The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[88Comrade2000]

3 Test Cases Progressives Should Bring in a Post-Roe World

[@DCGoldPants]

3 hours ago, Die Hard said:

 

 

She thinks she'll go down as their person who got **** done. Nope. Fraud and or sucker. But this latest nonsense is the kind of **** you'd expect Grassley to say. 

 

 

[Renegade7]

6 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm guessing it wouldn't matter to this Court.

 

Yea, if SCOTUS strikes down a bill from Congress codifiing Roe, we got bigger problems...

Edited May 6, 2022 by Renegade7

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

3 Test Cases Progressives Should Bring in a Post-Roe World

 

Quote

In an ideal world, President Joe Biden would make federal facilities available for abortion and family planning services. He would then provide physical protection for both the health care providers and the pregnant people seeking health care. 

 

This is awesome!!  Why aren't we doing this?

 

And to troll the red states even more.  We could come up a crazy name for the project like American Network To Increase Female Atonomy (ANTIFA) or something.  

[The Evil Genius]

 

[The Evil Genius]

 

[LD0506]

[CousinsCowgirl84]

I don’t think there will be a ground swell of accountability for this. The first reason is that “the Supreme Court” did it and “not republicans” so it softens the focus away from them a little bit.   Secondly, not being about to get an abortion affects small number of people a people are mostly concerned about themselves.
 

If rebublicans can throw out a little political candy at the average voter they will gobble it up and forget all about their morals regarding someone who isn’t them.

 

Especially if the economy starts tanking….

Edited May 6, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[The Evil Genius]

5/9 of SCOTUS is the GOP. 

[gbear]

Which 4 arent GOP? I think you meant 6 of 9.

[DogofWar1]

Also 3/9 were selected by Presidents who had not won the popular vote (all the Trump ones).

 

Then add in that Bush's first term he too did not win the popular vote (though he didn't get to his nominations until his 2nd term) and we can see how much of the court is arguably illegitimate in the eyes of the people.

 

At a bare, BARE minimum, 1 of these seats is reasonably argued as illegitimate, bc the GOP held up the Scalia replacement in 2016 and then speed-rushed the RBG replacement in 2020, using two different sets of rules for the same scenario.

[88Comrade2000]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I don’t think there will be a ground swell of accountability for this. The first reason is that “the Supreme Court” did it and “not republicans” so it softens the focus away from them a little bit.   Secondly, not being about to get an abortion affects small number of people a people are mostly concerned about themselves.
 

If rebublicans can throw out a little political candy at the average voter they will gobble it up and forget all about their morals regarding someone who isn’t them.

 

Especially if the economy starts tanking….

The economy-inflation is what will drive this election. A bad economy is what drives many election.

 

People are pissed about inflation and that will be the number issue.

 

I said people have to live under Gop Christian Sharia state for a couple years; before this really impacts an election. Even then; it has to be white women, who are suffering. People won’t care if it’s minority women who are being arrested or put to death. When you start doing that to white women, then watch out.

 

Also; they plan to use this ruling to ban other things. If that happens; then that could impact a future election.

[bearrock]

19 hours ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

So I see the Left calling for a federal law to protect abortion rights.  If Roe is overturned, would such a law be "constitutional"?  I would think not.  I would think we need an amendment to the constitution which obviously isn't happening. 

 

The government can always grant more rights than protected by the Constitution.  So while banning a practice protected by a constitutional right would be unconstitutional, permitting a practice not protected by a constitutional right is perfectly fine.

 

The bigger issue would come from Federalism and enumerated powers.  Whether the power to regulate abortion is connected to one of enumerated power is where the debate likely heads.  Congress can try to justify it by the commerce clause (bit shaky) or attach it as a condition to Medicare or Medicaid dollars.

 

At this point, it's all academic obviously.  Not even clear that there's 50 votes, let alone 60 to override a filibuster.

[The Evil Genius]

😆

Edited May 6, 2022 by The Evil Genius

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

😆

 

They know perfectly well there will be no consequences. They knew that perfectly well when they said these things. They knew they were lying and didn't care. Even if impeachment got through the House, there's absolutely no chance that they'd be removed from the bench by the Senate. None.

[The Sisko]

Like Putin, the Anti-Freedom Party (yeah, I've got a new brand for them) has discovered the cheat code to invalidate US democracy.

[LadySkinsFan]

This may be my last post in this thread. I've been demonstrating for women's bodily autonomy for more than 45 years, knowing that the Republican party was moving closer to fascism and Dominionism during this time. And now it's here. 

 

I can't keep it up because my blood pressure is rising and I can't let that happen. I hope that young people will figure it out and vote these creeps out and help restore our republic. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

Just so we are clear,  DP doesn't save a life? 😕

Edited May 6, 2022 by The Evil Genius

[Larry]

10 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

 

New drug. Makes you forget which political party has spent the last 50 years lying, so they could get to this point. 

[88Comrade2000]

32 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

This may be my last post in this thread. I've been demonstrating for women's bodily autonomy for more than 45 years, knowing that the Republican party was moving closer to fascism and Dominionism during this time. And now it's here. 

 

I can't keep it up because my blood pressure is rising and I can't let that happen. I hope that young people will figure it out and vote these creeps out and help restore our republic. 

Won't happen this year because the worst of it, won't happen until after the election.

 

Also, if voters don't throw out gopers at the state level; you aren't changing anything. Don't see that happening this.

 

It's going have to be a dark few years before the youngsters will be able to rise up.

It may get violent.  Civil war may have to happen.

[tshile]

OR….

Several states go hard on abortion which will be sad for us but not actually impact most people, and we’ll bicker the same we alway do, and more weird cawthorn videos will drop 

[The Sisko]

30 minutes ago, tshile said:

..and more weird cawthorn videos will drop 

Could we just do the civil war thing instead? Fewer people will be hurt and way fewer will be nauseated.

 

Speaking of which...

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Edited May 6, 2022 by The Sisko

[China]

SUSAN COLLINS SAYS NO TO DEMOCRATS’ ABORTION-RIGHTS BILL BECAUSE IT CONTAINS TOO MANY ABORTION RIGHTS

 

Earlier this week, Republican senator Susan Collins claimed to be shocked and dismayed at the draft opinion indicating the Supreme Court was poised to overturn Roe v. Wade. Specifically, the Maine lawmaker was beside herself at the idea that Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch had misled her about their positions on the landmark ruling during their Supreme Court confirmations. Collins, you see, was one of the only people on the planet—along with her colleague Lisa Murkowski— who thought that the two conservative justices, nominated by a president who vowed to exclusively appoint judges who would overturn Roe, would not, in fact, overturn Roe. (While the votes could change, Politico reported that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh had preliminarily agreed with the majority to strike down the 1973 decision after hearing oral arguments last December.) “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office,” Collins said in a statement.

 

Given how angry the lawmaker was about having apparently been lied to, how much she supposedly cares about preserving the right to an abortion, and how the whole thing blew up in her face so embarrassingly, you might think she’d be doing everything in her power right now to prevent such a right from being axed. But you would be very wrong!

 

In addition to saying Tuesday that she would not support abolishing the filibuster to allow the Senate to pass legislation codifying Roe v. Wade ASAP, Collins declared on Thursday that she would vote “no” on the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would establish the statutory right to an abortion and is expected to be voted on by lawmakers next week. Why? According to Collins, it just recognizes too many rights for pregnant people. “It supersedes all other federal and state laws, including the conscience protections that are in the Affordable Care Act,” she told reporters when asked about her support of the bill, adding: “It doesn’t protect the right of a Catholic hospital to not perform abortions. That right has been enshrined in law for a long time.”

 

Incidentally, according to Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, Collins’s claims about what the bill would do—and her excuse for not voting for it—are completely unfounded. “Some are saying that this legislation would tell hospitals—certain religious hospitals—that they have to perform abortions,” he said at a press conference without referring to Collins by name. “That is simply not true. This bill simply gives providers the statutory right to provide abortion care without medically unnecessary restrictions. That’s plain and simple. So this rumor is false.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Larry]

I tend to be a fan of irony.  Or at least, so see it in lots of situations.  

 

And I'm looking at this situation.  

 

We've got an organization where, in order to achieve any status in the organization at all, one is required to spend decades, swearing absolute unwavering allegiance to exactly this cause.  But, only behind closed doors, in rooms occupied by other people who are members of The Family.  In all other situations, they must absolutely deny this position.  

 

I have no doubt at all, that every single person appointed by the GOP, to the federal bench, has been swearing that they will absolutely ban all abortions, everywhere.  Behind closed doors.  Even as far back as law school.  While also making very sure that, even as far back as law school, they have never once said so in public, or in any writing.  It's an absolute requirement, if you want that job.  

 

(I also wouldn't be shocked if the same requirement applies to people who want to be Dem appointees.  Maybe not to the same degree.  Maybe not so laser focused on exactly one issue.  But yeah, I bet it happens.)  

 

The entire system is intentionally based on people who are required to spend their adult lives saying one thing, behind closed doors, and something else, in every single situation in front of non-partisan witnesses.  

 

And everybody knows that these are the rules.  Every one of them spent three days on camera, in front of Congress, under oath, swearing that they have no opinions whatsoever on any issue whatsoever.  And yet, put them on the bench, and every person in the room will know which way this judge will rule, on any controversial issue.  Before the case even begins.  

 

And now we have this ruling.  A bunch of people who have successfully spent their lives going through this system, and who have finally made it to the point where they don't have to Live The Lie any more, are about to say "Hell yeah, I'm going to do that!  Suck it, world!"  

 

And the politicians who have spent their entire lives intentionally making it so that these are the rules, want to deny responsibility.