|
azflyboy posted:There might be an impact on the number of "moderate" voters for the GOP a few years down the line, as the consequences of overturning Roe get more clear, but by that point, SCOTUS will have allowed more than enough voter suppression and generally undermined democracy enough that it's not going to have any impact on what the GOP actually controls. A few years down the line will be after the GOP has instituted their new Jim Crow laws in enough states to secure minority rule for the foreseeable future. Especially after next year when the Dems are going to get blown the gently caress out in every state that isn't deep blue. There is no legal course of action available to stop the US's slide into a 2nd world theocracy and eventual dictatorship because enough shithead Dems feel they'll be just fine in the new order.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 14:57 |
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:I keep thinking of that video of Biden telling a group of Hispanic voters “fine! You go vote for Trump then!” when they said they were unhappy with his promise to keep deporting people with criminal records. Spend your money and time and franchise on leftist organizations you are most aligned with at every opportunity except for general elections, vote the least bad viable option in the general elections. Help teach any children you interact with to have empathy and practice critical thinking skills. Make contingency plans to whatever extent you are capable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:There is no legal course of action available to stop the US's slide into a 2nd world theocracy and eventual dictatorship because enough shithead Dems feel they'll be just fine in the new order.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:I know Trump isn't the cause of all of this, but it's hilarious that the biggest idiot alive solidified a Republican SCOTUS for the next 40 years. I think the "credit" here goes to Mitch McConnell, not Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
The unbridled hubris of the 2016 Democrats should also take a bow here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't really see how overturning Roe would hurt the GOP or reinvigorate the Democrats. Let's look at the groups with a stake in this
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:32
|
|
"
|
Yeah human garbage Turtleface would have just kept the senate from even discussing any new judge nominations throughout a Clinton presidency, regardless of how many more seats opened up. It’s just that he got to actually appoint them now on the off chance the Senate fell out of his control. Best of all worlds for him and his weird Republican boner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
Do you think Hillary would have been able to seat any justices, or would President Cruz have done three simultaneously in 2020? I honestly don’t know how to imagine it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
gvibes posted:I am wondering if republican state legislative overreach in fairly purple states could push some people democrat's way in national elections. Maybe? Like a Wisconsin or Michigan or something like that. Wisconsin is already so solidly rigged in the GOP's favor that the level of Democratic advantage that would break their hold is probably unreachable. It would take more than every swing voter in the state voting blue for the legislature to change hands, there would have to be blue waves in areas that historically and demographically do not ever produce them
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:Do you think Hillary would have been able to seat any justices, or would President Cruz have done three simultaneously in 2020? Cruz would have never beat Hillary in a million years. We should have been so lucky.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:Do you think Hillary would have been able to seat any justices, or would President Cruz have done three simultaneously in 2020? Kennedy would have waited to retire until at least this year
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
gvibes posted:I am wondering if republican state legislative overreach in fairly purple states could push some people democrat's way in national elections. Maybe? Like a Wisconsin or Michigan or something like that. Assuming the court completely overturns Roe, state level elections will matter more than federal ones (since abortion restrictions/bans are going to be up to the states), and even if it did boost Democrat turnout in some states, gerrymandering means they likely won't hold the House for more than 2 years at a time, and there's no way in hell the Democrats ever get 60 votes in the Senate. azflyboy fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Dec 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
America won't last another five years anyway, so the conservative victory will be short lived.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
Is SCOTUS going to pretend to have a non-religious reason for abolishing abortion?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:Cruz would have never beat Hillary in a million years. We should have been so lucky. After four years of Hillary? I guess maybe Trump could still be popular if he kept posting through it for a whole term.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:50
|
|
|
Crass Casualty posted:America won't last another five years anyway, so the conservative victory will be short lived. I never really understand this about pro-rich Republican shills. Once the warlord fiefdoms spring up from the ruins of federal government, they’re all like third up against the wall after all of dem gayz and liburals. Of course these are the same people who don’t believe in climate change even though I am sure high-end government peeps are probably the fourth most informed on it after the president, the military, and billionaires.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Is SCOTUS going to pretend to have a non-religious reason for abolishing abortion? As much as some of the justices want to ban abortion, the most likely "worst case" is that they'll simply reverse Roe and leave the decision to the states. If that's all they do, they can simply use "The Constitution doesn't mention abortion, argle blargle, originalism, argle blargle" as the logic behind overturning precident.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Is SCOTUS going to pretend to have a non-religious reason for abolishing abortion? It's going to be slowly expanding what counts as a 'reasonable' restriction with a one-way ratchet [ed. note, all ratchets are one-way] until states are permitted to effectively ban abortions by implementing the suite of 'reasonable' restrictions. I think the following battle will be about crossing state lines into blue states to obtain abortion services, or access to abortion drugs via tele-health or underground tele-health.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
When they get rid of Roe, that will make it easier to go after other ‘right to privacy’ cases, would it not? I feel like this is just the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
Laws are just words on a page making Murder legal the SCOTUS decided in 6-3 decision.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:59
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:When they get rid of Roe, that will make it easier to go after other ‘right to privacy’ cases, would it not? I feel like this is just the beginning. SCOTUS' right wing does not give a poo poo about consistency of their legal theories, they care about ideological results. They will enshrine the right to privacy in cases that reach a right wing result, and the next day eviscerate the right to privacy it when it doesn't (e.g. access to birth control).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:59
|
|
|
Devor posted:It's going to be slowly expanding what counts as a 'reasonable' restriction with a one-way ratchet [ed. note, all ratchets are one-way] until states are permitted to effectively ban abortions by implementing the suite of 'reasonable' restrictions. This is the best case scenario that happens if Roberts manages to sway one of the other chuds to his position. (Roberts is the only one wants this) Most likely scenario is a ruling that states can ban abortion if they want to, and half the states immediately do so. (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett are here) Worst case, very unlikely but not entirely impossible is a fetal personhood ruling that makes all abortions illegal. (Alito and Thomas want this)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 20:10
|
|
|
Piell posted:Worst case, very unlikely but not entirely impossible is a fetal personhood ruling that makes all abortions illegal. (Alito and Thomas want this) This, except Barrett as a ultra-fundamentalist catholic should also be counted in this group. IMO, it’s really down to Gorsuch to save us from fetal personhood
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
Maybe his libertarian side realizes that he should keep abortion legal so his fellow libertarians can terminate pregnancies from their underage girlfriends?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:I know Trump isn't the cause of all of this, but it's hilarious that the biggest idiot alive solidified a Republican SCOTUS for the next 40 years. McConnell did that, not Trump. And RBG, because at the end of the day she was an arrogant and selfish person. azflyboy posted:Assuming the court completely overturns Roe, state level elections will matter more than federal ones (since abortion restrictions/bans are going to be up to the states), and even if it did boost Democrat turnout in some states, gerrymandering means they likely won't hold the House for more than 2 years at a time, and there's no way in hell the Democrats ever get 60 votes in the Senate. The SCOTUS can say that, but if a GOP held US Congress and POTUS pass a federal law prohibiting abortion there is abso-loving-lutely zero chance of the SCOTUS overturning that with a "we said it's up to the states, not you" decision. They will either reject any challenge outright unless they have to overturn an appeals court that struck it down or issue a ruling that it's fine for the feds to outlaw it nationwide because gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
Piell posted:This is the best case scenario that happens if Roberts manages to sway one of the other chuds to his position. (Roberts is the only one wants this) Although I feel like the GOP would be able to get away with a Roe removal more than trying to enshrine fetal personhood into law
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
I read this but felt very confused: https://twitter.com/RMFifthCircuit/status/1466039071604682752 Am I right to think that he's saying that: - Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor are definitely voting to keep Roe in place and for there to be no change from the current situation - Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas are definitely voting to overturn Roe and eliminate the right to seek an abortion (which would allow states that have laws banning abortions to enforce those laws) - John Roberts is indicating that he wants to partially overturn Roe by narrowing the right to seek an abortion to only cases where the pregnancy is not medically considered viable yet (so, ~24 weeks) - Amy Coney Barrett is somewhere between Alito's group and Roberts So the final decision will probably either be 5-4 with the liberals + Roberts + Barrett narrowing Roe or 5-4 with the conservatives (minus Roberts) overturning it entirely?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
Edit: misread something, nevermind
azflyboy fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Dec 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 21:08
|
|
|
Isn't Casey the controlling case? They'd be overturning that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 21:16
|
|
|
surf rock posted:I read this but felt very confused: https://twitter.com/RMFifthCircuit/status/1466039071604682752 The two most likely options are a) 5-4 of the chuds minus Roberts killing Roe, or B) 6-3 chuds ruling led by Roberts where he convinces one of the chuds that entirely overturning Roe is a bad idea and just "narrows" the right to an abortion to the point where effectively any restriction on abortion is allowed but it is technically legal. In case A, abortion is illegal in half the states in 6 months. Case B means poo poo like 6 week abortion bans where you have to go in five different times which make it effectively illegal. Groovelord Neato posted:Isn't Casey the controlling case? They'd be overturning that. In the overturn scenario then Roe is the correct case, as that's where it was determined that there is a right to an abortion. In the "narrowing" scenario you are correct, Casey is the controlling case Piell fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Dec 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Isn't Casey the controlling case? They'd be overturning that. Overturning Casey would expand abortion rights because Casey limited some of the holdings in Roe and introduced an interest balancing test. If you want to get rid of abortion rights you have to overturn the reasoning in Roe that was upheld in Casey Or go further back and overturn Griswold if you're tired of single women getting turned into drunken whores by The Pill
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
surf rock posted:I read this but felt very confused: https://twitter.com/RMFifthCircuit/status/1466039071604682752 24 weeks is the current limit. States can absolutely limit past that point right now. Roberts wants it at 15 weeks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
I've seen Griswold get mentioned, but are there any serious legal challenges where people are trying to overturn it? Obviously, there's various fundamentalist Protestant and Catholic groups that think birth control makes Supply Side Jesus sad, but I hadn't heard about any serious attempts to get Griswold to the Supreme Court again. Of course, if the court does completely overturn Roe, I'm sure it provides ammunition to the crazies wanting to outlaw birth control, but that may be a step too far for even this court.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Of course, if the court does completely overturn Roe, I'm sure it provides ammunition to the crazies wanting to outlaw birth control, but that may be a step too far for even this court. Not necessarily outlaw, just push it back to state level. While I can see them outlawing abortion by discovering fetal personhood in the constitution, I can’t come up with even a theoretical path to outlawing birth control
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
morothar posted:Not necessarily outlaw, just push it back to state level. While I can see them outlawing abortion by discovering fetal personhood in the constitution, I can’t come up with even a theoretical path to outlawing birth control It isn't about outlawing it outright - it's about kicking it to the states. If the reasoning is wrong in Roe, it is wrong in Griswold.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 21:48
|
|
|
"Leave it up to the states" sure, but would the Mann act still outlaw going across state lines to get an abortion?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 21:55
|
|
|
Like oak trees in the age of sail; the government has a compelling interest in ensuring an ample supply of soldiers for future wars….
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:"Leave it up to the states" sure, but would the Mann act still outlaw going across state lines to get an abortion? Also doesn’t Texas law include people in state who help someone travel to an abortion out of state as someone who can be sued?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
freeasinbeer posted:Also doesn’t Texas law include people in state who help someone travel to an abortion out of state as someone who can be sued?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 14:57 |
|
|
azflyboy posted:I've seen Griswold get mentioned, but are there any serious legal challenges where people are trying to overturn it? it's mainly a matter of thinking two steps ahead. most of the logic protecting griswold from being overturned also protects roe and casey, and the people who want to overturn roe also want to overturn griswold
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 22:31
|
|