|
porfiria posted:The gop won’t outlaw divorce how rofl Newt Gingrich would commit seppuku (unless they legalize polygamy). No fault divorce wasn't a thing nationwide in the USA until 2010. They absolutely want to trap women into marriages.
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
porfiria posted:The gop won’t outlaw divorce how rofl Newt Gingrich would commit seppuku (unless they legalize polygamy). Divorce for me, not for three. They'd totally outlaw it if they could because they live by a different ruleset than the rest of us. Much like Abortion: the GOP and its politicians totally get abortions or provide them to their family. Outlawing abortion is about us, not them.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:26
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I'm not saying they have the ability to do it this year, but the poster I was responding to seemed to think it wasn't legally doable even if you had enough senators to make Manchin and Sinema irrelevant. Sorry, I agree with you. I wasn't clear. porfiria posted:The gop won’t outlaw divorce how rofl Newt Gingrich would commit seppuku (unless they legalize polygamy). I don't know that they'll necessarily succeed, but my point is that the wing of the party agitating for this poo poo won't ever run out of stuff to try to ban. They will push and push and push until we're all living in Gilead.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
porfiria posted:The gop won’t outlaw divorce how rofl Newt Gingrich would commit seppuku (unless they legalize polygamy). The law is only as strong as its enforcement. We have people in power break laws every single day and get away with it in broad daylight because the enforcers deliberately choose not to do their job. See: corporate malfeasance, cops getting away with murder, politicians insider trading, etc. Just LOL if you think this abortion thing will end with a single wealthy person ever being punished for getting an abortion. They aren't making laws for themselves anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:40
|
|
|
As I said earlier in the thread, even if there was a federal law protecting abortion this court would have no difficulty striking it down following the Lopez and Morrison cases. Morrison, appropriately for this discussion struck down provisions of the Violence Against Women Act on the grounds that violence against women, even in the aggregate, has only an indirect effect on interstate commerce and that it was an attempt by Congress to regulate areas of traditional state concern. It would be quite trivial to extend this argument to abortion, since Roe itself concedes that a state has an interest in fetal life.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1521344951317110785 https://twitter.com/Johnson_DavidW/status/1521315732725792770 I'm starting to hear things about how this might be a right wing leak meant to pressure one of the conservative Justices to go full Alito, instead of repealing Roe in a still ghoulish but slightly less blatant way.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:43
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:As I said earlier in the thread, even if there was a federal law protecting abortion this court would have no difficulty striking it down following the Lopez and Morrison cases. Morrison, appropriately for this discussion struck down provisions of the Violence Against Women Act on the grounds that violence against women, even in the aggregate, has only an indirect effect on interstate commerce and that it was an attempt by Congress to regulate areas of traditional state concern. It would be quite trivial to extend this argument to abortion, since Roe itself concedes that a state has an interest in fetal life. Just do a thing where the remains of the US treasury goes to relocating anyone to the state of their choice, divide the country up, and make 2 new countries because if we're going back to "state's rights" determining civil rights, we're done anyhow
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:45
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:I'm starting to hear things off the meds again? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:47
|
|
|
Do we know for sure it was leaked? Maybe it fell out of Alito's pocket in the parking lot.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:47
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:This is the same Obama who offered to kill Social Security in 2015 and it failed because Republicans didn't think it went far enough, right? That Obama? The guy who made toothless non-statements after the Shelby County ruling in 2013 where everyone knew it was going to lead to an immediate and massive crackdown on voting rights by the GOP? So, it's entirely possible I'm missing things in the draft opinion since I'm phoneposting and can't read it yet, but even in Alito's draft the snippet I've seen going around claiming he lined up a bunch of other target decisions is followed by a less shared  snippet where he explicitly says "these are all safe, it's using them to justify abortion law that was unfounded".
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:So, it's entirely possible I'm missing things in the draft opinion since I'm phoneposting and can't read it yet, but even in Alito's draft the snippet I've seen going around claiming he lined up a bunch of other target decisions is followed by a less shared The only differentiation he provides is that abortion is of grave moral concern and the others are not.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:52
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:So, it's entirely possible I'm missing things in the draft opinion since I'm phoneposting and can't read it yet, but even in Alito's draft the snippet I've seen going around claiming he lined up a bunch of other target decisions is followed by a less shared he's lying op
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:55
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:he's lying op
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1521344951317110785 The conservative clerk leak theory feels like 12-dimensional chess bullshit. Leaking a draft decision for a landmark case introduces political and interpersonal chaos at the 11th hour. If the leak were traced to that clerk the other conservative justices are going to be PISSED and it could break down their relationship to the point that future decisions fall apart. I think if you're a clerk considering a leak you would be smart enough to take those things into consideration. Even a theoretical lite version of the Alito draft is still a big win, are you going to risk wrecking the inner workers of what is now a powerful vehicle for your ideology (the 6-3 SCOTUS) and your own career to try to strong-arm justice #5 into signing off on this specific draft? I don't think so.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:00
|
|
|
This could be anything from an activist who has had access to a clerk's shittily-managed Office365 account for years, to a deliberately by dissenting Justice or clerk, to a careless leak by a certain justice's Big Lie neonazi wife. Who loving knows
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:06
|
|
|
You can create a motive for anyone for the leak - it really will not be solved this way. Just off the top of my head, I came up with a few totally different motives. * 4D chess by the hard right justices to pressure them to commit to this hard core version of it * Libs trying to give Dems more time to fundraise or pass a law * Roberts trying to push the hard right justices to see how wildly unpopular it would be * Roberts and/or the hard right justices leaking this insane decision to show how they 'compromised' and only made it a 15 week ban in the final decision.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:11
|
|
|
Charity Porno posted:The law is only as strong as its enforcement. We have people in power break laws every single day and get away with it in broad daylight because the enforcers deliberately choose not to do their job. See: corporate malfeasance, cops getting away with murder, politicians insider trading, etc. They've already achieved this with the IRS.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:13
|
|
|
Nobody outside of SCOTUS nerds gives the slightest gently caress about the leak. Most people are talking about this as if the final decision was already handed down. It's an issue of discussion for this thread, not much outside of it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
I'm becoming more convinced by the minute it was leaked by Ginni Thomas or some other Federalist ghoul.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Nobody outside of SCOTUS nerds gives the slightest gently caress about the leak. Most people are talking about this as if the final decision was already handed down. ACTUALLY Mitch McConnell is very upset about it. https://twitter.com/jonbernhardt/status/1521574281712386048?t=o_TqVBlUxpXMAIAP3iEh5w&s=19
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:26
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:he's lying op Basically this, with an extra dose of "it's Alito and his opinions don't even need to be internally consistent, let alone consistent with precedent." He realized that the obvious objection to his dumbshit argument was that it could be trivially applied to more or less every decent thing the Supreme Court has ever done, and so he plastered on a fig leaf justification for why he isn't worried about all that stuff (even though it's all stuff he's previously written should be overturned). The moment he thinks there are four other justices to overturn Lawrence or Obergefell or Griswold, Alito's got a shoddy rewrite of this exact opinion ready to go for it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:43
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Basically this, with an extra dose of "it's Alito and his opinions don't even need to be internally consistent, let alone consistent with precedent." He realized that the obvious objection to his dumbshit argument was that it could be trivially applied to more or less every decent thing the Supreme Court has ever done, and so he plastered on a fig leaf justification for why he isn't worried about all that stuff (even though it's all stuff he's previously written should be overturned). The moment? Buddy its already here
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:48
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:No need to change course. As long as some blue states still allow abortion they can keep fighting that same good fight, keep beating that same old drum. And now they can rightfully claim they're making progress. Members of the SCOTUS, not just right wing politicians, have openly called for fetal personhood. Either they're going to issue a ruling (this or a later one when someone sues a blue state that allows abortion) that establishes it unless the GOP beats them to it by passing a federal law in 2025. GreyjoyBastard posted:So, it's entirely possible I'm missing things in the draft opinion since I'm phoneposting and can't read it yet, but even in Alito's draft the snippet I've seen going around claiming he lined up a bunch of other target decisions is followed by a less shared Would it surprise you to learn that Samuel Alito is a piece of poo poo who lies when it's convenient? Especially since that snippet has multiple things he's openly stated he wants to see overturned. He's not saying "these are safe" he's signaling those are the next targets after Roe.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:57
|
|
|
In dnd, in order to be a mod you have to be one of the dumbest motherfuckers alive (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:00
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:The moment? Buddy its already here Let me amend: the moment he has four willing to sign on with him and a case in front of them. Until then it's all wink wink stuff, they still want to go to the occasional fancy party in Northwest after all.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Let me amend: the moment he has four willing to sign on with him and a case in front of them. Until then it's all wink wink stuff, they still want to go to the occasional fancy party in Northwest after all. Charity Porno posted:The law is only as strong as its enforcement. We have people in power break laws every single day and get away with it in broad daylight because the enforcers deliberately choose not to do their job. See: corporate malfeasance, cops getting away with murder, politicians insider trading, etc. They'll still be welcome at said parties.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:14
|
|
|
Dameius posted:GOP picked up abortion because they were forced to integrate schools. We have centuries of discrimination to roll back on as red meat for the base. Won't be surprised if we see a Brown v. Board challenge with this court.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:25
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Let me amend: the moment he has four willing to sign on with him and a case in front of them. Until then it's all wink wink stuff, they still want to go to the occasional fancy party in Northwest after all. Theyll still be able to go!! Thats the thing, until the people get fed up, no consequences will happen And no, voting isnt the consequence
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:The conservative clerk leak theory feels like 12-dimensional chess bullshit. Leaking a draft decision for a landmark case introduces political and interpersonal chaos at the 11th hour. If the leak were traced to that clerk the other conservative justices are going to be PISSED and it could break down their relationship to the point that future decisions fall apart. I think if you're a clerk considering a leak you would be smart enough to take those things into consideration. Even a theoretical lite version of the Alito draft is still a big win, are you going to risk wrecking the inner workers of what is now a powerful vehicle for your ideology (the 6-3 SCOTUS) and your own career to try to strong-arm justice #5 into signing off on this specific draft? I don't think so. I'm not trying to argue that this is somehow a good or "better" outcome than Roe being overturned; abortion would be hosed either way. But SCOTUS and especially the conservative justices famously do not give a single poo poo about public opinion, so I don't see how leaking the draft would actually sway any of the justices' votes in either direction. They all already know how both sides would react to Roe being overturned.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Divorce for me, not for three. They'd totally outlaw it if they could because they live by a different ruleset than the rest of us. Much like Abortion: the GOP and its politicians totally get abortions or provide them to their family. Outlawing abortion is about us, not them. Yep. Same as their draconian anti-drug laws never stopped GOP congressmen from going full scale nose-skiing in mountains of cocaine. It's about control, not morals.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:42
|
|
|
I would love to see at least one poster ITT grapple with the legal reasoning of the opinion, page after page of outrage about it is pretty boring.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:I would love to see at least one poster ITT grapple with the legal reasoning of the opinion, page after page of outrage about it is pretty boring. There isn't much to grapple?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:50
|
|
|
There isn't any legal reasoning. It's tens of pages of lol you dont see the word abortion or privacy in the constitution so Jesus is Lord lol
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:51
|
|
|
"Didn't read lol" has fewer words than both of those posts
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:53
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Theyll still be able to go!! Thats the thing, until the people get fed up, no consequences will happen Well, then, for some reason Alito felt the need to claim in his opinion that sure, maybe it could theoretically apply to same sex marriage or contraception, but it didn't and you shouldn't worry about it, even though both you and I know that he's lying through his teeth. It seems like he thinks there's some value in keeping up that pretense, even if you don't think so.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:54
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:"Didn't read lol" has fewer words than both of those posts What are you trying to accomplish here? You know YOU could "grapple with it" right?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:54
|
|
|
My understanding is that Roe v Wade was already a mess of a legal judgement. It was prescriptive in a kinda arbitrary way, and some progressive jurists themselves think it doesn’t hold much water. Why do the conservative justices need to take a spacebrain Jesus approach to the overturning? What are they shooting for?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:56
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:My understanding is that Roe v Wade was already a mess of a legal judgement. It was prescriptive in a kinda arbitrary way, and some progressive jurists themselves think it doesn’t hold much water. They saw Handmaid's Tale as aspirational?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:57
|
|
|
Charity Porno posted:What are you trying to accomplish here? You know YOU could "grapple with it" right? I believe the correct response is: "grapple with this" and display a gesture of choice, but unsure if that's a response in good faith given a lack of specificity in the rules.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:I would love to see at least one poster ITT grapple with the legal reasoning of the opinion, page after page of outrage about it is pretty boring. Be the legal analysis you want to see in the thread.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 00:00
|
|