SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Fugus]

I dont even particular get the worry here other than like being control freeks. Like Clarence Thomas is ostensible worried about the public trust in the courts and the courts reputation but he doesn't actually give a fuck about that.

They are upset that their opinions came out sooner than they wanted. They wanted to basically shit the bed on their way out the door for this session.

The last thing they wanted was to shit the bed while they were still in it and the public find out soon enough that they can try and pressure them.

They wanted a “Too late now so nothing can be done about it” situation. Last thing they wanted was a “Yeah, we did some shitty stuff and have the time to reverse it and just don’t want to” situation they got. Kinda like how Russia tried to rush stuff so fast that by the public heard it was too late and instead got the situation where the world is weighing in on it.

The fact the Supreme Court can accurately be related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine should give an idea of just how evil and selfish they are acting.

[Breccia]

They are upset that their opinions came out sooner than they wanted.

I mean...what exactly is the recourse here? It's not like there's an appeal process, or that any of those judges said "we know it's unConstitutional but we're doing it anyhow".

[Fugus]

I mean...what exactly is the recourse here? It's not like there's an appeal process, or that any of those judges said "we know it's unConstitutional but we're doing it anyhow".

They wanted it to come out when it was already too late so the public pressure was off and it would pass faster.

They didn’t want it to come out when they could still change it and then have public pressure on them and them having to double down on it showing just how fucked up and devoted to that outcome they are and creating an even bigger push to address them and get more elected in to clean up their mess.

- - - Updated - - -

The courts problem with it isn’t about the verdict itself, they want that verdict. It’s about the fallout from how it comes out.

When it comes out and it’s too late for the public to react is a lot different when it comes out while the whole process is on going and the people are watching it as it unwinds.

Like I said, similar to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. They wanted it done before the world could respond and not the fallout of watching the world see it unwind and respond.

[Kaleredar]

I dont even particular get the worry here other than like being control freeks. Like Clarence Thomas is ostensible worried about the public trust in the courts and the courts reputation but he doesn't actually give a fuck about that.

I don’t believe we know the actual intended timeline on this. It could have been that they intended to levy their decision on this after the 2022 elections, such that it wouldn’t be a campaignable issue and they figured people would have largely just accepted it by the 2024 elections.

[Fugus]

I don’t believe we know the actual intended timeline on this. It could have been that they intended to levy their decision on this after the 2022 elections, such that it wouldn’t be a campaignable issue and they figured people would have largely just accepted it by the 2024 elections.

I thought it was supposed to be released around July or something after they were done this session or something along those lines.

Basically shit the bed on their way out the door where no one could even do anything but talk about it and hope the public outcry would die down much faster rather than be in the public story for months as the whole thing unfolded.

Didn’t think about them waiting on the verdict after the election.

[Vankrys]

I mean...what exactly is the recourse here? It's not like there's an appeal process, or that any of those judges said "we know it's unConstitutional but we're doing it anyhow".

Vote Blue, simple as that. I don't mean in the federal election, it's useless. Even if congress pass a law to codify Roe V Wade, even if they find a few republican to break rank and break the filibuster, that law will be immediately repealed by the supreme court, the supreme court has the last word, it can strike any law it deems against the constitution.

In this particular case, local elections is where it's at. Turn the local legislature blue and pass a law to protect the right to choose. If all else fails, move. I would not advice a young woman, sexually active, to stay in any red state at this point.

[Glorious Leader]

They wanted it to come out when it was already too late so the public pressure was off and it would pass faster.

They didn’t want it to come out when they could still change it and then have public pressure on them and them having to double down on it showing just how fucked up and devoted to that outcome they are and creating an even bigger push to address them and get more elected in to clean up their mess.

- - - Updated - - -

The courts problem with it isn’t about the verdict itself, they want that verdict. It’s about the fallout from how it comes out.

When it comes out and it’s too late for the public to react is a lot different when it comes out while the whole process is on going and the people are watching it as it unwinds.

Like I said, similar to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. They wanted it done before the world could respond and not the fallout of watching the world see it unwind and respond.

So they're upset they couldn't manage the obvious outrage they would get because somebody leaked it and it was out of their control.

[Fugus]

So they're upset they couldn't manage the obvious outrage they would get because somebody leaked it and it was out of their control.

More or less.

If the public had found out after it was official and they had left for this session, they couldn’t get pressured over it and the media would have it in their cycle for a week or so but it would be a “too late nothing can be done about it for most”. It wouldn’t last in the public view and consciousness for long. Effectively minimizing the public outrage over it.

It coming out like it did had the opposite impact, the public is getting to see the train wreck as it happens and knows the train conductor is doing it intentionally. It will stay in the news cycle the entire time and the people will remember it much more clearly in the next election.

Not only that, with this being their draft opinions, this wasn’t their PC friendly version of it where they tried to phrase it in the friendly way this was them getting to say what they wanted to say to the public but knew it would be disliked. Showing exactly what they wanted.

With Alito showing how he hated the cases that protected gay marriage along with oral and anal sex that gay people primarily do when they have sex to attack them.

With ACB sounding like a full fanatic talking about how it is a girls duty to have kids to fill Americans demand for them.

With them referring to a guy who killed people as witches and thought it wasn’t possible for a man to rape his wife.

These were all them saying what they wanted to thinking we wouldn’t see it and showing their hands.

They didn’t want any of that, they wanted it to come out with a PC friendly release after the case was done and they were walking out the door so the outrage would be minimal and the news would just pass it by quickly.

Edit: Think of this draft opinion kinda like in a movie or show when you see a guy type out this text telling is wife exactly what is on his mind but then not hitting send because he knew what would happen if he did but it felt good to type out so instead he erased it and put some some response just to smooth things over.

Same thing here except someone hit Send before he could delete it.

Think it kinda like the leaked audio of Lee Atwater telling the GOP how to be racist without being called out for it. They thought they were able to be themselves and say the quiet part out loud only others actually got to see it this time and see what they were really doing.

[Vladier]

Not only that, with this being their draft opinions, this wasn’t their PC friendly version of it where they tried to phrase it in the friendly way this was them getting to say what they wanted to say to the public but knew it would be disliked. Showing exactly what they wanted.

It's a real pity that there is no some kind of 100% effective and side effect free truth serum, for which a law could be created, forcing the judges and politicians to imbibe it before writing explanations of their orders and decisions. What a world it might've created, where these powerful people had to answer for their bigotry rather than just hide behind pretty sanitized words.

[Fugus]

It's a real pity that there is no some kind of 100% effective and side effect free truth serum, for which a law could be created, forcing the judges and politicians to imbibe it before writing explanations of their orders and decisions. What a world it might've created, where these powerful people had to answer for their bigotry rather than just hide behind pretty sanitized words.

You end up with that double speak that Pinocchio did on Shrek to avoid getting the straight answer.

Remember, the GOP blocked a bill requiring a standard of ethics among the judges for a reason.

Edit: Implementing term limits, standards of ethics and making it where they couldn’t be packed like this would go a long way though.

Like make it where the Supreme Court isn’t appointed to directly but instead are rotated out every few months from appointments from the lower courts where no rotation can see any cases brought up while they are in session and any cases that drag on will be finished by the judges that take it. Once the process of selecting new judges even starts, they will not see any cases brought to it after that.

If an emergency case is brought up that needs immediate attention, a new special court is brought up to address it.

And make no judges be lifetime and last for now more than 10 years with 1 re-nomination. And the nominations are brought up by the senators who represent that state and the both must agree on.

But as it stands, the current court has zero credibility and I do not respect them or any judgment they make and would gladly support any state the pass legislation to refuse enforcement of their rules until their credibility is addressed.

Why respect a court when a super majority of those in the court don’t even respect it and instead were willing to lie, cheat and steal to get there just to desecrate and weaponize it?

[gondrin]

You end up with that double speak that Pinocchio did on Shrek to avoid getting the straight answer.

Remember, the GOP blocked a bill requiring a standard of ethics among the judges for a reason.

Edit: Implementing term limits, standards of ethics and making it where they couldn’t be packed like this would go a long way though.

Like make it where the Supreme Court isn’t appointed to directly but instead are rotated out every few months from appointments from the lower courts where no rotation can see any cases brought up while they are in session and any cases that drag on will be finished by the judges that take it. Once the process of selecting new judges even starts, they will not see any cases brought to it after that.

If an emergency case is brought up that needs immediate attention, a new special court is brought up to address it.

And make no judges be lifetime and last for now more than 10 years with 1 re-nomination. And the nominations are brought up by the senators who represent that state and the both must agree on.

But as it stands, the current court has zero credibility and I do not respect them or any judgment they make and would gladly support any state the pass legislation to refuse enforcement of their rules until their credibility is addressed.

Why respect a court when a super majority of those in the court don’t even respect it and instead were willing to lie, cheat and steal to get there just to desecrate and weaponize it?

This is the modern republican party trying to explain how banning abortions is going to save lives instead of increasing risks to everyone involved.

[Glorious Leader]

I thought it was supposed to be released around July or something after they were done this session or something along those lines.

Basically shit the bed on their way out the door where no one could even do anything but talk about it and hope the public outcry would die down much faster rather than be in the public story for months as the whole thing unfolded.

Didn’t think about them waiting on the verdict after the election.

I read somewhere that ACB and "the devils triangle" Kavanaugh told Alito to tone it down a bit which is funny from them

[Fugus]

I read somewhere that ACB and "the devils triangle" Kavanaugh told Alito to tone it down a bit which is funny from them

Can bet so, this wasn't what they wanted the public to see, this was them saying what they wanted to figuring the public wouldn't see it. Alito likely didn't think the public would see this side of him in public so showed whom he really was. Just like Barret talking like the religious fanatic she is, or them siting a views of a guy who thinks you can't rape your wife because she is yours.

The drafts are basically the courts equivalent of having this happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ

[cubby]

Vote Blue, simple as that. I don't mean in the federal election, it's useless. Even if congress pass a law to codify Roe V Wade, even if they find a few republican to break rank and break the filibuster, that law will be immediately repealed by the supreme court, the supreme court has the last word, it can strike any law it deems against the constitution.

In this particular case, local elections is where it's at. Turn the local legislature blue and pass a law to protect the right to choose. If all else fails, move. I would not advice a young woman, sexually active, to stay in any red state at this point.

It's what the GOP started doing back in the '80's and '90's and it worked like a charm. Land can still vote, the minority controls the majority, and the GQP solidified a 6-3 Gilead-level SCOTUS majority to prevent any changes.

We'll start to see rights slowly slip away. Expect privacy to be virtually gone. Women's rights, gone. Voter suppression will be common place. Essentially 1984 but in a realistic, always developing-towards-worse form.

[tehdang]

Vote Blue, simple as that. I don't mean in the federal election, it's useless. Even if congress pass a law to codify Roe V Wade, even if they find a few republican to break rank and break the filibuster, that law will be immediately repealed by the supreme court, the supreme court has the last word, it can strike any law it deems against the constitution.

Asterisk, Congress has the ability to pass constitutional amendments, which bypasses the President and Supreme Court, but not the states. The Supreme Court doesn't "[have] the last word."

More or less.

If the public had found out after it was official and they had left for this session, they couldn’t get pressured over it and the media would have it in their cycle for a week or so but it would be a “too late nothing can be done about it for most”.

They wanted it to come out when it was already too late so the public pressure was off and it would pass faster.

You really have to stretch the truth a bit to call the normal cycle of opinion releases an actual "wanted it to come out when it was already too late." The teacher published grades at the end of the semester in an attempt to release them after the student could do nothing to change them. It's, like, the actual process.

Also, whoo boy you won't like what comes of actual condoning of pressuring sitting justices on how to make their decisions on the law. Imagine everybody who disagrees with a Supreme Court opinion endorsing early release of draft product to start a pressure campaign to make them change the decision. That'll be great for the law and the courts.

It's a real pity that there is no some kind of 100% effective and side effect free truth serum, for which a law could be created, forcing the judges and politicians to imbibe it before writing explanations of their orders and decisions. What a world it might've created, where these powerful people had to answer for their bigotry rather than just hide behind pretty sanitized words.

Liberal justices forced to admit in their dissent that Roe was bad law, the constitution has jack shit to say about abortion, but their political ideology demands they ignore ruling on the law and just craft opinions as legislation. "Yeah, I see my role as more of a member of a 9-person legislative supercommittee, deciding what policies I most want to decree are fundamental rights. The law's what I say it should be in the future. Opinion finished."

It's what the GOP started doing back in the '80's and '90's and it worked like a charm. Land can still vote, the minority controls the majority, and the GQP solidified a 6-3 Gilead-level SCOTUS majority to prevent any changes.

We'll start to see rights slowly slip away. Expect privacy to be virtually gone. Women's rights, gone. Voter suppression will be common place. Essentially 1984 but in a realistic, always developing-towards-worse form.

Pretty much the result of not being able to convince your fellow citizens of which rights ought to be enshrined in law, and instead trying to achieve that effect through friendly court decisions at federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court, and bureaucratic regulation and executive orders. Legislative victories are harder. But they last longer. Constitutional amendments last the longest.

Your legislative agenda increasingly relied on metros and the power-center of DC politics. It now gives a nice "But we won the popular vote (that's never decided federal elections since 1789)."

Just to rephrase your post as a member of the opposite political side sees it:

The latest tragedy started when we lost presidential races in the 80s and congressional races in the 90s. We wanted to takes the diverse interests of Americans spread across many states, large and small, and value them only in direct proportion to their relative population, but you didn't let us. We won many victories, but not enough on the national scale. We wanted the minority to possess only the rights we permitted them as the majority. First Amendment rights are straight out if they're hate speech or religious speech, since they only further discrimination, and Second Amendment rights should've been abandoned long ago. But you didn't let that happen. We wanted a permanent majority of liberal activist judges, but you elected Republicans that changed the makeup of the court to textualists and originalists that ruled on the law as it exists. We're mad that we lost power in terms we never accepted as legitimate. Only national popular votes count, and we have the right to never lose power in any ways excepting that path. (*If we ever lose national popular vote, please wait for future publication on a return to the rights of the minority)

People disagreed with what we called rights. They're really our favored abortion policies and pandemic-forever voting laws. But we call them rights and you better start agreeing with us. We want to shame enough citizens in enough states for not supporting our conception of women's rights, voting laws, majority-minority power sharing, supreme court activism, right to privacy, and civil rights until they change their mind. Really, we've given up investing much time at all in persuasion of fellow citizens; we've already persuaded enough in our opinion. We now want to enforce our political will through brute exercise of power. And you're stopping us by means we consider unfair, and through existing law we see as racist to its core. Please cease your obstruction to our progressive agenda, or we'll be forced to call you Orwell's 1984 and The Handmaid's Tail every week until you yield. Stand aside, for progress, for the rights we like, and minimal/no allowances for the rights you demand.

[Draco-Onis]

Pretty much the result of not being able to convince your fellow citizens of which rights ought to be enshrined in law, and instead trying to achieve that effect through friendly court decisions at federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court, and bureaucratic regulation and executive orders. Legislative victories are harder.

The lack of self awareness here is rather amazing.

[cubby]

Pretty much the result of not being able to convince your fellow citizens of which rights ought to be enshrined in law, and instead trying to achieve that effect through friendly court decisions at federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court, and bureaucratic regulation and executive orders. Legislative victories are harder. But they last longer. Constitutional amendments last the longest.

Actually, we did. The issue now is a minority (GQP) ruling a majority (Dem & Moderate) because of voter suppression (documented in quotes from GQP leaders saying the only way to win is to prevent voter turnout).

Your legislative agenda increasingly relied on metros and the power-center of DC politics. It now gives a nice "But we won the popular vote (that's never decided federal elections since 1789)."

Land shouldn't have voting rights. That's all the EC enshrines.

Just to rephrase your post as a member of the opposite political side sees it:

/snipped quote

Link for that cite?

[Edge-]

Land shouldn't have voting rights. That's all the EC enshrines.

To that point, land already gets an overweighted vote in the Senate.

The whole, "City people aren't real people and don't count." line of argument is really, really, really, really, really, really, really weird to me.

[cubby]

To that point, land already gets an overweighted vote in the Senate.

The whole, "City people aren't real people and don't count." line of argument is really, really, really, really, really, really, really weird to me.

Agreed. And the worst part is that people like @tehdang have been indoctrinated to believe that land should have voting rights, and the "DC political centers" (i.e. places where people live) are the enemy. They not only believe they are right, they have no useable tools in which to question what they are told to believe.

[Edge-]

Agreed. And the worst part is that people like @tehdang have been indoctrinated to believe that land should have voting rights, and the "DC political centers" (i.e. places where people live) are the enemy. They not only believe they are right, they have no useable tools in which to question what they are told to believe.

He still hasn't told me why states, given their wildly different geographical locations, cultures, vastly different landmasses, and astronomically different populations, are the "perfect size" for enforcing morals on their constituents while the federal government is too large and county/city governments are too small.

I fear we'll never hear back on that one : (