The Roe Countdown

[Meadmaker]

Yes but these individuals weren't being asked to speculate on hypothetical scenarios or the generalities of courts at large. They were asked specifically about their own, personal opinions about this specific law, and their own personal intentions should they be confirmed as members of the present court.

And it is now clear they were either deliberately being evasive or openly lying about their intentions.

For fourty nine years, the most important question of every single Suprem Court nominee has been "What are your thoughts on Roe v. Wade?" For fourty nine years, no nominee has ever answered it.


I think that's unfortunate, but it's the way it has been.

 

[Warp12]

And it is now clear they were either deliberately being evasive or openly lying about their intentions.

If that is true, I certainly don't blame them. I don't like to paint myself in a controversial light when it comes to job interviews, either.

Does anyone?

 

[TomB]

If that is true, I certainly don't blame them. I don't like to paint myself in a controversial light when it comes to job interviews, either.

Does anyone?

For most of us, finding that we lied during a job interview is grounds for termination.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes but these individuals weren't being asked to speculate on hypothetical scenarios or the generalities of courts at large. They were asked specifically about their own, personal opinions about this specific law, and their own personal intentions should they be confirmed as members of the present court.

And it is now clear they were either deliberately being evasive or openly lying about their intentions.

Well, no. "Settled law" is a question of current status. That has nothing to do with future intentions. You can hope all you want to that there's a connection between current status and future intentions, but that won't make it so. So there is no lying here.

As for being evasive about their intentions, perhaps. But that is actually proper. Justices should not publicly commit to ruling in any particular way before a case is even heard. That is deeply inappropriate. Senators want them to, and try to get them to, but it is proper for Supreme Court nominees to not commit to voting in any particular way.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is a typical 'full of it' answer.

They lied. Listen to their actual statements out of their actual mouths. All five of them, they've been playing the clips from their confirmation hearings on the news. They outright lied and anyone not practicing alt-right apologetics can see they lied.

Let the butthurt flow.

Nothing will come of this. Nothing at all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

And be able to use the car pool lane.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That is sometimes what started the problem, obviously.

If Roe is overturned, outside of abstinence, it will have the least impact on those who decide to use responsible birth control methods...both male and female. I hope that if it is overturned it inspires more people make better decisions.

That would be the silver lining to this cloud, I suppose.

Translation: blame the pregnant victim because surely being irresponsible is the issue. I believe I and a few others addressed this misconception of yours. Nice to see you have, as expected, not addressed any criticisms of your POV.

 

[Warp12]

That is sometimes what started the problem, obviously.

If Roe is overturned, outside of abstinence, it will have the least impact on those who decide to use responsible birth control methods...both male and female. I hope that if it is overturned it inspires more people make better decisions.

That would be the silver lining to this cloud, I suppose.

Translation: blame the pregnant victim because surely being irresponsible is the issue. I believe I and a few others addressed this misconception of yours. Nice to see you have, as expected, not addressed any criticisms of your POV.

It isn't a misconception. By far the greatest number of unwanted pregnancies are caused by not using, or improperly using birth control. Proper use of birth control should be part of the first line of defense, obviously. I didn't say this was the sole reason for unwanted pregnancies.

I think we have all been through that debate in other threads. No need to rehash it here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It isn't a misconception. By far the greatest number of unwanted pregnancies are caused by not using, or improperly using birth control. Proper use of birth control should be part of the first line of defense, obviously. I didn't say this was the sole reason for unwanted pregnancies.

I think we have all been through that debate in other threads. No need to rehash it here.

Bull ****.

Edited by jimbob: 

personal attack removed

 

[Warp12]

Bull ****.

Edited by jimbob: 

moderated content removed

.

No problem, but per the CDC:

Most unintended pregnancies result from not using contraception or from not using it consistently or correctly.

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/unintendedpregnancy/

So, I think we can close the book on that debate for now. If Roe is going to be overturned, the best result we can hope for is a change in these habits, I'd say. It's a long shot.

And that would not be considered any consolation to any liberal, anyway.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Sad to say, some people on the left hate the US so much they think that Russia and China would be better..........we have a couple who post here

This Sunday, Sunday, Sundayyyy, it's EYEROLL-A-RAMA!!!

 

[Bob001]

Well, no. "Settled law" is a question of current status. That has nothing to do with future intentions. You can hope all you want to that there's a connection between current status and future intentions, but that won't make it so. So there is no lying here.

As for being evasive about their intentions, perhaps. But that is actually proper. Justices should not publicly commit to ruling in any particular way before a case is even heard. That is deeply inappropriate. Senators want them to, and try to get them to, but it is proper for Supreme Court nominees to not commit to voting in any particular way.

That might be true in an ideal world. But the Trumper appointees have long histories of making public statements against Roe v. Wade, and issuing anti-abortion decisions when they had the chance as lower-court judges. They were appointed specifically because they opposed Roe. For them to claim they had no opinion is just dishonest.

And they had a Republican Senate. If they had all said "I'm gonna kill that sucker the first chance I get!" they would still have been confirmed.

Did anybody really believe Clarence Thomas when he claimed that he had never discussed the Roe decision with anyone, even though he was a student at Yale Law School when it was issued? There are no consequences for lying to Congress.

 

[Bob001]

Big Data might identify who obtained abortions and where.

The leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion proposing to overturn Roe v. Wade raises a data privacy flash point: If abortion becomes criminal in some states, might a person’s data trail be treated as evidence?

There is precedent for it, and privacy advocates say data collection could become a major liability for people seeking abortions in secret. Phones can record communications, search histories, body health data and other information. Just Tuesday, there was new evidence that commercial data brokers sell location information gathered from the phones of people who visit abortion clinics.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/04/abortion-digital-privacy/

 

[Cain]

This country's institutions are antiquated. The Supreme Court functioned as a relatively enlightened super-legislature for national standards, working to empower a federal government that promoted social change. Except, in the long run, there's no overcoming the dog-**** Senate, gerrymandered House districts, and the Electoral College. McConnell was able to deny Obama a pick, and the Electoral College delivered the presidency to Cheeto von Tweeto. Now the "Originalists" sitting on federal courts are all too happy to thwart state and local gun control legislation -- just like Founders wanted. It's totally demented.

 

[Ziggurat]

That might be true in an ideal world. But the Trumper appointees have long histories of making public statements against Roe v. Wade, and issuing anti-abortion decisions when they had the chance as lower-court judges. They were appointed specifically because they opposed Roe.

To the extent that this is true, why then does anyone care what they said in their senate confirmation hearing? Do you really think anyone was deceived? Or is this just a hail mary hope that you can maybe use this against them?

For them to claim they had no opinion is just dishonest.

Their personal opinions are separate from their legal opinions. And their legal opinions as lower court judges were necessarily constrained by Roe v. Wade, but not constrained by it as Supreme Court justices. Furthermore, whatever their inclinations towards ruling one way or another, they should not (and DID not) commit to ruling in any particular direction on any case before actually hearing the case.

Did anybody really believe Clarence Thomas when he claimed that he had never discussed the Roe decision with anyone, even though he was a student at Yale Law School when it was issued?

Argument from incredulity is not convincing. Has anyone come forward claiming they did discuss it with Thomas?

 

[Ziggurat]

Now the "Originalists" sitting on federal courts are all too happy to thwart state and local gun control legislation -- just like Founders wanted. It's totally demented.

You object to the Supreme Court thwarting local gun control, even though the Constitution specifically and explicitly protects gun ownership. But you're upset that the Supreme Court has stopped thwarting local abortion control, even though the Constitution makes no mention of or reference to abortion, or even "privacy".

Admit it: what you really object to is the Constitution itself.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No problem, but per the CDC:


https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/unintendedpregnancy/

So, I think we can close the book on that debate for now. If Roe is going to be overturned, the best result we can hope for is a change in these habits, I'd say. It's a long shot.

And that would not be considered any consolation to any liberal, anyway.

"Unintended" does not encompass all abortions, your first mistake.

From the link:

Increase access, use, and dissemination of data to identify groups most at risk for unintended pregnancy; show the health impacts of teen and unintended pregnancy; and close gaps in access to quality, patient-centered family planning services.

Develop and identify evidence-based strategies to reduce unmet needs for quality family planning services among the most affected groups.

IOW you are only looking at the end result of those particular "unwanted pregnancies" without any information about why/how birth control failed. Instead your posts say you blame women and believe making abortion illegal will result in fewer abortions.

Nope, it won't decrease abortions. Making abortions safe, legal and rare doesn't come from making abortion illegal. We know that because abortions were not rare before Roe v Wade.

What decreases the number of abortions is easy access to birth control, do away with abstinence only sex education, and provide age appropriate sex education for all kids in school.

That is what the evidence supports.


The evidence is also clear these anti-abortion fanatics are not interested in decreasing abortions. They are interested in punishing women and teens for the sin of having sex. They want their fundie religious beliefs to become US law.

And they don't care about saving kids' lives as evidenced by how they don't support the children already born who need help.

 

[Bob001]

You object to the Supreme Court thwarting local gun control, even though the Constitution specifically and explicitly protects gun ownership.
.....

The current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is a recent development. For most of U.S. history, it was understood that "well-regulated militia" referred to an organized body like the National Guard, and states and localities were free to impose such restrictions on individual possession and ownership of firearms as their legislators saw fit.

But the right to privacy is pretty strongly implied by the 4th and 5th amendments. The Constitution prohibits the government from seizing you or your stuff or entering your property without a warrant, and it can't make you give evidence against yourself at all, which are pretty much the only ways it could intrude on your privacy when the Constitution was adopted. There's no reason the Founders wouldn't have extended it to other areas if they had thought about it.

 

[Bob001]

Some commentators observe that one of Alito's historical sources is English jurist Matthew Hale, who determined that there could be no rape within marriage and killed multiple women for being witches.
https://jezebel.com/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-draft-cites-sir-matthew-hale-1848872890

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I wonder if the Zealot-5 pray together over this? Do they go to church together? Do they go to church?