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.
In an ideal world, yes. In this world, well. John Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it.
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
+3
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I mean we 100% know this SCOTUS is going to order a pregnant woman to be returned to a red state to be forced to complete a pregnancy.
Someone botching an illegal abortion is going to get charged with double homicide, ruining 3 lives.
+23
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
edited May 2022
I was going to post this in the other thread, but what's Canada's response been to this today? Cause they're about to get a lot of potential asylum seekers in the near future, or people wanting Abortions, or citizenship.
edit: not a derail question, but like how would it affect the law, what's their stake in being charged if it's a Canadian doc, etc?
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.
The Texas law already covers that whole idea by going after the clinic/doctor who performs the abortion financially and by making it a civil case, not a prosecution.
By doing this, it's going after the "Full Faith and Credit" clause which keeps all the states working together by having them acknowledge their various, separate laws. Why you only need to get one driver license from where you reside, for instance. Or how car insurance will follow you from state to state.
It's the same tactic used way back when for the Fugitive Slave Act. A "give us what we want or we end the union" kind of deal. Which is pretty despicable. Then again, remember those behind the pro-birth movement are racists still mad about being forced to share their church schools with Black kids. Age hasn't diminished their cause and as society has become more secular, it has only emboldened them to more extreme positions. Such as birth control pills are abortion pills. Or that a cluster of undifferentiated cells are a heart when it's no such thing.
These aren't rational people who foresee disaster in getting what they want. They see paradise.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
I mean is it not slave state vs free state? In slave states if you're a woman you will not probably be allowed to leave if you're of birthing age, does that not make you a slave to the state?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I was going to post this in the other thread, but what's Canada's response been to this today? Cause they're about to get a lot of potential asylum seekers in the near future, or people wanting Abortions, or citizenship.
edit: not a derail question, but like how would it affect the law, what's their stake in being charged if it's a Canadian doc, etc?
It's not Canada's job to enforce Texas' laws, and it's not a Canadian's duty to follow them.
But this isn't about any specific law, to be clear - the thing being overturned is the blanket protection on abortion as a right (which wasn't blanket, but come on, I'm dealing with English here, cut me some slack). The issue is that dealing with abortion will be left to the states, and a lot of states have some bad ideas.
+10
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
I was going to post this in the other thread, but what's Canada's response been to this today? Cause they're about to get a lot of potential asylum seekers in the near future, or people wanting Abortions, or citizenship.
edit: not a derail question, but like how would it affect the law, what's their stake in being charged if it's a Canadian doc, etc?
It's not Canada's job to enforce Texas' laws, and it's not a Canadian's duty to follow them.
But this isn't about any specific law, to be clear - the thing being overturned is the blanket protection on abortion as a right (which wasn't blanket, but come on, I'm dealing with English here, cut me some slack). The issue is that dealing with abortion will be left to the states, and a lot of states have some bad ideas.
I did know this, but thank you, it helps to hear it again so I know I'm getting good info. So would it be worth getting petitions together to the Canadian Embassy in the US? I get "pack up and move" doesn't exist for everyone, I'm not saying that. That's bad.
I am saying that the option to pack up and move is a fuck of a lot better in 2022 post pandemic than it was 20 years ago. Like now might be a good time to seek asylum, if that's how the process would work.
So I guess it was more "what can we do to get Canada to change laws if we can't get the US to, and then Canada can just let us in like one of the Purge movies"
I mean is it not slave state vs free state? In slave states if you're a woman you will not probably be allowed to leave if you're of birthing age, does that not make you a slave to the state?
Certainly women will need to consent to regular testing to confirm they are not pregnant if they wish to travel to a state which does not practice enforced pregnancy as a punishment for sexual activity. Women should expect to have to carry additional identification to prove that they have a recent negative pregnancy test before being allowed to leave the borders. Women will also need additional searches and seizures of any communication with women in free states, for fear that abortion pills could be smuggled across state lines.
I was going to post this in the other thread, but what's Canada's response been to this today? Cause they're about to get a lot of potential asylum seekers in the near future, or people wanting Abortions, or citizenship.
edit: not a derail question, but like how would it affect the law, what's their stake in being charged if it's a Canadian doc, etc?
I doubt there will any official reaction to this till there's an actual ruling. And even it's likely to just be "this is terrible" and that's it.
I was going to post this in the other thread, but what's Canada's response been to this today? Cause they're about to get a lot of potential asylum seekers in the near future, or people wanting Abortions, or citizenship.
edit: not a derail question, but like how would it affect the law, what's their stake in being charged if it's a Canadian doc, etc?
I doubt there will any official reaction to this till there's an actual ruling. And even it's likely to just be "this is terrible" and that's it.
The PM put out a tweet that another Canadian called "this is Canadian for "what the fuck is wrong with you"
The right to choose is a woman’s right and a woman’s right alone. Every woman in Canada has a right to a safe and legal abortion. We’ll never back down from protecting and promoting women’s rights in Canada and around the world.
I read earlier (I think in an NYT article) that 25 of the 50 states would likely ban abortion if/when this decision is made? That's... worse than the number I expected.
I was going to post this in the other thread, but what's Canada's response been to this today? Cause they're about to get a lot of potential asylum seekers in the near future, or people wanting Abortions, or citizenship.
edit: not a derail question, but like how would it affect the law, what's their stake in being charged if it's a Canadian doc, etc?
I doubt there will any official reaction to this till there's an actual ruling. And even it's likely to just be "this is terrible" and that's it.
The PM put out a tweet that another Canadian called "this is Canadian for "what the fuck is wrong with you"
The right to choose is a woman’s right and a woman’s right alone. Every woman in Canada has a right to a safe and legal abortion. We’ll never back down from protecting and promoting women’s rights in Canada and around the world.
The Cons have started more openly talking about this issue so the US deciding to make it a big thing probably helps shine a light on their bullshit.
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?
No.
This is a supreme court decision being overturned by the supreme court themselves. What they give, they can take away. Attempts to overturn this decision via executive Order fail in favor of the courts due to separation of powers.
It wouldn't be effective anyways, since this merely orders that laws on the books stand, not any real action on the federal governments part. If the court ordered the Federal government to enforce those laws, he could refuse to do so, but even that is suspect. IANAL, but once this rulling comes down; Roe v Wade is dead and Biden is stuck on the sidelines.
And Gay rights will follow.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
This will be a tremendous human tragedy. Children with severe birth defects will be forced to be born and live out their short lives in pain and suffering, while women with ectopic pregnancies will literally die because these monsters think an ectopic pregnancy can be made magically viable.
I read earlier (I think in an NYT article) that 25 of the 50 states would likely ban abortion if/when this decision is made? That's... worse than the number I expected.
13 states have already passed trigger laws that will in some way restrict or outright ban abortions when RvW is overturned.
I read earlier (I think in an NYT article) that 25 of the 50 states would likely ban abortion if/when this decision is made? That's... worse than the number I expected.
13 states have already passed trigger laws that will in some way restrict or outright ban abortions when RvW is overturned.
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.
This court doesn't give a fuck and will flat out nullify laws passed by Congress.
You need to pack the courts and get the Senate to actually work.
If Congress had passed a law regarding abortion they could just strip jurisdiction. Since they never did, it's up to the states if SCOTUS reverses a right it created.
Packing the courts is one solution but there are others you could use first to put the Court on a political back foot.
This ignores what SCOTUS did with the VRA. They literally said "congress passed a law badly so it doesn't count anymore racism is over."
SCOTUS has jurisdiction on literally everything, a power they granted themselves.
I feel pretty confident now that SCOTUS as an institution is something that needs to stop existing. It's purely to maintain minoritarian rule. They annoit themselves kings of what is True and Just and wield that power how they see fit no matter the logic or law used or its ramifications. Interning Japanese is OK cause we say so, enslaving black people is OK cause we say so. Congress overstepped on X,Y,Z cause we say so. This constitutional amendment isn't real cause we say so. It's all complete fucking horseshit and always has been.
I keep thinking back to 2018 when a professor in grad school said unironically that [the Trump admin] is not the worst in our history and that things are pretty good across the board. That the 1960s (and 1860s) were far worse for this country. And I keep thinking about that, and the 4 years since, and think "yeah, really? you still think that now given the trajectory we're on?" Absurd. Like, what split the country apart for the civil war? Arguably the Dred Scott v. Sandford case SCOTUS ruled on.
All I think of is Yeats, a falconer, and a rough beast.
I read earlier (I think in an NYT article) that 25 of the 50 states would likely ban abortion if/when this decision is made? That's... worse than the number I expected.
13 states have already passed trigger laws that will in some way restrict or outright ban abortions when RvW is overturned.
What kinds of penalties do these laws carry?
It varies and I don't know them all; Utah, my state, only provides exceptions for rape, incest, mother's life or severe bodily function impairment, or if two fetal development experts sign off that the fetus is non-viable due to severe defect.
Edit: forgot to actually answer your question: it's a 2nd degree felony.
R-dem on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Let's be clear here: What Roberts etc are mad about is that this leaked before the midterm elections and wasn't done immediately afterwards like they would 100% be planning to have done. Everyone knew this was coming, but as long as there is that plausible deniability Republicans were well aware nobody would stand up and do anything until "Oh no, you mean electing assholes is a real problem!?!?!" but it wouldn't matter then, as they were counting on having both houses of congress.
Let's be clear here: What Roberts etc are mad about is that this leaked before the midterm elections and wasn't done immediately afterwards like they would 100% be planning to have done. Everyone knew this was coming, but as long as there is that plausible deniability Republicans were well aware nobody would stand up and do anything until "Oh no, you mean electing assholes is a real problem!?!?!" but it wouldn't matter then, as they were counting on having both houses of congress.
Let's be clear here: What Roberts etc are mad about is that this leaked before the midterm elections and wasn't done immediately afterwards like they would 100% be planning to have done. Everyone knew this was coming, but as long as there is that plausible deniability Republicans were well aware nobody would stand up and do anything until "Oh no, you mean electing assholes is a real problem!?!?!" but it wouldn't matter then, as they were counting on having both houses of congress.
Decisions in February would normally be released around summer, so this seems unlikely. Possible, but unlikely.
This is unrelated to this, but it is absolutely insane to me that this has ended up overriding the really large news monday morning that Abbott was considering declaring an "invasion" in order to use war powers on the border
This is unrelated to this, but it is absolutely insane to me that this has ended up overriding the really large news monday morning that Abbott was considering declaring an "invasion" in order to use war powers on the border
I mean it should really, Abbott being a dickless child to trump up his number is small potatoes.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Let's be clear here: What Roberts etc are mad about is that this leaked before the midterm elections and wasn't done immediately afterwards like they would 100% be planning to have done. Everyone knew this was coming, but as long as there is that plausible deniability Republicans were well aware nobody would stand up and do anything until "Oh no, you mean electing assholes is a real problem!?!?!" but it wouldn't matter then, as they were counting on having both houses of congress.
Wasn’t this expected to be finished in June
Completed and released are different. I find it hard to believe they would drop this before a midterm election that Republicans are keen to get the biggest majority they can on. After, absolutely.
Let's be clear here: What Roberts etc are mad about is that this leaked before the midterm elections and wasn't done immediately afterwards like they would 100% be planning to have done. Everyone knew this was coming, but as long as there is that plausible deniability Republicans were well aware nobody would stand up and do anything until "Oh no, you mean electing assholes is a real problem!?!?!" but it wouldn't matter then, as they were counting on having both houses of congress.
Wasn’t this expected to be finished in June
Completed and released are different. I find it hard to believe they would drop this before a midterm election that Republicans are keen to get the biggest majority they can on. After, absolutely.
I can, they expect that the rage won't last into election season, but the high from "we finally banned abortion" to give their voters a boner well into 2024.
Betting on the democratic coalition to note vote in a mid year election is a pretty safe bet.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
edited May 2022
Leaking it now acclimates the public to the decision. There will be no fury by the time the midterms roll around - it's all getting spent now, and people will be burnt out. More than that, it absolutely locks in all of the conservative justices. They cannot and will not break lock step with Alito. They'd fear appearing to "sway to public opinion".
The GOP also doesn't have to worry about election results anymore, but that's a different thread.
“Plessy is, at its absolute core, a states’-rights case, in which the Court envisioned a notion of federalism so weak, so toothless, so bereft of substance that the federal government had no legitimate role in protecting Black people from states imposing racial segregation upon them,” Aderson Francois, a law professor at Georgetown University, told me. “This draft does the same thing: It envisions a notion of federalism so weak, so toothless, so bereft of substance that the federal government has no legitimate role in protecting women from states imposing forced births upon them.”
+11
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
This is something worth agitating over. If I were the planning sort I would be planning massive protests and bail money in September.
Leaking it now acclimates the public to the decision. There will be no fury by the time the midterms roll around - it's all getting spent now, and people will be burnt out. More than that, it absolutely locks in all of the conservative justices. They cannot and will not break lock step with Alito. They'd fear appearing to "sway to public opinion".
The GOP also doesn't have to worry about election results anymore, but that's a different thread.
Maybe, but the leak could bolster more determined opposition to the GOP project, and provide time for more mobilization. At the very least that would be the ideal outcome and we should try to make it so.
From that same Atlantic piece, what I think is more poignant:
The conservative movement has been working toward this victory for decades, and it has been made possible not simply by its determination and a few fortunate accidents, but by the haplessness of its opponents. Many in the center of the Democratic Party have been paralyzed by the belief that they might “do popular stuff” and coast to victory without having to get their hands dirty fighting the opposition, while its left-wing critics too often forget that democracy is an ongoing process, not a battle that ceases after casting the right vote once or twice. In both cases, the right has been fortunate in having opponents who argue themselves into complacency.
The overturning of Roe will create a backlash, although not necessarily one that today’s Democrats will profit from, given their aversion to conflict. A movement will eventually emerge to oppose the criminalization of abortion and the despotisms this draft would create, and perhaps some of its leaders are alive today. Whoever they are, they will understand, just as the right-wing activists who worked decades for this moment do, that the freedoms enjoyed by one generation can be stripped away by another.
Posts
In an ideal world, yes. In this world, well. John Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it.
Someone botching an illegal abortion is going to get charged with double homicide, ruining 3 lives.
edit: not a derail question, but like how would it affect the law, what's their stake in being charged if it's a Canadian doc, etc?
Now I wonder what happens when texas sends some slave catchers to california and they clash with authorities? What happens?
pleasepaypreacher.net
The Texas law already covers that whole idea by going after the clinic/doctor who performs the abortion financially and by making it a civil case, not a prosecution.
By doing this, it's going after the "Full Faith and Credit" clause which keeps all the states working together by having them acknowledge their various, separate laws. Why you only need to get one driver license from where you reside, for instance. Or how car insurance will follow you from state to state.
It's the same tactic used way back when for the Fugitive Slave Act. A "give us what we want or we end the union" kind of deal. Which is pretty despicable. Then again, remember those behind the pro-birth movement are racists still mad about being forced to share their church schools with Black kids. Age hasn't diminished their cause and as society has become more secular, it has only emboldened them to more extreme positions. Such as birth control pills are abortion pills. Or that a cluster of undifferentiated cells are a heart when it's no such thing.
These aren't rational people who foresee disaster in getting what they want. They see paradise.
As an aside, I just love that we're actually having to think and talk about stuff like this in the 21st goddamn century.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Making abortion illegal does not decrease the number of abortions, merely the number of safe abortions.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It's not Canada's job to enforce Texas' laws, and it's not a Canadian's duty to follow them.
But this isn't about any specific law, to be clear - the thing being overturned is the blanket protection on abortion as a right (which wasn't blanket, but come on, I'm dealing with English here, cut me some slack). The issue is that dealing with abortion will be left to the states, and a lot of states have some bad ideas.
I did know this, but thank you, it helps to hear it again so I know I'm getting good info. So would it be worth getting petitions together to the Canadian Embassy in the US? I get "pack up and move" doesn't exist for everyone, I'm not saying that. That's bad.
I am saying that the option to pack up and move is a fuck of a lot better in 2022 post pandemic than it was 20 years ago. Like now might be a good time to seek asylum, if that's how the process would work.
So I guess it was more "what can we do to get Canada to change laws if we can't get the US to, and then Canada can just let us in like one of the Purge movies"
Certainly women will need to consent to regular testing to confirm they are not pregnant if they wish to travel to a state which does not practice enforced pregnancy as a punishment for sexual activity. Women should expect to have to carry additional identification to prove that they have a recent negative pregnancy test before being allowed to leave the borders. Women will also need additional searches and seizures of any communication with women in free states, for fear that abortion pills could be smuggled across state lines.
If the Founders had wanted women to travel across state lines they would have made an amendment
I doubt there will any official reaction to this till there's an actual ruling. And even it's likely to just be "this is terrible" and that's it.
The PM put out a tweet that another Canadian called "this is Canadian for "what the fuck is wrong with you"
The Cons have started more openly talking about this issue so the US deciding to make it a big thing probably helps shine a light on their bullshit.
No.
This is a supreme court decision being overturned by the supreme court themselves. What they give, they can take away. Attempts to overturn this decision via executive Order fail in favor of the courts due to separation of powers.
It wouldn't be effective anyways, since this merely orders that laws on the books stand, not any real action on the federal governments part. If the court ordered the Federal government to enforce those laws, he could refuse to do so, but even that is suspect. IANAL, but once this rulling comes down; Roe v Wade is dead and Biden is stuck on the sidelines.
And Gay rights will follow.
13 states have already passed trigger laws that will in some way restrict or outright ban abortions when RvW is overturned.
What kinds of penalties do these laws carry?
I feel pretty confident now that SCOTUS as an institution is something that needs to stop existing. It's purely to maintain minoritarian rule. They annoit themselves kings of what is True and Just and wield that power how they see fit no matter the logic or law used or its ramifications. Interning Japanese is OK cause we say so, enslaving black people is OK cause we say so. Congress overstepped on X,Y,Z cause we say so. This constitutional amendment isn't real cause we say so. It's all complete fucking horseshit and always has been.
I keep thinking back to 2018 when a professor in grad school said unironically that [the Trump admin] is not the worst in our history and that things are pretty good across the board. That the 1960s (and 1860s) were far worse for this country. And I keep thinking about that, and the 4 years since, and think "yeah, really? you still think that now given the trajectory we're on?" Absurd. Like, what split the country apart for the civil war? Arguably the Dred Scott v. Sandford case SCOTUS ruled on.
All I think of is Yeats, a falconer, and a rough beast.
It varies and I don't know them all; Utah, my state, only provides exceptions for rape, incest, mother's life or severe bodily function impairment, or if two fetal development experts sign off that the fetus is non-viable due to severe defect.
Edit: forgot to actually answer your question: it's a 2nd degree felony.
Let's be clear here: What Roberts etc are mad about is that this leaked before the midterm elections and wasn't done immediately afterwards like they would 100% be planning to have done. Everyone knew this was coming, but as long as there is that plausible deniability Republicans were well aware nobody would stand up and do anything until "Oh no, you mean electing assholes is a real problem!?!?!" but it wouldn't matter then, as they were counting on having both houses of congress.
100%, man.
This is a dark fucking time.
Wasn’t this expected to be finished in June
Decisions in February would normally be released around summer, so this seems unlikely. Possible, but unlikely.
[bites thumb, blows into hole, inflates hand to the size of a three story feeling, erects middle finger]
But like anyone else from west virginia that would be elected would be worse than he is and that's saying something.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I mean it should really, Abbott being a dickless child to trump up his number is small potatoes.
pleasepaypreacher.net
And I am!
Completed and released are different. I find it hard to believe they would drop this before a midterm election that Republicans are keen to get the biggest majority they can on. After, absolutely.
I can, they expect that the rage won't last into election season, but the high from "we finally banned abortion" to give their voters a boner well into 2024.
Betting on the democratic coalition to note vote in a mid year election is a pretty safe bet.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The GOP also doesn't have to worry about election results anymore, but that's a different thread.
On the other hand is this piece from Adam Serwer at the Atlantic with a quote that I find very insightful to tie this to the history of this cursed country:
What a useless, feckless old man
You don’t even have to do the thing (because you can’t)! Just say that you would support Congress taking that action
GAHHHHH
Source: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/05/03/politics/joe-biden-draft-supreme-court-opinion/index.html
Burn in hell, Joe