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.
The wording by alito indicates the court would strike down any federal abortion laws after that. "It's a state right! Pass an amendment!"
 
Regnad Kcin said:
“We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.” A graduate of law school wrote that? Gracious.
Click to expand...

It’s not wrong, though it might have been prudent to add the word “explicitly”.

The Constitution is mute on the topic of abortion, so that right had to be inferred. I think Roe was the best possible interpretation of an implied right, balancing the rights of the mother against those of the unborn child.

This does seem to be a step backwards, and things are going to get very messy very quickly if Roe is overturned.
 
It seems obvious that the leak is intended to hopefully spur some liberal outrage that materializes in some potent way, but I'm really struggling to see how that happens.

This strikes me as a perfectly fine reason to throw a few riots spicy protests about, but that doesn't really strike me as being in the lib temperament. I would absolutely love to be wrong about this, a direct confrontation about the illegitimacy of SCOTUS has been a long time coming.

A draft is just a draft. Ostensibly enough civil disorder may change some conservative minds about going after Roe, but I doubt there's the willpower to go down that road.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
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.
Click to expand...

That has always been the case. How do you think so many landmark civil rights cases got decided?
 
This proves that the influence of the orange **** stain 45 will be smearing the country for years, maybe decades, to come.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
A draft is just a draft. Ostensibly enough civil disorder may change some conservative minds about going after Roe, but I doubt there's the willpower to go down that road.
Click to expand...

I don’t think you understand the consequences of opening that Pandora’s box. It will not close when you want it to, and it won’t be used just against conservative justices.
 
Ziggurat said:
I don’t think you understand the consequences of opening that Pandora’s box. It will not close when you want it to, and it won’t be used just against conservative justices.
Click to expand...

Yeah, imagine how bad things might get if right wingers got it into their heads that extrajudicial violence and disorder was ok :rolleyes:
 
Lol what a legacy

Reuters said:
Exclusive: Supreme Court's Ginsburg vows to resist pressure to retire

In a Reuters interview late on Tuesday, she vowed to resist any pressure to retire that might come from liberals who want to ensure that Democratic President Barack Obama can pick her successor before the November 2016 presidential election.
Click to expand...

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9630C820130704

I just woke up from a 9 year coma, how'd this decision pan out?
 
The Don said:
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.
Click to expand...

Birth control will be next on the chopping block. It's against some people's idea of what Jesus wants, so of course everybody else must act accordingly.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
“We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.” A graduate of law school wrote that? Gracious.
Click to expand...
Well the word "abortion" doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution and the 14th amendment only gives rights to people born in the US. The SC obviously had to get very creative to prevent the states from making laws about abortions in the first place.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Nah, Obergefell, then Loving.
Click to expand...

Why not both at the same time so that you can only legally have sex with and/or marry someone of:

  • The same "colour" (whatever that means - I suspect that the one drop rule will feature)
  • The opposite "sex" (whatever that means - but I suspect a strictly binary definition based on birth sex)
 
The Don said:
We don't know because we don't know whether Obama would have been able to have any nomination confirmed.
Click to expand...

Breyer's retirement announcement was conditional on a replacement being announced. There's no reason RGB couldn't have made a similar contingent retirement announcement.

There's no way to spin RGB's decision. It was bad, it was incredibly short sighted, and it was hers unilaterally to make. 2013 was the last good opportunity to her to step down and have a liberal replace her, and she decided against it.

She undermined her entire life's work by making this decision. This disastrous decision will be the most important element of her legacy, all her life's work sabotaged by her own foolishness.
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
Nah, Obergefell, then Loving.
Click to expand...

Loving? No. Allowing federal aid to schools that ban interracial dating? Probably, but there won't be any schools retrograde enough to test that in the foreseeable future. Allowing federal student aid to schools that explicitly impose anti-GLBT rules? No problem there!

But yeah, contraception, sex toys & gay marriage are all on the table with this forthcoming ruling.

And we are one midterm & one GOP president away (when majorities won't matter) from making these initiatives into federal laws.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
It seems obvious that the leak is intended to hopefully spur some liberal outrage that materializes in some potent way, but I'm really struggling to see how that happens.
.
Click to expand...

I think it's equally plausible that it was leaked for the purpose of giving states the heads-up that they can start taking more aggressive action about abortion sooner than later.

Really, that people are hand-wringing about the ethics of the leak is an awesome example of the banality of worshiping the Supreme Court as an institution and a large part of the reason it sucks. Less secrecy would be better, really. They've been shadow docketing all sorts of stuff. As far as I'm concerned everything they do should be c-span level public.
 
I'm not even angry, or at least not any "new" angry. The fact that this was their end goal was so obvious and telegraphed and inevitable that there's nothing new to feel. If anything I'm shocked it took this long.

Gay marriage will be next, and then probably the very concept of basic freedom for anyone not a Christian.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom