Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

[wareyin]

The whole angle that these justices were dishonest is abject nonsense even were it based on more than hurt feelings. It's a pretty vivid example of the liberal "have the fascists arrested on a technicality" obsession.

I do wonder how those Justices would look on someone testifying under oath before them who deliberately gave misleading answers to hide the truth? Would anyone be held in contempt or charged with perjury as a "technicality"?

 

[cosmicaug]

And this is supposed to be solid evidence that in 2022, 8 years later, religious beliefs have remained the same or increased,
[...]

Please present evidence of this.

 

[cosmicaug]

This will be a sh*tshow:

Biden signs executive order aimed at safeguarding abortion rights
By Donald Judd and Kate Sullivan, CNN
Updated 12:32 PM EDT, Fri July 8, 2022


(CNN) — President Joe Biden signed an executive order Friday aimed at protecting abortion rights in response to the landmark decision by the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.

“I’m asking the Justice Department, that much like they did in the civil rights era, to do something, to do everything in their power to protect these women seeking to invoke their rights,” Biden said at the White House, standing alongside Vice President Kamala Harris and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra.

The President on Friday derided the Supreme Court’s decision as “extreme” and “totally wrongheaded,” saying, “What we’re witnessing wasn’t a constitutional judgment, it was an exercise in raw political power.”

The President said the fastest way to restore abortion rights was for the American people to elect more members of Congress in November’s midterm elections who will support federal legislation protecting abortion access.

Biden said it was his “hope and strong belief that women will in fact turn out in record numbers to reclaim the rights that have been taken from them by the court.”

“Let me be clear, while I wish it had not come to this, this is the fastest route available,” Biden said.

There is no action the President can take to restore the nationwide right to an abortion in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Biden has acknowledged publicly his options to expand abortion access remain limited.

[...]

If it doesn't get fixed legislatively at the national level, trying to just address it with executive orders is just going to very quickly end up climbing up the judicial ladder until it hits the SCOTUS which will swat it down.

 

[wareyin]

Please present evidence of this.

Evidence that 2022 is 8 years later than 2014?


Or evidence for Zig's claim, that we're all disputing, that a 2014 religious survey is good evidence for beliefs about abortion today? Because...I can't provide evidence for that. I don't believe it's true. Given the 7 point drop between 2007 and 2014, I'm fairly certain that the same survey conducted today would show fewer religious adherents.

 

[Suddenly]

I think the fact that Thomas invited challenges to same sex marriage and contraception belies your argument.

I mean, it's Thomas. He lost it a while back.


It has been SOP for appellate judges to note the long term implications of a decision. Usually aren't quite that blatant about inviting challenges though.

 

[xjx388]

Evidence that 2022 is 8 years later than 2014?


Or evidence for Zig's claim, that we're all disputing, that a 2014 religious survey is good evidence for beliefs about abortion today? Because...I can't provide evidence for that. I don't believe it's true. Given the 7 point drop between 2007 and 2014, I'm fairly certain that the same survey conducted today would show fewer religious adherents.

I'm sure that's true, but even if people aren't adherents of a particular religion anymore, they often retain many of the religious ideas.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

This will be a sh*tshow:



If it doesn't get fixed legislatively at the national level, trying to just address it with executive orders is just going to very quickly end up climbing up the judicial ladder until it hits the SCOTUS which will swat it down.

I don't think so. The alt-right judges on the Court love themselves some Executive Power - they will be reluctant to set precedent curtail, when they can instead just make sure that their guy will undo it on the first day in office.

 

[wareyin]

I'm sure that's true, but even if people aren't adherents of a particular religion anymore, they often retain many of the religious ideas.

When people leave a religion, they tend to stop following it's proscriptions, and they certainly stop attempting to force those religious beliefs on others.

 

[Suddenly]

I do wonder how those Justices would look on someone testifying under oath before them who deliberately gave misleading answers to hide the truth? Would anyone be held in contempt or charged with perjury as a "technicality"?

If a person is currently swinging an axe at your head and you object and your defense against this is because they said that they had no plans to cut your head off, well, that's about what is going on here.

I'm not going to ever defend these judges in general. The point is that an awful lot of people are fixating on something that, ironically, was an example of behavior that wasn't unethical.

There is no formalist answer to questions about Roe besides acknowledging it is settled law and will be treated as such. Same about the value of precedent.

 

[Suddenly]

I don't think so. The alt-right judges on the Court love themselves some Executive Power - they will be reluctant to set precedent curtail, when they can instead just make sure that their guy will undo it on the first day in office.

That's the Justice Roberts approach. The new gang isn't exactly into that and will shamelessly now rule curtailing that power and then later rule expanding it when it suits them.

 

[Segnosaur]

These justices being transparent about future rulings would be completely contrary to the "balls and strikes" mindset that is part of a formalist/originialist outlook and on top of that would be unethical.

The only thing they can do is respond in generalities because otherwise they are testifying that they will approach cases with a closed mind.

You are right that in theory a judge should avoid approaching a case with a 'closed mind'.

However, to some of us there is a difference between:

"We heard a case that was unique, and the lawyers pleading the case made some compelling arguments"

and....

"We jumped on the first abortion case that came along, that wasn't really unique in any way, in order to take away women's rights. Our decision was written by a guy who claimed that the original Roe decision was wrong, and the reasoning behind it is complete bunk (citing a centuries-old 'expert' who prosecuted witches, and making a claim that 'women won't be harmed')".

One of those examples illustrates a judge exhibiting an open mind in coming to their decision. The other illustrates judges who were close-minded and were always going to rule against abortion rights, regardless of whatever they claimed about it being "settled law".

I believe the 3 Trump appointees lied during their confirmation hearings. However, I do recognize that there is no way to build any sort of legal case against them for perjury, or to have them impeached. (Note however that I think a case could be made against Drunky McRapeface for perjury during his testimony, but for other reasons.)

 

[cosmicaug]

Evidence that 2022 is 8 years later than 2014?


Or evidence for Zig's claim, that we're all disputing, that a 2014 religious survey is good evidence for beliefs about abortion today? Because...I can't provide evidence for that. I don't believe it's true. Given the 7 point drop between 2007 and 2014, I'm fairly certain that the same survey conducted today would show fewer religious adherents.

I think I misread your comment and was asking for what you too were asking: evidence that religiosity has been increasing anywhere in the USA.

 

[Random]

I don't think so. The alt-right judges on the Court love themselves some Executive Power - they will be reluctant to set precedent curtail, when they can instead just make sure that their guy will undo it on the first day in office.

Precedent is meaningless to this bunch. They decide the answer they want, then they backfill the legal-sounding justification. If there is a conflict between their rulings, they just find some arbitrary difference, no matter how small, and use that to explain away their hypocrisy.

The Supreme Court is an unelected political Super-Legislature, not neutral arbiters of the law.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Expect baiting Conservative Hissyfitting about the evils of Executive Orders any second now.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Don't you get it? Nobody asked the direct question!!!

How can you say, "you didn't volunteer the workings of your mind therefore you lied" ?

Don't you get it, they all knew damn well they would overturn Roe the first chance they got.

The reason they were not asked directly (if they weren't) is because the Senators know that answer: "I cannot address anything specific" or something to that effect. So the Senators were asking the only questions they knew they could get an answer to.

The members lied because they knew full well their answers were purposefully deceptive. You can bitch all you want that technically blah blah blah It doesn't change the fact THEY LIED.

 

[cosmicaug]

I don't think so. The alt-right judges on the Court love themselves some Executive Power - they will be reluctant to set precedent curtail, when they can instead just make sure that their guy will undo it on the first day in office.

Seems... doubtful.

Conservatives stopped loving unitary executive theory as soon as Obama took office & they learned to love it again as soon as Trump took office. These 6 conservatives are not special, just because they happen to hold the highest judicial appointment in the land, and will follow the same pattern.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I do wonder how those Justices would look on someone testifying under oath before them who deliberately gave misleading answers to hide the truth? Would anyone be held in contempt or charged with perjury as a "technicality"?

Yes, Bill Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." and then claimed he defined sexual relations as including an emotional involvement.

 

[Suddenly]

You are right that in theory a judge should avoid approaching a case with a 'closed mind'.

However, to some of us there is a difference between:

"We heard a case that was unique, and the lawyers pleading the case made some compelling arguments"

and....

"We jumped on the first abortion case that came along, that wasn't really unique in any way, in order to take away women's rights. Our decision was written by a guy who claimed that the original Roe decision was wrong, and the reasoning behind it is complete bunk (citing a centuries-old 'expert' who prosecuted witches, and making a claim that 'women won't be harmed')".

One of those examples illustrates a judge exhibiting an open mind in coming to their decision. The other illustrates judges who were close-minded and were always going to rule against abortion rights, regardless of whatever they claimed about it being "settled law".

I believe the 3 Trump appointees lied during their confirmation hearings. However, I do recognize that there is no way to build any sort of legal case against them for perjury, or to have them impeached. (Note however that I think a case could be made against Drunky McRapeface for perjury during his testimony, but for other reasons.)

Taking their answers at face value is formalistic pretense at it's most naked and shameless, yes. However, we've abandoned the whole of the judiciary to this sort of formalism and this seems an odd place to start being mad about it given the way they've used this sort of pretense to obliterate civil rights and liberties.

 

[wareyin]

I think I misread your comment and was asking for what you too were asking: evidence that religiosity has been increasing anywhere in the USA.

Close enough. I was actually pointing out the absurdity of using a survey that showed religiousity dropping 7 points in 7 years as evidence that 8 years later those 51% (with 7 point error bar) results would stay the same.

Yes, Bill Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." and then claimed he defined sexual relations as including an emotional involvement.

Yep, and he was charged with perjury over it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Taking their answers at face value is formalistic pretense at it's most naked and shameless, yes.

At this point I can't image the court NOT arguing that all the mob boss did would tell the shop owner what a nice little shop he had and what a shame it would be if anything were to happen to it...

"I'm not wrong and evil because I've mad an arbitrary set of formality that I'm following" is way to common these days.

Nobody, literally ******* nobody here, is acting under any pretense that the candidates where unaware of what they were being asked. This whole "Well I gave them a mathematicians answer that wasn't technically wrong" spiel can go cut bait.