SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Somewhatconcerned]

Anonymous tweeted…

Repealing Roe v Wade isn't going to go the way SCOTUS or the GOP thinks it's going to go.
Play with fire, get burned. Don't say we didn't warn you.
Expect us.

LOL have they been relevant since 2015?

Anyway, send the issue back to the states where it belongs. Abortion will still be legal in many states. Federalism is great, embrace it.

[Elegiac]

Anyway, send the issue back to the states where it belongs. Abortion will still be legal in many states. Federalism is great, embrace it.

And fuck all the women too poor to afford interstate travel to get abortions, I guess?

[Crissi]

LOL have they been relevant since 2015?

Anyway, send the issue back to the states where it belongs. Abortion will still be legal in many states. Federalism is great, embrace it.

and when State A makes it illegal to travel to state B for abortion? Or when inevitably Republicans come back into control on the federal level and make it illegal to travel for one?

[Edge-]

Anyway, send the issue back to the states where it belongs.

Actually, it belongs to the people. People have bodily autonomy. And that's protected by the federal government against states infringing upon it.

Courts want to change that, and the logic they're using is terrifying in scope and could very much be similarly weaponized like we've seen CA's response to TX's attempt to literally just circumvent all law with their abortion legislation.

[Winter Blossom]

and when State A makes it illegal to travel to state B for abortion? Or when inevitably Republicans come back into control on the federal level and make it illegal to travel for one?

Not only that, but those same states are trying to make it illegal to receive abortion pills by mail.

[Edge-]

And fuck all the women too poor to afford interstate travel to get abortions, I guess?

Hey, it's a boon to blue states where it'll be legal. Wealthy conservative women will fly in secret to these states, stay in fancy hotels, spend money shopping, go for a spa day, get an abortion, have a few days more of shopping therapy, and then go back to their red state after having spent thousands in a liberal state that allowed them control over their body.

[cubby]

The issue is that even if it wasn't leaked, if this came out as is ... the result would have been worse.

People have asked for decades for more transparency in their government. This is highlighting the issue we still lack transparency.

But that's the point - the judicial system doesn't have transparency in this regard. They hear and read arguments, review the issues and law, and rule. Their internal processes aren't meant to be transparent, they never have been, aside from knowing what those processes actually are. If that makes sense.

Consider this from the opposite point of view. SCOTUS internal documents leaked about Brown vs Board of Education, and the mob that would have ensued prior to the official opinion release. There would have been literal rioting on the steps of the SCOTUS building. We can't have that as a nation of laws.

[Elegiac]

Hey, it's a boon to blue states where it'll be legal. Wealthy conservative women will fly in secret to these states, stay in fancy hotels, spend money shopping, go for a spa day, get an abortion, have a few days more of shopping therapy, and then go back to their red state after having spent thousands in a liberal state that allowed them control over their body.

If it weren't a gross breach of medical and legal ethics I'd say we should start publishing the names of conservative women who have abortions.

[Edge-]

Consider this from the opposite point of view. SCOTUS internal documents leaked about Brown vs Board of Education, and the mob that would have ensued prior to the official opinion release. There would have been literal rioting on the steps of the SCOTUS building. We can't have that as a nation of laws.

You know what? I don't think I will.

Where are those "literal riots on the steps of the SCOTUS building" btw? I've seen that there are a ton of protesters so far but...where are the riots?

[Somewhatconcerned]

And fuck all the women too poor to afford interstate travel to get abortions, I guess?

I don't agree with punishing people for free will of travel. Unfortunately some states will try to enact provisions in their anti-abortion laws for this.

As far as poor women...that too is unfortunate but not such is the history of mankind towards those without the means to provide for themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

And fuck all the women too poor to afford interstate travel to get abortions, I guess?

I don't agree with punishing people for free will of travel. Unfortunately some states will try to enact provisions in their anti-abortion laws for this.

As far as poor women...that too is unfortunate but not such is the history of mankind towards those without the means to provide for themselves.

[Elegiac]

But that's the point - the judicial system doesn't have transparency in this regard. They hear and read arguments, review the issues and law, and rule. Their internal processes aren't meant to be transparent, they never have been, aside from knowing what those processes actually are. If that makes sense.

Consider this from the opposite point of view. SCOTUS internal documents leaked about Brown vs Board of Education, and the mob that would have ensued prior to the official opinion release. There would have been literal rioting on the steps of the SCOTUS building. We can't have that as a nation of laws.

Why are unjust laws worth protecting, exactly.

[Levelfive]

LOL have they been relevant since 2015?

Anyway, send the issue back to the states where it belongs. Abortion will still be legal in many states. Federalism is great, embrace it.

"In Missouri, state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman attached an eight-page amendment to H.B. 1677—a bill originally about prescription drug prices—which would allow private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion on a Missouri resident, possesses or distributes abortion pills, and aids or abets a Missouri abortion patient regardless of where the abortion is performed. The majority of Missouri residents who get abortions have traveled to Illinois and other states for care. The Missouri bill has not yet had a floor vote.

Any lawsuits filed under bills like these would rely on surveillance of people’s movements and medical care. On first reading, both seem unconstitutional. But that’s what experts said about S.B. 8 when it initially came before the court in September, and the Supreme Court upheld it. Legal experts said the same about Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that will likely overturn or severely hamper Roe v. Wade. That case involves a 2018 Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks, well before Roe’s standard of fetal viability which is about 22-24 weeks of pregnancy. The only thing that has changed since 2018 is the ideological balance of the Supreme Court."

Lol people losing rights straight white men never have to worry about is funny lol

[Elegiac]

I don't agree with punishing people for free will of travel. Unfortunately some states will try to enact provisions in their anti-abortion laws for this.

As far as poor women...that too is unfortunate but not such is the history of mankind towards those without the means to provide for themselves.

So yes, you are in effect saying "fuck all the women too poor to afford interstate travel to get abortions".

Pretty disgusting take on your part, but okay.

[cubby]

Cool and all, but connect the dots to the "radical left" here. That's who he's blaming for this, without any evidence or anything else to back it up.

That part is a little dicey, but the overall point is what I was getting at.

Or, alternatively, acting as a canary in the coal-mine after decades of Republicans literally doing this to the judiciary, and what the activist judges that the Republicans have installed are doing to undermine the credibility of our judiciary.

Need I remind you of the historically low trust in the SCOTUS?

This development is bad, yes, but this leak and reaction isn't the solution. Outside of a fundamental change in our laws, expanding the court, or a revolution, this leak is bad, in so many ways. The subject of the leak is almost ancillary to the leak itself.

The alternative of the Republicans using the judiciary to reshape the country in their image because they're a minority party, resulting in potential rulings like this that threaten the rights of people in many states including...

- Interracial marriage and children
- Same-sex realationships
- Sodomy laws
- Our right to privacy

And tons of other rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but granted to the people rather than to the states and protected against states infringing upon these rights at a federal level.

This is very much the kind of argument made when you've lost and all you have left is, "Sure we have lost some rights, and many more in other states have lost TONS of rights, but at least we were principled!"

Oh, we're fucked right now - truly. This ruling, if released as official opinion, spells damning trouble for most of the gains we've made in modern social policy.

[Edge-]

So yes, you are in effect saying "fuck all the women too poor to afford interstate travel to get abortions".

Pretty disgusting take on your part, but okay.

Not surprising though, the folks who support moves like this largely seem to belong to a party that doesn't just not care about poor folks, but is overtly and explicitly hostile towards them.

[Levelfive]

But that's the point - the judicial system doesn't have transparency in this regard. They hear and read arguments, review the issues and law, and rule. Their internal processes aren't meant to be transparent, they never have been, aside from knowing what those processes actually are. If that makes sense.

Consider this from the opposite point of view. SCOTUS internal documents leaked about Brown vs Board of Education, and the mob that would have ensued prior to the official opinion release. There would have been literal rioting on the steps of the SCOTUS building. We can't have that as a nation of laws.

The original Roe v Wade decision leaked, too. Come on now.

[Somewhatconcerned]

Actually, it belongs to the people.

Yes, the people who voted in the last GOP president who installed the 3 SCOTUS judges that are making this possible.

Either pick a better candidate next time, or find a way to get more people to vote. This country's voter turnout even in a big year like 2020 is pathetic to other countries.

[cubby]

Worse than SCOTUS issuing shadow docket decrees that cancel decades of settled legislation or precedent...?
SCOTUS has much bigger institutional problems than a fucking leak.

"But if it pleases the court, would the record please reflect that I made polite agreement with the gentleman from Kentucky. Because this level of comity is like begging for karma points on reddit."

In my opinion, the shadow docket is something that needs to be addressed. But not by leaking memos and bullying judges.

[Elegiac]

In my opinion, the shadow docket is something that needs to be addressed. But not by leaking memos and bullying judges.

Protests are not "bullying" no matter how much you claim otherwise.

And you've still not answered the question as to why you think unjust laws and processes are worth protecting, let alone respecting. You're basically making an argument against whistleblowing in general, here.

[cubby]

Instead they can be partisan judges influenced by decades of grooming by conservative activist groups, installed in contradiction to normal order with political fuckery so that they can make rulings in favor of the party that installed them rather than in accordance with the law.

Highlighting the extensive use of the shadow docket as an example of how morally compromised this court is, not to mention Thomas and the fucking monumental ethics issues with his wife.

You're pretending like the SCOTUS is functioning as-normal and hasn't been weaponized as an arm of the Republican party. Don't do that.

You're right in the above, the conservative grooming, all of it. But leaking internal opinions hoping to change the ruling isn't how it's done - and it's dangerous. In this case we hope it will change a "bad" ruling, but the reverse, a good ruling, like previous gay marriage law upholdings, could also be affected.