Lawrence is dead letter also, so probably they’ll just skip right to making it illegal to be gay
There seems to be a real misconception here in terms of what these various rulings mean for people.
Abortion was picked because it's absence will kill people, but they will not die for it or kill to keep it. If someone tries to outlaw interracial marriage, or gay marriage, hundreds of thousands of people will value that right more than their lives and do literally anything to save their rights. Up to and including a violent insurrection against the people who enacted that legislation.
Abortion is the soft target. It will remain the target and it, other reproductive rights, and perhaps at a stretch transgender rights will be associated targets. That's that. Other targets will remain voting rights, and criminalizing people for acting like black people.
The problem is the advocates don't see it this way and the draft ruling makes it clear they don't: the goal is to strip all those rights away. And the people who support an abortion ban will be easily coaxed into rabidly demanding "the next logical thing" - they have a more extreme group who already want that, and the rest will follow just as they've latched themselves to ideas like Trump. There is a whole army of white mid-western housewives who'll um and ah a lot, but then say "well I'm not sure black and white people really should be able to get married..."
Nah. Dredd Scott was an attempt to keep the country together. It’s a bad decision but fundamentally the purpose was to try and prevent war. It heralded the civil war but did not cause it.
Kennedy isn't a justice anymore so whatever he wrote is meaningless as anything Marshall or Taney or shit Jay put on paper.
It feels like people aren't recognizing how terrible this ruling will be because they are focusing (understandably) on the next thing down the pipe.
Right now losing sight of how many women Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch just murdered- disproportionately minority and poor of course - misses the reality of the situation and blunts the impact.
Yes I know what their next targets are, but right now this ruling will literally kill thousands of women, here, in America, needlessly who would have lived otherwise the moment it is done.
I wonder if the court's sudden belief in historical justifications and this idea that if it it isn't written in the constitution it doesn't exist will apply to qualified immunity? Something tells me no.
Lawrence is dead letter also, so probably they’ll just skip right to making it illegal to be gay
There seems to be a real misconception here in terms of what these various rulings mean for people.
Abortion was picked because it's absence will kill people, but they will not die for it or kill to keep it. If someone tries to outlaw interracial marriage, or gay marriage, hundreds of thousands of people will value that right more than their lives and do literally anything to save their rights. Up to and including a violent insurrection against the people who enacted that legislation.
Abortion is the soft target. It will remain the target and it, other reproductive rights, and perhaps at a stretch transgender rights will be associated targets. That's that. Other targets will remain voting rights, and criminalizing people for acting like black people.
The problem is the advocates don't see it this way and the draft ruling makes it clear they don't: the goal is to strip all those rights away. And the people who support an abortion ban will be easily coaxed into rabidly demanding "the next logical thing" - they have a more extreme group who already want that, and the rest will follow just as they've latched themselves to ideas like Trump. There is a whole army of white mid-western housewives who'll um and ah a lot, but then say "well I'm not sure black and white people really should be able to get married..."
And speaking of "next logical things", asshat and current governor of Texas decides to open his mouth again.
Abbott said Wednesday that Texas would consider challenging a 1982 Supreme Court decision requiring states to offer free public education to all children, including those of undocumented immigrants.
The Austin Statesman is a newspaper for the state capital of Texas.
How about those speaking the quiet part out loud sorts. Seems to just be a field day for them. I was never, nor will I be surprised when they start trying to pull back the amendments and laws which gave voting to women and non-land owners. If the SCotUS is going to ignore the 14th & 15th Amendments, anything seems to be fair for them to trample on.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
+4
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
The fuck? Not even children who are undocumented immigrants (which would be bad enough), but the children of undocumented immigrants. Those are potentially US citizens he wants to abandon, and his justification is that it costs too many resources to teach kids who don't speak English. That's so fuckin' monstrous. I know the whole "for the children" thing Republicans have going is bullshit, but Jesus Christ.
My dad sometimes reminds me that when he volunteered to help in my kindergarten class, he learned that multiple children there tested as having no primary language. Apparently Abbott's solution to that would be to give those kids the boot and leave their care and education up to their awful parents who couldn't be arsed to teach them to speak. What a piece of shit.
"It’s an open question how abortion travel could be restricted, given porousness of state borders, but Missouri provided a hint when its health director testified that he’d compiled a spreadsheet of PP patients’ last menstrual periods" Read chilling @irin
Make no mistake: the GOP will be nowhere near as half hearted in raging this war against the public as the democratic leadership will be in feigning to defend that same public
+20
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited May 2022
It's like people think the GOP is interested in preserving peoples rights when it doesn't suit them. Remember, you won't have a right not to have their religious shit jammed down your throat with the way things are going, but if you think gay people or women will have rights for their bodily autonomy you're looking at the wrong party. They've just demonstrated that they can use the SC to do whatever they want on whatever tenuous, stupid logic they want and as they're all lifetime appointments there is nothing anyone can easily do about it.
When the texas abortion ruling wasn't thrown out, I was positive that was how they were going to take down Roe, bits and pieces here and there to make it untenable while leaving the original ruling alone.
Mistake on my part. Things are escalating quickly and if you think something is somehow safe due to whatever legal reasoning you can come up with, you're deluding yourself. The Supreme Court decides what legal reasoning is and isn't valid; if it suits their interest.
Lawrence is dead letter also, so probably they’ll just skip right to making it illegal to be gay
There seems to be a real misconception here in terms of what these various rulings mean for people.
Abortion was picked because it's absence will kill people, but they will not die for it or kill to keep it. If someone tries to outlaw interracial marriage, or gay marriage, hundreds of thousands of people will value that right more than their lives and do literally anything to save their rights. Up to and including a violent insurrection against the people who enacted that legislation.
Abortion is the soft target. It will remain the target and it, other reproductive rights, and perhaps at a stretch transgender rights will be associated targets. That's that. Other targets will remain voting rights, and criminalizing people for acting like black people.
I mean, there weren't gay rebellions against sodomy laws prior to Lawrence being decided; people were just careful, and sometimes they got unlucky.
perhaps in 20 years we've gone from that being the status quo to something that'd inspire armed rebellion but I doubt it
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Has anyone seen an in depth analysis on the draft decision? I assumed SCOTUSblog would have something by now, but I'm wondering if they aren't going to do something like that on a leaked draft. I saw a WashPo annotated version, but it didn't provide much insight.
It would be nice to have something more authoritative than my lay person reading of it and thinking Alito is full of utter shit.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
while we don't know what the court's final opinion will be the leaked draft isn't like, reversing roe on narrow grounds but leaving the underlying privacy reasoning intact; Alito wants the whole penumbra enchilada
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
while we don't know what the court's final opinion will be the leaked draft isn't like, reversing roe on narrow grounds but leaving the underlying privacy reasoning intact; Alito wants the whole penumbra enchilada
That is certainly what it seems like even with his little "this does not pertain to any other right other than abortion"
suuuuurreee
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I'm only halfway through, but he spends A LOT of time trying to explain why other created rights are different than this because
"That provision 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” and “implicit in the concept of ordered
liberty.”"
Which is why he seems like he is full of shit when he says this does not pertain to anything other than abortion. Obviously gay marriage and similar rulings are not deeply rooted in this Nation's history so they are definitely coming for those next.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
his argument is essentially that since lawmakers at the time those amendments were ratified happily outlawed abortion, amendments can't be construed as containing a right to abortion.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'm only halfway through, but he spends A LOT of time trying to explain why other created rights are different than this because
"That provision 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” and “implicit in the concept of ordered
liberty.”"
Which is why he seems like he is full of shit when he says this does not pertain to anything other than abortion. Obviously gay marriage and similar rulings are not deeply rooted in this Nation's history so they are definitely coming for those next.
Well I mean he also called out the two major gay rights cases, the nullification of anti-sodomy laws and marriage equality, so even though he wrote that this only applied to abortion he wasn't even subtle about hinting at what he really means.
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Can we please leave the "only the true left will defend abortion" shit in the party thread, please?
Lawrence is dead letter also, so probably they’ll just skip right to making it illegal to be gay
There seems to be a real misconception here in terms of what these various rulings mean for people.
Abortion was picked because it's absence will kill people, but they will not die for it or kill to keep it. If someone tries to outlaw interracial marriage, or gay marriage, hundreds of thousands of people will value that right more than their lives and do literally anything to save their rights. Up to and including a violent insurrection against the people who enacted that legislation.
Abortion is the soft target. It will remain the target and it, other reproductive rights, and perhaps at a stretch transgender rights will be associated targets. That's that. Other targets will remain voting rights, and criminalizing people for acting like black people.
The problem is the advocates don't see it this way and the draft ruling makes it clear they don't: the goal is to strip all those rights away. And the people who support an abortion ban will be easily coaxed into rabidly demanding "the next logical thing" - they have a more extreme group who already want that, and the rest will follow just as they've latched themselves to ideas like Trump. There is a whole army of white mid-western housewives who'll um and ah a lot, but then say "well I'm not sure black and white people really should be able to get married..."
And speaking of "next logical things", asshat and current governor of Texas decides to open his mouth again.
Abbott said Wednesday that Texas would consider challenging a 1982 Supreme Court decision requiring states to offer free public education to all children, including those of undocumented immigrants.
The Austin Statesman is a newspaper for the state capital of Texas.
How about those speaking the quiet part out loud sorts. Seems to just be a field day for them. I was never, nor will I be surprised when they start trying to pull back the amendments and laws which gave voting to women and non-land owners. If the SCotUS is going to ignore the 14th & 15th Amendments, anything seems to be fair for them to trample on.
Lmao. It's only ever about the grift. The whole ploy here is to further erode public education and then privatize and sell it off to the highest bidder and make a killing in the process.
When the texas abortion ruling wasn't thrown out, I was positive that was how they were going to take down Roe, bits and pieces here and there to make it untenable while leaving the original ruling alone.
Mistake on my part. Things are escalating quickly and if you think something is somehow safe due to whatever legal reasoning you can come up with, you're deluding yourself. The Supreme Court decides what legal reasoning is and isn't valid; if it suits their interest.
Politics is only ever been power and those with it will wield it as they see fit, logic and ideology be damned.
+4
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Can we please leave the "only the true left will defend abortion" shit in the party thread, please?
i mean, at least down here in florida, we're looking to do a ballot initiative to protect abortion access, and if experience from felon voting and minimum wage holds, it won't be liberals knocking doors with me
and the call tomorrow to kick off the coalition is being organized by a YDSA member so...
Can we please leave the "only the true left will defend abortion" shit in the party thread, please?
i mean, at least down here in florida, we're looking to do a ballot initiative to protect abortion access, and if experience from felon voting and minimum wage holds, it won't be liberals knocking doors with me
and the call tomorrow to kick off the coalition is being organized by a YDSA member so...
Can felons vote finally, or is the Florida government still stonewalling the initiative?
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
My (rebooted) podcast did an episode breaking down the decision. I work in judicial education and reform, while my scholarship focuses on constitutional law, democracy reform, and DEI. (https://rss.com/podcasts/theperpetualstew/476475/)
Here’s a brief summary:
The Dobbs draft opinion takes an extremely narrow view of unenumerated rights, applying the Glucksberg standard: any unenumerated rights must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” From there, Alito surveys American and English legal traditions, starting from the 13th century and moving forward.
As one can imagine, ye olde misogynists took a dim view of women’s reproductive rights. Therefore, in Alito’s view, the right to an abortion fails the Glucksberg test since it was not formally part of American legal tradition until the late 20th century.
As a side note: there are obviously many other ways to understand unenumerated rights that the court has used, such as Kennedy’s emphasis on dignity. Alito took the narrowest possible stance to achieve his desired goal.
Alito dispenses with stare decisis concerns by handwaving at the usual suspects, although lumping Dobbs with Brown is gross and trollish. Yet here we are.
Arguments about women’s autonomy are dismissed by arguing that autonomy concerns could “license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like.”
Alito also tried to allay concerns that other rights are in the crosshairs by distinguishing abortion from, say, gay marriage, by noting that abortion involves the destruction of a fetus. He characterizes fetuses in normal anti-choice terms. I am unconvinced by his protestations that other rights are not at risk and believe, to paraphrase, he doth protest too much.
In Alito’s defense, he does a decent job rounding up Roe’s weaknesses. Viability is a vague, arbitrary line, and Roe’s progeny did little to clarify the exact contours of the right to an abortion and the state’s limitations in regulating said right.
At the end, Alito dismisses concerns about the negative impact on society of eliminating abortion rights by simply stating that such concerns are outside of the purview of the court.
On a technical note: state regulations on abortion will now be subject to rational basis review, which is incredibly permissive to the government.
According to Alito, the court has returned abortion to the arena of state politics, where it belongs. And where, of course, he and other conservatives justices have stacked the deck by allowing gerrymandering and voter suppression.
I skipped a few sections but that gives you the gist. I’m happy to answer any questions about specific portions.
That seems like a good summary.
I would love to hear the skipped sections too if they are worthwhile and you have the time.
Edit: Oh and I found this quite laughable. Alito quoting Scalia from Casey
“The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.”
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
At the end, Alito dismisses concerns about the negative impact on society of eliminating abortion rights by simply stating that such concerns are outside of the purview of the court.
"That someone was standing in front of the gun when I pulled the trigger is not relevant."
That seems like a good summary.
I would love to hear the skipped sections too if they are worthwhile and you have the time.
Will do, although honestly it’s a lot of pandering to other justices’ personal obsessions and Alito chest thumping. That said, the exact legal theorists Alito cites are an interesting, weird bunch. I need some sleep but will do an effort post tomorrow.
On a personal note, I wrote that post while eating a late dinner at a local diner (shit has been insane since the draft decision leaked). My server, whom I know pretty well, asked me what I was intently typing.
When I told her, she started crying. She hadn’t heard and the news hit her hard. Turns out she had multiple abortions while in an abusive relationship and those pregnancies would have ruined her life and given her abuser another hook. Luckily, that’s now in the past and she has a lovely family and husband, but none of that would have happened without control over her body.
Alito et al might not care about the consequences of their decision, but any jurist worthy of the position and power should. While it might take decades to win the battle in the courts, we can make an immediate difference by donating and volunteering to organizations helping women in need. And if there isn’t one in your area, start one.
+47
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
*facepalm*
I don't believe that was an invitation, though I suppose it was inevitable that someone would treat it as such.
I see this as an opportunity. We can sew merit badges on to a sash and prove how much we love freedom and judge others who don't have as many.
y'all are asking that we not talk about who's doing the work, which feeds directly into attributing activist successes to politicians
just the other day y'all were talking about how the democrats were responsible for gay marriage but i was there and i remember when they decided it was cool and i know they weren't responsible for changing public opinion on that because they changed their opinions after the public
but keep being shitty for no reason until i get threadkicked for offering you the same respect you gave me
Can we please leave the "only the true left will defend abortion" shit in the party thread, please?
i mean, at least down here in florida, we're looking to do a ballot initiative to protect abortion access, and if experience from felon voting and minimum wage holds, it won't be liberals knocking doors with me
and the call tomorrow to kick off the coalition is being organized by a YDSA member so...
Can felons vote finally, or is the Florida government still stonewalling the initiative?
oh, they're still fucking with that one good, subtext on desantis' recent voter fraud task force is that they're going to be jailing more people for "voter fraud" for voting while having active fines when the state isn't making it easy to even verify if that's the case
but the minimum wage is slowly increasing now, and the lesson was definitely learned from felon voting
if nobody else brings up the fact that the language needs to be bullet-proof on the call tomorrow i certainly will
but i expect that there'll be plenty of people there more on the ball than me
The fuck? Not even children who are undocumented immigrants (which would be bad enough), but the children of undocumented immigrants. Those are potentially US citizens he wants to abandon, and his justification is that it costs too many resources to teach kids who don't speak English. That's so fuckin' monstrous. I know the whole "for the children" thing Republicans have going is bullshit, but Jesus Christ.
My dad sometimes reminds me that when he volunteered to help in my kindergarten class, he learned that multiple children there tested as having no primary language. Apparently Abbott's solution to that would be to give those kids the boot and leave their care and education up to their awful parents who couldn't be arsed to teach them to speak. What a piece of shit.
This isn't an anti-immigrant move. It's couched in that language, but this is a 'gut public education and shift money towards grifting and/or religious indoctrination efforts' move.
One of the depressing things about this decision is that it's been over 40 years in the making. I mean fuck Manchin and SInema and the 2016 election and blah blah blah. This has been decades in the making and the people pushing for it haven't exactly been quiet about their end goal. This decision is (will be) a tragedy, but it's been such a long and obvious process that it's like watching a train hit a bus of orphans, except the train was going five miles per hour and started off a hundred miles a way. Just this feeling of inevitability as it kept getting closer and closer while the best our side could do was delay things by a few years.
One added bonus that'll kick in once the various anti-abortion laws are triggered is that Ob-Gyn accreditation requires training in how to perform an abortion, so that's a chunk of med schools that will be taking a hit too. Icing on the cake and all that.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
The fuck? Not even children who are undocumented immigrants (which would be bad enough), but the children of undocumented immigrants. Those are potentially US citizens he wants to abandon, and his justification is that it costs too many resources to teach kids who don't speak English. That's so fuckin' monstrous. I know the whole "for the children" thing Republicans have going is bullshit, but Jesus Christ.
My dad sometimes reminds me that when he volunteered to help in my kindergarten class, he learned that multiple children there tested as having no primary language. Apparently Abbott's solution to that would be to give those kids the boot and leave their care and education up to their awful parents who couldn't be arsed to teach them to speak. What a piece of shit.
I think most of us in these threads know the quote by now, fascism, in-groups and out-groups, yadda yadda. This is an effort to explicitly force these children firmly into the "out" group. To create an underclass with no education that can be treated like dogshit, or like, moreso than undocumented migrants already are.
+5
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
In Alito’s defense, he does a decent job rounding up Roe’s weaknesses. Viability is a vague, arbitrary line, and Roe’s progeny did little to clarify the exact contours of the right to an abortion and the state’s limitations in regulating said right.
On this point. I know it’s a signal of legal academic intellectualism and sophistication to criticize Roe for more or less plucking a statute-like line out of the air as a constitutional threshold. But since the leak I’ve see some threads here and there about references to quickening in Jewish religious texts and other such distinctions made in very old societies as to the point in a pregnancy when whatever is going on in that mystery box becomes a potential life worthy of (at the time) legal concern.
There is much to critique about both Roe’s and Alito’s haphazard historical survey, but it is Alito that is centering the inquiry not on medical understanding but on history and tradition, and in my estimation if you stack up the historical basis for Roe against the historical basis to overturn it, Roe’s seems more grounded. “Quickening” or viability simply was something recognized in old surviving records, obviously not identified with specificity because medical science at the time was a shaman consulting the heavens or something. But to the extent history matters, Roe’s history is not entirely freewheeling and creative.
Is court packing on the table? What barriers prevent that other than the Biden admin not wanting to? If it's just that, could this put enough pressure on Biden to change policy there?
If you can pack the court you can legislate instead, court packing is a solution to a court interfering with an administrations current activities more than with longstanding laws if you have the Senate and house.
Congress can remove issues from SCOTUS's jurisdiction, iirc.
Congress cannot remove final appellate jurisdiction from SCOTUS. They can modify some original jurisdiction that is not specifically mentioned. These are, like minor legal things in the scope of discussing what SCOTUS can do and has more to do with from where the cases come that SCOTUS must take up. Like. If a state sues another state then SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. They hear the case first. I think that congress could make a new court in order to hear those cases. But SCOTUS would have final appellate jurisdiction over those cases regardless. And congress cannot change that.
The "jurisdiction" in the constitution is not "whether or not they have authority to rule on it at all" but "whether or not they have the authority to hear a case on the issue first".
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Lawrence is dead letter also, so probably they’ll just skip right to making it illegal to be gay
There seems to be a real misconception here in terms of what these various rulings mean for people.
Abortion was picked because it's absence will kill people, but they will not die for it or kill to keep it. If someone tries to outlaw interracial marriage, or gay marriage, hundreds of thousands of people will value that right more than their lives and do literally anything to save their rights. Up to and including a violent insurrection against the people who enacted that legislation.
Abortion is the soft target. It will remain the target and it, other reproductive rights, and perhaps at a stretch transgender rights will be associated targets. That's that. Other targets will remain voting rights, and criminalizing people for acting like black people.
I mean, there weren't gay rebellions against sodomy laws prior to Lawrence being decided; people were just careful, and sometimes they got unlucky.
perhaps in 20 years we've gone from that being the status quo to something that'd inspire armed rebellion but I doubt it
The stonewall riots were literally a gay rebellion against sodomy laws.
Is court packing on the table? What barriers prevent that other than the Biden admin not wanting to? If it's just that, could this put enough pressure on Biden to change policy there?
If you can pack the court you can legislate instead, court packing is a solution to a court interfering with an administrations current activities more than with longstanding laws if you have the Senate and house.
Congress can remove issues from SCOTUS's jurisdiction, iirc.
Congress cannot remove final appellate jurisdiction from SCOTUS. They can modify some original jurisdiction that is not specifically mentioned. These are, like minor legal things in the scope of discussing what SCOTUS can do and has more to do with from where the cases come that SCOTUS must take up. Like. If a state sues another state then SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. They hear the case first. I think that congress could make a new court in order to hear those cases. But SCOTUS would have final appellate jurisdiction over those cases regardless. And congress cannot change that.
The "jurisdiction" in the constitution is not "whether or not they have authority to rule on it at all" but "whether or not they have the authority to hear a case on the issue first".
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Lawrence is dead letter also, so probably they’ll just skip right to making it illegal to be gay
There seems to be a real misconception here in terms of what these various rulings mean for people.
Abortion was picked because it's absence will kill people, but they will not die for it or kill to keep it. If someone tries to outlaw interracial marriage, or gay marriage, hundreds of thousands of people will value that right more than their lives and do literally anything to save their rights. Up to and including a violent insurrection against the people who enacted that legislation.
Abortion is the soft target. It will remain the target and it, other reproductive rights, and perhaps at a stretch transgender rights will be associated targets. That's that. Other targets will remain voting rights, and criminalizing people for acting like black people.
I mean, there weren't gay rebellions against sodomy laws prior to Lawrence being decided; people were just careful, and sometimes they got unlucky.
perhaps in 20 years we've gone from that being the status quo to something that'd inspire armed rebellion but I doubt it
The stonewall riots were literally a gay rebellion against sodomy laws.
On a personal note, I wrote that post while eating a late dinner at a local diner (shit has been insane since the draft decision leaked). My server, whom I know pretty well, asked me what I was intently typing.
When I told her, she started crying. She hadn’t heard and the news hit her hard. Turns out she had multiple abortions while in an abusive relationship and those pregnancies would have ruined her life and given her abuser another hook. Luckily, that’s now in the past and she has a lovely family and husband, but none of that would have happened without control over her body.
Alito et al might not care about the consequences of their decision, but any jurist worthy of the position and power should. While it might take decades to win the battle in the courts, we can make an immediate difference by donating and volunteering to organizations helping women in need. And if there isn’t one in your area, start one.
It's a shame these situation exists. This woman may carry a burden from her past abusive relationship her whole life. If you find yourself in an abusive relationship please consider leaving her/him today. Your future self will thank you.
+1
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Is court packing on the table? What barriers prevent that other than the Biden admin not wanting to? If it's just that, could this put enough pressure on Biden to change policy there?
If you can pack the court you can legislate instead, court packing is a solution to a court interfering with an administrations current activities more than with longstanding laws if you have the Senate and house.
Congress can remove issues from SCOTUS's jurisdiction, iirc.
Congress cannot remove final appellate jurisdiction from SCOTUS. They can modify some original jurisdiction that is not specifically mentioned. These are, like minor legal things in the scope of discussing what SCOTUS can do and has more to do with from where the cases come that SCOTUS must take up. Like. If a state sues another state then SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. They hear the case first. I think that congress could make a new court in order to hear those cases. But SCOTUS would have final appellate jurisdiction over those cases regardless. And congress cannot change that.
The "jurisdiction" in the constitution is not "whether or not they have authority to rule on it at all" but "whether or not they have the authority to hear a case on the issue first".
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Lawrence is dead letter also, so probably they’ll just skip right to making it illegal to be gay
There seems to be a real misconception here in terms of what these various rulings mean for people.
Abortion was picked because it's absence will kill people, but they will not die for it or kill to keep it. If someone tries to outlaw interracial marriage, or gay marriage, hundreds of thousands of people will value that right more than their lives and do literally anything to save their rights. Up to and including a violent insurrection against the people who enacted that legislation.
Abortion is the soft target. It will remain the target and it, other reproductive rights, and perhaps at a stretch transgender rights will be associated targets. That's that. Other targets will remain voting rights, and criminalizing people for acting like black people.
I mean, there weren't gay rebellions against sodomy laws prior to Lawrence being decided; people were just careful, and sometimes they got unlucky.
perhaps in 20 years we've gone from that being the status quo to something that'd inspire armed rebellion but I doubt it
The stonewall riots were literally a gay rebellion against sodomy laws.
One important aspect of Lawrence is that it was as much about the privacy right as it was about the inconsistent and selective enforcement of those criminal laws. Many state governments had anti sodomy laws of the books, but they were selectively enforced against a) homosexual, not heterosexual sodomy, and b) most of the time not at all. The due process implications of criminal statutes that provide essentially pretext for enforcement and persecution was an important part of Lawrence’s reasoning which, importantly, was extraordinary at the time because it overturned Bowers v. Hardwick, which had affirmed the constitutionality of anti sodomy laws just a few years earlier. This stunning disrespect for state decisis is of course featured in scalia’s homophobic dissent (though the homophobia is the main event ofc)
In his 2007 book, "Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics," Biden said he had "stuck to my middle-of-the-road position on abortion for more than thirty years." He wrote that he personally opposes abortion, "but I don't think I have the right to impose my view – on something I accept as a matter of faith – on the rest of society."
You can find many more citations of this section of his own words in his own book. To my knowledge, he has not reversed that stance. He personally opposes abortion, does not think anyone should choose it, but he has come over to the opinion that it should still be an option from a legal perspective.
Every time I see this argument I always think, "ah yes, the same position I held in 10th grade!"
PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
Posts
The problem is the advocates don't see it this way and the draft ruling makes it clear they don't: the goal is to strip all those rights away. And the people who support an abortion ban will be easily coaxed into rabidly demanding "the next logical thing" - they have a more extreme group who already want that, and the rest will follow just as they've latched themselves to ideas like Trump. There is a whole army of white mid-western housewives who'll um and ah a lot, but then say "well I'm not sure black and white people really should be able to get married..."
This decision is an attempt to start a second
It feels like people aren't recognizing how terrible this ruling will be because they are focusing (understandably) on the next thing down the pipe.
Right now losing sight of how many women Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch just murdered- disproportionately minority and poor of course - misses the reality of the situation and blunts the impact.
Yes I know what their next targets are, but right now this ruling will literally kill thousands of women, here, in America, needlessly who would have lived otherwise the moment it is done.
And speaking of "next logical things", asshat and current governor of Texas decides to open his mouth again.
How about those speaking the quiet part out loud sorts. Seems to just be a field day for them. I was never, nor will I be surprised when they start trying to pull back the amendments and laws which gave voting to women and non-land owners. If the SCotUS is going to ignore the 14th & 15th Amendments, anything seems to be fair for them to trample on.
My dad sometimes reminds me that when he volunteered to help in my kindergarten class, he learned that multiple children there tested as having no primary language. Apparently Abbott's solution to that would be to give those kids the boot and leave their care and education up to their awful parents who couldn't be arsed to teach them to speak. What a piece of shit.
Just trust they are going to race to the bottom to come up with the worst most horrendous thing as their next idea.
Make no mistake: the GOP will be nowhere near as half hearted in raging this war against the public as the democratic leadership will be in feigning to defend that same public
Mistake on my part. Things are escalating quickly and if you think something is somehow safe due to whatever legal reasoning you can come up with, you're deluding yourself. The Supreme Court decides what legal reasoning is and isn't valid; if it suits their interest.
I mean, there weren't gay rebellions against sodomy laws prior to Lawrence being decided; people were just careful, and sometimes they got unlucky.
perhaps in 20 years we've gone from that being the status quo to something that'd inspire armed rebellion but I doubt it
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
It would be nice to have something more authoritative than my lay person reading of it and thinking Alito is full of utter shit.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
That is certainly what it seems like even with his little "this does not pertain to any other right other than abortion"
suuuuurreee
Which is why he seems like he is full of shit when he says this does not pertain to anything other than abortion. Obviously gay marriage and similar rulings are not deeply rooted in this Nation's history so they are definitely coming for those next.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Well I mean he also called out the two major gay rights cases, the nullification of anti-sodomy laws and marriage equality, so even though he wrote that this only applied to abortion he wasn't even subtle about hinting at what he really means.
Lmao. It's only ever about the grift. The whole ploy here is to further erode public education and then privatize and sell it off to the highest bidder and make a killing in the process.
God I hate this shithole country.
Politics is only ever been power and those with it will wield it as they see fit, logic and ideology be damned.
i mean, at least down here in florida, we're looking to do a ballot initiative to protect abortion access, and if experience from felon voting and minimum wage holds, it won't be liberals knocking doors with me
and the call tomorrow to kick off the coalition is being organized by a YDSA member so...
I don't believe that was an invitation, though I suppose it was inevitable that someone would treat it as such.
Can felons vote finally, or is the Florida government still stonewalling the initiative?
I see this as an opportunity. We can sew merit badges on to a sash and prove how much we love freedom and judge others who don't have as many.
Here’s a brief summary:
The Dobbs draft opinion takes an extremely narrow view of unenumerated rights, applying the Glucksberg standard: any unenumerated rights must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” From there, Alito surveys American and English legal traditions, starting from the 13th century and moving forward.
As one can imagine, ye olde misogynists took a dim view of women’s reproductive rights. Therefore, in Alito’s view, the right to an abortion fails the Glucksberg test since it was not formally part of American legal tradition until the late 20th century.
As a side note: there are obviously many other ways to understand unenumerated rights that the court has used, such as Kennedy’s emphasis on dignity. Alito took the narrowest possible stance to achieve his desired goal.
Alito dispenses with stare decisis concerns by handwaving at the usual suspects, although lumping Dobbs with Brown is gross and trollish. Yet here we are.
Arguments about women’s autonomy are dismissed by arguing that autonomy concerns could “license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like.”
Alito also tried to allay concerns that other rights are in the crosshairs by distinguishing abortion from, say, gay marriage, by noting that abortion involves the destruction of a fetus. He characterizes fetuses in normal anti-choice terms. I am unconvinced by his protestations that other rights are not at risk and believe, to paraphrase, he doth protest too much.
In Alito’s defense, he does a decent job rounding up Roe’s weaknesses. Viability is a vague, arbitrary line, and Roe’s progeny did little to clarify the exact contours of the right to an abortion and the state’s limitations in regulating said right.
At the end, Alito dismisses concerns about the negative impact on society of eliminating abortion rights by simply stating that such concerns are outside of the purview of the court.
On a technical note: state regulations on abortion will now be subject to rational basis review, which is incredibly permissive to the government.
According to Alito, the court has returned abortion to the arena of state politics, where it belongs. And where, of course, he and other conservatives justices have stacked the deck by allowing gerrymandering and voter suppression.
I skipped a few sections but that gives you the gist. I’m happy to answer any questions about specific portions.
I would love to hear the skipped sections too if they are worthwhile and you have the time.
Edit: Oh and I found this quite laughable. Alito quoting Scalia from Casey
"That someone was standing in front of the gun when I pulled the trigger is not relevant."
Will do, although honestly it’s a lot of pandering to other justices’ personal obsessions and Alito chest thumping. That said, the exact legal theorists Alito cites are an interesting, weird bunch. I need some sleep but will do an effort post tomorrow.
When I told her, she started crying. She hadn’t heard and the news hit her hard. Turns out she had multiple abortions while in an abusive relationship and those pregnancies would have ruined her life and given her abuser another hook. Luckily, that’s now in the past and she has a lovely family and husband, but none of that would have happened without control over her body.
Alito et al might not care about the consequences of their decision, but any jurist worthy of the position and power should. While it might take decades to win the battle in the courts, we can make an immediate difference by donating and volunteering to organizations helping women in need. And if there isn’t one in your area, start one.
y'all are asking that we not talk about who's doing the work, which feeds directly into attributing activist successes to politicians
just the other day y'all were talking about how the democrats were responsible for gay marriage but i was there and i remember when they decided it was cool and i know they weren't responsible for changing public opinion on that because they changed their opinions after the public
but keep being shitty for no reason until i get threadkicked for offering you the same respect you gave me
oh, they're still fucking with that one good, subtext on desantis' recent voter fraud task force is that they're going to be jailing more people for "voter fraud" for voting while having active fines when the state isn't making it easy to even verify if that's the case
but the minimum wage is slowly increasing now, and the lesson was definitely learned from felon voting
if nobody else brings up the fact that the language needs to be bullet-proof on the call tomorrow i certainly will
but i expect that there'll be plenty of people there more on the ball than me
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
This isn't an anti-immigrant move. It's couched in that language, but this is a 'gut public education and shift money towards grifting and/or religious indoctrination efforts' move.
One of the depressing things about this decision is that it's been over 40 years in the making. I mean fuck Manchin and SInema and the 2016 election and blah blah blah. This has been decades in the making and the people pushing for it haven't exactly been quiet about their end goal. This decision is (will be) a tragedy, but it's been such a long and obvious process that it's like watching a train hit a bus of orphans, except the train was going five miles per hour and started off a hundred miles a way. Just this feeling of inevitability as it kept getting closer and closer while the best our side could do was delay things by a few years.
One added bonus that'll kick in once the various anti-abortion laws are triggered is that Ob-Gyn accreditation requires training in how to perform an abortion, so that's a chunk of med schools that will be taking a hit too. Icing on the cake and all that.
I think most of us in these threads know the quote by now, fascism, in-groups and out-groups, yadda yadda. This is an effort to explicitly force these children firmly into the "out" group. To create an underclass with no education that can be treated like dogshit, or like, moreso than undocumented migrants already are.
On this point. I know it’s a signal of legal academic intellectualism and sophistication to criticize Roe for more or less plucking a statute-like line out of the air as a constitutional threshold. But since the leak I’ve see some threads here and there about references to quickening in Jewish religious texts and other such distinctions made in very old societies as to the point in a pregnancy when whatever is going on in that mystery box becomes a potential life worthy of (at the time) legal concern.
There is much to critique about both Roe’s and Alito’s haphazard historical survey, but it is Alito that is centering the inquiry not on medical understanding but on history and tradition, and in my estimation if you stack up the historical basis for Roe against the historical basis to overturn it, Roe’s seems more grounded. “Quickening” or viability simply was something recognized in old surviving records, obviously not identified with specificity because medical science at the time was a shaman consulting the heavens or something. But to the extent history matters, Roe’s history is not entirely freewheeling and creative.
NNID: Hakkekage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT_actions_in_the_United_States_prior_to_the_Stonewall_riots
It's a shame these situation exists. This woman may carry a burden from her past abusive relationship her whole life. If you find yourself in an abusive relationship please consider leaving her/him today. Your future self will thank you.
One important aspect of Lawrence is that it was as much about the privacy right as it was about the inconsistent and selective enforcement of those criminal laws. Many state governments had anti sodomy laws of the books, but they were selectively enforced against a) homosexual, not heterosexual sodomy, and b) most of the time not at all. The due process implications of criminal statutes that provide essentially pretext for enforcement and persecution was an important part of Lawrence’s reasoning which, importantly, was extraordinary at the time because it overturned Bowers v. Hardwick, which had affirmed the constitutionality of anti sodomy laws just a few years earlier. This stunning disrespect for state decisis is of course featured in scalia’s homophobic dissent (though the homophobia is the main event ofc)
NNID: Hakkekage
Every time I see this argument I always think, "ah yes, the same position I held in 10th grade!"