ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abortion laws , political predictions , prediction threads , Roe v. Wade

View Poll Results: When will Roe v Wade be overturned
Before 31 December 2020 18 32.73%
Before 31 December 2022 2 3.64%
Before 31 December 2024 1 1.82%
SCOTUS will not pick a case up 9 16.36%
SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn 25 45.45%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 15th May 2019, 01:28 PM   #1
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,681
The Roe Countdown

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.

Pence's words - "Roe will be overturned within our lifetime" looking fairly prophetic about now.

Anyone with evidence Trump paid for an abortion needs to step right up, because I'd see that as the only chance left to prevent the absurd attacks on women's rights by white men.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 01:31 PM   #2
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,159
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.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 01:34 PM   #3
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,510
Given the tremendous pressure the Trump Judges are under to deliver this one thing, I do see a real risk for Roe v. Wade within the year.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 01:35 PM   #4
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,808
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
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.
How on earth do you get that from the OP?

While you are at it, please reveal how reversing Roe vs Wade will impact other countries.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 01:37 PM   #5
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Anyone with evidence Trump paid for an abortion needs to step right up, because I'd see that as the only chance left to prevent the absurd attacks on women's rights by white men.
Why would that sort of thing change Kavanaugh's mind?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 01:38 PM   #6
8enotto
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 771
Drugs are illegal, people seek illegal drugs.
Abortion is illegal, costly and discrete abortions will forever go unreported.

Changing a law won't change what people desire.
8enotto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 01:56 PM   #7
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 22,891
Embryos that do not even exist are praying.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 02:04 PM   #8
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 5,860
If this really happens, I think I'd stop having sex. Now, a pro-life rightwinger would probably say to that, "Ha! You're proving my point. You skanks are frivolous with your reproductive planning because you can always just get an abortion!" Yeah, I've heard it all before. But that's not quite it.

See, I would really hate to have to get an abortion. I believe it would cause me extreme shame, psychological distress, etc. on top of the obvious concerns about cost, traveling to the sort of clinic that gets targeted for violence and picketing, and safety. It would practically be the end of the world for me, at least temporarily, if I had to do that. I'd do anything I reasonably could to avoid an abortion. There's only one thing I can think of that would be worse - and that's having a kid. (For me, personally, I mean. I've got nothing against kids. I've got something against myself as a mother.)

The idea of abortion is that unpleasant to me, BUT it's still there as a last-ditch safety net in the unlikely event that birth control fails. Remove that safety net, and the risk of BC failure suddenly seems more real. .00001% chance of failure? Yeah, I don't like those odds if it means I have to grow a kid inside me and bring them into the world. I can't risk that. Any nunneries accepting new nuns?

Also, TA, why are you borderline gloating in your OP?
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 02:04 PM   #9
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 5,305
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
How on earth do you get that from the OP?

While you are at it, please reveal how reversing Roe vs Wade will impact other countries.
You don't agree that the OP almost has a giddy tone to Roe being overturned? Up until his statement about taking away women's rights I would have guessed that he was almost excited that they're being taken away.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 02:05 PM   #10
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,291
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
Drugs are illegal, people seek illegal drugs.
Abortion is illegal, costly and discrete abortions will forever go unreported.

Changing a law won't change what people desire.
But desire isn't the only factor in what people actually do. Economists understand demand as desire in addition to purchasing power. Doesn't matter how much you want a Tesla if you can't come up with the money.

Place significant obstacles before those who desire an abortion, and there will be fewer abortions. That black market abortion will be more difficult and dangerous, deterring some. Flying to New York for an abortion will cost more, and raise some questions that you might not want raised. Not everyone will manage.

Are there more pot smokers in Colorado since legalization? Take a guess.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 02:12 PM   #11
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,404
There's one weird question for me here.

If I understand history and law correctly (a big if) in order to get a law evaluated by the supreme court, you need an individual convicted under that law, backed by a very well funded team of lawyers, to appeal their conviction and pass it through various higher courts.

It seems to me any person convicted under this law is highly unlikely to be against abortion. And any marginally intelligent person should know that rising this case up to the supreme court would be a very negative thing for abortion rights.

Where do they find someone convicted under this new law to be their case? Would they get an anti-abortion activist to fake violating these statutes so they could arrest them and bring it up the chain?

I know how long it generally takes to find a legit case to challenge a constitutional principle. I'm having a hard time seeing how they get someone who has to be against this law to do their work of validating it.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 02:12 PM   #12
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,668
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
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.
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
Also, TA, why are you borderline gloating in your OP?
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
You don't agree that the OP almost has a giddy tone to Roe being overturned? Up until his statement about taking away women's rights I would have guessed that he was almost excited that they're being taken away.
You guys are really reading a lot into the OP that's not there.

All I see in TA's post is acknowledgement of the stark reality that the arch-conservative scum are close to a win on the issue of abortion, a win that will bring misery to millions of women in this country.
Babbylonian is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 02:15 PM   #13
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 5,860
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
You guys are really reading a lot into the OP that's not there.

All I see in TA's post is acknowledgement of the stark reality that the arch-conservative scum are close to a win on the issue of abortion, a win that will bring misery to millions of women in this country.
Well come to think of it, TA always has a sort of boisterous style, so I'll acknowledge I may have misunderstood the OP's tone. I'm very sour where this topic is concerned. I can't stand my ******* country right now.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 02:20 PM   #14
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 21,848
I voted the first option, which is the worst case. Once it happens, the party of states rights and limited federal government to outlaw it in states that continue to allow it.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 02:30 PM   #15
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,668
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
There's one weird question for me here.

If I understand history and law correctly (a big if) in order to get a law evaluated by the supreme court, you need an individual convicted under that law, backed by a very well funded team of lawyers, to appeal their conviction and pass it through various higher courts.

It seems to me any person convicted under this law is highly unlikely to be against abortion. And any marginally intelligent person should know that rising this case up to the supreme court would be a very negative thing for abortion rights.

Where do they find someone convicted under this new law to be their case? Would they get an anti-abortion activist to fake violating these statutes so they could arrest them and bring it up the chain?

I know how long it generally takes to find a legit case to challenge a constitutional principle. I'm having a hard time seeing how they get someone who has to be against this law to do their work of validating it.
A couple of things:
1. The first person (people) convicted under a new abortion ban would have their appeals (and probably their initial defense) fully funded by pro-choice organizations. I know I'd see to it that what little money I can spare would find its way to that cause.
2. The appeals process can be expedited so that things happen faster if the need for urgency can be demonstrated (capital punishment cases being examples). Given the number of people affected here, the clock under which everyone would be operating (if someone is being prevented from getting an abortion that was previously legal), and the enormous national interest, I think a case could definitely end up in front of the Supreme Court sooner rather than later.

I can't be certain that RvW will fall (a little hope can't hurt), but there will have to be a ruling on Alabama's outright abortion ban and it should happen fairly fast to avoid disrupting lives unnecessarily...though "should" and "will" are obviously quite different.
Babbylonian is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 02:37 PM   #16
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,998
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
There's one weird question for me here.

If I understand history and law correctly (a big if) in order to get a law evaluated by the supreme court, you need an individual convicted under that law, backed by a very well funded team of lawyers, to appeal their conviction and pass it through various higher courts.

It seems to me any person convicted under this law is highly unlikely to be against abortion. And any marginally intelligent person should know that rising this case up to the supreme court would be a very negative thing for abortion rights.

Where do they find someone convicted under this new law to be their case? Would they get an anti-abortion activist to fake violating these statutes so they could arrest them and bring it up the chain?

I know how long it generally takes to find a legit case to challenge a constitutional principle. I'm having a hard time seeing how they get someone who has to be against this law to do their work of validating it.
It can also get there through suit. A provider or a person wanting an abortion might have standing to sue.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 02:39 PM   #17
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,404
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
A couple of things:
1. The first person (people) convicted under a new abortion ban would have their appeals (and probably their initial defense) fully funded by pro-choice organizations. I know I'd see to it that what little money I can spare would find its way to that cause.

Sure, but a pro-choice organization would be trying NOT to escalate the case to the supreme court given the current court makeup. Wouldn't they? That's what gets me. Putting a case in front of the SC at this point is only in the interests of the pro-lifers.

I can't imagine a pro-choice group right now feeling excited to bring this law to the SC and be responsible for overturning RvW.

Cases that get to the SC over things this fraught tend to be there because the group that's funding the whole thing imagines there's a good chance to set a precedent for their desired outcome. Since the risk is opening the flood gates to banning abortion everywhere and the chance of getting a positive outcome seems low. I can't imagine a sincere pro choice org wanting to do that.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON

Last edited by Cavemonster; 15th May 2019 at 02:42 PM.
Cavemonster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 02:48 PM   #18
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,168
It doesn't have to be a criminal matter. One can sue the government to overturn a law because it is an undue burden.

This is where you get into "legitimate public interest" and "least restrictive means to achieve" kinds of arguments.

Nobody got arrested under Prop 8 in order to make marriage equality a thing, for example.
Delphic Oracle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 02:54 PM   #19
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,181
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
Sure, but a pro-choice organization would be trying NOT to escalate the case to the supreme court given the current court makeup. Wouldn't they? That's what gets me. Putting a case in front of the SC at this point is only in the interests of the pro-lifers.

I can't imagine a pro-choice group right now feeling excited to bring this law to the SC and be responsible for overturning RvW.
There are 2 issues...

- If an anti-abortion law is passed, even if its unconstitutional, it still can have an effect. So, if pro-choice groups try to delay having the case heard, women still have their rights taken away. Basically a bad law that hasn't been challenged yet in the supreme court is almost as bad as a bad law that the court rules as constitutional

- There may be concerns that, while the conservatives do have a 5-4 majority on the courts, its possible that one or more of the conservative judges might actually do what they claim and respect precedent. However, if they wait, the republicans may be able to get additional supreme court judges appointed (giving a 6-3 majority). So, better to challenge the law when you have a slim chance of victory than wait and have no chance.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 02:54 PM   #20
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,668
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
Sure, but a pro-choice organization would be trying NOT to escalate the case to the supreme court given the current court makeup. Wouldn't they? That's what gets me. Putting a case in front of the SC at this point is only in the interests of the pro-lifers.
I don't think you really get it. Until the law is overturned, it's the law and people violating that law will go to prison or be otherwise punished.Leaving it unchallenged doesn't make the law go away, nor does it make it ineffective. The only potential positive would be that other states might be reluctant to do their own bans, but we can already see that this isn't true.

I'll break it down further:
1. Dr. <X> is convicted of performing an abortion.
2. Dr. <X> is sentenced to <Y> years in prison.

Now, right here, with no appeals, Dr. <X> is spending time in prison. Dr. <X> will for good reason find that situation unacceptable and will therefore instruct their attorney(s) to file an appeal on constitutional grounds citing RvW and move on to step 3.

3. The state appeals court will uphold or overturn the conviction.
4a. If upheld, Dr. <X> will appeal to the federal level.
4b. If overturned, the state will appeal to the federal level.

5. The federal district court will affirm or overturn the previous court's decision.
5a/b. Same as above, but the appeal will be to the Supreme Court.

Bottom line: The law has to be fought, not only on principle but because as of this moment the law is unconstitutional as determined in Roe v. Wade.
Babbylonian is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 02:56 PM   #21
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,668
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
It doesn't have to be a criminal matter. One can sue the government to overturn a law because it is an undue burden.

This is where you get into "legitimate public interest" and "least restrictive means to achieve" kinds of arguments.

Nobody got arrested under Prop 8 in order to make marriage equality a thing, for example.
Indeed. The bottom line is that the Alabama law, under the current system, is unconstitutional on its face.
Babbylonian is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 03:03 PM   #22
AnonyMoose
Muse
 
AnonyMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen
Posts: 531
Yup, I think Roe v Wade is going to be toast.

I never once thought that could be a possibility in the 21st century, until recently.

As for the timeline, I think it depends on when Ruth Bader Ginsburg can no longer fill her seat. The hope is that she'll outlast Trump, but taking her age and health into consideration, that's not likely if he gets another term.

I think there's another middle-ground supreme court justice that's coming up for retirement soon too, besides RBG?

If that happens during Trump's time, American women haven't got a hope in hell.

Expect all hell to break loose soon after.
__________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips
AnonyMoose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 03:04 PM   #23
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 21,848
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Indeed. The bottom line is that the Alabama law, under the current system, is unconstitutional on its face.
At least until SCROTUS* get their hands on it....

*Supreme Court Republicans of the USA.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 03:04 PM   #24
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,011
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
When does Roe v Wade get thrown out?
Never. It would require the overturning of many decades old precedent and this cannot happen (as Sen. Susan Collins would be happy to remind you).
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 03:22 PM   #25
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,582
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Anyone with evidence Trump paid for an abortion needs to step right up, because I'd see that as the only chance left to prevent the absurd attacks on women's rights by white men.
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Why would that sort of thing change Kavanaugh's mind?
It wouldn't matter to Trump supporters. Nor would it matter to the Kavanaughs and Republican politicians of the world. It would be news fodder for a few days and then everyone would move on to the next thing.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 03:47 PM   #26
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,704
Certainly Roe vs Wade will be overturned sometime soon.

At the time of the election I said that it was the issue that put Trump over the line. You only need to look at the margins in the swing states compared to the evangelical populations in those states. Add that there was a SCOTUS vacancy and at least one more likely in the next presidential term and given that the SCOTUS balance is something of an obsession with evangelicals, then it seems very likely that this played a big part.

I can't believe that the appointees don't know what is expected of them.

I am expecting a few anti LGBT measures too

This will probably be a factor in 2020 too, so the US will have a Trump flavoured SCOTUS for the next generation at least.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 03:51 PM   #27
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 22,891
The people of Alabama are going to be overbreeding. They will spill out into the rest of the country like multiplying hamsters.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 03:51 PM   #28
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,704
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
As for the timeline, I think it depends on when Ruth Bader Ginsburg can no longer fill her seat. The hope is that she'll outlast Trump, but taking her age and health into consideration, that's not likely if he gets another term.
And that fact alone will deliver Trump a new term. The margin in Wisconsin was around the size of the weekly attendance of a mega church in that state and there are a lot of mega churches there. And they aren't even the majority of evangelicals.

And then there are the Catholics.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 04:02 PM   #29
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,797
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
The people of Alabama are going to be overbreeding. They will spill out into the rest of the country like multiplying hamsters.
Build the Wall!
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 04:09 PM   #30
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,797
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
Drugs are illegal, people seek illegal drugs.
Abortion is illegal, costly and discrete abortions will forever go unreported.

Changing a law won't change what people desire.
It should be noted that overturning Roe v. Wade will not make abortion illegal. It will simply return the matter to the states. Before 1973, abortion was basically legal in several states, and that was the general direction law and public opinion were heading. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will remain legal in the states that make it so -- the Northeast, the West Coast, etc. -- and will be punishable to different degrees under state laws in the South. The consequence is that women with enough money will be able to take a little trip to get the services they need, and the poor will either have babies they don't want and can't care for, or they will head for the back-alley butchers.

What a mess.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 04:10 PM   #31
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 22,891
We could egg the people of Alabama.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 04:11 PM   #32
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,404
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
I don't think you really get it. Until the law is overturned, it's the law and people violating that law will go to prison or be otherwise punished.Leaving it unchallenged doesn't make the law go away, nor does it make it ineffective. The only potential positive would be that other states might be reluctant to do their own bans, but we can already see that this isn't true.

I'll break it down further:
1. Dr. <X> is convicted of performing an abortion.
2. Dr. <X> is sentenced to <Y> years in prison.

Now, right here, with no appeals, Dr. <X> is spending time in prison. Dr. <X> will for good reason find that situation unacceptable and will therefore instruct their attorney(s) to file an appeal on constitutional grounds citing RvW and move on to step 3.

3. The state appeals court will uphold or overturn the conviction.
4a. If upheld, Dr. <X> will appeal to the federal level.
4b. If overturned, the state will appeal to the federal level.

5. The federal district court will affirm or overturn the previous court's decision.
5a/b. Same as above, but the appeal will be to the Supreme Court.

Bottom line: The law has to be fought, not only on principle but because as of this moment the law is unconstitutional as determined in Roe v. Wade.
The law has to be fought, but it doesn't seem to me that fighting it via a process that leads to the supreme court is a productive way to fight it if doing so leads to an overturning of precedent.

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, just because the state would plan to appeal any court finding that overturned their law, does not mean that the appeal would be granted. There's a reason that not every case makes it to the supreme court.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 04:25 PM   #33
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 44,159
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
You guys are really reading a lot into the OP that's not there.

All I see in TA's post is acknowledgement of the stark reality that the arch-conservative scum are close to a win on the issue of abortion, a win that will bring misery to millions of women in this country.
A lot of this is based on TA's past history; he has done a LOT of USA bashing in the past.
And, yeah, I think that repealing RvW would be a disaster;but it would be a political disaster for the GOP. They finally got what they wanted;and will find out it isnot what a lot of Amereicans want.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 04:26 PM   #34
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,668
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
The law has to be fought, but it doesn't seem to me that fighting it via a process that leads to the supreme court is a productive way to fight it if doing so leads to an overturning of precedent.

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, just because the state would plan to appeal any court finding that overturned their law, does not mean that the appeal would be granted. There's a reason that not every case makes it to the supreme court.
It's pretty obvious that you're not a lawyer because there are generally three ways to overturn a state law in the US:

1. Appeal to the state legislature to repeal the law. That would clearly be ineffective here.
2. In states where available, ballot initiatives can be used. If the majority of the state supports the law, then that's going nowhere.
3. Appeal through the established court system, which ends at the Supreme Court.

If none of these are tried, then the state law is just the law and that's an unacceptable alternative.

But, again, you don't seem to understand that if the law isn't appealed through the system up to and in this case certainly including the Supreme Court, then Roe v. Wade might as well not even exist as precedent. States will ban abortion as they see fit and state-by-state misery ensues.
Babbylonian is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 04:29 PM   #35
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,668
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
A lot of this is based on TA's past history; he has done a LOT of USA bashing in the past.
And, yeah, I think that repealing RvW would be a disaster;but it would be a political disaster for the GOP. They finally got what they wanted;and will find out it isnot what a lot of Amereicans want.
That's what they got with Trump, too. They don't seem to give a single **** what most Americans want.
Babbylonian is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 04:31 PM   #36
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,404
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
It's pretty obvious that you're not a lawyer because there are generally three ways to overturn a state law in the US:

1. Appeal to the state legislature to repeal the law. That would clearly be ineffective here.
2. In states where available, ballot initiatives can be used. If the majority of the state supports the law, then that's going nowhere.
3. Appeal through the established court system, which ends at the Supreme Court.

If none of these are tried, then the state law is just the law and that's an unacceptable alternative.

But, again, you don't seem to understand that if the law isn't appealed through the system up to and in this case certainly including the Supreme Court, then Roe v. Wade might as well not even exist as precedent. States will ban abortion as they see fit and state-by-state misery ensues.
The whole idea of supreme court precedent is that it can be used by the court system below the SC to overturn laws without each and every law going all the way to the top.

If that weren't the case, there would be no value in precedent anyhow. The supreme court would then have no teeth because any time a law was overturned there, the state would just make a new law that effectively did the same thing.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 04:41 PM   #37
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,668
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
The whole idea of supreme court precedent is that it can be used by the court system below the SC to overturn laws without each and every law going all the way to the top.

If that weren't the case, there would be no value in precedent anyhow. The supreme court would then have no teeth because any time a law was overturned there, the state would just make a new law that effectively did the same thing.
Yeah. In an ideal world (or at least a slightly better one), the lower courts would strike down the law and Alabama would say "Well, we lost that one, maybe next time." What makes you think that would happen?
Babbylonian is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 04:50 PM   #38
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,404
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Yeah. In an ideal world (or at least a slightly better one), the lower courts would strike down the law and Alabama would say "Well, we lost that one, maybe next time." What makes you think that would happen?
I don't believe that the state's tenacity by itself is the final word in whether an appeal is granted.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 05:00 PM   #39
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,668
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
I don't believe that the state's tenacity by itself is the final word in whether an appeal is granted.


Their lawyers will have their briefs ready to file. Of course they can and should be dismissed, but the premise of this thread is that a majority of justices on the Supreme Court are willing to trash Roe v. Wade as precedent.

If you don't accept that premise, fine, I hope you're right, but this is the journey upon which we in the US seem to be embarking. That the end looks inevitable is why the scum in Alabama felt emboldened to pass their **** law. If it turns out they were wrong (or misinformed), I will cheer the justices who slap them down.

The implication that there's some alternative to this process seems misguided. If you have an actual alternative, I'm sure everyone would love to know what that is.
Babbylonian is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 05:14 PM   #40
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,404
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post


Their lawyers will have their briefs ready to file. Of course they can and should be dismissed, but the premise of this thread is that a majority of justices on the Supreme Court are willing to trash Roe v. Wade as precedent.
It's my understanding that several appeals need to be granted by lower courts first.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.