The Roe Countdown

[Ziggurat]

You're forgetting possessiveness.

That's not really slut shaming, though. In the extreme it can be even worse (honor killings, for example), but the dynamic is very different. In those cases, it's the man who is shamed by the woman's infidelity, and lashes out at the shame HE feels. It's his shame, not hers, which drives that.

 

[TragicMonkey]

That's not really slut shaming, though.

I disagree, it's the same thing: people feel they have the right (even duty!) to judge female promiscuity. Whether it's because they think they have exclusive rights to the particular woman, or because they feel in general that women shouldn't behave "that way", it's the same thing.

 

[Ziggurat]

I disagree, it's the same thing: people feel they have the right (even duty!) to judge female promiscuity. Whether it's because they think they have exclusive rights to the particular woman, or because they feel in general that women shouldn't behave "that way", it's the same thing.

You have described a superset to which both subsets belong, but that doesn't make the one set equal to the other set. There is still a difference between the subsets.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You have described a superset to which both subsets belong, but that doesn't make the one set equal to the other set. There is still a difference between the subsets.

Which is irrelevant to the significance, which is their real-life impact. There's a difference between any subsets of anything: that's how you're able to make subsets. But if the behavior you're discussing is the behavior of the whole set then the differences between its subsets are irrelevant.

 

[The Atheist]

Seems to me that you are not considering my actual point, that being that there is a very vocal, influential group of conservative women supporting Trump under the condition that he gives them their SC candidate to undo Roe.

I wasn't disagreeing, I was just noting that it's not just women.

BTW, is it now obvious to everyone that those of use who picked SCOTUS won’t pick up a case were right, and everyone else was wrong? Or are there still some holdouts?

I agreed that point the other day.

So far, it holds true.

The piece of **** nominating the anti-abortion candidate thinks it's going to happen, so is clearly a major reason in her nomination:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/27/trump-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-roe-v-wade

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I wasn't disagreeing, I was just noting that it's not just women.

never said it was.

But in this case, women, or a particular one, seems to be the driving force behind which the GOP men have assembled.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which is irrelevant to the significance, which is their real-life impact.

No, it's not irrelevant, because the impacts aren't the same. They're both bad, but bad things can still be different from each other.

 

[The Atheist]

never said it was.

But in this case, women, or a particular one, seems to be the driving force behind which the GOP men have assembled.

Which isn't at all ironic given their judge's choice is a living example of Stockholm Syndrome, if the reports of her cult are true.

Are they assembled behind her, or pushing her to the front because she's a woman?

Banning abortion is more patriarchal than matriarchal.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Which isn't at all ironic given their judge's choice is a living example of Stockholm Syndrome, if the reports of her cult are true.

Are they assembled behind her, or pushing her to the front because she's a woman?

I think they just see her (correctly IMO) as the most qualified and, as a woman, probably free of the sexual assault baggage of many men while at the same time being utterly "sound" when it comes to Abortion.

Banning abortion is more patriarchal than matriarchal.

agree.
Not necessarily the process, but banning women from getting one without the male "guardian" consent.
When it's your mistress she should get one of course.

 

[Suddenly]

I think they just see her (correctly IMO) as the most qualified and, as a woman, probably free of the sexual assault baggage of many men while at the same time being utterly "sound" when it comes to Abortion.

.

They see her as young and they think that finding a person from a marginalized group that shares their views to be checkmate liberal. It was no accident Thomas was tapped to replace Marshall.

The sexual assault thing probably didn't occur to them, but if it did that was smart.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah for all they treat it as a boogeyman the Right has tokenism down to a goddamn science. Their ability to find members of key demographics who they are actively hostile to is rather impressive.

 

[cosmicaug]

Yeah for all they treat it as a boogeyman the Right has tokenism down to a goddamn science. Their ability to find members of key demographics who they are actively hostile to is rather impressing.

Granted that they are not always the sharpest tool in the shed (Sara Palin, Michele Bachmann, Ben Carson, etc.).

 

[theprestige]

BTW, is it now obvious to everyone that those of use who picked SCOTUS won’t pick up a case were right, and everyone else was wrong? Or are there still some holdouts?

Technically, the way the poll is written, that won't be established until the end of 2024.

I'm interested in the reasoning behind the "Before 31 December 2020" votes. And I'm interested in what kind of case the court would have to hear, in order to undermine Roe.

After thinking about it some more, it seems to me that the case would have to admit a legal rationale that was palatable to at least five of the justices. It's not enough to hear a case that turns on the same points of law, if the justices can only see rulings that support Roe.

A year and a half ago, when TA made the poll, it would have been a lot easier to simply predict that the justices wouldn't care about rationale and would rule simply for partisan expedience. But as it turns out, the predictions made along those lines sucked. The conservative justices have issued rulings independent of partisan preferences.

Anyway, I think we all understand the concept of test cases. And I think we all have basic grasp of how the appeals process works in the US court system. Are there any sites out there watching potential test cases and assessing their likelihood of making it to the Supreme Court?

 

[The Atheist]

Are there any sites out there watching potential test cases and assessing their likelihood of making it to the Supreme Court?

You may have heard of an internet search engine called Google, that can answer questions like that in fractions of a second: https://now.org/keeping-track-of-possible-supreme-court-abortion-cases/

 

[theprestige]

You may have heard of an internet search engine called Google, that can answer questions like that in fractions of a second: https://now.org/keeping-track-of-possible-supreme-court-abortion-cases/

Neat! Is that the site where you were tracking the test case you had in mind last year?

 

[cosmicaug]

For a perspective from the National Organization for Marriage, this is how they currently see things:

UNSETTLED LAW

Dear August,

The Left has been unsettled recently by the signals coming from the Supreme Court. With the presence of Amy Coney Barrett on the bench, and the new conservative majority, liberals know the score. All of the things they've claimed for so long to be "settled law"—like Roe v Wade and abortion, or Obergefell and gay 'marriage'—are really far from being settled.

In fact, they're closer than ever to being overturned...

Pursuing ways to accomplish this goal is one the chief items in our plan for 2021.

But in order to do this, we need the necessary resources. I am therefore very grateful that right now, every dollar we receive is being DOUBLED by a generous matching grant.

DONATE TODAY
Will you make a generous, tax-deductible gift today?

Whatever amount you contribute will help us plan for next year and the goal of restoring true marriage to our nation's laws!

DONATE $1,000
DONATE $500
DONATE $250
DONATE $100
DONATE $50
DONATE $25
DONATE ANY AMOUNT
I can't over-emphasize how close we might be to finding a test case for reversing Obergefell and same-sex 'marriage.' If you watched the hearings to confirm Amy Coney Barrett, you know this: it was clear from so much of the questioning that liberals are fully aware of how thin a thread this decision hangs upon.

Please help today in whatever way you can. Your immediate, tax-deductible contribution will help us to budget and plan for the next year and for finding the right legal challenges to bring the matter of marriage back before the court.

With your generous support, and the help of God, we can not only plan better for the future, but also hope better, that our children will grow up in a nation where marriage is acknowledged in law to be what it has always been from the beginning, the union of one man and one woman.

DONATE TODAY
Thank you, and God bless you,

Brian S. Brown
President

 

[theprestige]

For a perspective from the National Organization for Marriage, this is how they currently see things:

They see it as a hook to hang a fundraising appeal on.

On which to hang a fundraising appeal.

Isn't it against the MA to shill for other organizations here?

 

[cosmicaug]

They see it as a hook to hang a fundraising appeal on.

On which to hang a fundraising appeal.

Isn't it against the MA to shill for other organizations here?

If it was shilling on my part it was accidental shilling. I would certainly hope that my posting of this message didn't motivate you to donate money to NOM.

 

[The Atheist]

Isn't it against the MA to shill for other organizations here?

Not any more - that rule changed when Randi dumped the forum.

Anyway, it's not something you'd make much from here - those who would donate to that cause will already do so.

 

[cosmicaug]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/us/supreme-court-abortion-pill.html

[...]
The Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court. Its brief focused mainly on data from Indiana and Nebraska, where state laws continued to require women to pick up the pills in person.

In those states, the administration told the justices, the number of abortions had increased compared to the previous year. That showed, the administration’s brief said, that the requirement did not amount to an unconstitutional burden on the right to abortion.

That argument, lawyers for the medical group wrote in response, “defies rudimentary principles of statistical analysis.” Many factors could account for the rise in the number of abortions in the two states during the pandemic, they wrote, including disruptions in access to contraceptives, unemployment and other circumstances “that have made unwanted pregnancy more likely and parenting less tenable for some.”

Justice Sotomayor was also unimpressed by the argument. “Reading the government’s statistically insignificant, cherry-picked data,” she wrote, “is no more informative than reading tea leaves.”