Cont: Roe v Wade overturned - this is some BS part II

[Segnosaur]

They probably have no intention to rule that POTUS has absolute immunity. They are just playing the delay game. Wait until say October to rule.

As another poster pointed out, they tend to release their rulings in late spring/early summer, so the decision will likely be released in late June/July.

However, they don't need to wait to release it in October. The fact that they have taken the case at all has already messed up any court proceedings and made it unlikely they will be able to finish a trial before the election, which was the plan.

Even if they released their decision tomorrow, they would need to re-add the case to the court schedule (giving the defense enough time to prepare), deal with any legal proceedings that Trump's lawyers will throw at the case, then actually hold the trial (one which might be rather lengthy). And if they rush the case too much, they give stubby McBonespurs yet another excuse to appeal. (Not that he won't already be using every legal tactic he can... but you don't want any of these appeals to be successful.)

 

[Segnosaur]

The current Court, including the "Ridiculous Six" also voted down every case (IIRC 60) presented by Trump's lawyers and his allies regarding the "rigged and stolen election".

I agree the Court should have just upheld the lower courts' rulings on the idea of complete immunity as it seems so clear just what a stupid claim it is, but I'm not a lawyer and neither are you or Random. But there is another release of SC rulings next Friday (June 20). Let's see what happens next week before jumping to the conclusion that "The Ridiculous Six voted against the doctors because they didn't want to hurt Trump's election prospects." If even the liberal Justices said the doctors didn't have standing, claiming the R-6 didn't rule for the same reason is, as I said, conjecture.

I suggest how one interprets this has more to do with confirmation bias than actual evidence. And I don't think anyone can accuse me of being a supporter of the 6 conservative Justices.

Can you blame people for being cynical/suspicious of the motives of Drunky McRapeface and Samuel "what's a flag" Alito? Between their efforts to derail Trump's trials by actually listening to the "immunity" case, to their acceptance of things like republican Gerrymandering, they have a record of doing things to benefit the republicans.

Yes, they dismissed the abortion drug case due to standing. But in a way that gives them an "easy out", and the next case that is brought to them involving abortion drugs might not be dismissed so quickly.

As for the justices voting down Trump's attempts at overturning the election... In my opinion the judges are dedicated to the republicans but not necessarily to Trump himself. Rejecting his election claims doesn't necessarily mean they don't want the republicans to regain power, but they do have to make sure they don't make it TOO obvious.

 

[Stacyhs]

Can you blame people for being cynical/suspicious of the motives of Drunky McRapeface and Samuel "what's a flag" Alito? Between their efforts to derail Trump's trials by actually listening to the "immunity" case, to their acceptance of things like republican Gerrymandering, they have a record of doing things to benefit the republicans.

No, I can't, and don't, blame anyone for "being cynical/suspicious of the motives of Drunky McRapeface and Samuel "what's a flag" Alito". I am, too. I don't trust either of them...or Thomas...as far as I could throw them. But that doesn't change the fact that the claim was just conjecture while it was stated as fact.

Of course, they have a history of doing things that benefit the Republicans just as the liberal judges have a history of doing things that benefit the Democrats. That's hardly surprising.

Yes, they dismissed the abortion drug case due to standing. But in a way that gives them an "easy out", and the next case that is brought to them involving abortion drugs might not be dismissed so quickly.

I agree it was an "easy" ruling which is why it was unanimous, but that doesn't mean their reason for doing so was, as claimed "because they didn't want to hurt Trump's election prospects. If the case had landed in front of them on November 6, 2024, they might have ruled differently." That is conjecture which is all I was pointing out.

As for the justices voting down Trump's attempts at overturning the election... In my opinion the judges are dedicated to the republicans but not necessarily to Trump himself. Rejecting his election claims doesn't necessarily mean they don't want the republicans to regain power, but they do have to make sure they don't make it TOO obvious.

I agree that the conservative judges want the Republicans to regain power as they're clearly all conservative Republicans. I also think there's more than one "Trumper" sitting on the Court. But I don't think all of them are willing to let their personal opinions dictate their legal decisions. Obviously, how they interpret the law is going to be influenced by their Constitutional philosophy; originalism or textualism. The two I distrust the most are Thomas and Alito.

 

[slyjoe]

want[/I] the Republicans to regain power as they're clearly all conservative Republicans. I also think there's more than one "Trumper" sitting on the Court. But I don't think all of them are willing to let their personal opinions dictate their legal decisions. Obviously, how they interpret the law is going to be influenced by their Constitutional philosophy; originalism or textualism. The two I distrust the most are Thomas and Alito.

I would suggest that they are a mix of originalism and textualism, whichever suits them at the time to justify their conclusion.

 

[Aridas]

Obviously, how they interpret the law is going to be influenced by their Constitutional philosophy; originalism or textualism.

For what it's worth, I put very, very little stock in how much said Constitutional philosophies actually influence the right wing judges. Rather, I'd suggest that they're more likely to be convenient excuses which they have no problem with completely ignoring when it suits them.

In other words, they're there to serve as a pretense of principle as they rip apart precedent and decency.

Either way, calling them "pro-business," "pro-corporate," and "pro-corruption" would likely be far more accurately informative than invoking originalism or textualism.

 

[JayUtah]

I would suggest that they are a mix of originalism and textualism, whichever suits them at the time to justify their conclusion.

They're also consequentialist, when it suits them. All the herrings are just subtly different shades of red.

 

[KDLarsen]

Remarkably, it appears the supreme court may actually reinstate emergency abortions in Idaho, in which the mother's health is at risk, as opposed to the much higher standard of the mother's life being at risk.

A draft opinion was briefly posted on the supreme court website, with the official ruling not expected until tomorrow.

 

[Aridas]

Remarkably, it appears the supreme court may actually reinstate emergency abortions in Idaho, in which the mother's health is at risk, as opposed to the much higher standard of the mother's life being at risk.

A draft opinion was briefly posted on the supreme court website, with the official ruling not expected until tomorrow.

6-3, apparently. Which means that 3 of the Justices were for the death of both in cases where only one could survive, unless I'm misunderstanding something. Pro-Life!

 

[thaiboxerken]

6-3, apparently. Which means that 3 of the Justices were for the death of both in cases where only one could survive, unless I'm misunderstanding something. Pro-Life!

You understand completely. It's because the anti-abortion movement is about punishing women for having sex.

 

[Stacyhs]

6-3, apparently. Which means that 3 of the Justices were for the death of both in cases where only one could survive, unless I'm misunderstanding something. Pro-Life!

Anyone want to lay bets on who the 3 opposing Justices are?

I say Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch.

 

[esquel]

You understand completely. It's because the anti-abortion movement is about punishing women for having sex.

Didn't anyone ever explain to them about where babies come from?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Didn't anyone ever explain to them about where babies come from?

are you asking where the storks are getting them from ?

who knows?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Anyone want to lay bets on who the 3 opposing Justices are?

I say Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch.

Barrett is already getting **** for not toeing the party line. She forgot that she was beholden to Trump.

 

[smartcooky]

This is what America has come to...

... an ideological backwater where a doctor feels he must refuse to perform a life-saving abortion for fear he will be prosecuted, and/or lose his career and livlihood.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/emergency-abortion-idaho-mother.html

Nicole Miller had gone to the emergency room in Boise, Idaho, after waking up with heavy bleeding in her 20th week of pregnancy. By afternoon, she was still leaking amniotic fluid and hemorrhaging and, now in a panic, struggling to understand why the doctor was telling her that she needed to leave the state to be treated. “If I need saving, you’re not going to help me?” she recalls asking. She remembers his answer vividly: “He told me he wasn’t willing to risk his 20-year career.”​

​

On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court declined to decide whether states that ban abortions, like Idaho, must comply with a federal law that requires emergency room doctors to provide abortions necessary to protect the health of a pregnant woman.​

To all those who, much earlier in this thread, proclaimed that stuff like this would never happen... I told you so!

Your country is seriously ****** up!!

 

[shemp]

... an ideological backwater where a doctor feels he must refuse to perform a life-saving abortion for fear he will be prosecuted, and/or lose his career and livlihood.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/emergency-abortion-idaho-mother.html

Nicole Miller had gone to the emergency room in Boise, Idaho, after waking up with heavy bleeding in her 20th week of pregnancy. By afternoon, she was still leaking amniotic fluid and hemorrhaging and, now in a panic, struggling to understand why the doctor was telling her that she needed to leave the state to be treated. “If I need saving, you’re not going to help me?” she recalls asking. She remembers his answer vividly: “He told me he wasn’t willing to risk his 20-year career.”​

​

On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court declined to decide whether states that ban abortions, like Idaho, must comply with a federal law that requires emergency room doctors to provide abortions necessary to protect the health of a pregnant woman.​

To all those who, much earlier in this thread, proclaimed that stuff like this would never happen... I told you so!

Your country is seriously ****** up!!

That is true. And between the ******** who are ******* it up, and the idiots who are too apathetic to care, there isn't enough will to do anything about it.

Maybe I'll see if I can get a seat on Musk's first rocket to Mars.

 

[ponderingturtle]

More predictions that we were told would not happen come true.

Texas women suing over losing fertility unnecessarily due to ectopic pregnancies that would not get treated before they had to lose a fallopian tube.

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/08/12/texas-abortion-law-ectopic-pregnancies/#:~:text=Two%20women%20have%20filed%20federal,and%20endanger%20their%20future%20fertility.

 

[catsmate]

More predictions that we were told would not happen come true.

Texas women suing over losing fertility unnecessarily due to ectopic pregnancies that would not get treated before they had to lose a fallopian tube.

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/08/12/texas-abortion-law-ectopic-pregnancies/#:~:text=Two%20women%20have%20filed%20federal,and%20endanger%20their%20future%20fertility.

Yeah, the predictions that everything would be handled 'reasonably' have died a death. None of the people pushing them have returned either.

 

[Hercules56]

Congress should make the regulations set forth in Roe v Wade, Federal law.

At the bear minimum, elective 1st trimester abortions should be legal in all 50 states.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Congress should make the regulations set forth in Roe v Wade, Federal law.

At the bear minimum, elective 1st trimester abortions should be legal in all 50 states.

Democrats made a poor choice not to do it when they had the power. Who knows when they'll have the power again, hopefully next year.

Both sides were "benefiting" from the status quo of RvW, it was something to campaign on. Now, it is just a mess. It's definitely something to motivate people to vote against the Repugs, but still a was a poor choice (not to codify it when they could) with a high cost to people.

 

[Segnosaur]

Democrats made a poor choice not to do it when they had the power. Who knows when they'll have the power again, hopefully next year.

Both sides were "benefiting" from the status quo of RvW, it was something to campaign on.

Did both sides actually benefit from the status quo of RvW?

The way I see it, only the republicans benefitted... they could use it as a way to motivate the evangelical base (won't somebody think of the children!)

The democrats didn't benefit because people thought the 'status quo' of RvW meant that the issue was settled. (There wouldn't be much point in campaigning on it because "nobody would ever think such long-established court ruling would be overturned"). Yeah, there would be some people raising the alarm bell on abortion rights, but it wouldn't provide anywhere near the same motivation the republicans had.