SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[cubby]

OHSA does not deal with all Whistleblowing. It is specific in the law on what whistleblowing it handles.

Do you consider Edward Snowden a "Whistleblower"? Some do, but by this logic, what he did was not whistleblowing.

There is a much larger conversation to be had here on legal vs "unlawful" whistleblowing. And we can do that another time, for sure. Ironically, leaking these internal opinion documents might not have actually broken a law - hmmmmm, I haven't looked at that yet, interesting.

However, for the court, their opinion comes out publicly when it's ready. And that opinion goes through several drafts. And there are good and sound reasons, overall, why historically those internal opinions have been closely held.

Many people in thread, including myself, have pointed out that SCOTUS is at least historically untrustworthy now, and at best fundamentally broken - along with our Constitutional system. However, that's not the issue at hand, at least in what I've brought up for discussion. The issue is whether leaking internal documents in an attempt to sway judicial rulings is ok. And it's not.

[Edge-]

It isn't explicitly protected. Roe was based on the right to privacy. They think that's too broad of an interpretation. So let's explicitly enshrine the rights that have been ruled to be rights under the right to privacy and give SCOTUS the finger.

You think there's a chance of a Constitutional Amendment? Because that's likely what it would take at this point, fuckin lol.

[cubby]

I work for my state's government and we get tons of requests for information on our processes and decisions. Many of which are not subjected to the Freedom of Information Act.

People don't like government workings behind closed doors.

I cannot be leaked if it was never hidden in the first place. The issue people have is that you can publicly say X as a government official but secretly be working against it in the background. People are getting annoyed by the political games.

And for the most part I agree with you. We should have as much transparency in government as possible.

But internal draft legal opinions from SCOTUS aren't one of them.

[Elegiac]

It isn't explicitly protected. Roe was based on the right to privacy. They think that's too broad of an interpretation. So let's explicitly enshrine the rights that have been ruled to be rights under the right to privacy and give SCOTUS the finger.

Neither is judicial review.

The double standard is proof that it's in bad faith. QED.

[zEmini]

I use to be on the fence about abortion but now im smart and know that I have zero right to tell woman what they can do with their bodies. Thankfully there are sanctuary states - but poor people will still be fucked.

[Captain N]

Is this really where we're at right now? Are you people seriously okay with this?

Of course they are. It's never been about valuing life. It's always been about not valuing women.

[cubby]

You think there's a chance of a Constitutional Amendment? Because that's likely what it would take at this point, fuckin lol.

I'm not sure we'll ever see another Constitutional Amendment again in this country.

[Edge-]

I'm not sure we'll ever see another Constitutional Amendment again in this country.

Probably not, but the "Why" sure has a lot to say about topics being covered in this thread. Mostly the implosion of a minority political party who have turned into a reactionary party of wannabe authoritarians.

But my point is that's the only way to actually protect it from judicial fuckery. A simple law being passed could easily be ruled unconstitutional using the same logic in this draft ruling - "it's not the federal governments role to decide this".

[Darththeo]

You think there's a chance of a Constitutional Amendment? Because that's likely what it would take at this point, fuckin lol.

People don't understand that Roe v Wade is also part of medical privacy and many cases on medical privacy cited Roe v Wade's decision.

[Somewhatconcerned]

And if my 16 year old daughter needs an abortion because she's raped or her birth control fails, you think it's right that I should have to secretly get her across state lines, to a state where abortion is legal, then never speak of it again, for fear of both of us being imprisoned?

Is this really where we're at right now? Are you people seriously okay with this?

No, I've already stated that I think it would be wrong to try to limit free travel. Some states may try, however. I think/hope the GOP realizes even that would be a bridge too far.

The safest option, however, is to try to live in a state where it would be legal. If you have the means to do so. Not saying it's ideal, just that it's the most worry-free option.

[Fugus]

Explain how it's incorrect to correctly place blame on the uneducated, single issue voters who really caused this? The fact that Trump won in 2016 says all that needs to be said about the status of your average US voter. Being disgustingly uneducated over almost every single issue and voting for all the wrong reasons is the reason why our current SCOTUS is now deliberately attacking women's rights in our country.

Change my mind.

You just described the Trump voters there, wasn't single issue voter myself. Here's the response I gave earlier.

I mean when it comes to the Republicans you actively admit how the GOP won't come out against racists and racism because they know it would run off their voters if they did. That is admitting right there that it would be the GOP knowingly running off their own voters if they snubbed them, even if those voters deserved to be snubbed for being monsters. But you give Clinton a pass.....

Now, stop trying to hold Clinton to a lower standard then we hold them. And we can really just drop it.

[Edge-]

People don't understand that Roe v Wade is also part of medical privacy and many cases on medical privacy cited Roe v Wade's decision.

WILL YOU BE ABLE TO ASK ABOUT PEOPLES VACCINATION STATUS WITHOUT VIOLATING HIPAA?

(as if this was ever a violation of HIPAA)

[cubby]

Probably not, but the "Why" sure has a lot to say about topics being covered in this thread. Mostly the implosion of a minority political party who have turned into a reactionary party of wannabe authoritarians.

But my point is that's the only way to actually protect it from judicial fuckery. A simple law being passed could easily be ruled unconstitutional using the same logic in this draft ruling - "it's not the federal governments role to decide this".

I could not agree more. This ruling, if it comes out the way we saw in draft, is fundamentally horrifying. It could possibly mean the end to just about all women's rights, along with a host of other social policies.

The poor will be more poor, because the GQP hates poor people - i.e. not white people.

And yeah, essentially, any previous law that is part of our system now could be overturned because of exactly what you just said. Gilead isn't far away.

[Fugus]

More on topic, I have actually mentioned this to a few people around here and pointed out how broadly it was written could be expanded to attack Gay Marriage and Sodomy laws and since most of them seem to enjoy Oral sex or have gay friends, I think they might not like their blowjobs being illegal so their friends marriage can be attacked.

[cubby]

And if my 16 year old daughter needs an abortion because she's raped or her birth control fails, you think it's right that I should have to secretly get her across state lines, to a state where abortion is legal, then never speak of it again, for fear of both of us being imprisoned?

Is this really where we're at right now? Are you people seriously okay with this?

A large portion of people are literally ok with the above. And keep in mind at least 50% of the states are GQP controlled in the state House/Senate. And they are passing more draconian laws to prevent that status from changing.

This is very, very bad. In so many different ways.

[Endus]

To your question. Whyever not because SCOTUS and other rulings can't, and shouldn't, be influenced by public outcry or mob rule. All of those are part of the Legislative and Executive process. If we let mob rule or public outrcy define our judicial rulings, we wouldn't have Brown vs Board, etc.

You live in a fundamentally democratic system, meaning that "mob rule" is one of your core defining principles.

And regardless, what you're describing takes the entire concept of "justice" and removes it wholesale from the judicial process. I don't see how that's remotely tenable. Justices pushing unjust decisions is not going to survive a public who won't accept those decisions, just as a matter of practicality.

Brown v. Board might have been a contentious decision, but there was a pretty significant groundswell of support for that decision, too. Or it never would've happened.

This is especially relevant here because this ruling appears even legalistically improper, not just a travesty of justice on principle. Lack of transparency in situations like this serves no one but bad-faith actors who know their horseshit won't survive public scrutiny.

- - - Updated - - -

And if my 16 year old daughter needs an abortion because she's raped or her birth control fails, you think it's right that I should have to secretly get her across state lines, to a state where abortion is legal, then never speak of it again, for fear of both of us being imprisoned?

Is this really where we're at right now? Are you people seriously okay with this?

That's where the USA's always been, frankly. The USA, from its founding, has always contained broad swaths of people who are perfectly satisfied with religious subjugation and oppression of various minority groups. Doesn't matter if we're talking the slave states, the Confederacy, Jim Crow, Suffraggettes, the Civil Rights movement, Stonewall, and so on. Deeply evil people who have a fundamental need to victimize innocents at the deepest cores of their beings.

That's why abortion's remained a hot-topic political issue even since Roe v. Wade passed; there's so many evil religious extremists out there who desperately need to subjugate women into being breeding livestock rather than human beings. That's the pro-life movement in a nutshell. They're just getting super desperate because progressive liberation movements have gained a bunch of ground and it's becoming more and more clear how little chance they have at survival unless they can seize power and destroy their opponents in a more direct manner.

[Somewhatconcerned]

That's the pro-life movement in a nutshell. They're just getting super desperate because progressive liberation movements have gained a bunch of ground

Yeah, all those progressive liberals winning so many races!

[Mekh]

Yeah, all those progressive liberals winning so many races!

Until yesterday, being pro-choice wasn't progressive, it was the status quo. So grats on that step back.

[Endus]

Yeah, all those progressive liberals winning so many races!

Compared to 1990?

Sure are, yes. Welcome to objective reality.

And that you consider a basic respect for women's basic human rights to be "progressive", you've kind of outed yourself.

[cubby]

I have no words for the state of the US right now.

I'm glad I left, and am now happily living in a real democracy.

But seriously, Dems need to get their shit together, and fast.

Out of curiosity, where did you move to? I might be pulling up stakes myself if this gets any worse. I'm raising three kids, including on girl, and this shit is just not ok, at all.