The Roe Countdown

[Shalamar]

Conservatives: As always, happy about the loss of rights and freedoms if it 'upsets' the progs/libs/dems.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Wasn't she the one who insisted that Trump had learned his lesson after the first impeachment and would "be a good boy" From then on?

She strikes as somebody who would seriously consider an offer, by a guy at the bar, to sell her the Taj Mahal. *

Now considering this Mosi might actually do it

Trevor Noah suggested they could trick her into overturning the filibuster by telling her she was signing an office birthday card.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

This is the answer. The people who don't care about bodily autonomy for women, especially during rape or a life threatened pregnancy are the same people who spent the last two years crying about having to wear a mask during a pandemic.

And the concern now isn't about the loss of established rights, its about it being leaked a week early.

They will always reverse victim and abuser as they have learned from their politicians and pundits.

Trump attempted to illegally strong arm the Ukrainian president into personally lying in hopes of duping a significant segment of the U.S. population in order to help in his efforts to maintain power for another four years.

Problem? Not really. The actual Crime of Biblical Proportions™ was the presence of an anonymous whistleblower.

Oh, the frikkin’ humanity.

 

[bruto]

Wasn't she the one who insisted that Trump had learned his lesson after the first impeachment and would "be a good boy" From then on?

She strikes as somebody who would seriously consider an offer, by a guy at the bar, to sell her the Taj Mahal. *

Now considering this Mosi might actually do it

Of course it all depends on how you phrase your questions and answers. If you ask some people "do you expect to do the wrong thing?" they can easily say, "Of course not." And it's true, because they do the wrong thing automatically without forethought.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There are a lot of people, all conservatives, who seem to be upset about the fact that the early draft of this decision was "leaked". I confess I am missing the significance of why the release a few days ahead of schedule of a document which, with a few minor edits, is destined to become entirely public anyway and which contains no secret or private information, is such a great evil as is being asserted.

It's simply a distraction from the difficult subject that the GOP pushed through a SCOTUS majority who are going to reverse a 50 year long decision that 70-80% of Americans in poll after poll don't want reversed.

You'd think the GOP would be singing from the rooftops over the pending decision if you didn't know the anti-abortion group is a very vocal minority the GOP has courted as single issue voters since Reagan.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sen. Collins: Gorsuch, Kavanaugh told me a different story on Roe opinion

Susan Collins is shocked, shocked to discover that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would overturn Roe.

NPR: Here's what each of the court's five conservative justices who are reportedly prepared to overturn Roe said about the case at their confirmation hearings:

See the details in the link but they all essentially said it was settled law.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And now let us begin the "Oh well then I demand a civil debate about why Justices lying about their opinions during confirmation hearings is a bad thing..." from the usual suspects.

 

[Ziggurat]

See the details in the link but they all essentially said it was settled law.

All supreme court rulings are settled law, until they are overturned by a later court. This is hardly the first time it's happened.

ETA: and what exactly do you think "settled law" even means? If it has any meaning at all, it's that the Supreme Court's ruling on the issue is clear, and lower courts know exactly what to do with it. Which was true regarding Roe v. Wade. It was true for Plessy v. Ferguson too for quite some time. That doesn't mean that the Supreme Court cannot change their minds about it. That's never been the case.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That's a funny way of saying "When we promise you rights, we don't actually have to mean it."

 

[Suddenly]

There are a lot of people, all conservatives, who seem to be upset about the fact that the early draft of this decision was "leaked". I confess I am missing the significance of why the release a few days ahead of schedule of a document which, with a few minor edits, is destined to become entirely public anyway and which contains no secret or private information, is such a great evil as is being asserted.

From the GOP side it is manufactured outrage. However...

So much of the legitimacy of the entire academic legal establishment is tied up in the gravitas of the courts that anything that breaches the ivory tower is a threat to their sense of self.

The whole idea that law is like mathematics as to it being objective and apolitical is essential to these people, and breaching the secrecy of the process risks compromising that, etc.

Which is in my opinion self-indulgent delusional nonsense that serves evil, but tell that to the Yale Law Review or whoever...

 

[theprestige]

That's a funny way of saying "When we promise you rights, we don't actually have to mean it."

You can mean it all you want, but the nature of government is that no government's promises can binding in perpetuity on future governments.

No democracy can be forced to accept existing conventions if the current citizenry and their reps want to replace them with others.

It's funny how quick progressives transform into raging conservatives, the moment its their ox being gored.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's a funny way of saying "When we promise you rights, we don't actually have to mean it."

There is no mechanism by which you can establish which Supreme Court rulings are sacrosanct and must never be overturned, and which rulings can be overturned at a later date. I do not think you want to live in a country where Plessy v. Ferguson couldn't be overturned. Hell, I doubt you even really want a court where individual justices cannot change their minds, let alone the court as a whole.

 

[Suddenly]

That's a funny way of saying "When we promise you rights, we don't actually have to mean it."

I like the idea that these justices at some point had some reasoned change of opinion as to this issue. That's just good comedy right there.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes which is why it's important not to let a psychopathic death cult take over the government nor let discourse be taken over by people defending them by hijacking every discussion with meaningless semantic contrarianism.

 

[Suddenly]

Yes which is why it's important not to let a psychopathic death cult take over the government nor let discourse be taken over by people defending them by hijacking every discussion with meaningless semantic contrarianism.

As good a description of the present state of the judiciary and it's supporters as I've read.

 

[bruto]

I like my wife's take on the whole issue. If a fetus is to be considered a person in full, then their proper spokesperson is the mother. Pregnant women should then have two votes.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I like my wife's take on the whole issue. If a fetus is to be considered a person in full, then their proper spokesperson is the mother. Pregnant women should then have two votes.

Ah, but the Fetus has given Republicans power of attorney in all matters.

 

[theprestige]

Ah, but the Fetus has given Republicans power of attorney in all matters.

One of the major points of government is to assert "power of attorney" over a wide swath of citizenry - some would say over all citizens at all times.

The debate right now is over the extent to which that power includes unborn humans, and in what ways the government should exercise that power.

 

[Ziggurat]

I like my wife's take on the whole issue. If a fetus is to be considered a person in full, then their proper spokesperson is the mother. Pregnant women should then have two votes.

Under this theory, you should give parents votes for each child as well.

I think the Mormons might back this approach.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Under this theory, you should give parents votes for each child as well.

I think the Mormons might back this approach.

better than the theory that Republicans get to vote for the fetus, which is what they defacto do when they take away the right of the woman to make decisions.