• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Roe Countdown

When will Roe v Wade be overturned

  • Before 31 December 2020

    Votes: 20 18.3%

  • Before 31 December 2022

    Votes: 27 24.8%

  • Before 31 December 2024

    Votes: 9 8.3%

  • SCOTUS will not pick a case up

    Votes: 16 14.7%

  • SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn

    Votes: 37 33.9%
  • Total voters
    109
Status
Not open for further replies.
“We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.” A graduate of law school wrote that? Gracious.

We therefore wonder if now would be an ideal time to invest in pharmaceutical companies that supply morning-after pills.
 
Wow.

So.....the midterms just got a lot more interesting.

It lasted longer than I thought it would. I'm going to have to check the early part of this thread and see what my prediction was. I think I thought it was going down shortly after Kavanaugh got it.


And, technically, it isn't actually over yet, but this has to be the biggest Supreme Court leak I've ever heard of. If they ever figure out a source, he or she is out of a job. I wonder if that sort of leak could actually be illegal.

So many questions, but it's big news for sure.

ETA: In the poll that started the thread, I voted for before December 31, 2020, so I was wrong, but it looks like the ones who voted for the next available time slot will be right.
 
Last edited:
So the only people who will be able to get abortions are the mistresses of Republican senators?
 
portlandatheist said:
DailyBeast: Barricades Quietly Erected Around Supreme Court After Roe Draft Decision Leaks Link
Seems like a prudent decision to me.
Click to expand...

In that link the Fox story is on the Laura Ingraham show with her asserting the FBI should hunt down the evil leaker. And the scroll at the bottom says, "Leak has potential to irreparably harm court for decades to come".

Leave it to Fox to ignore the 'overturning Roe' story that doesn't fit into their particular fear mongering and change the news angle to one that does: It's the leaker that is the problem.

Oh the horror of a legit whistle blower. :eye-poppi
 
Meadmaker said:
...

ETA: In the poll that started the thread, I voted for before December 31, 2020, so I was wrong, but it looks like the ones who voted for the next available time slot will be right.
Click to expand...
I was wrong too voting SCOTUS wouldn't overturn Roe. :(
 
jnelso99 said:
So the only people who will be able to get abortions are the mistresses of Republican senators?
Click to expand...

Don't be so cynical!

House Reps, talk show hosts, conservative evangelical ministers, wealthy donors and other rich or powerful conservatives that grovel well enough will still be get access for their mistresses as well.

And their daughters, of course.
 
marting said:
My take is that the D's will be much more energized. And even more so if R's try to make abortion illegal by federal law.
Click to expand...

There has long been theory that at first the Republicans didn't really want to ban abortion. They just saw it as a winning issue but understood that if they succeeded, the backlash would be problematic. They were just pandering for votes.

But those Republicans lost power long ago, now is the era of some true believers and others just not bright enough to understand that sort of politics.

That said, this is just an unpublished opinion, not yet final. In the months before the decision would actually be made "minds" might change. I guess some are watching Roberts in that regard.
 
The draft contends that Roe v. Wade was wrong to restrict the power of state legislatures in private matters. Does that same reasoning also apply to the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut or even Loving v. Virginia?
 
It took a few minutes, but the leak made it to Australian media. The ABC actually has quite a detailed discussion of the situation. Useful for the non-Americans in the audience.

Roe v Wade: The US Supreme Court's draft ruling on the future of abortion rights appears to have leaked

A leaked bombshell document suggests the US Supreme Court could soon vote to overturn a landmark ruling that grants Americans the constitutional right to an abortion.

America's highest court is set to make a decision by the end of June on Mississippi's attempt to ban most terminations after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

But in a move that is unprecedented in the Supreme Court's modern history, a secret draft ruling written by one of the judges was leaked to a US media outlet.

The document, published by Politico, suggests five of the nine judges on the bench privately voted to strike down a 49-year-old decision that makes abortion legal at a national level.

So what does this mean for America?

Here's everything we know...
Click to expand...
 
The even bigger impact is that with this opinion the Court states that it can overturn any prior decision any time it wants, no matter how long and effectively it has been in use and how many people have come to depend on it.
This is a huge domino to fall, but it won't be the last.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
In that link the Fox story is on the Laura Ingraham show with her asserting the FBI should hunt down the evil leaker. And the scroll at the bottom says, "Leak has potential to irreparably harm court for decades to come".

Leave it to Fox to ignore the 'overturning Roe' story that doesn't fit into their particular fear mongering and change the news angle to one that does: It's the leaker that is the problem.

Oh the horror of a legit whistle blower. :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

If the leaker did anything illegal, having the FBI hunt them down seems reasonable. If it's just an ethics violoation, that's a different story. I really have no idea if any laws are broken by this sort of thing. I just know I've never heard of it happening.


I've always kind of wondered how this all works. How many people had access to the document? Could the leaker have been one of the justices themselves?

At any rate, I don't think it will do irreparable harm, so it's interesting that Ingraham was going on about it. She must be assuming that the leaker was either one of the three "no" votes, or someone who worked for them.

And yeah, I'm discussing the not very important part of the story, too. This is huge news with so many ramifications.
 
It's quite possibly only an ethics violation, which still means that the leaker will have a hard time finding a job ever again.

But Laura Ingraham should be careful what she wishes for: I'd put even odds of the leak coming from Thomas and his charming wife Gini, who wanted to gloat to her friends about how she managed to get her hubby to defeat Satan.
 
Kestrel said:
The draft contends that Roe v. Wade was wrong to restrict the power of state legislatures in private matters. Does that same reasoning also apply to the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut or even Loving v. Virginia?
Click to expand...

Sure, why not ? :(

Then they might push on to allow the states to apply their own interpretations of the 14th amendment.
 
Kestrel said:
The draft contends that Roe v. Wade was wrong to restrict the power of state legislatures in private matters. Does that same reasoning also apply to the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut or even Loving v. Virginia?
Click to expand...

It certainly seems to tee up Griswold.
 
Just highlighted on the BBC. Worrying, very worrying.
America, are you trying to implode?
 
I will still be very surprised if Roe is overturned.

If it is overturned, and many states further their abortion restrictions (as is expected), I will be interested to see if that actually drives people to be more responsible with their utilization of proactive birth control measures.

Very interesting "leak".
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
If it is overturned, and many states further their abortion restrictions, I will be interested to see if that drives people to be more responsible with their utilization of proactive birth control methods.
Click to expand...

I doubt it.

The same same people/states who are pushing to make abortion illegal are also dead set against sex education or any kind of information about birth control beyond preaching abstinence.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
“We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.” A graduate of law school wrote that? Gracious.

We therefore wonder if now would be an ideal time to invest in pharmaceutical companies that supply morning-after pills.
Click to expand...
States will ban those next. You will have to go out of state, abort yourself and come back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom