Updated: Roe v. Wade overturned

[AUDub 11,153]

Just now, GoAU said:

I happen to think your an idiot as wellbut it doesn’t have much bearing on the conversation.  However, if you want to resort to name calling we can certainly go there.  

Your opinions reflect your myopia. 

[AUDub 11,153]

I think, @GoAU, that you're so committed to a shibboleth like "state's rights," that you'd see individual liberty smashed in favor of it. 

[GoAU 1,600]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

What do you think about buying condoms at the store? State governments can stop that under your reasoning. 

What to you think about gay marriage? Put that one on the board.

What do you think about interracial marriage? Ooh buddy I'd love to see you're justification if we hit that hypothetical.

Can't. Think. Critically. 

1) I think buying condoms is great, and I highly encourage it.  There is nothing in my reasoning that would allow a state to ban condoms or any other form of preventative contraception.   Nice try. 
 

2) I have no issue with gay marriage at all.  If two people want to have a committed relationship, that’s between them. 
 

3) Have no issue with interracial marriage at all.  See #2 above.  
 

Ooohh buddy your attempt at the feeble branding of racist homophobia sure failed there didn’t it?   Once again, you are nowhere near as smart as you think you are.  

[GoAU 1,600]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

I think, @GoAU, that you're so committed to a shibboleth like "state's rights," that you'd see individual liberty smashed in favor of it. 

And you would be incorrect - again

Edited May 6, 2022 by GoAU

[AUDub 11,153]

Just now, GoAU said:

1) I think buying condoms is great, and I highly encourage it.  There is nothing in my reasoning that would allow a state to ban condoms or any other form of preventative contraception.   Nice try. 

Read the draft.

Just now, GoAU said:

2) I have no issue with gay marriage at all.  If two people want to have a committed relationship, that’s between them. 
 

Again, read the draft. 

Just now, GoAU said:

3) Have no issue with interracial marriage at all.  See #2 above.  

Again read the draft. 

Just now, GoAU said:

Ooohh buddy your attempt at the feeble branding of racist homophobia sure failed there didn’t it?   Once again, you are nowhere near as smart as you think you are.  

That you're so incapable of actually looking into the ramifications of the effect of dismantling this particular bit of case law with ALL mentioned above, which ALL count on it as a basis, is a bad reflection upon you. 

[AUDub 11,153]

3 minutes ago, GoAU said:

And you would be incorrect - again

I think you're quipping mindlessly at this point. 

To reiterate:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1522290062481842178

We're reaching the end of hypotheticals here, my man. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by AUDub

[GoAU 1,600]

Just now, AUDub said:

Read the draft.

Again, read the draft. 

Again read the draft. 

That you're so incapable of actually looking into the ramifications of the effect of dismantling this particular bit of case law with ALL mentioned above, which ALL count on it as a basis, is a bad reflection upon you. 

For the hundredth time - I have read the draft, or at least enough of it to not see it as a threat to the above. 
 

To feel that you are OK with the murder of fully developed babies in the name of “womens rights” speaks poorly of you.  

[AUDub 11,153]

1 minute ago, GoAU said:

For the hundredth time - I have read the draft, or at least enough of it to not see it as a threat to the above. 
 

If you aren't a liar, you're illiterate. 

 

[AUDub 11,153]

2 minutes ago, GoAU said:

To feel that you are OK with the murder of fully developed babies in the name of “womens rights” speaks poorly of you.  

And this is a malicious strawman. 

[AUDub 11,153]

Go: "I read the draft and see no threat to those rights"

Alito: *quite literally threatens those rights* 

Go: "I see no problems here"

Edited May 6, 2022 by AUDub

[AUDub 11,153]

Alito's opinions always carry a caveat that it's free-standing and shouldn't be taken to affect any other precedents. Doesn't mean a damned thing.

From a legal standpoint,  he obliterated Lawrence v. Texas, Loving v. Virginia,  Obergefell v. Hodges and Griswold v. Connecticut in one fell swoop. 

And you're too ******* dumb to see it. 

[GoAU 1,600]

6 hours ago, AUDub said:

Alito's opinions always carry a caveat that it's free-standing and shouldn't be taken to affect any other precedents. Doesn't mean a damned thing.

From a legal standpoint,  he obliterated Lawrence v. Texas, Loving v. Virginia,  Obergefell v. Hodges and Griswold v. Connecticut in one fell swoop. 

And you're too ******* dumb to see it. 

He mentions that this is free standing, you chose not the believe that, and try and lump laws about sodomy, gay marriage, interracial marriage and the buying of contraceptives into the the Ana e catagory as defining where human life begins and think it’s on the same level - that is asinine.  
 

Should any of your aforementioned cases come under scrutiny of the court (which I don’t see happening at all, regardless of how loud you play Chicken Little) I would say that the court / government is overreaching.  Acts / marriage between consenting adults is of no concern to the government (assuming of course said acts are not committed in public - for any sexual orientation) and I question why the government is even involved in marriage at all, but that’s a different argument for a different day.  
 

Why  this case is so different is the entire aspect of the impact to an innocent, third party.   I would also point out that this would have had much less social impact had the left not continued pushing for abortion later and later in pregnancy, up to and including partial birth abortion.  The difficulty in defining the beginning of human life is much less binary and should be decided at smaller level, hence kicking it back to states rights.  You can keep pushing to federalize it, but should the court decide that life begins at conception you’d really lose your mind.  

[DKW 86 7,426]

7 hours ago, AUDub said:

Alito's opinions always carry a caveat that it's free-standing and shouldn't be taken to affect any other precedents. Doesn't mean a damned thing.

From a legal standpoint,  he obliterated Lawrence v. Texas, Loving v. Virginia,  Obergefell v. Hodges and Griswold v. Connecticut in one fell swoop. 

And you're too ******* dumb to see it. 

THAT is the most over the top, idiotic rant ever on this forum. You do know that Clarence Thomas is inter racially married right? How in the **** is Loving v Virginia going to be compromised? Can’t wait to hear this bit of insanity. 
 

GoAU is right. Some here just fling the homophobe, racist, Islamophobe, draconian, fascist poo 24-7 and it is just silly as hell. 

[AUDub 11,153]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

THAT is the most over the top, idiotic rant ever on this forum. You do know that Clarence Thomas is inter racially married right? How in the **** is Loving v Virginia going to be compromised? Can’t wait to hear this bit of insanity. 

Because Alito essentially said that the basis for that being a right doesn't exist in the following passage:

The due process clause of the 14th Amendment “has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be ‘deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.’”

Now I don't think the court will necessarily grant cert on a case challenging Loving, but the basis of that being a protected right no longer exists if this draft becomes the opinion of the court. 

More likely, they'll move on to contraceptives (Griswold) and gay marriage (Obergefell) in the next stage of the culture war. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by AUDub

[AUDub 11,153]

2 hours ago, GoAU said:

He mentions that this is free standing, you chose not the believe that, and try and lump laws about sodomy, gay marriage, interracial marriage and the buying of contraceptives into the the Ana e catagory as defining where human life begins and think it’s on the same level - that is asinine.  

He doesn't provide a basis for why it's free standing. That's bad jurisprudence. You can't just say "you can apply this reasoning here but not there because we say so." and expect that to fly. 

And given what Alito and Thomas wrote dissenting to Obergefell and Alito's writing in this very draft there's good reason to be worried, . 

[aubiefifty 16,803]

i will say this and i am dead serious. if you are seeking to do away with birth control and are anti abortion i pretty much have nothing for you. in fact if you are anti abortion but want to do away with birth control you have blood on your hands. and if you claim to hate abortion but are not willing to pay for birth control  if it saves babies you have blood on your hands as much as anyone getting an abortion. that "lets save the babies but i do not want my tax money paying for it " is quite a stretch.

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

For the past 2 decades all I've heard from people is : RoevWade is established, settled law, RvW is too popular, It'll never be overturned...that's just left wing fearmongering

 

Well.......

 

I don't see why Conservatives Wouldn't try to go after things like contraception's and gay marriage next. 

Tennessee is already introducing a bill to create a new form of marriage "contract" specifically for straight couple because it doesn't agree with gay marriage and many in Tennessee believe that should be a state's right issue too.  

So when Republicans want to challenge gay marriage to the supreme court all these Conservatives on here are saying THAT would be a bridge too far and they wouldn't support it? Nah, I don't buy it. 

Conservatives in this country have been riding the "states rights" train using it to do away with individual liberties and rights for our countries entire history. I don't buy that THIS moment in time is where it'll all stop after they win on Abortion. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

2 hours ago, GoAU said:

He mentions that this is free standing, you chose not the believe that,

Go ask Susan Collins how closely our conservative Justices stand by what they say. 

[AUDub 11,153]

Scott Greenfield's take, emphasis mine. 

The Woke Sleeping Giant

33 Comments

Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who planned and executed the attack on Pearl Harbor, is famously reputed to have written in his diary, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” While the views of Americans vary about abortion, there is no doubt that only a significant minority want to ban abortion. The majority of Americans believe it is, and should be, a constitutional right.

But abortion is only the beginning of the conflagration caused by the leak of the draft opinion. It was obvious that this would strike a significant blow to the integrity of the Supreme Court, not because of the content of the draft but because it proved, in the minds of many, that the catastrophizers were right and the Court is now nothing but a machine honed to do the bidding of the radical right wing.

While most lawyers and legal academics were appalled by the leak, the leaker was hailed as a hero by progressives for revealing what they wanted revealed, that their worst fears of the  conservative capture of the Supreme Court were true. And even if abortion rights aren’t enough to light everyone’s fire, the text exposed the view that the Dobbs opinion is merely the starting point for the radical right-wing remake of America.

In the draft decision Alito criticizes both Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges as similar to Roe and Casey as the rights protected in those cases are not “deeply rooted in history.” So, coming soon to a red state near you, expect laws that outlaw sodomy and gay marriage as the Court has signaled they’re willing to upend stare decisis on these issues.

Griswold. Lawrence. Loving. Obergefell. This might have been viewed as absurdly hyperbolic two days ago, but after the leak of the draft, these are no longer ridiculous fearmongering cries. If you want someone to blame for raising this possibility, blame Sam Alito.

To the extent that the abortion battle might not be the foremost issue in the minds of Americans, consider what adding contraception, gay sex, inter-racial marriage and gay marriage to the mix will do. This suddenly touches a lot of lives. Who believes birth control should be criminalized? Who doesn’t know a gay person and believe they should be allowed to live their life without being criminalized for who they love? Maybe not you, but then you’re the outlier. Even Dick Cheney learned that lesson.

This suddenly isn’t about abortion anymore, but about the litany of rulings that ended the criminalization of conduct that today seems so obviously proper and ordinary as to be unworthy of a second thought. Now, we have to give them a second thought. Now, they require a second thought because Sam Alito said so. They’re in play because Alito put them in play. And to be fair, if Roe and Casey can be reversed, then there is no assurance that any unenumerated right is safe. And even enumerated rights are subject to reimagination, whether by this Court or another in the future should stare decisis be a secondary consideration.

It may be that the leaked draft was Sam Alito’s most fevered dream opinion, and the other justices who voted with him rejected his opinion, possibly even were ready to change their vote. One of the speculative theories about who leaked the decision is that it was a  conservative clerk, who sought to lock in a waffling justice. It’s possible that the hero of the left wasn’t exactly interested in transparency.

The point isn’t whether America can reach a consensus about abortion, even if the extreme right wants to ban it completely and the extreme left wants it available on demand up to the moment of birth. The point now is that the Supreme Court just confirmed the worst fears of a nation that it will use its authority in radical ways. And if it is no longer a court, and just another political wing of the right, then it deserves no respect.

Students at Yale Law School, to no one’s surprise, immediately took the path of rejecting the Supreme Court’s legitimacy. The irony is obvious, that they relegated law to themselves while studying what a now-illegitimate court has to say about it. These are the kids who will wear robes some day. And as far as they are concerned, they are the law. If your response is that makes them no different than Alito, just the other flavor, so what? They know that they are on the side of good, so it’s entirely different.

What will ultimately become of abortion, assuming the Supreme Court overrules Roe and Casey, will eventually be a compromise because that’s what the vast majority of Americans want. For those who believe passionately that abortion is wrong and evil, you are the minority and will not prevail.

But in the meantime, this leaked draft has not only given energy where it had waned, motivated the progressive wing to rejoin the fight and raised the specter in the minds of the moderate that the radical right was more dangerous than the radical left. And it’s no longer possible to shrug off the catastrophizers given that the Supreme Court appears to be doing the unthinkable, and Alito gave every reason to believe that it’s merely the start of their radical shift.

I didn’t believe this was possible. I didn’t believe the Court would so foolish as to squander its integrity on such radical rulings. But I really didn’t believe that Alito was so crazed as to raise the possibility, if not probability, that a series of pillars of American society as we know it would fall. Griswold. Lawrence. Loving. Obergefell. This is no longer about legal analysis, but about the radical right-wing reshaping of a nation. Americans don’t want it and won’t stand for it. And they are now awake.

Edited May 6, 2022 by AUDub

[McLoofus 35,182]

13 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I don't buy that THIS moment in time is where it'll all stop after they win on Abortion. 

We have numerous people on this forum who swore that trump would honor the results of the election. They still refuse to acknowledge that they were wrong or how serious it is that so many Republican leaders and lawmakers participated in the attempt to overturn the election. It's the same thing. And one can only assume that they keep moving the goalposts because they are getting the results they've wanted all along. 

[GoAU 1,600]

1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

i will say this and i am dead serious. if you are seeking to do away with birth control and are anti abortion i pretty much have nothing for you. in fact if you are anti abortion but want to do away with birth control you have blood on your hands. and if you claim to hate abortion but are not willing to pay for birth control  if it saves babies you have blood on your hands as much as anyone getting an abortion. that "lets save the babies but i do not want my tax money paying for it " is quite a stretch.

And I would absolutely agree with you.  I haven’t heard of anything remotely reputable stating that anyone wants to ban birth control - with the caveat of abortion being used as a form of birth control.  Don’t fall for the pot stirring hysteria, no one is coming for your condoms.   

[GoAU 1,600]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

He doesn't provide a basis for why it's free standing. That's bad jurisprudence. You can't just say "you can apply this reasoning here but not there because we say so." and expect that to fly. 

And given what Alito and Thomas wrote dissenting to Obergefell and Alito's writing in this very draft there's good reason to be worried, . 

So, are you are saying you are completely against states rights at all?   That everyone should bend the knee to an autocratic central government?   
 

Abortion IS significantly different from gay marriage, sodomy, interracial marriage, and the purchase of birth control to lump them all together is intellectually dishonest at best.   

[TexasTiger 12,947]

4 minutes ago, GoAU said:

And I would absolutely agree with you.  I haven’t heard of anything remotely reputable stating that anyone wants to ban birth control - with the caveat of abortion being used as a form of birth control.  Don’t fall for the pot stirring hysteria, no one is coming for your condoms.   

Are you familiar with the Griswold case that laid the foundation for Roe?

[AUDub 11,153]

9 minutes ago, GoAU said:

And I would absolutely agree with you.  I haven’t heard of anything remotely reputable stating that anyone wants to ban birth control - with the caveat of abortion being used as a form of birth control.  Don’t fall for the pot stirring hysteria, no one is coming for your condoms.   

That LA law I'm hammering on could be stretched to include most every form of hormonal birth control given its language. 

[AUDub 11,153]

11 minutes ago, GoAU said:

So, are you are saying you are completely against states rights at all?   That everyone should bend the knee to an autocratic central government?   

Oppression is oppression,, whether that comes from a state or federal government. 

11 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Abortion IS significantly different from gay marriage, sodomy, interracial marriage, and the purchase of birth control to lump them all together is intellectually dishonest at best.   

You're not getting it. Of course they're different, but they all share the same case law. 

You get rid of the reasoning behind Roe, then the same logic applies to them. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by AUDub