Even if the Democrats can't succeed in stopping this right now their response has to be loud and aggressive and they've got to keep pummeling at this because not only is women's reproductive rights an important issue in itself they are clearly using it as a building block to get rid of a lot of other rights that were hard fought for.
If they can't succeed in a stay on this in any way and then lose the midterms this year, I genuinely do not believe the party survives this. They've been relying on Wade for 50 years to hold back a flood and the dam is breaking.
I really don't think they've been relying on Roe v Wade to win them elections.
In fact one of the biggest issues that's led to this moment is how little concern anyone but the right has shown about who controls the courts.
They've been relying on Wade to keep abortion legal while they dabbled in other bullshit like what Pelosi is doing now in Texas. They relied on Planned Parenthood to make up for the Hyde Amendment and other shortcomings in US abortion policies. The reason they never had pro-choice as a litmus test for their centrist candidates is Roe. PP, NARAL, and dozens of other organizations that focus on reproductive rights raise money and campaign for Democratic candidates.
How do they all survive without Roe?
How don't they? Nothing you've said suggest the Democratic party is going to dissolve because the SCOTUS decides women have no rights. If anything, as with RBG's death, this will probably energize people and get them more politically active and involved.
I am not saying it dissolves instantly, what I am doubting is its ability to recover from this over the next decade. I am skeptical that whatever activists you think this might stoke will be lining up to support and trust the party that failed them on this.
Also, I gotta say the bolded is really something...
Warren Hamilton is trying literally trying to pass abortion laws to prohibit it, even in the case of ectopic pregnancies. These fucking monsters need to be thrown into a fucking jail cell and starved
Court packing is not about simply getting things you want through the court. its about making the court actually represent the country and its legal system.
There are 12 Court circuits there should be 12 justices.
+24
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
There's no legal framework for declaring the Supreme Court and its decisions invalid, and pushing that authority to the next highest circuit, but it has exactly as much precedence and legal standing as what the actual Supreme Court is doing so I say if it comes down to it just declare them illegitimate and move on.
And while I'm making fanciful wishes I'd like a million dollars and a pony too.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
Court packing is not about simply getting things you want through the court. its about making the court actually represent the country and its legal system.
There are 12 Court circuits there should be 12 justices.
That's... not a great argument, the circuits themselves are kind of wonky.
Court packing is not about simply getting things you want through the court. its about making the court actually represent the country and its legal system.
There are 12 Court circuits there should be 12 justices.
Even if the Democrats can't succeed in stopping this right now their response has to be loud and aggressive and they've got to keep pummeling at this because not only is women's reproductive rights an important issue in itself they are clearly using it as a building block to get rid of a lot of other rights that were hard fought for.
If they can't succeed in a stay on this in any way and then lose the midterms this year, I genuinely do not believe the party survives this. They've been relying on Wade for 50 years to hold back a flood and the dam is breaking.
I really don't think they've been relying on Roe v Wade to win them elections.
In fact one of the biggest issues that's led to this moment is how little concern anyone but the right has shown about who controls the courts.
They've been relying on Wade to keep abortion legal while they dabbled in other bullshit like what Pelosi is doing now in Texas. They relied on Planned Parenthood to make up for the Hyde Amendment and other shortcomings in US abortion policies. The reason they never had pro-choice as a litmus test for their centrist candidates is Roe. PP, NARAL, and dozens of other organizations that focus on reproductive rights raise money and campaign for Democratic candidates.
How do they all survive without Roe?
How don't they? Nothing you've said suggest the Democratic party is going to dissolve because the SCOTUS decides women have no rights. If anything, as with RBG's death, this will probably energize people and get them more politically active and involved.
People energized by this will be hardliners on abortion. They won't support anyone not pro-choice which means the detente with the parts of the coalition that are not pro-choice built on Roe being settled law breaks down.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Even if the Democrats can't succeed in stopping this right now their response has to be loud and aggressive and they've got to keep pummeling at this because not only is women's reproductive rights an important issue in itself they are clearly using it as a building block to get rid of a lot of other rights that were hard fought for.
If they can't succeed in a stay on this in any way and then lose the midterms this year, I genuinely do not believe the party survives this. They've been relying on Wade for 50 years to hold back a flood and the dam is breaking.
I really don't think they've been relying on Roe v Wade to win them elections.
In fact one of the biggest issues that's led to this moment is how little concern anyone but the right has shown about who controls the courts.
They've been relying on Wade to keep abortion legal while they dabbled in other bullshit like what Pelosi is doing now in Texas. They relied on Planned Parenthood to make up for the Hyde Amendment and other shortcomings in US abortion policies. The reason they never had pro-choice as a litmus test for their centrist candidates is Roe. PP, NARAL, and dozens of other organizations that focus on reproductive rights raise money and campaign for Democratic candidates.
How do they all survive without Roe?
How don't they? Nothing you've said suggest the Democratic party is going to dissolve because the SCOTUS decides women have no rights. If anything, as with RBG's death, this will probably energize people and get them more politically active and involved.
I am not saying it dissolves instantly, what I am doubting is its ability to recover from this over the next decade. I am skeptical that whatever activists you think this might stoke will be lining up to support and trust the party that failed them on this.
Also, I gotta say the bolded is really something...
Again, you've given no reason why that would be the case. The reaction to set backs like this is generally the exact opposite. What is there here to even "recover from" exactly?
Court packing is not about simply getting things you want through the court. its about making the court actually represent the country and its legal system.
There are 12 Court circuits there should be 12 justices.
There should be like fucking twice as many judges in general, not just on the Supreme Court. Republicans have stonewalled all attempts to expand literally anything for something like the last forty fucking years even as the population increased. And then McConnell came along and broke things even more. There flat out literally aren't enough courts for justice to actually be administered, even if so many weren't run by craven rightwing lunatics.
Court packing is not about simply getting things you want through the court. its about making the court actually represent the country and its legal system.
There are 12 Court circuits there should be 12 justices.
Court packing is not about simply getting things you want through the court. its about making the court actually represent the country and its legal system.
There are 12 Court circuits there should be 12 justices.
Court packing is a "because we can" move. Last time it was threatened was for basically the same reasons. The SCOTUS were being shits and acting as their own unelected legislator. I guess you can kinda view it as one branch checking another.
Even if the Democrats can't succeed in stopping this right now their response has to be loud and aggressive and they've got to keep pummeling at this because not only is women's reproductive rights an important issue in itself they are clearly using it as a building block to get rid of a lot of other rights that were hard fought for.
If they can't succeed in a stay on this in any way and then lose the midterms this year, I genuinely do not believe the party survives this. They've been relying on Wade for 50 years to hold back a flood and the dam is breaking.
I really don't think they've been relying on Roe v Wade to win them elections.
In fact one of the biggest issues that's led to this moment is how little concern anyone but the right has shown about who controls the courts.
They've been relying on Wade to keep abortion legal while they dabbled in other bullshit like what Pelosi is doing now in Texas. They relied on Planned Parenthood to make up for the Hyde Amendment and other shortcomings in US abortion policies. The reason they never had pro-choice as a litmus test for their centrist candidates is Roe. PP, NARAL, and dozens of other organizations that focus on reproductive rights raise money and campaign for Democratic candidates.
How do they all survive without Roe?
How don't they? Nothing you've said suggest the Democratic party is going to dissolve because the SCOTUS decides women have no rights. If anything, as with RBG's death, this will probably energize people and get them more politically active and involved.
I am not saying it dissolves instantly, what I am doubting is its ability to recover from this over the next decade. I am skeptical that whatever activists you think this might stoke will be lining up to support and trust the party that failed them on this.
Also, I gotta say the bolded is really something...
I think it's far too early to predict whether this aids or harms the Democratic Party's electoral chances. It could demoralize them and depress the vote. It could rile them up and make them more active. It could do both, in which case the net result is a matter of which factor is stronger. I have no idea!
This decision effectively replaces slave states and free states with abortion states and women slavery states. So what happens when a woman leaves an abortion slave state and the state tries to retrieve her? Dredd Scott 2?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The Supreme Court was already packed, remember. The Republicans did it already, which is part of why they've got the 6-3 majority to make these types of decisions.
I am tired of hearing people say Biden needs to pack the court. The framing is terrible.
The court is packed. It's done.
McConnell and then Trump packed it already. If Garland were on the court alongside Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett (or if Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were on there with RBG's seat held open for Biden) there would be an argument otherwise.
We should be calling for Biden to UNPACK the court by appointing more justices.
Even if the Democrats can't succeed in stopping this right now their response has to be loud and aggressive and they've got to keep pummeling at this because not only is women's reproductive rights an important issue in itself they are clearly using it as a building block to get rid of a lot of other rights that were hard fought for.
If they can't succeed in a stay on this in any way and then lose the midterms this year, I genuinely do not believe the party survives this. They've been relying on Wade for 50 years to hold back a flood and the dam is breaking.
I really don't think they've been relying on Roe v Wade to win them elections.
In fact one of the biggest issues that's led to this moment is how little concern anyone but the right has shown about who controls the courts.
They've been relying on Wade to keep abortion legal while they dabbled in other bullshit like what Pelosi is doing now in Texas. They relied on Planned Parenthood to make up for the Hyde Amendment and other shortcomings in US abortion policies. The reason they never had pro-choice as a litmus test for their centrist candidates is Roe. PP, NARAL, and dozens of other organizations that focus on reproductive rights raise money and campaign for Democratic candidates.
How do they all survive without Roe?
How don't they? Nothing you've said suggest the Democratic party is going to dissolve because the SCOTUS decides women have no rights. If anything, as with RBG's death, this will probably energize people and get them more politically active and involved.
I am not saying it dissolves instantly, what I am doubting is its ability to recover from this over the next decade. I am skeptical that whatever activists you think this might stoke will be lining up to support and trust the party that failed them on this.
Also, I gotta say the bolded is really something...
I think it's far too early to predict whether this aids or harms the Democratic Party's electoral chances. It could demoralize them and depress the vote. It could rile them up and make them more active. It could do both, in which case the net result is a matter of which factor is stronger. I have no idea!
I submit that while it may be difficult to predict the results of this, nothing about it is "too early." If anything, it seems like it may already be too late.
There's no legal framework for declaring the Supreme Court and its decisions invalid, and pushing that authority to the next highest circuit, but it has exactly as much precedence and legal standing as what the actual Supreme Court is doing so I say if it comes down to it just declare them illegitimate and move on.
And while I'm making fanciful wishes I'd like a million dollars and a pony too.
In an ideal world the only way to effectively overrule the SCOTUS is a constitutional amendment.
Even if the Democrats can't succeed in stopping this right now their response has to be loud and aggressive and they've got to keep pummeling at this because not only is women's reproductive rights an important issue in itself they are clearly using it as a building block to get rid of a lot of other rights that were hard fought for.
If they can't succeed in a stay on this in any way and then lose the midterms this year, I genuinely do not believe the party survives this. They've been relying on Wade for 50 years to hold back a flood and the dam is breaking.
I really don't think they've been relying on Roe v Wade to win them elections.
In fact one of the biggest issues that's led to this moment is how little concern anyone but the right has shown about who controls the courts.
They've been relying on Wade to keep abortion legal while they dabbled in other bullshit like what Pelosi is doing now in Texas. They relied on Planned Parenthood to make up for the Hyde Amendment and other shortcomings in US abortion policies. The reason they never had pro-choice as a litmus test for their centrist candidates is Roe. PP, NARAL, and dozens of other organizations that focus on reproductive rights raise money and campaign for Democratic candidates.
How do they all survive without Roe?
How don't they? Nothing you've said suggest the Democratic party is going to dissolve because the SCOTUS decides women have no rights. If anything, as with RBG's death, this will probably energize people and get them more politically active and involved.
I am not saying it dissolves instantly, what I am doubting is its ability to recover from this over the next decade. I am skeptical that whatever activists you think this might stoke will be lining up to support and trust the party that failed them on this.
Also, I gotta say the bolded is really something...
I think it's far too early to predict whether this aids or harms the Democratic Party's electoral chances. It could demoralize them and depress the vote. It could rile them up and make them more active. It could do both, in which case the net result is a matter of which factor is stronger. I have no idea!
How serious they are seen by people on this, and therefore if its a motivating factor for the polls, will be decided by their own actual actions.
Actions like either Rep. Crueller releasing a statement explicitly saying he is now pro-choice and supports codifying the right to an abortion into law, or Nancy Pelosi withdrawing her endorsement of him.
Even amendments can be "interpreted" by the court. For example how the 2nd amendments "well regulated militia" has been open to interpretation for 233 years.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
Even amendments can be "interpreted" by the court. For example how the 2nd amendments "well regulated militia" has been open to interpretation for 233 years.
Exactly my thought. When the people doing the interpretation are not doing it in good faith none of their decisions can be respected.
This decision ignores right to privacy which is also in the constitution.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Even amendments can be "interpreted" by the court. For example how the 2nd amendments "well regulated militia" has been open to interpretation for 233 years.
Exactly my thought. When the people doing the interpretation are not doing it in good faith none of their decisions can be respected.
This decision ignores right to privacy which is also in the constitution.
I'm sure they will find a way around that too, by and by...
Even amendments can be "interpreted" by the court. For example how the 2nd amendments "well regulated militia" has been open to interpretation for 233 years.
Exactly my thought. When the people doing the interpretation are not doing it in good faith none of their decisions can be respected.
This decision ignores right to privacy which is also in the constitution.
Also the 1st amendment because most anti abortion is "God says so". But Alito and co don't give a shit about religious right unless it's their pre approved set of beliefs
Even amendments can be "interpreted" by the court. For example how the 2nd amendments "well regulated militia" has been open to interpretation for 233 years.
Exactly my thought. When the people doing the interpretation are not doing it in good faith none of their decisions can be respected.
This decision ignores right to privacy which is also in the constitution.
I'm sure they will find a way around that too, by and by...
Which is why we're in crisis, if SCOTUS gets to be a dictator and directly benefit one particular party that enshrines their own power, they can not be respected any longer.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I am tired of hearing people say Biden needs to pack the court. The framing is terrible.
The court is packed. It's done.
McConnell and then Trump packed it already. If Garland were on the court alongside Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett (or if Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were on there with RBG's seat held open for Biden) there would be an argument otherwise.
We should be calling for Biden to UNPACK the court by appointing more justices.
Even "packing the court" is kinda weird jargony language. Go with something like "fix the court" or "stop the overreach of the extremists on the court" or the like.
Court packing is not about simply getting things you want through the court. its about making the court actually represent the country and its legal system.
There are 12 Court circuits there should be 12 justices.
There should be like fucking twice as many judges in general, not just on the Supreme Court. Republicans have stonewalled all attempts to expand literally anything for something like the last forty fucking years even as the population increased. And then McConnell came along and broke things even more. There flat out literally aren't enough courts for justice to actually be administered, even if so many weren't run by craven rightwing lunatics.
Try close to a century. 1929 was the last time the House was expanded. This was back when it's estimated the population of the US was just over 120,000,000. It's been stuck there because the racists won't support anything which dilutes their power since increasing the number would acknowledge that the majority of Americans live in urban settings and not rural.
There have been attempts but get shutdown just as fast as they're brought up.
As has been said numerous times now, the problem isn't with the court but the system itself.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
The scary part is the courts are effectively the only law making body in the federal govt anymore.
Well the only one that can't be overwritten by the courts. Like SCOTUS has with shadow dockets and their other rulings become legislators themselves and again in benefit of the GOP who put them on the court to begin with.
Trump blew a gasket in 2020 because he whole heartedly expected SCOTUS to just declare the election wrong and award him the presidency and their recent decisions don't exactly say next time they wont.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Maybe we can just declare the federalist society a terrorist organization?
One of the responses to this ruling should be law schools treating the Federalist Society as persona non grata - honestly, that should have happened when the Yale Law chapter invited a representative of a group of theocratic fascists to speak and the Stanford Law chapter tried to ruin the career of a law student who aimed some biting satire at them. But for some reason, we're told that we're obliged to tolerate a group that is clearly not interested in extending the favor.
More and more, I'm finding Yonatan Zuinger's essay on tolerance as peace treaty to be necessary reading,as it points out that tolerance needs to be a two-way street.
Even amendments can be "interpreted" by the court. For example how the 2nd amendments "well regulated militia" has been open to interpretation for 233 years.
Exactly my thought. When the people doing the interpretation are not doing it in good faith none of their decisions can be respected.
This decision ignores right to privacy which is also in the constitution.
There's never been a consensus on what the 4th is supposed to protect. It was left purposefully vague, one of the few things the writers got correct, but it's been both politicians and the courts unwilling and unable to keep up with technology and society.
Again, within a system of negative rights, it should be assumed that if we're not saying the government can do it, then it is forbidden. This switcheroo the GOP/Fascists have pulled with this concept, while feeling intuitive, goes against how the the foundation of the Constitution was laid out.
Fuck. I feel like we're re-litigating the entirety of the Federalist Papers in these threads.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
I guess my question is why should a "blue" state like California or Washington respect the authority of an increasingly unhinged supreme court next time it rules against their laws?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I guess my question is why should a "blue" state like California or Washington respect the authority of an increasingly unhinged supreme court next time it rules against their laws?
I think that's definitely one way you could take this if the people in question really wanted to just flip the table. Biden says "Fuck the SCOTUS, they have rendered themselves illegitimate" and support Democratic-run states in ignoring the ruling. Red states will simply do what they want though. And then who the fuck knows what starts happening.
Of course, all of this would generate immediate Code Omega level pearl clutching from the media and the political class.
I am tired of hearing people say Biden needs to pack the court. The framing is terrible.
The court is packed. It's done.
McConnell and then Trump packed it already. If Garland were on the court alongside Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett (or if Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were on there with RBG's seat held open for Biden) there would be an argument otherwise.
We should be calling for Biden to UNPACK the court by appointing more justices.
Even "packing the court" is kinda weird jargony language. Go with something like "fix the court" or "stop the overreach of the extremists on the court" or the like.
I guess my question is why should a "blue" state like California or Washington respect the authority of an increasingly unhinged supreme court next time it rules against their laws?
I think that's definitely one way you could take this if the people in question really wanted to just flip the table. Biden says "Fuck the SCOTUS, they have rendered themselves illegitimate" and support Democratic-run states in ignoring the ruling. Red states will simply do what they want though. And then who the fuck knows what starts happening.
Of course, all of this would generate immediate Code Omega level pearl clutching from the media and the political class.
For the current ruling that doesn't...mean anything though? Yeah if they try to pull "making abortion legal is against the Constitution" or some shit that could be a tactic. But the draft ruling is "just" overturning Roe. There's nothing for states that don't ban abortion to do here, they aren't the ones precedent was binding.
edit: I suppose refusing to extradite for any abortion-related crime could be a response.
Posts
I am not saying it dissolves instantly, what I am doubting is its ability to recover from this over the next decade. I am skeptical that whatever activists you think this might stoke will be lining up to support and trust the party that failed them on this.
Also, I gotta say the bolded is really something...
There are 12 Court circuits there should be 12 justices.
And while I'm making fanciful wishes I'd like a million dollars and a pony too.
That's... not a great argument, the circuits themselves are kind of wonky.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
13, it should be odd number
People energized by this will be hardliners on abortion. They won't support anyone not pro-choice which means the detente with the parts of the coalition that are not pro-choice built on Roe being settled law breaks down.
Again, you've given no reason why that would be the case. The reaction to set backs like this is generally the exact opposite. What is there here to even "recover from" exactly?
There should be like fucking twice as many judges in general, not just on the Supreme Court. Republicans have stonewalled all attempts to expand literally anything for something like the last forty fucking years even as the population increased. And then McConnell came along and broke things even more. There flat out literally aren't enough courts for justice to actually be administered, even if so many weren't run by craven rightwing lunatics.
9th should be two circuits at minimum anyway.
Hilariously oversized.
Court packing is a "because we can" move. Last time it was threatened was for basically the same reasons. The SCOTUS were being shits and acting as their own unelected legislator. I guess you can kinda view it as one branch checking another.
pleasepaypreacher.net
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
The court is packed. It's done.
McConnell and then Trump packed it already. If Garland were on the court alongside Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett (or if Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were on there with RBG's seat held open for Biden) there would be an argument otherwise.
We should be calling for Biden to UNPACK the court by appointing more justices.
I submit that while it may be difficult to predict the results of this, nothing about it is "too early." If anything, it seems like it may already be too late.
In an ideal world the only way to effectively overrule the SCOTUS is a constitutional amendment.
How serious they are seen by people on this, and therefore if its a motivating factor for the polls, will be decided by their own actual actions.
Actions like either Rep. Crueller releasing a statement explicitly saying he is now pro-choice and supports codifying the right to an abortion into law, or Nancy Pelosi withdrawing her endorsement of him.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Exactly my thought. When the people doing the interpretation are not doing it in good faith none of their decisions can be respected.
This decision ignores right to privacy which is also in the constitution.
pleasepaypreacher.net
And the SCOTUS does everything in bad faith
I'm sure they will find a way around that too, by and by...
Also the 1st amendment because most anti abortion is "God says so". But Alito and co don't give a shit about religious right unless it's their pre approved set of beliefs
Which is why we're in crisis, if SCOTUS gets to be a dictator and directly benefit one particular party that enshrines their own power, they can not be respected any longer.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Even "packing the court" is kinda weird jargony language. Go with something like "fix the court" or "stop the overreach of the extremists on the court" or the like.
Try close to a century. 1929 was the last time the House was expanded. This was back when it's estimated the population of the US was just over 120,000,000. It's been stuck there because the racists won't support anything which dilutes their power since increasing the number would acknowledge that the majority of Americans live in urban settings and not rural.
There have been attempts but get shutdown just as fast as they're brought up.
As has been said numerous times now, the problem isn't with the court but the system itself.
Yes exactly according to the gops plan
Well the only one that can't be overwritten by the courts. Like SCOTUS has with shadow dockets and their other rulings become legislators themselves and again in benefit of the GOP who put them on the court to begin with.
Trump blew a gasket in 2020 because he whole heartedly expected SCOTUS to just declare the election wrong and award him the presidency and their recent decisions don't exactly say next time they wont.
pleasepaypreacher.net
One of the responses to this ruling should be law schools treating the Federalist Society as persona non grata - honestly, that should have happened when the Yale Law chapter invited a representative of a group of theocratic fascists to speak and the Stanford Law chapter tried to ruin the career of a law student who aimed some biting satire at them. But for some reason, we're told that we're obliged to tolerate a group that is clearly not interested in extending the favor.
More and more, I'm finding Yonatan Zuinger's essay on tolerance as peace treaty to be necessary reading,as it points out that tolerance needs to be a two-way street.
There's never been a consensus on what the 4th is supposed to protect. It was left purposefully vague, one of the few things the writers got correct, but it's been both politicians and the courts unwilling and unable to keep up with technology and society.
Again, within a system of negative rights, it should be assumed that if we're not saying the government can do it, then it is forbidden. This switcheroo the GOP/Fascists have pulled with this concept, while feeling intuitive, goes against how the the foundation of the Constitution was laid out.
Fuck. I feel like we're re-litigating the entirety of the Federalist Papers in these threads.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I think that's definitely one way you could take this if the people in question really wanted to just flip the table. Biden says "Fuck the SCOTUS, they have rendered themselves illegitimate" and support Democratic-run states in ignoring the ruling. Red states will simply do what they want though. And then who the fuck knows what starts happening.
Of course, all of this would generate immediate Code Omega level pearl clutching from the media and the political class.
Expand the court to unpack the court.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Can, hypothetically, Biden sign an executive order here?
A simple yes or no is fine, unless like Hakkes has a lot of knowledge on it.
If so, what would be the result?
For the current ruling that doesn't...mean anything though? Yeah if they try to pull "making abortion legal is against the Constitution" or some shit that could be a tactic. But the draft ruling is "just" overturning Roe. There's nothing for states that don't ban abortion to do here, they aren't the ones precedent was binding.
edit: I suppose refusing to extradite for any abortion-related crime could be a response.