim. It didn't stop him from Koran thumping in his later years in the Gulf Wars era.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

and that matters how?

He made a pact with the fanatical pro-life Women of the Right and got the nomination because of it.
And he can't win 2020 without them.
And ACB is their Chosen One.

What Trump thinks is that he doesn't care who's on the SC as long as he gets re-elected.

Fixed that for you. It's almost entirely men behind the pro-fetus movement. They may use some women as convenient stooges, but it's male driven. And they are not remotely "pro-life", mostly supporting the death penalty. Especially for sluts who have an abortion.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I could be wrong, of course, but I'm not under the impression that Trump is pro-life.

He's not, but he knows his supporters are and that they care more about abortion than any other subject. Christ knows why - see the "Republicans are misanthropes" thread.

They see it as god's work to bring unwanted children into a planet that already has 7.5 billion people.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Fixed that for you. It's almost entirely men behind the pro-fetus movement. They may use some women as convenient stooges, but it's male driven. And they are not remotely "pro-life", mostly supporting the death penalty. Especially for sluts who have an abortion.

Unfortunately, you are wrong.
Slut-shaming is a decidedly female trait:


https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/trum...hony-list.html

Trump got his nomination through SBA-list support, and ACB is their pick, not his.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Slut-shaming is a decidedly female trait:

1 If you believe that, you need to get out more.

2 The article you linked to provides no evidence for the statement, and doesn't even show anti-abortion is predominantly female-driven.

3 You may have heard of the Roman Catholic Church. Its anti-abortion stance is entirely driven by men, and they have a lot more members than SBAL. Not to mention a helluva lot more than 50M bucks and infinitely more influence.

[The Great Zaganza]

yeah, but the Catholic Church doesn't go into politics that much.

Look, I'm not making this up.

Here is an interview with Marjorie Dannenfelser,head of the SBA List:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/p...oe-v-wade.html

[theprestige]

I'm pretty sure there's plenty of dudes who are into slut shaming. I bet it's mostly dudes who have what they see as a proprietary interest in the woman in question. Jealous partners, over protective fathers, etc.

But I bet most dudes are all about the slut exploitation. And that most slut shaming comes from women who are afraid of the exploitation as a social norm, or are ideologically opposed to it.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

1 If you believe that, you need to get out more.

2 The article you linked to provides no evidence for the statement, and doesn't even show anti-abortion is predominantly female-driven.

3 You may have heard of the Roman Catholic Church. Its anti-abortion stance is entirely driven by men, and they have a lot more members than SBAL. Not to mention a helluva lot more than 50M bucks and infinitely more influence.

The Roman Catholic Church is also against the death penalty, and hasn't managed to sway much American opinion on that. Catholic influence only counts when it's added to evangelical Protestants' influence, and they just happen to agree on abortion.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

yeah, but the Catholic Church doesn't go into politics that much.

Wow, I feel the need for a head-exploding emoji.

There are countries outside USA, you know, and the RCC has massive influence in politics across the globe.

As Money noted, the effect of anti-abortion in USA is aided enormously by both evangelicals and Catholics being in unison on the subject, and I don't know whether you'd noticed, but the front runner to replace RBG is a staunch anti-abortion Catholic.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm pretty sure there's plenty of dudes who are into slut shaming. I bet it's mostly dudes who have what they see as a proprietary interest in the woman in question. Jealous partners, over protective fathers, etc.

But I bet most dudes are all about the slut exploitation. And that most slut shaming comes from women who are afraid of the exploitation as a social norm, or are ideologically opposed to it.

Blaming the patriarchy for slut shaming never made sense to me. From a simple game theory perspective, it was always obvious that women had more motive to slut shame other women than men ever did.

[Ziggurat]

BTW, is it now obvious to everyone that those of use who picked SCOTUS won’t pick up a case were right, and everyone else was wrong? Or are there still some holdouts?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Blaming the patriarchy for slut shaming never made sense to me. From a simple game theory perspective, it was always obvious that women had more motive to slut shame other women than men ever did.

You're forgetting possessiveness. The stereotypical patriarchial man has no objection to a woman (or many women) being intimate with him, but gets upset at the suspicion that/those same woman/women might get intimate with other men as well. A slutty woman, therefore, is a risk because the more open she is to getting down with him, the more likely it seems she might be doing the same with others. Woman are possessions and can't belong to multiple owners without conflict arising: it'd be trampling on his property rights, and exhibiting disrespect, and suggesting he's too weak to defend his possession from other men.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Wow, I feel the need for a head-exploding emoji.

There are countries outside USA, you know, and the RCC has massive influence in politics across the globe.

As Money noted, the effect of anti-abortion in USA is aided enormously by both evangelicals and Catholics being in unison on the subject, and I don't know whether you'd noticed, but the front runner to replace RBG is a staunch anti-abortion Catholic.

Catholics might donate and campaign against abortion, the Church itself doesn't do a lot in the US; plenty abroad I grant you.

But after the sex scandals, they prefer to stay out of the news.


Seems to me that you are not considering my actual point, that being that there is a very vocal, influential group of conservative women supporting Trump under the condition that he gives them their SC candidate to undo Roe.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

You're forgetting possessiveness.

That's not really slut shaming, though. In the extreme it can be even worse (honor killings, for example), but the dynamic is very different. In those cases, it's the man who is shamed by the woman's infidelity, and lashes out at the shame HE feels. It's his shame, not hers, which drives that.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That's not really slut shaming, though.

I disagree, it's the same thing: people feel they have the right (even duty!) to judge female promiscuity. Whether it's because they think they have exclusive rights to the particular woman, or because they feel in general that women shouldn't behave "that way", it's the same thing.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I disagree, it's the same thing: people feel they have the right (even duty!) to judge female promiscuity. Whether it's because they think they have exclusive rights to the particular woman, or because they feel in general that women shouldn't behave "that way", it's the same thing.

You have described a superset to which both subsets belong, but that doesn't make the one set equal to the other set. There is still a difference between the subsets.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You have described a superset to which both subsets belong, but that doesn't make the one set equal to the other set. There is still a difference between the subsets.

Which is irrelevant to the significance, which is their real-life impact. There's a difference between any subsets of anything: that's how you're able to make subsets. But if the behavior you're discussing is the behavior of the whole set then the differences between its subsets are irrelevant.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Seems to me that you are not considering my actual point, that being that there is a very vocal, influential group of conservative women supporting Trump under the condition that he gives them their SC candidate to undo Roe.

I wasn't disagreeing, I was just noting that it's not just women.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

BTW, is it now obvious to everyone that those of use who picked SCOTUS won’t pick up a case were right, and everyone else was wrong? Or are there still some holdouts?

I agreed that point the other day.

So far, it holds true.

The piece of **** nominating the anti-abortion candidate thinks it's going to happen, so is clearly a major reason in her nomination:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...urt-roe-v-wade

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I wasn't disagreeing, I was just noting that it's not just women.

never said it was.

But in this case, women, or a particular one, seems to be the driving force behind which the GOP men have assembled.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Which is irrelevant to the significance, which is their real-life impact.

No, it's not irrelevant, because the impacts aren't the same. They're both bad, but bad things can still be different from each other.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

never said it was.

But in this case, women, or a particular one, seems to be the driving force behind which the GOP men have assembled.

Which isn't at all ironic given their judge's choice is a living example of Stockholm Syndrome, if the reports of her cult are true.

Are they assembled behind her, or pushing her to the front because she's a woman?

Banning abortion is more patriarchal than matriarchal.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Which isn't at all ironic given their judge's choice is a living example of Stockholm Syndrome, if the reports of her cult are true.

Are they assembled behind her, or pushing her to the front because she's a woman?

I think they just see her (correctly IMO) as the most qualified and, as a woman, probably free of the sexual assault baggage of many men while at the same time being utterly "sound" when it comes to Abortion.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Banning abortion is more patriarchal than matriarchal.

agree.
Not necessarily the process, but banning women from getting one without the male "guardian" consent.
When it's your mistress she should get one of course.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

I think they just see her (correctly IMO) as the most qualified and, as a woman, probably free of the sexual assault baggage of many men while at the same time being utterly "sound" when it comes to Abortion.

.

They see her as young and they think that finding a person from a marginalized group that shares their views to be checkmate liberal. It was no accident Thomas was tapped to replace Marshall.

The sexual assault thing probably didn't occur to them, but if it did that was smart.

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah for all they treat it as a boogeyman the Right has tokenism down to a goddamn science. Their ability to find members of key demographics who they are actively hostile to is rather impressive.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yeah for all they treat it as a boogeyman the Right has tokenism down to a goddamn science. Their ability to find members of key demographics who they are actively hostile to is rather impressing.

Granted that they are not always the sharpest tool in the shed (Sara Palin, Michele Bachmann, Ben Carson, etc.).

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

BTW, is it now obvious to everyone that those of use who picked SCOTUS won’t pick up a case were right, and everyone else was wrong? Or are there still some holdouts?

Technically, the way the poll is written, that won't be established until the end of 2024.

I'm interested in the reasoning behind the "Before 31 December 2020" votes. And I'm interested in what kind of case the court would have to hear, in order to undermine Roe.

After thinking about it some more, it seems to me that the case would have to admit a legal rationale that was palatable to at least five of the justices. It's not enough to hear a case that turns on the same points of law, if the justices can only see rulings that support Roe.

A year and a half ago, when TA made the poll, it would have been a lot easier to simply predict that the justices wouldn't care about rationale and would rule simply for partisan expedience. But as it turns out, the predictions made along those lines sucked. The conservative justices have issued rulings independent of partisan preferences.

Anyway, I think we all understand the concept of test cases. And I think we all have basic grasp of how the appeals process works in the US court system. Are there any sites out there watching potential test cases and assessing their likelihood of making it to the Supreme Court?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Are there any sites out there watching potential test cases and assessing their likelihood of making it to the Supreme Court?

You may have heard of an internet search engine called Google, that can answer questions like that in fractions of a second: https://now.org/keeping-track-of-pos...bortion-cases/

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

You may have heard of an internet search engine called Google, that can answer questions like that in fractions of a second: https://now.org/keeping-track-of-pos...bortion-cases/

Neat! Is that the site where you were tracking the test case you had in mind last year?

[cosmicaug]

For a perspective from the National Organization for Marriage, this is how they currently see things:

Quote:

UNSETTLED LAW

Dear August,

The Left has been unsettled recently by the signals coming from the Supreme Court. With the presence of Amy Coney Barrett on the bench, and the new conservative majority, liberals know the score. All of the things they've claimed for so long to be "settled law"—like Roe v Wade and abortion, or Obergefell and gay 'marriage'—are really far from being settled.

In fact, they're closer than ever to being overturned...

Pursuing ways to accomplish this goal is one the chief items in our plan for 2021.

But in order to do this, we need the necessary resources. I am therefore very grateful that right now, every dollar we receive is being DOUBLED by a generous matching grant.

DONATE TODAY
Will you make a generous, tax-deductible gift today?

Whatever amount you contribute will help us plan for next year and the goal of restoring true marriage to our nation's laws!

DONATE $1,000
DONATE $500
DONATE $250
DONATE $100
DONATE $50
DONATE $25
DONATE ANY AMOUNT
I can't over-emphasize how close we might be to finding a test case for reversing Obergefell and same-sex 'marriage.' If you watched the hearings to confirm Amy Coney Barrett, you know this: it was clear from so much of the questioning that liberals are fully aware of how thin a thread this decision hangs upon.

Please help today in whatever way you can. Your immediate, tax-deductible contribution will help us to budget and plan for the next year and for finding the right legal challenges to bring the matter of marriage back before the court.

With your generous support, and the help of God, we can not only plan better for the future, but also hope better, that our children will grow up in a nation where marriage is acknowledged in law to be what it has always been from the beginning, the union of one man and one woman.

DONATE TODAY
Thank you, and God bless you,

Brian S. Brown
President

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

For a perspective from the National Organization for Marriage, this is how they currently see things:

They see it as a hook to hang a fundraising appeal on.

On which to hang a fundraising appeal.

Isn't it against the MA to shill for other organizations here?

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by theprestige

They see it as a hook to hang a fundraising appeal on.

On which to hang a fundraising appeal.

Isn't it against the MA to shill for other organizations here?

If it was shilling on my part it was accidental shilling. I would certainly hope that my posting of this message didn't motivate you to donate money to NOM.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Isn't it against the MA to shill for other organizations here?

Not any more - that rule changed when Randi dumped the forum.

Anyway, it's not something you'd make much from here - those who would donate to that cause will already do so.

[cosmicaug]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/us/supreme-court-abortion-pill.html

Quote:

[...]
The Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court. Its brief focused mainly on data from Indiana and Nebraska, where state laws continued to require women to pick up the pills in person.

In those states, the administration told the justices, the number of abortions had increased compared to the previous year. That showed, the administration’s brief said, that the requirement did not amount to an unconstitutional burden on the right to abortion.

That argument, lawyers for the medical group wrote in response, “defies rudimentary principles of statistical analysis.” Many factors could account for the rise in the number of abortions in the two states during the pandemic, they wrote, including disruptions in access to contraceptives, unemployment and other circumstances “that have made unwanted pregnancy more likely and parenting less tenable for some.”

Justice Sotomayor was also unimpressed by the argument. “Reading the government’s statistically insignificant, cherry-picked data,” she wrote, “is no more informative than reading tea leaves.”